Nate Silver: Projected Republican Gains Approach 50 House Seats

[tritsofme]

It has become fashionable to speak of a Democratic comeback, but we’re not really seeing one in our forecasting models. Certainly there are some individual races — particularly on the East and West Coasts, as well as some gubernatorial contests outside these regions — that look better for Democrats than they did a few weeks ago. But we’re showing Republicans gaining ground where they need to gain it to maintain decent chances of taking over the Senate. We also show improvement for them in the House forecast this week.

Our model now estimates that the Republicans have a 72 percent chance of taking over the House, up from 67 percent last week. Moreover, they have nearly even odds of a achieving a net gain of 50 seats; their average gain in a typical simulation run was between 47 and 48 seats. However, the playing field remains very broad and considerably larger are possible, as are considerably smaller ones.

Republican gains this week are mostly the result of factors at the local level; the national environment is roughly stable. The expert forecasters whose judgment we incorporate into the model continue to revise their characterizations of races, and in almost all cases, the changes work toward the benefit of Republicans. Cook Political, for instance, in a break from its usual convention of not classifying seats held by incumbents as worse than toss-ups, this week decided to classify 10 seats currently held by Democratic incumbents, including the seat held by Alan Grayson in Florida’s 8th Congressional District, as leaning toward the Republicans.

Polls of individual House districts, while more varied, also generally contained good news for Republicans this week. A series of polls conducted by Penn Schoen Berland for The Hill, for instance, found 11 of 12 first-term Democrats that tested trailing their Republican opponents. The polls ought not have been terribly shocking to Democrats — our model already had the Democrats favored to lose all but one of these seats — but they nevertheless confirm that the principle of “last hired, first fired” often holds in “wave” elections, and than many of the Democrats who won their seats for the first time in 2006 or 2008 will likely lose them this year.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/projected-republican-gains-approach-50-house-seats/

If nothing else, it will interesting to analyze the accuracy of these predictive models after election day.

[bigdarryl]

1. well according to him there's no since in voting lets see its still what three weeks before election

unless he and the rest of the media has some secrete probe as to how like the early voting is going and not releasing this info to the public I see very close races that could easily go democrat if the GOTV is larger than expected.

[PeaceNikki]

3. Quite the contrary. According to his data, get the fuck out and vote.

[still_one]

17. Turnout is everything, and most models do not believe the progressives will turn out /nt

[Cal33]

24. Are you counting in the Republican-made voting machines that

are still being used in most states, and the Neocon dirty tricks thrown in?

[still_one]

31. Gee, I guess those voting machines weren't around in 2008 /nt

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Nate was wildly wrong

about Alaska's House race in 2008. I take him with a grain of salt.

[Imajika]

4. There was little to no decent polling from that state...

Dismissing Nate is silly. He is straight down the middle and quite good at what he does.

[Teaser]

14. No, he has had one good run

and one test of his model in a fairly easy to predict year. Just using poll average Chris Bowers did just as well.

He bolloxed the British elections completely.

*If* his model predicts a 50 seat gain for R's on election night, it will be wildly wrong. Book it.

[grantcart]

49. I think that Silver's methodology is far more accurate the larger the sampling

and the frequency of the polls, let say state outcomes on the electoral college for example.


For his model to have the same level of accuracy in deciding the House total would mean that there would have to be extensive regular polling in the 100 or so most contested races.

They rate my congressional district as being 98% for the Republican but the Republican paper hasn't endorsed him and he is having a mini lobbyist scandal. They are probably right but still. . .

[bigdarryl]

5. what was his prediction on that race?

[Blue_In_AK]

8. Ethan Berkowitz was supposed to beat Don Young

by double digits. He was defeated soundly.

I'm not saying that Nate isn't better than most pollsters -- he is. I'm only advising skepticism of ANY poll.

[FBaggins]

6. There are hundreds of predictions each cycle... and getting ONE wrong

means he can't be trusted?

[Blue_In_AK]

7. I don't trust pollsters, period.

Polls to me are like voter suppression. They are meant to sway public opinion, even when they're touted as being objective. People should vote based on their own perceptions and feelings about a candidate, not based on who a pollster says is ahead.

