Is Nate Silver Fudging the poll? Maybe the Democrats are ahead?

[Always Randy]

Nate's recent prediction is that the GOP has a 60% chance of winning over control of the Senate. If he called the 2014 midterms for the Democrats right now he more than likely would tick off a lot of the Republicans and they would stop listening/viewing him. That translates into a lot of advertising dollars to his blog at ESPN. Let's face it, ESPN thought they had a gold mine when they scored a big coup against the "Gray Lady" New York Times when they stole him away. They also have invested heavily in his brand and are supporting a staff that is a "dream team" for Silver. Never in his wildest imagination did he ever think he would have the command post he occupies now. Since his move from the NYT to ESPN things might not be going as well as expected. Where is the evidence that mixing sports with politics has been a winning formula? It was a lot easier when his audience was generated from his NYT base because his viewers could just jump over to his blog. Now his loyal fan base has to make a special effort to go to his blog and, being politicos by nature, might not want to read all the sports and finance parts of the blog.. I know he cut his teeth predicting sports outcomes, but he became the media darling with his political forecasts. If he is not careful he just might be heading to an advertising/financial support issue. But if you were Nate Silver, and you are extremely adept at predictions, maybe you fluff the numbers a bit if it builds audience .So what do you do? Get the GOP to keep reading the site by making them look like a squeaker winner in the November election.

[TDale313]

1. I think that's maybe wishful thinking?

That said, 60/40 at this point is far from hopeless. It is probably also not too far off the mark given which seats are up for grabs. Just means we'll have to work hard to keep the Senate. The other good news? The math looks much more Dem friendly in 2016 for the Senate & White House.

[Always Randy]

6. you are right TDale313 abot the 2016----

but GOTV has to be our mantra until November---thank you for the post

[TDale313]

8. Yep, GOTV! n/t

[unblock]

2. you say they've invested heavily in his brand and then figure he'd fudge numbers?

solid numbers pretty much *is* his brand.

might he jazz up the verbiage that goes with it? that, sure.

but the numbers? never say never, but i think he'd only do that if he were really desperate.

[Always Randy]

20. thank you unblock-----I try to see who the advertisers are on these blogs

and if the as look like they are aimed at OWIDS ---Old White Irrelevant Dudes ---then he might have to fudge a bit to hold the ads for another month----ESPN wants their money back--------btw---I am old white dude trying to stay relevant ---thank you taking the time to post

[unblock]

21. haha! well i just got my aarp card so i've joined that club, too!

[Always Randy]

26. I have to say that if we are on DU---we are relevant

It does not subtract years from chronological age ---but we are able to engage in conversation with almost anyone regardless of age-----I don't think of myself as a liberal as much as I do think of myself as a realist

[BillZBubb]

3. I doubt he's fudging the numbers.

The Democrats have an uphill battle in the Senate given the seats that are being decided. There is a definite advantage to the republicans, 60% is not unreasonable.

But, it is still early and most voters aren't yet engaged. Things will start moving in September and perhaps enough voters have tired of the republicans' games to give the Democrats a boost. The Democrats have to control the message and not fight on republican terms.

[winter is coming]

5. This --> "it is still early and most voters aren't yet engaged"

The people who turn out for primaries know/care who's running in the fall, but the casual voters? The election's not on their radar right now. All they're concerned about is getting the kids back into school.

[pstokely]

16. casual voters only show up every four years

nt

[winter is coming]

4. Unlikely, in my opinion. n/t

[Always Randy]

7. Please understand I am not judging his integrity ---just his tenacity to survive

[hack89]

11. He survives by being right. nt

[Gman]

9. Silver is to be taken seriously

Until proven otherwise. To do otherwise is whistling last the graveyard.

[Arkana]

10. Nate doesn't poll, he uses aggregates of other polls.

And the man has now been right 3 cycles in a row--I think I'm prepared to listen to him.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. This is his second midterm cycle ever. 2010 he missed the call in both Houses.

His predicted number of seats won by Republicans was off by 11 seats in the House. 11. That IS his midterm House record, and it is not very good. He was wrong on 3 Senate races as well, big important races. He predicted Harry Reid would lose. Harry won. Important race.
Just some perspective. I also called 2008 very well. I have no system. I run no numbers. I got 2012 right as well. So the difficulty level

[FBaggins]

29. Not really

He predicted a median gain of 55 seats for republicans - and they picked up 63. But he also said that there was a 1-in-three chance of them picking up more than 60 seats... and he said "If we allocate all 435 seats to the leader projected by our model — no matter how slim the margin — Republicans would net a gain of 59 seats"

That's pretty darn close to the actual results. And... of course... he wasn't wrong in our favor.

[Always Randy]

31. I think he uses the poll numbers of others

and gives or subtracts weight based on their methodology

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Understand that we are very far off from the election. That's an eternity away in politics.

Things change at a moment's notice. They could and will shift back and forth throughout the season.

It is August and people are away for summer break. No one is really paying attention to politics.

The election season begins after Labor Day. Republican primaries are STILL happening, too.

We have the power to change.

Please don't let these early projections worry you; however, we all should use them to encourage all of us and everyone we know to get motivated after Labor Day, get to work, and vote in November.

[sendero]

13. Why would he..

... tarnish his reputation with such a gesture? I seriously doubt it.

