Tag 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

Top Ten Things Republicans Hate More Than President Obama’s Second Inauguration

When one thinks about the failed GOP efforts to derail President Obama’s first term it’s hard to believe there are things they hate more than the POTUS’ second term…

Addicting Info

10. Nate Silver’s stupid predictions based on stupid “math”

9. Donald Trump and Birtherism (No, they’re not laughing with you…)

8. Sandra Fluke and her damn birth control pills (She riled up the slut vote!)

7. Rick Perry’s terrible memory (You couldn’t remember THREE agencies?!)

6. Karl Rove and Fox News (You said we would win in a landslide, you lying pricks!)

5. Non-rigged elections (WTF?! We passed those Voter ID laws for a reason!)

4. Rachel Maddow and her stupid facts (Freaking lesbian know-it-all…)

3. Minorities (Who the hell let them vote?!)

2. Republicans that won’t STFU about rape (I don’t CARE if it’s legitimate or not! Stop talking about it!)

And the number one thing that Republicans hate even more than President Obama’s second inauguration?

1. Mitt Romney

2 Comments

Filed under Humor, Republicans

Thursday Blog Round Up 1-10-2013

The Boss

White House won’t deport Piers Morgan

Jon Stewart on Republicans on Gun Control

Democrats Need to Gear Up For a Tough 2014

Obama mulls executive orders on gun control

 Obama: Let’s Have An Up Or Down Vote On Fiscal Cliff

Obama’s Pick for Treasury Is Said to Be His Chief of Staff

Transcript of Nate Silver’s ‘Ask Me Anything’ on Reddit

Fox Host Shouts Down First Mention On Network Of 2012 Record Heat

Chris Matthews Thumps Dick Armey for Pretending GOP is the Party of Limited Government

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

McConnell suggests Obama ‘manufactured’ poll to make him ‘most unpopular’ senator

[Image via Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons licensed]

Here we go again with the “Obama is to blame…” meme from GOP politicians and right-wing media…

The Raw Story

A recent fundraising email from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign suggested that President Barack Obama ordered the firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) to “manufacture” a survey that said the Kentucky Republican was the “most unpopular Senator in the country.”

A poll released by the left-leaning firm on Tuesday indicated that only 37 percent of Kentucky voters approved of McConnell.

“Both in terms of raw disapproval (55%) and net approval (-18) McConnell has the worst numbers of any of his peers, taking that mantle from Nebraska’s Ben Nelson,” PPP wrote.

But in an email published by the Louisville Eccentric Observer on Thursday, McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton implied that Obama and other Democrats had conspired with PPP to fix the poll.

“Barack Obama and his allies told us what they were going to do,” Benton wrote. “They think if they can manufacture a difficult re-election for Senator McConnell back home in Kentucky then they can push our Leader around in Washington.”

He continued: “The partisan PPP polling company, which has been used as a tool for Obama Democrats to manufacture circumstances that don’t exist all across the country, descended upon Kentucky to proclaim that Senator McConnell has a 37% approval rating. The poll is laughable. But, the liberal press is gobbling it right up.”

“What was really surprising was that even cooked books couldn’t produce a Democrat candidate who could beat Senator McConnell head to head,” Benton said. “Cooked polls are certainly only the start of the liberals’ plans. They will throw the kitchen sink at us. This poll is just the tip of iceberg , and Leader McConnell needs your help. Please help with a contribution of $50, $100, $250 or even $500 today.”

PPP Director Tom Jensen told the Louisville Eccentric Observer that letter from McConnell’s campaign were similar to comments made by Republicans who were in denial about former presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.

“I think one of the biggest lessons of the 2012 campaign was that when Republicans are attacking polls it’s a sure sign that they’re losing,” Jensen explained. “GOP campaigns all over the country made these kinds of claims about us this year and we ended up calling every state in the Presidential race and Senate race we polled correctly. Nate Silver found that to the extent there was any bias in our polling, it was actually pro-Republican.”

study from Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos found that PPP was one of the top three most accurate polling firms during the 2012 presidential election.

Comments Off

Filed under Mitch McConnell

Wednesday Morning Roundup – 12-12-12

Washington’s Deceptions
‘Reform’ taxes? ‘Fix’ Medicare? Yeah, right.

Scalia equates being gay with murder
Scalia once famously complained that if sodomy is legal, then states couldn’t regulat..

Boehner’s crazy caucus juggling act 
It’s not easy being orange. House Speaker John Boehner’s floor rant on Tuesday did n..

Why Hillary Clinton Would be Strong in 2016
Nate Silver sees Hillary Clinton’s high favorability numbers falling if she moves to..

Claims of ‘School-to-Prison’ Pipeline in Mississippi
Claims of ‘School-to-Prison’ Pipeline in Mississippi

McConnell is Least Popular Senator in the Country
A new Public Policy Polling survey in Kentucky finds Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) with a ..

White House: North Korea Missile Launch ‘Highly Provocative’
WASHINGTON — The White House says North Korea’s launch of a long-range ba..