[golfguru]

10. Over last 50 years polls have been

lot more right than wrong. Of course polls can't be 100%
right because then we would not need the expense and cost
of running actual elections. But to dismiss all polls seems
foolhardy to me.

[Blue_In_AK]

12. But do you see my point

that the polls might plant the seed of a certain expectation among potential voters? If people believe that one candidate is well ahead of another, they may be discouraged from voting for the person who is behind, feeling that it's pointless. In close races, a person on the fence might be swayed to vote for the candidate with the higher poll numbers just because he wants to back a winner, especially if he isn't strongly committed to either candidate.

In my opinion, polls can be manipulated and used to influence elections, so I just don't like 'em.

[verges]

29. I was under the impression that

Nate wasn't a pollster. That he took all the polls and ran them through his formulas and made predictions based on that math. Using statistics and the polls as his tools.

[Blue_In_AK]

30. You're probably right.

But it doesn't change my opinion of pollsters and pollster compilers.

[Teaser]

15. no but his shoddy work on the British election

was good for some lulz.

And he can't be trusted. He has an n=1 right now. If he nails another election, that'll be interesting. Right now he may be a lucky amateur.

[Mefistofeles]

9. How many House races did he get wrong?

?

[Blue_In_AK]

11. I don't know.

I only know he got it wrong here. Nate's projections of Ethan's victory got our hopes up; our hopes were dashed on election night. :(

I really don't blame Nate. Alaska's elections are extremely difficult to call and often very close. Only 40% or so of the people here are registered Republican or Democrat. The rest of the registered voters go their own way, sometimes voting for Republicans, sometimes Democrats, sometimes third parties, depending on the race. A lot of times they don't respond to polls, or they might change their minds at the last minute.

With the old-line Republican strangle-hold of Stevens/Young/Murkowski having now been broken up by the Palinistas (Miller, Parnell, et al.), it's anybody's guess who's going to win our elections this November. Traditional Republicans here don't like the direction their party is taking, and the independents are probably not teabaggers. The Dem candidates could pull a lot of votes.

[Aramchek]

34. Nate knows his polling methods are flawed at root. Yet he still pretends they're usable.

[Codeine]

59. If his methods are so flawed,

why did his projected results in the 2008 election cycle hew so closely to the actual results?

[FBaggins]

60. Don't you think that spin would sell a little better...

...if you were talking about a pollster?

Since he doesn't have any "polling methods," the only thing "flawed" here is your argument. :)

[Andy823]

13. Here is the bottom line!

I don't care who says what, if we can get out the voters those who predict a "huge" republican win, will be eating crow! It's the votes that count, not the polls, not the media, not either party bragging about how great they are doing. Sure the crazies on the right are worked up and ready to vote, but who cares! Democrats can keep both houses if we get out and vote! Sure we will lose some seats, but not control if we get the voters out!

There is so much BS out this year, and the problem I see is the BS is in favor of the republicans, but there is no reason at all why anyone who is sane would vote these morons back in charge, no reason in the world! Most of the hype has to do with the tea baggers being so "motivated". Well they might be, but those "motivated" crazies" would never have voted for a democrat in the first place! The tea baggers are simply republicans who came up with a new name! They are mostly made up of the crazies on the right, the Faux news clan, and a bunch of racists, along with some KKK, some nazis and that's about it. There are no real conservatives in the whole bunch! The moderate republicans can't stand the tea party bunch. Many will NOT vote for the tea party candidates, period! They may not vote for a democrat, but they won't vote for the crazies either! This is what I think has been left out of the conversation, and I think it as been left out on purpose! If a lot of moderate republicans don't vote, the democrats benefit. Now I don't care who does the poll, and I don't care who says all the doom and gloom. Democrats still have a good chance to win if we get out and vote and don't listen to the the bull coming from the media!

[rbilancia]

16. Nate Silver can go suck his own balls. Just get out, canvass, phonebank, rally, and VOTE !

[PeaceNikki]

18. He's analyzing data, not trying to push an agenda.

You don't have to be an asshole.

