Proper statistical analysis has no pony in the race...

[Gravitycollapse]

It possesses no implication that one outcome is superior to another. We must be careful not to confuse likelihood with support.

Therefore, advising DUers to ignore the conclusions of statisticians is a really, seriously terrible idea. One of the worst I've heard on here in a while.

As a student of political statistics, I can say the field is about as anti-romantic as I can possibly imagine. It is not witchcraft and it cares very little for political bias. About the worst I can say the political statisticians who taught me are guilty of is that they drink to much Red Bull and neglect the fitting of their suits.

Instead of ignoring Nate Silver, and telling math to fuck off, we should take a reasoned perspective. We should tell ourselves that the prediction, albeit weak (something to which Silver himself admits), is a good motivator for Democratic voters.

[frazzled]

1. I have no beef with Nate Silver--it's just that elections are

an aeon away, in political time. I'm just completely disinterested in what any statistics drawn from polling can tell us at this moment in time. Call me in mid to late September.

[Gravitycollapse]

3. You should be interested in what statistics tell us about current sentiment.

Ignoring it doesn't make it disappear.

[hfojvt]

2. well dammit

I was promised a pony.


p.s. fu$% off math!!!

[okaawhatever]

4. K & R nt

[Drunken Irishman]

5. Silver's greatness lies within his presidential predictions...

Predicting the Senate & House this far out is damn near impossible. We're not just talking one race here - rather dozens and dozens. That also means there will be a handful of races under-polled, which makes it even the harder. Go look at Silver's projections from 2010 and you'll see what I mean - he had Reid absolutely locked up to lose.

Can the Democrats lose the Senate? Sure. But it's pointless to predict such this far out.

[Kablooie]

6. Not pointless.

I believe his methods predict what he says and his methods attempt to be unbiased.
Sure his prediction is not very reliable right now but it does indicate a trend that may become stronger if nothing is done to counteract it.

The very fact that it is early means there is a possibility of tipping it if Democrats start a concerted effort to do so right away.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. If Democratic voters turn out in larger numbers that Nate's model suggests,

Democrats win. It is a matter of GOTV. We don't have a good record in midterm elections. If we don't change that, Nate's prediction will prove out. It's up to us.

[Wounded Bear]

8. All well and good...

but we know, from experience, that many of the polls out there exhibit bias. Hell, one of the funniest thing about 2012 was how the RW echo chamber believed all of their own, in house polling, when it was pretty obvious that someone was blowing smoke up their collective asses. Your comments are spot on for real polling done honestly. Several of the major polls have shown to be very inaccurate the past few cycles. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the Romney campaign, especially, was getting their numbers from a cortege of yes-men, programmed to tell the boss what he wanted to hear, which didn't have a lot to do with reality.

I certainly don't discount Silver's polls. Rather, I take it as a challenge for Dems to get out the vote and reverse that trend.

[reformist2]

9. I'm a little surprised some people are so angry with him. He's just doing his job.

[left is right]

10. not mad at him

just surprised that anyone would even think about voting for a repugnant. they have done nothing but obstruct real progress and hurt the poor, the elderly, children, workers, women, anybody but the 1%

[n2doc]

11. It is pretty much the same response as the Repubs had to Silver in 2012

I guess he is only good if he reaffirms your worldview/hopes/biases.

[AngryAmish]

12. Such is life...

[Le Taz Hot]

13. That thread came on the heels of another thread

about Democrats shouldn't have to earn votes. It's the zealots. They become more feverish the closer we get to an election. Unfortunately, they're starting early this year. Expect this and more complete with "loyalty oaths" 4-5 times a day. In 2014, I wish people would just talk about their own district/state's Congressional/Senatorial campaign as I believe that is what most people are interested in during election years.

Personally, I think Nate did the Democrats a favor. It's 8 months before the elections which gives the Democrats more time to try and GOTV, INCLUDING making attempts to EARN people's votes as opposed to just demanding it.

[JaneyVee]

14. I agree. I trust Nate's math, but also trust that it can change.

Especially this far out.

[magical thyme]

15. I just see it as a wake up call.

And given in time to do something about it. Instead of attacking the messenger, people should be heeding the message and using it to motivate.

Let the GOP turn complacent. Let us get moving.