The Funny Thing About Nate Silver Is That Liberals Hated Him and Right Wingers Loved Him In 2010

[TomCADem]

The fact is that Nate has been very accurate. He has been conservative in his election odds, though his projected results have been uncanny. This is why I find it amazing that conservatives have been attacking Nate Silver, since even they were basking in the warm glow of his projections not too long ago.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/g-o-p-has-2-in-3-chance-of-taking-house-model-forecasts/

Republicans have a two-in-three chance of claiming a majority of House seats in November, the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model estimates. And their gains could potentially rival or exceed those made in 1994, when they took a net of 54 seats from the Democrats.

In one sense, a strong performance by the Republicans on Nov. 2 is to be expected. The opposition party typically gains seats – on average, about 20 in midterm elections since 1994 – after the other party wins the White House, as the Democrats did in 2008. Nevertheless, both the magnitude of the Republicans’ potential gains, and the rapidity with which the political balance is poised to shift back to them after two cycles in which Democrats won nearly every competitive election, is unusual by recent standards. According to the model, Republicans have about a one-in-three chance of winning at least 54 seats, their total in 1994, and nearly a one-in-four chance of gaining at least 60.

Were the Republicans to achieve an outcome like that, one might need to look to the first half of the previous century for precedent; in 1948, for example, the Democrats added a net of 75 seats in the House, just two years after losing 54.

[gateley]

1. They liked Christie until a coupe of days ago, too.

Typical.

To be fair, we all like someone who says what we want to hear.

[floppyfeet]

2. so true.

If someone says something you agree with then they are "ok". It's when people say stuff that goes against your beliefs then look out. Kinda Ironic huh???

[gateley]

11. Yeah, and we often blame the messenger. Human nature, I guess. We're angry when

Someone delivers news we don't want to hear, so we dismiss or demean them, convincing ourselves they're wrong. And if they're wrong, our beliefs are no longer threatened. Or something like that. Maybe.

[aletier_v]

3. FR had a thread about Silver today

Now he takes his marching orders directly from Obama.

One guy was bragging he'd bet $2k against Silver's predictions but I suspect he doesn't have $2K to bet.

[TDale313]

4. Nate's worth listening to

Precisely because he seems to follow the actual numbers whichever way they go. In 2010 I hated what he was telling us, but never doubted he was being as accurate as he knew how, and that his methods were as good as any out there.

[aletier_v]

5. That Charlie Rose interview surprised me, that basically he's a Libertarian

So it makes sense to me that he's more about accuracy than political favor.

[TDale313]

6. Until then, I wouldn't have

Had a clue what his political slant was. Which is the best thing you could probably say about someone working with/analyzing poll numbers.

[fujiyama]

10. His politics strike me as more left-leaning

I read somewhere he's openly gay and we know he was an Obama supporter in '08. He has taken a neutral tone since hitting the mainstream with the Times, but that's understandable and is welcome in an otherwise hyper partisan atmosphere. Personally, I don't care what his politics are. I care about his methodology and need for accuracy.

The attacks on him are pathetic. The punditocracy clearly views him as a threat to their special insider cocktail party knowledge. Joe Scarborough's criticisms are a great example. I don't even think the guy understands basic probability or statistics or what Silver is even doing. He probably thinks Silver is giving Obama 70%+ of the vote. He doesn't understand simulations or computations or that Nate's models are based off data. But Joe's got a "gut feeling" that "it just doesn't feel right".

And the RWers on the web are even more idiotic - Nate Silver is effeminate and gay! He's a pussy. Therefore, don't trust that skinny queer lib-tard!

All they have is ad hominem attacks. Nate Silver isn't a prophet and his model is far from perfect and I'm sure he'd be open to criticism, but so far the only critiques I've seen are misinformed at best and hateful, spiteful, and vitriolic at worst.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

12. His Wikipedia page said he is openly gay

But I looked for an hour on the tubes and couldn't find a single interview or quote from him that suggests he is gay lrt alone openly gay.

It doesn't matter, but I can't stand inaccuracies on Wikipedia.

[cthulu2016]

7. This liberal liked him just fine in 2010

Liberalism is rational. Liberals should never blame the messenger.

But I agree with you that many did.

[DrToast]

8. Agree

I tried to point out to many liberals that they were being ridiculous for attacking him in 2010. He just reads the numbers.

[JI7]

9. liberals never hated him the way right wingers do

i don't remember him from previous elections .