[rbilancia]

19. Are you his mother? Piss on all this poll horseshit. Just phonebank, canvass, & donate. Ya think?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. If StalinDidn't Fall Asleep Operation Barbarosa Would Have Never Been Successful

It pays to be vigilant.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. You Need To Take A Deep Breath, Pardner

~

[SaveOurDemocracy]

70. Are we all allowed 2 ID's on DU now?

[speppin]

71. Don't know but sure seems like the OP is allowed to do that.

[AndrewP]

26. Exactly. I think it can serve as good wake-up call

[Aramchek]

35. the same data that he recently admitted was based on a flawed methodology

He trying to predict a race in 2010, using technology that died with the advent of the cellular telephone.

[tritsofme]

37. You speak in very absolute terms.

On a topic that is anything but certain. Polls were very accurate in 2008. I hope you aren't pinning all your hopes in November on every single poll underestimating the Democratic vote.

[Aramchek]

43. I hope you don't make any decisions based on Nate Silver.

he is paid to do what he does.
it is not out of the goodness of his heart.

[tritsofme]

44. I'm only speaking to the fact that you have apparently declared

all polls to be worthless (except for maybe the ones with results you like?), which is pretty ridiculous. Polling was very accurate in 2008, and will most likely be this year as well.

You don't have to be on the New York Time's payroll to look at the publicly available polling and make these same sort of conclusions about the election.

[Mefistofeles]

39. When did this "advent of the cellular phone" begin, exactly?

?

[Aramchek]

42. you really have alot invested in seeing Dems do badly, don't you?

I would wager that most, if not all, of your 191 posts repeat this pattern.

[Dinger]

68. Hey, Are You The Same Guy As RBinMaine?

Hmmm. Is that cool here now?

[Touchdown]

69. *spit*

:spray:

[jgraz]

73. Ooops.

That one's gonna Boomerang around to Diddle him.

[doc03]

20. Click on Electorialvote.com we a losing both the Senate

and house.

[pstokely]

28. Many of those are (R)asmussen polls

nt

[msongs]

23. when democrats behave like republicans, real republicans win nt

[JamesA1102]

32. Is that why the Republican running against Feingold is winning? nt

[ProSense]

25. Nate isn't doing what he did in 2008

He is scrutinizing the polls in line with conventional wisdom. There was a time when he would point out the significant flaws in specific polls.

Still, he states:

Our model now estimates that the Republicans have a 72 percent chance of taking over the House, up from 67 percent last week. Moreover, they have nearly even odds of a achieving a net gain of 50 seats; their average gain in a typical simulation run was between 47 and 48 seats. However, the playing field remains very broad and considerably larger are possible, as are considerably smaller ones.

That's a broad statement.

And this:

Polls of individual House districts, while more varied, also generally contained good news for Republicans this week. A series of polls conducted by Penn Schoen Berland for The Hill, for instance, found 11 of 12 first-term Democrats that tested trailing their Republican opponents. The polls ought not have been terribly shocking to Democrats — our model already had the Democrats favored to lose all but one of these seats — but they nevertheless confirm that the principle of “last hired, first fired” often holds in “wave” elections, and than many of the Democrats who won their seats for the first time in 2006 or 2008 will likely lose them this year.

Seriously, Mark Penn's company?

[metapunditedgy]

27. This amateur leftist says: Any 5-year old could have seen this coming, and can tell who is to blame

n/t

[damonm]

56. Then pray enlighten us.

[Aramchek]

33. it's going to be fun watching all those who worship at the altar of Nate

trying to explain how he was so full of shit when the election results come in.

Nate, himself, admitted last week that current polling methods are fatally flawed in their methods.
And yet here he is again trying to shovel this bs down our throats.

Sorry, Nate, you have bought into your own myth.

[Mefistofeles]

38. Will you start an "I apologize, Mr. Silver" thread if he is proved right?

Or will you pretend you never doubted him?

How many seats will Democrats approximate win or lose in the House and Senate? If you know his numbers are way off, I guess you have a rough idea as to what the outcome will be.

[Aramchek]

41. Nate, is that you?

We will hold the House and Senate.

