Nate tries it again: "A Second Pass at Early Voting Totals: Now With Extra Skepticism"

[Clio the Leo]

And THIS time, if you dont like the more reasonable argument that early voting stats likely match what we've been seeing in the polls for months, you can go with the happy go lucky, flies in the face of logic, Democratic tidal wave option. ;)

A Second Pass at Early Voting Totals: Now With Extra Skepticism
October 25, 2010, 10:10 AM
By NATE SILVER

My article consisted of essentially two different parts. About 600 words were devoted to critiquing the notion that the early voting data – particularly in the way that some other analysts are using it — tells us much of anything at all. The other 600 words (the part that Mr. McDonald criticizes) were devoted to a comparison of the early voting figures against voter registration data in each state, which I suggested revealed a small “enthusiasm gap” in favor of Republicans.

If you take just one point from yesterday’s article, I’d really prefer it be the former, more skeptical one. A lot of the analyses of early voting figures are quite flawed. I’ll take some blame here for having selected a poor headline, which did not emphasize this point enough.

Mr. McDonald, as I mentioned, suggests that the right way to view the early voting data is to compare it to early voting data from past elections — rather than, as I did, to voter registration figures in the each state.

Here is the problem with that. Depending on which past elections we compare it to, the early vote data might suggest anything from an impending catastrophe for the Democrats, to an outcome in which they’d radically outperform expectations on Election Day and hold both the Senate and the House (possibly by somewhat comfortable margins).

<snip>

The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty noted, for instance, that a Democratic consulting firm collecting early voting data “told its clients … that early ballots in the 17 states … looks very much like that in 2006, the year Democrats took back the House and the Senate.” Strategists at Organizing for America have conveyed similar sentiments.

I’m a little wary about the comparisons to 2006, because I haven’t seen any that make an effort to be especially comprehensive. The data that Democrats are sharing publicly highlights figures from some states, but not others, and those states may or may not be representative.

Even if it were true, however, that Democratic early voting is about on pace with 2006, it’s still not clear that it forms the inherently better comparison than 2008, or 2004, or 2000, and so forth. What we know is that early voting patterns vary a lot from year to year — and, in recent years, have both massively favored Democrats and massively favored Republicans at different times.

There is no rule of thumb about what early voting figures “should” be. The early voting advantage is presumably some function of: (i) demographics, i.e., older voters are more inclined to vote early; (ii) enthusiasm, which is peculiar to each particular election; (iii) the extent to which each party emphasizes early voting; (iv) whether or not the year is a midterm. Suppose we were trying to fit a four-variable regression model to predict early voting. You can’t really fit a four-variable model on only four data points (e.g. 2008, 2000, 2004 and 2006). It just doesn’t work, statistically. You can’t even hazard a guess.

In other words, the early voting data this year could be consistent with anything from a massive, Gallup-style Republican wave to the first sign of a major Democratic comeback. We really don’t know.

The only thing we do know, rather, is the fact cited Sunday night: in most states so far, registered Republicans are casting ballots at a somewhat higher rate than registered Democrats. Their advantage so far amounts to about 6 points, which for better or for worse, corresponds quite nicely to the roughly 6-point “enthusiasm gap” that most pollsters are seeing.

more...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/a-second-pass-at-early-voting-totals-now-with-extra-skepticism/

[kentuck]

1. I am skeptical because they assume...

...that Tea Baggers will vote for Republicans in overwhelming fashion, even though they left the Republican Party to become Tea Baggers because they were pissed off at these same Republicans. Now, they can't wait to vote for the same folks they divorced a couple of years ago, because they hate the socialist, Obama, so much? I don't find this a logical argument.

[Me.]

2. I Think He's Right On The Baggers Because They Are Just Cons In Tea Bag Form

But as far as the rest of his analysis, I think he's doing a little too much protesting and one gets the sense his feelings are hurt because his analysis has chinks in it.

[mikekohr]

4. EVERY Tea Party Person That I know on my local level is a Republican

most usually activist Republicans from the lunatic fringe of that looney bin of a party

[Cosmocat]

6. Yeah, there is not a single "tea party" type in the country

who casts even a single vote for a D, and 99.9 percent of them will be for the R on the ticket ...

[Codeine]

14. Every Teabagger I've seen is actually a staunch Republican.

Teabaggers are simply the Hezbollah wing of the Republican Party.

[DarthDem]

3. Wow

I think Nate's a nice guy from his appearances on Countdown and Rachel in 2008, and his heart's in the right place, but . . . BOY OH BOY does he know how to write 3,000-word articles that simply aren't worth the considerable time they require to write . . . and read.

Nate's model, like any model, has to start somewhere. He started with the Charlie Cook projections, the silly LV screens we're seeing out there, and the inundation of attempted-narrative-setting polls from Spasmussen and the like.

Garbage in, garbage out. Nate is not going to be hailed as a prophet 10 days from now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. It Is Possible That Larry Sabato, Nate Silver, Stauart Rothenberg, Charles Cook, And Michael Barone

It is possible that Larry Sabato, Nate Silver, Stuart Rothenberg, and Michael Barone are all wrong, after being generally correct so many times in the past, but how likely is that.

A scant week from now some will be hailed as Notradamuses and some will be derided as Nostradumbasses. I guess, at this point, we can just wait.

