Category Archives: Nate Silver

Nate Silver Debunks Peggy Noonan’s Claim IRS Also Went After Individuals Opposing Obama

Mediaite

2012 electoral polling star, the New York Times’s Nate Silver, who was lauded for being right on all things 2012 election, is back crunching the numbers, this time on the IRS political targeting scandal, specifically firing back at WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan’s claim that the Obama IRS went after wealthy Republican individuals in addition to Tea Party groups in his FiveThirtyEight blog Friday.

Noonan had wrote, “The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration,” espousing the IRS scandal as the “worst Washington scandal since Watergate.” She went on to point out specific wealthy individuals in Idaho and Georgia that had never been audited until going against President Obama.

After conceding that some conservative Romney supporters were targeted, Silver explains those high income earners supporting President Obama were also targeted based on simple math. Silver displays a chart that estimates the amount of high-income earners that were audited in 2012 by way of the IRS’s Data Book. He estimates the share of the vote that went to Romney versus Obama in each income bracket based on exit polling.

His results seem to debunk Ms. Noonan’s argument that only wealthy conservative individuals supporting Mitt Romney yielded an IRS audit, with an estimated 380,000 Romney voters being audited compared to 480,00 Obama voters.

Silver makes the larger point that even without intentional political targeting, hundreds of thousands of conservative voted would have beens selected for audits as part of their normal process. He goes on to suggest Noonan cherry picked few examples in a pool of thousands:

The fact that Ms. Noonan has identified four conservatives from that group of thousands provides no evidence at all toward her hypothesis. Nor would it tell us very much if dozens or even hundreds of conservative activists disclosed that they had been audited. This is exactly what you would expect in a country where there are 1.5 million audits every year.

He concludes that a handful of “anecdotal” data points aren’t worth much in a country of over 300 million people.

h/t FiveThirtyEight

2 Comments

Filed under Nate Silver

Nate Silver gets a big boost from the election

What was it Bill Clinton said at the 2012 Democratic National Convention: arithmetic!”

Nate Silver has done “arithmetic” for a few years now and with uncanny accuracy in sports and politics.

CNN Money

Across the media and twittersphere Tuesday night, Nate Silver was a clear winner in the 2012 presidential election. The polling data guru, who runs the fivethirtyeight.com blog for the New York Times, saw sales of his book spike as a result.

Sales of the book, “The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail – but Some Don’t”  shot up 850% on Amazon.com (AMZNFortune 500) during the last 24 hours. It is now the second best-selling book on the site, behind only popular children’s book, “The Third Wheel, Diary of a Wimpy Kid Book 7.”

On his blog fivethirtyeight.com, Silver compiles and analyzes polling results from all different sources to estimate how many of the 538 electoral votes each presidential candidates will win.

His work allowed him to essentially call all 50 states correctly in [Tuesday] night’s vote.  He correctly predicted the 49 states called by the networks Tuesday, and estimated that Florida would be essentially tied with Obama having a very slight edge. Four years ago he correctly predicted 49 of 50 states, missing only Obama’s narrow win in Indiana.

While many political reporters and pundits had insisted the race was too close to call, or predicted challenger Mitt Romney would win, Silver’s final estimate was that President Obama had a better than 90% chance of re-election, because of how he would fare in the electoral college.

And as results flowed in Tuesday night, praise for Silver was widespread.

1 Comment

Filed under Nate Silver

Mitt Romney’s Electoral Problem and the War on Nate Silver

Full disclosure: Nate Silver of The New York Times’ 538 blog is my go to guru on all things STATISTICS.

Silver is not a partisan, he is a mathematician that deals in algorithms and other mathematical methods to draw conclusions on elections, sports and other numbers driven activities.

I understand that many in the right wing are scientifically challenged and only see Nate Silver as a partisan.  But that is so far from the truth, just like their concept that “global warming” is merely a hoax…

US News

 

What is it with Nate Silver? Given the increasing amount of attention the New York Times blogger is getting in the waning days of the election and concomitant animus from the right, one almost expects him to start showing up in, if not a Romney campaign ad, then perhaps a Crossroads GPS ad. (“Liberal stat nerd Nate Silver says Pennsylvania is 94.2 percent likely to vote for President Barack Obama’s foreign agenda—show Silver he’s wrong by voting for Mitt Romney.”)

In part it’s a function of attacking the messenger because you don’t like the numbers, and Silver has become the most prominent—but not the only by any means—purveyor of those numbers.

Silver, if you’re not more than a casual political observer, is a sports stat-geek turned politics stat-geek; his website fivethirtyeight.com was so successful at predicting the 2008 electoral outcome that the Times retained his services. He has crunched available national and state level public polls to estimate what portion of the popular and electoral votes President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will get on November 6. His calculations have given the incumbent a durable advantage in terms of total electoral votes (his estimate as of this writing is 294.6), popular votes (currently 50.3 percent), and percentage chance of winning (72.9 percent chance). His reasoning boils down to the fact that Obama has maintained leads in enough swing states to get more than the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.

Not surprisingly, conservatives, especially ones who believe inthe myth of Mitt-mentum, are not big fans of Silver. So he’s come under increasing fire from the right as merely a partisan hack. The most astounding and bizarre such attack came from one Dean Chambers, who criticizes Silver for assigning different weights to different polls, an astounding critique given that Chambers started a whole Web site devoted rewriting poll results to fit his partisan proclivities. (His attack was bizarre because he seemed to suggest that Silver’s analytical skill is marred by what Chambers sees as his effeminate qualities.)