[Mefistofeles]

45. So realistic!

I do not think we will hold both chambers, therefore I must be Nate Silver himself!

Some logic.

[Aramchek]

46. no, you defend him like you are personally invested in his predictions.

[Mefistofeles]

47. No. I defend him like he's been very accurate in the past

And you oppose him like you are in denial.

[Aramchek]

50. you're not fooling anyone, amigo

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Larry Sabato Who Nailed 06 And 08

Offered these predictions

House= Republicans +47

Senate +7 - +8

Governorhsips + 8

He is a professor and teaches in one of the best and most respected political science programs in the nation. I don't think he'a a shill or an idiot.

[budkin]

36. Use this as motivation to get out that vote! Phonebank and knock on doors!

[impik]

40. I like Nate, but honestly, i'm tired of him and his models

[Stuart G]

48. I don't think Nate counts these people:

no phoners, and no place to live people...many are registered to vote and can.....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x472097

[Spazito]

52. The reality of this forecast is that it has a +/- margin of error...

which means, in reality, the forecast says nothing of substance. Mr. Silver should have just written the Democrats or the repubs will win the House on Nov 2nd, it would have been more honest, imo, than this tripe.

Here is Mr. Silver's 'clarification' about the +/- 30 margin of error, a clear margin of error statement that was NOT in the article in the OP:

"The House forecast that we released on Friday establishes an over-under line for Republican gains at a net of 47 or 48 seats. But, as I noted at the end of the article, the confidence interval on this forecast is very wide. Its margin of error is about ±30 seats — meaning that a gain of as few as 17 seats, or as many as 78, is entirely possible — and there is a small chance of even larger or smaller gains."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/number-of-competitive-house-races-doubles-from-recent-years/?hp

[FBaggins]

53. A confidence interval does NOT mean that it says "nothing of substance"

The article explains this pretty well... as does the bell-curve distribution. Some people seem to treat a 40% result with a "margin of error" of, say, five percent as meaning that ALL results between 35% and 45% are equally likely. That simply isn't true. It's many times more likely that the "real" number is 41% than that it is 45%.

a clear margin of error statement that was NOT in the article in the OP:

How can you say it isn't in the article and then post a statement that points out that it IS in the article?

[Spazito]

55. It is not in the OP article, the +/- 30 margin of error is in a different article...

the original article doesn't spell it out, it leaves it to the reader to ferret it out which, to me, is being less than upfront. The article in the OP was from Friday. The article 'clarifying' the margin of error was published Sunday. The quote I put in my post was from the Sunday article NOT the Friday one in the OP and I provided the link to the article from which I quoted. I can only assume you did not click on the link I provided.

As to the substantive value of the projection with a +/-30 margin of error, when the margin of error results, in essence, the equivalent of 'either the Democrats or the repubs will win the House on Nov 2nd' it is, for all practical purposes, useless.

"Its margin of error is about ±30 seats — meaning that a gain of as few as 17 seats, or as many as 78, is entirely possible — and there is a small chance of even larger or smaller gains." Note: this quote is from the Sunday article, link which is provided in my original post.

If the republicans only gain 17 seats, the Dems hold the House...If the repubs gain 78 they win the house given that currently:

Democrats in the House = 255

Republicans in the House = 178

Vacant = 2


Total voting members in the House = 435

Dem majority currently = 77

[FBaggins]

57. Whether you can see it or not doesn't mean it isn't there.

What did you think "The 95 percent confidence interval on our model runs between a Republican gain of 17 seats and 78" means?

That's precisely the same thing as saying "48 plus or minus 30" - Margins of error are most commonly cited at the 95% confidence interval. Moreover, as I said before, Silver provides a graphical depiction of the chances for each result (including highlighting the results that mean we keep the House).

As to the substantive value of the projection with a +/-30 margin of error, when the margin of error results, in essence, the equivalent of 'either the Democrats or the repubs will win the House on Nov 2nd' it is, for all practical purposes, useless.


Sorry... that's pretty ridiculous. Losing 70 seats and losing 40 seats are not the same thing (or even close) just because they both boil down to "we lost the House". Losing five seats in the Senate would be dramatically better than losing eight even though both mean "we kept the Senate".