[Todays_Illusion]

14. Agree or not agree with all of this post, I agree that we should be skeptical of Nate in

2014, his numbers from others, and everyone is cooking the numbers,
because the Republican voter has vanished.

[pstokely]

15. the polls right now are fudged

nt

[Stallion]

18. So Many republican Pollssters These Days

Seems like there are 3 Republican oriented polls for every Democratic polls these days. I think Nate adjusts for past performance though, but it sometimes seems like the collective effect of the polls favors Republican momentum. I think in the last cycle even PPP had a slight Republican statistical prejudice but the midterms are different

[JayhawkSD]

17. Any numbers that I don't like are certainly fudged,

because anyone who disagrees with me is a liar, and anything that I don't want to hear is obviously untrue.

[BainsBane]

19. The reason Dems are behind is where those seats are located

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

mainly in red states, which some key retirements by Democrats. Nate does not fudge his numbers. His reputation would not be good if he did.

Telling yourself lies does no good. Work to get out the vote. Do what you can to help out in the races in your area, but don't lie to yourself.

[lancer78]

28. His senate results suck though.

5 mis-called senate races in 2 election cycles.

[Always Randy]

35. thank you lancer 78--please tell me more

I would like more detail on this

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Nate's reputation is based on a very short resume in political predictions, two Presidential cycles

make up the bulk of his public image, but the fact is he is not as exacting in Congressional races, which is what we are talking about and in reality, two elections called well shortly prior to the elections does not support deeming him oracular in his prognostications.
In 2010, Nate was wrong about 3 very important Senate races and off on his prediction in the House by 11 seats, Republicans won 63 seats when his prediction was 52.
2010 is in fact the ONLY midterm election for which we have Nate's predictions. I'm no numbers guy, but I don't think one outing makes a trend, and I think that if that one attempt failed it is rather silly to assume the next one is going to be hyper accurate.
His reputation is strong but it is short. Putting too much weight on his predictions just does not seem to pass the test of reason.

[Always Randy]

24. I think you are spot on on this

I think his methodology has uncovered some of the big flaws in the well know polls --Gallup---and he is recognizing real simple things like oversampling---my OP was just that the guy needs to stay employed---and it was a big risk to abandon NYT for a landscape that is not necessarily interested in politics---so he might have to take a different approach in the earlier months----keep everybody watching him----he already owns the left ----so a bit of pandering to the right might be good for business---I mean the guy is brilliant --AND he needs to survive

[misterhighwasted]

25. Short resume & Nate's a polling guru

[rock]

27. It is of course possible

We shall see shan't we?

[Always Randy]

37. I don't think it is structurally wrong

but I do think he is such a numbers guy that the knows how to keep everyone's interest --and that translates to advertising dollars

[Garthem]

30. No

Let's not be the Ostrich Republicans of 2012. Face the math bravely!

[Always Randy]

32. Thanks for the reply----i am with you on this---but my business side sasy he might do this

certainly not all the way to election ---but along the way he needs to have a big audience to survive at the ESPN job---so by keeping the door open a bit wider he gets a lot more hits on his blog

[tgards79]

33. I have the Dems ahead...

http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2014/07/senate-2014-election-update-dems-52-gop.html

[Always Randy]

36. Wow ---what a site

I am checking it out

[WI_DEM]

34. We can retain control of Senate (with Biden as tie breaker) if...

The guy from Montana drops out and we find a good replacement and if we win one GOP seat--such as Kentucky where we seem to have the best shot of a pick up.

[Always Randy]

38. my intuitive feelings are similar to how I felt in the 2012

I think we will maintain a majority in the Senate ----and gain quite a few in the House---maybe not a majority ----but certainly change the landscape by knocking out some TP's

[okieinpain]

39. I thought it was 80%. but to me the most important thing to think about

is that 80 or 60% number is based on dems not voting or not being fired up to vote.

[Always Randy]

42. you are right

time to gotv

[TeamPooka]

40. When Republicans were behind according to Nate in 2012 we mocked them for not believing the numbers.

They paid a price for that too.
They lost.
These #'s are a clarion call to arms people.
Work hard and GOTV this year
and 2016.

[ShadowLiberal]

41. If Nate has a bias, it's likely in democrats favor, he used to blog at Daily Kos

Before he became famous, Nate Silver at one point blogged and wrote stories for the Daily Kos website (under a screen name, I forget what it was, but Kos says the screen name occasionally when talking about Silver).

But that being said, even with his earlier history, I don't think he's letting his bias effect the numbers.

At times Nate Silver does adjust his formulas some however, but I believe he's said he doesn't adjust them in the middle of a campaign like some pollsters do when they see their results don't match up with others.

[Always Randy]

43. my thought here was that he was fudging ONLY for his interest

to market his product better ---not to pick a winner ---but to sell his product

[FBaggins]

44. The problem with that is that he doesn't produce the numbers.

They're all from independant polling firms. All he does is estimate the liklihood of victory based on those polls and how they compare to previous races' polling at the same time.

Also... most of the other prognosticators have things rated worse for us.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. LOL. we are beginning to sound like ari fleisher who swore up and down that Romney was leading in

the polls

[tblue37]

46. Are you trying to "unskew" those polls for us? nt

[Orangepeel]

47. No. n/t