But let’s be clear on something: Conservatives might dislike and disagree with the numbers Silver is pushing, he is not alone in pushing them. There are in fact several Web sites and/or scholars who push statistical models aimed at making similar estimates about who will be the next president, and they all give an edge to President Obama. The Princeton Election Consortium, run by Professor Sam Wang, projects Obama pulling in 303 electoral votes, for example; Votamatic, which is run by Drew Linzer, a professor at Emory and Stanford, predicts 332 electoral votes for Obama; Real Clear Politics’s “No Toss Up States” map gives Obama 281 electoral votes. (Huffington Post’s Pollster.com gives Obama a base of 253 electoral votes and leads in five of toss-up states as compared with 206 electoral votes and a single toss-up state lead for Romney.) And the major online betting markets all give Obama pretty good odds of re-election (Intrade puts it at 63.3 percentchance, and Betfair says 68 percent).

Rather than the figure conservatives portray—a lonely voice inveighing against the oncoming Romney juggernaut, giving liberals a last beacon of hope before the inevitable change—Silver and his percentages are comfortably in line with a host of other prognosticators ranging from political science nerds to straight pollcrowd-sourcing markets.

So why is Silver getting the attention from conservatives and others? That’s simple: He writes for the Times and so is the highest profile of the number crunchers. If the newspaper had hired Wang two years ago we’d likely be reading “Sam Wang: One-term celebrity?” in Politico instead of the recent Silver-focused piece.

 

Comments Off

Filed under Nate Silver

MSNBC Video: The Obama re-election formula

When I saw Allan J. Lichtman on The Last Word last night, I was pretty confident that he just might be right about his prediction.  Lawrence O’Donnell seemed even more enthusiastic about Lichtman’s predictions.

However, I decided to check with Nate Silver of the New York Times to see if he concurred with Mr. Lichtman:

The NY TimesNate Silver sees things a bit differently:

Despite Keys, Obama Is No Lock

Allan J. Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University, has issued a prediction that, given an economy still teetering on the brink of recession and President Obama’s 40 percent approval ratings, looks awfully bold.

“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” Mr. Lichtman told Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report.

Mr. Lichtman’s prediction is based on his 1984 book “The Keys to the White House”. The book cites 13 factors that can work for or against the party of the incumbent president. If at least eight of the 13 keys are scored in favor of the incumbent, he will win the election, Mr. Lichtman says; if he gets seven or fewer, he will not.

The book claims to have called the winner of the popular vote correctly in each election since 1860. (It would not have gotten the winner of the Electoral College right in 1876, 1888 or 2000, when the popular and electoral vote split.) That’s 38 elections in a row! Superficially quite impressive.

But ‘superficial’ is the crucial term here. There are several problems with this model, and its results should be taken with a grain of salt.

First has to do with the nature of the keys themselves, several of which are quite subjective.

Continue reading Nate’s list of reasons here…

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Nate Silver

The Palin-Trump Media Freak Show Switcheroo

Dave Weigel – Salon

I love a good chart that proves something everybody had suspected. Does it seem like there’s less coverage of Sarah Palin and more coverage of Donald Trump? That’s because, as Nate Silver proves, coverage of Palin has been cut by 80 percent as coverage of Trump has exploded — he is now the most-reported-on Republican candidate.

Let’s just look at the top of the chart.

How did Romney get less coverage in the month that he announced his exploratory committee?

Comments Off

Filed under Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Nate Silver, Sarah Palin

After Delaware, G.O.P. Senate Takeover Appears Much Less Likely

Breakdown of political party representation in...

Image via Wikipedia

Five Thirty Eight – Nate Silver

Republicans, who are modest favorites to take over the House from Democrats, still have a chance to do the same in the United States Senate. But their odds have dropped significantly: from a 26 percent chance last week to 15 percent today, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model.

The main reason for the decline is the outcome of Tuesday’s Republican primary in Delaware, in which the insurgent candidate, Christine O’Donnell, defeated Michael N. Castle. Two recent polls, including one completed after the primary, show her trailing her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, by margins of 11 percent and 16 percent.

Although Ms. O’Donnell and Mr. Coons remain relatively unknown to some Delaware voters, and a comeback by Ms. O’Donnell is not impossible, the forecasting model gives it only a 6 percent likelihood of happening — and has established Mr. Coons, therefore, as a 94 percent favorite. Had Republican voters selected Mr. Castle instead, the numbers would be exactly the opposite: Mr. Castle would be the 94 percent favorite to win the seat, leaving Mr. Coons with just a 6 percent chance of an upset.

If Ms. O’Donnell were unable to surprise observers again in Delaware, the Republicans could still earn a majority, 51 Senate seats, in one of two ways: either by sweeping the Democratic-held seats that currently appear to be competitive — while holding all of their own — or by putting one or two additional states into play.

The first path — sweeping the Democratic-held seats — remains the clearer of the two. It is not uncommon for a party to win all or almost all “tossup” seats when they are having a strong election night, as the Democrats did to claim the Senate in 2006. The forecasting model accounts for this tendency, in that it assumes that the results of Senate contests in different states will be correlated to some extent.  Continue reading…

Comments Off

Filed under Nate Silver