And if win/lose the House were the only metric that mattered to you, he still gives far more than just a number and a MOE... he tells you the current percentage chance of the House changing hands.

[Spazito]

58. Seeing as Mr. Silver felt the need to write a 'clarifying' article...

spelling out the +/-30 margin of error, my take on his original article certainly wasn't unique. He acknowledged the need to spell it out by writing a subsequent article.

Take a look at the different tone and tenor between the two articles:

The OP article:

"Nate Silver: Projected Republican Gains Approach 50 House Seats

It has become fashionable to speak of a Democratic comeback, but we’re not really seeing one in our forecasting models. Certainly there are some individual races — particularly on the East and West Coasts, as well as some gubernatorial contests outside these regions — that look better for Democrats than they did a few weeks ago. But we’re showing Republicans gaining ground where they need to gain it to maintain decent chances of taking over the Senate. We also show improvement for them in the House forecast this week.

Our model now estimates that the Republicans have a 72 percent chance of taking over the House, up from 67 percent last week. Moreover, they have nearly even odds of a achieving a net gain of 50 seats; their average gain in a typical simulation run was between 47 and 48 seats. However, the playing field remains very broad and considerably larger are possible, as are considerably smaller ones."

In reading this article, it is very leading in it's tone and tenor regarding the likelihood of the repubs taking the House.

The Sunday article:

Number of Competitive House Races Doubles from Recent Years

"According to just about every objective and subjective indicator, then, the number of competitive House districts is roughly twice as high as in recent years. This is why the margin of error on our House forecast is very wide. If the polling is off by just a little in one direction or another, it could have profound consequences for the number of seats that Republicans are likely to gain. Likewise, there are a great number of districts in which both parties have viable candidates who could overperform or underperform the trends present in the national environment."

I would submit there is a very different tone and tenor in this article, one that clearly states the uncertainty and does NOT stress the repub win aspect.

It is unfortunate, imo, that the Sunday article was not the original article and instead had to be a 'clarifying' follow-up. Had the Sunday article been the only one written, I would find little fault with it as it is clearly stated within it the uncertainty and the reality being it's a toss-up as to who will have the majority in the House come Nov 3rd.

I have not included the links as they are to be found in the OP and in my original response in this thread.

[FBaggins]

62. The article wasn't written to "spell out the margin of error"

it was written to correct people (like you) who mistakenly assumed that the number didn't mean anything because of the seemingly large MOE.

He acknowledged the need to spell it out by writing a subsequent article.

He wasn't "spelling out" a "hidden" margin of error... he was correcting the misperception that the large range was evidence of a worthless analysis.

In reading this article, it is very leading in it's tone and tenor regarding the likelihood of the repubs taking the House

Lol... that's because they are likely to do so. There are far more competitive races this year, and vast majority of them are ours.

It is unfortunate, imo, that the Sunday article was not the original article and instead had to be a 'clarifying' follow-up. Had the Sunday article been the only one written, I would find little fault with it as it is clearly stated within it the uncertainty and the reality being it's a toss-up as to who will have the majority in the House come Nov 3rd.


I'm sorry... but it looks like he needs to write a third one. Because you just came away with exactly the wrong conclusion. "Tossup" means that there's roughly an even chance of either side winning. He makes clear that it's closer to 3:1 against us.

[Spazito]

63. He doesn't need to write a third one for me...

The second one should have been the first and only one and it would have been just fine. I agree with you that 'toss-up' is not quite correct given Mr. Silver, in his first article, seemed to indicate the repubs winning 50 House seats would give them the House which is incorrect as they would need a minimum of 78 which, according to his numbers, is at the far end of the range of probability wrt the number of seats the repubs could win.

Do you think most readers of Mr. Silver's articles are schooled in the methodology behind projections/polling/margins of error? I would submit the vast majority are not hence the need by Mr. Silver to write a 'clarifying' article two days after the original. Again, I posit it would have been much wiser of Mr. Silver to have published the second article as his first which is much more easily understood by those who do not have an expert's grasp of said methodology.