[karynnj]

9. Wait -- an GOTV!!

added, because I know that is what you mean.

It is possible that all could be wrong. They themselves have said that it comes down to the accuracy of the likely voting screens - and many are using relatively similar LV screens.

Not to mention, if you limit your examination to close races, have the pundits been all that accurate? Not a single talking head I saw - and I watched many - projected that we would get 51 in 2006. Even Joe Biden about 9 days before was speaking in terms of 48 or maybe 49. Now, you might say, "Why are you speaking "close race"? But, the fact is that the Senate numbers depend on many very close (within 2% or 3%) in a large number of races. We have already seen some races, especially Sestak's go from all the pundits ruling him out - to them saying it was close.

One reason to have some faith and hope - and motivation to help on GOTV is that these are close races. Why? The LV screens embedded in ALL these polls already include record Republican turn out and mediocre Democratic turnout. We have the by far greater chnce of "exceeding expectations" on getting out the vote. The fact that the races are seen as close is itself something that will spur greater interest. Greater interest helps us more than it helps the republicans - and we only need to move our numbers up by about 5 or 6% to win the close races. (Throw in the energy Of President and Michelle Obama, VP Biden, Clinton etc ading their energy and it could help motivate people to vote - IF the candidates they appear with are able to shine on the same platform and impress people.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Of The Fifteen Competitive Senate Races In 2006 Pollster Nailed- For The Answer Click

All fifteen.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/md/maryland_senate_race-114.html

[Clio the Leo]

22. It's possible that they could all be wrong...

... but not likely (pardon the pun.)

Even our optimistic Vice President has, in recent days, added the caveat "and if we DO lose the House, it will be because....."

[impik]

7. I got it, i got it. We are dead. Why even bother to vote?

[wisteria]

11. Vote! n/t

[polichick]

8. I thought Dems were outnumbering Republicans in early voting...

...last week.

[Clio the Leo]

23. In Iowa...

.... but not in Nevada.

And what does that even mean? That's the whole point.

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Nevada_Early_Voting_Turnout_Nearly_Split_105633698.html

[bigdarryl]

10. Nate Silver is a DICK he's trying everthing possible not to see anyway the democrats can win

[okieinpain]

13. that's what it seems like to me. it's like every attempt to get out

the vote is being pooh poohed as not worth the time. I say fuck them "VOTE".

[Codeine]

15. Nate's a liberal. He's just examining the numbers as a statistician.

And right now the numbers do not look good. My hope is that the bad numbers will cause the whiners and Purity Police to get off their asses and vote a straight D ticket.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Didn't You Get The Memo

Nate Sliver has become persona non grata here for deigning to suggest that aggregate polling doesn't favor the Democrats. Such heterodoxy must be swiftly and harshly dealt with lest other more timid souls follow in his apostatical ways.

[Stuckinthebush]

19. HA!

That is funny....and seems to be true.

I just stumbled into this Nate Silver issue. My thought is that the guy is using a statistical model that seemed to work for him in the past. Makes sense to me. Why would anyone demonize the guy? He isn't anti-Democratic...or anti-Republican. He's a statistical analyst.

I guess we will see in a few days, no?

[phleshdef]

17. Thats pretty unfair to Nate. He is a statistician, not an activist.

I hope he is off in his analysis. But I see no evidence that he has any kind of agenda. He definately hasn't done anything to deserve being called names.

[Aramchek]

26. he was a statictician, now he is a paid journalist and talking head

[KansasVoter]

27. Let me know when you post a Nate Silver apology!`

I want to read it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Don't Hold Your Breath

~

[Pisces]

29. He was a hero in 2008. This board is just as fickle as the country.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I love how he speaks of his writing in terms of word count!

He's got a focus, that's for sure. Nate has had one election as a pundit, just one. Soon we will have enough data to see a trend. It is just far too early in his career to give him so much weight. Kind of unfair to him as well, although he seems to seek it out.

[onenote]

20. Can someone clear this up?

When someone/anyone projects that Democrats are not doing well in a particular race or generally, there always is a group of DUers that attack the messenger by suggesting that they are trying to depress Democratic turnout.

But when a pollster, etc. pronounces that the Democrat in the race is doing well, no one says that they are trying to depress repub turnout. In fact, on occasion, you'll see it suggested that the bad numbers are being pushed so that repubs don't get overconfident decide to stay home.

So, does reporting bad news make people stay home or inspire them to get off their asses and work harder? Does good news make people complacent or get them enthused? Is the answer different if you're a repub or a Democrat? And what about independents? How do they process this information.

Its all so confusing, but I'm sure there are some DUers who can tell us with complete certainty how it works.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Words from Nate to live by.....

"In other words, the early voting data this year could be consistent with anything from a massive, Gallup-style Republican wave to the first sign of a major Democratic comeback. We really don’t know."

[Clio the Leo]

25. or words to hang your hope on....

.... I'm just fearful that folks are seeing turn outs at these Obama rallies and thinking folks are RALLYING nationwide.

If that were the case the President would be doing MORE rallies ... and in more (varied) places.

I'm a bit of a realist .... I'd rather be pleasantly proven wrong on election night than disappointed.

[Aramchek]

24. with each opinion piece, Nate goes further out on a limb

He is ignoring evidence.

That is the first sign of Ego superceding Science.