Michigan Governor Signs Union Busting Bills Behind Closed Doors
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced during a press conference on Tuesday afterno..

Beyond Fox News: The GOP is realizing it needs to talk to the rest of ..
If the GOP ever wants to reach Latinos and women, among others, it needs to move beyo..

Soledad O’Brien pins GOP’s Sessions over fiscal cliff proposal to cut ..
Soledad O’Brien was not amused that Mr. Sessions plans on taking food out of the mout..

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

How the Right-Wing Media’s Fantasy World Caused a Republican Meltdown on Election Night

Alternet

Despite all evidence to the contrary, right-wing pundits were telling whoever would listen that Romney would win by a landslide.

The greatest thing on television Tuesday evening wasn’t Obama’s victory speech. It wasn’t Romney’s concession speech. It wasn’t even John King’s gentle caress of the CNN Magic Wall.

It was the Fox News team’s collective meltdown when the network’s own analysts called theelection for Obama.

In fact, Fox might have given us the most entertaining five minutes of cable newsin television history. Karl Rove in particular couldn’t wrap his head around the idea that Romney had lost. He sent Megyn Kelly downstairs to the Fox election desk to find out what had happened. Despite one of the election desk staffers saying he was 99.5 percent sure about the outcome, Rove insisted that there must have been a mistake. If you look at the footage closely enough, you can actually see smoke come out of Rove’s ears as his brain malfunctions. At one point even Megyn Kelly couldn’t take Rove’s BS any longer and asked him if the number-crunching he was doing was “math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better.”

But it wasn’t only the on-air personalities at Fox who were shocked and appalled by the election outcome. White conservatives across the nation were caught off guard, and oh how they mourned . As the AlterNet team wrote in a post-election roundup , it’s pretty easy to see why: despite all evidence to the contrary, right-wing pundits were telling whoever would listen that Romney would win by a landslide. They attacked Nate Silver, the New York Times blogger and statistics savant, who, it turns out, nailed it . They claimed Black voters wouldn’t turn out for Obama, and plenty of other obvious nonsense. Basically, they were living in a fantasy land that did not reflect the reality of the election or the citizens of this country.

At the Christian Science Monitor , Gloria Goodale has an interesting piece on the right-wing media’s alternate version of reality. She writes:

[R]ather than the purportedly surprising election results reflecting some national subversion of the voting process, many political scientists and other analysts say this right-wing upset is dramatic evidence of a growing partisan divide in our media.

Increasingly, the public consumes media that reinforce personal views rather than give actual information about the world, says University of San Francisco political scientist Corey Cook.

“The biggest story of this election is the stories that were being told about the election,” says Professor Cook….“It was really as if places like MSNBC and Fox were talking about completely different races,” he adds.

Goodale’s sources also note that major networks like NBC share some of the blame in misleading viewers. But in their case, the deception seems to have been largely relegated to claims that the race was neck-and-neck, when in fact Obama was the clear leader in the polls; close elections are of course better for ratings.

Outlets manufacturing a false sense of drama to make more money is loathsome, but the fallout from the right-wing media’s trip to la-la land seems to be much more profound for conservatives who were given a false sense of hope. Whether many conservatives will disavow Fox and its ilk over its election lies remains to be seen. But it’s entirely possible that this time the right-wing media has gone too far. As Amanda Marcotte wrote in a blog post earlier today, “Without lies, what does the right wing media have? Not much.”

 

Comments Off

Filed under Fox News Lies, Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods

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

Saturday Morning Round Up – 10-27-2012

Nate Silver’s Newest Prediction: 73% Obama!

CNN knows their spin, and they’re sticking with it

The Romney Hustle: Why the Media is So Wrong

John McCain says the Iraq War was Colin Powell’s fault

Election Nightmare Scenarios: What Could Happen on Nov. 7?

Don’t let them get away with voter registration fraud in Virginia

Surprise: Republicans Have Embarrassed Themselves Over Benghazi

Giuliani: If Contraception Is Covered, ‘It’s Only Fair’ to Provide Viagra

Ann Coulter’s Lame Defense, Lena Dunham’s Controversial Obama Ad, and More

How A Decade Of Rising Housing And Transportation Costs Squeezed The Middle Class

4 Comments

Filed under U.S. Politics

Wednesday Blog Roundup

 

Politicians, Pundits and Polls

Why Are the Rich So Damn Angry?

Arctic sea ice to collapse by 2016

 Obama makes more swing state gains

19 Successful People Who Barely Sleep

Who receives government benefits, in six charts

 FiveThirtyEight Forecast: G.O.P. Senate Hopes Slipping

The Caucus: Democratic Ad Hits Romney on 47 Percent Remarks

Pat Buchanan: If Welfare Is Like “A Narcotic,” “Obama Is A Drug Dealer Of Welfare”

The Onion:Romney Apologizes To Nation’s 150 Million ‘Starving, Filthy Beggars’

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

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