[FBaggins]

65. Now it's a third and a 4th.

seemed to indicate the repubs winning 50 House seats would give them the House which is incorrect as they would need a minimum of 78

I apologize in advance, because I can't think of a wayto write this that doesn't make you look silly (and honestly that's not my intent)... but there are only two parties being counted here. If republicans pick up 50... then they get them from Democrats. If you add 50 to the current republican total and subtract 50 from ours... you most certainly lose the House.

Do you think most readers of Mr. Silver's articles are schooled in the methodology behind projections/polling/margins of error?

Yes. In general, Nate's fans are reasonably schooled on basic statistics.

hence the need by Mr. Silver to write a 'clarifying' article two days after the original

Again, he wasn't clarrifying what you seem to think he was... and that which he WAS clarifying seems to be your retained position.

which is much more easily understood by those who do not have an expert's grasp of said methodology.


The second article doesn't really go into the methodology. He's demonstrating that there are many more seats in play than in previous years. If you apply the SAME bell-curve to a much larger number of seats, the same statistical MOE will result in a larger numerical MOE. That's really all he's saying.

[Spazito]

66. I can see that you and I are not going to be in agreement on this...

so I think the best thing to do is agree to disagree and leave it at that. I appreciated the civil manner in which you argued your points and enjoyed the give and take on this issue.

[FBaggins]

67. What a polite way to end a debate. Thanks.

I'll have to copy that one.

[mstinamotorcity]

54. Don't believe it

Won't believe it. And the truth is I believe they (repugs) have something up their sleeve for election day. Just my suspicious nature. But there is just no way they can win unless there is some shit in the game. Its just too much certainty on the repugs part. Whenever they start bragging or boasting I look for some smelly bullshit.

[Imajika]

61. Why do you say that?

"But there is just no way they can win unless there is some shit in the game."

What evidence do you have to back this up? Do you realize we are so far ahead in the House and Senate right now that even just a near split of voters will net them huge gains? If likely voter polling number are accurate, we could lose a whole lot more.

[mstinamotorcity]

64. One there are more registered Dems

The other is if you wanted to scare people into thinking that their is no hope, all you have to do is say so. There will be some who will believe the lie and think they don't have to vote. We have been through this before with the election of our President. The polls had him as the underdog and even on election night they tried to fool us and say he was down in the exit polls. Look if you want to make the polls sway in your favor you go to where they will answer in your favor. Meaning you would seek out people who were more likely to answer questions based on the way you word the question. Example- If you wanted to show the President in an unfavorable light you would poll Republicans and Independents ( former repugs). Ask the question do you think the President's agenda is good for America?? You know what would be said. But ask a Democrat that same question worded different and you will get another answer.

And if you think that there is no shit in the game what was up with those faulty voting machines and sudden downsizing of polling places to vote.Or telling peeople that the election day has been moved to the next day and actually sending out flyers in the low income areas and on college campuses saying so.

And it is not November 3. This is not over until the voting polls close on election night. And I believe in my party.

[Psyche]

75. I agree 100%

Just like when Shrubby screamed "MY BROTHER PROMISED ME FLORIDA!" election night 2000, I don't trust them AT ALL.

I can't fathom that any thinking life form would vote to go back to the abusive spouse given a choice. Thats what voting REP is, or staying at home.

The extent they have gone to (verbally/monetarily) to convince America that they're taking over in November, and that everyone hates Obama and he's the biggest presidential failure in the history of the US is MIND-BOGGLING.

But if they control all of the e-voting servers, and have managed to downsize all the voting locations in DEM precincts, etc..... when they flip everything and fix another election, (like they did in 2000/2004), all they will have to say is, "I told you so" because they've been spewing this non-stop since Jan 21st, 2009, so everyone will believe them, and be none the wiser.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

72. I suspect the scenario that Ed Schultz laid out on his radio show yesterday is more likely.

Supposing the Repukes gain a few seats and end up with 47 or 48 on their own. Then turncoats like Lieberman and Nelson flip to Repukes to give them the majority. (Like they aren't already voting with them anyway)

[and-justice-for-all]

74. I do not think so...nt