Yeah I posted an article in another thread, I'll try and find it. Silver picks and chooses which polls to use and he'll weight polls that favor Obama more than ones that favor Romney, even if they are weeks old.
Rove calls it for Romney
- Thread starter DirkTheDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Yeah I posted an article in another thread, I'll try and find it. Silver picks and chooses which polls to use and he'll weight polls that favor Obama more than ones that favor Romney, even if they are weeks old.
Per LK's request, the original article by Josh Jordan of National Review with specifics in linked in this article:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/31/latest-defense-of-nate-silver-even-when-hes-wrong-hes-right/
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/31/latest-defense-of-nate-silver-even-when-hes-wrong-hes-right/
ArlingtonDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,861
- Reaction score
- 413
That's not accurate, Go. Silver assigns weight to polling firms based on their methodologies, not their findings. This is clearly explained on his website. He uses all polls from all firms that have reliable standards. He also explains, in detail, why he doesn't use some polls, like, say Zogby (unscientific), or why he assign less weight to some, like, say, Rasmussen (poor track record, trackable bias in one direction). It's all there to examine. This obsession with believing there's an intentional bias in his formula is baffling. You can argue that he's wrong, but the idea that he's shilling for Obama is just plain paranoia.
This was the same system Silver used to correctly predict the GOP surge in 2010, in addition to the Dem blowout in 2008. But I'm not going through why Silver wouldn't intentionally be wrong again. That should be clear to anyone who's ever run a business.
This was the same system Silver used to correctly predict the GOP surge in 2010, in addition to the Dem blowout in 2008. But I'm not going through why Silver wouldn't intentionally be wrong again. That should be clear to anyone who's ever run a business.
BarcaDeac
Well-known member
ArlingtonDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,861
- Reaction score
- 413
Another article that doesn't conduct any actual analysis of Silver's methodology. It's basically just saying numbers can be wrong, he's using old polls, and you can't track momentum. That's not even accurate. First, you can track momentum. Look at the most recent polls. Second, whatever polling momentum Romney had largely stopped last week. Again, look at the most recent polls. That's pretty easy to check. Go look yourself. Silver lays out each one, state by state, right there on the front page.
The article also seems to forget that Silver's model predicts the electoral college, not the popular vote. I didn't see anything in there that contradicted Silver's assertion that Obama is leading in the vast majority of polls conducted in the four key states he needs to win by the path of least resistance: NV, WI, OH, and IA. Show me something tangible that suggests Obama is not a favorite in those four states. And, given that, how could he not be a decent favorite to win? He's also leading in states he doesn't need -- CO, VA, and NH -- any of which could plug a gap should he stumble in any of the other four. That's why he's over 3:1 for Silver. Engage that argument.
It's getting hard to argue that 3:1 isn't about right, unless the entire polling system in way off. I guess that's the straw to cling to. But enough with the "he's lying" charges. They make no sense.
PhilliesDeacs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,450
- Reaction score
- 164
For clarification purposes, the "bet" is a donation to the ARC
ArlingtonDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,861
- Reaction score
- 413
I'm more looking forward to next time the pendulum swings, and the GOP candidate is the favorite. His word will become gospel.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331192/nate-silver-s-flawed-model-josh-jordan?pg=1#
Here's the 2nd half of the article:
Whatever the explanation, Silver’s strong showing in the 2008 election, coupled with his consistent predictions that Obama will win in November, has given Democrats a reason for optimism. While there is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of the polls, it should be noted that Nate Silver is openly rooting for Obama, and it shows in the way he forecasts the election.
On September 30, leading into the debates, Silver gave Obama an 85 percent chance and predicted an Electoral College count of 320–218. Today, the margins have narrowed — but Silver still gives Obama a 67 percent chance and an Electoral College lead of 288–250, which has led many to wonder if he has observed the same movement to Romney over the past three weeks as everyone else has. Given the fact that an incumbent president is stuck at 47 percent nationwide, the odds might not be in Obama’s favor, and they certainly aren’t in his favor by a 67–33 margin.
The main reason that Silver feels Obama is still an overwhelming favorite is that while Romney has surged in the polls to tie (or lead) Obama nationally, the challenger is still, in Silver’s opinion, a long shot to pull together enough battleground states to get to 270 electoral votes. This is the real problem with Silver’s model in the eyes of many Romney backers — the “weighting” he puts into state polls gives an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective. For example, Silver currently gives Obama a 70 percent chance of winning Ohio. A component of this is a weighted “polling average” of Obama’s support at 48.2 percent to Romney’s at 45.2. The current Real Clear Politics average is nearly a full point more favorable to Romney: It has Obama at 48.1 and Romney at 46.0. The difference comes from the fact that Real Clear Politics gives equal weight to all of the polls it includes and uses only the most recent polls from each polling organization in a given timeframe.
While many in the media (and Silver himself) openly mock the idea of Republicans’ “unskewing polls” (and I am not a fan of unskewedpolls.com by any means), Silver’s weighting method is just a more subtle way of doing just that. I outlined yesterday why Ohio is closer than the polls seem to indicate by looking at the full results of the polls as opposed to only the topline head-to-head numbers. Romney is up by well over eight points among independents in an average of current Ohio polls, the overall sample of those same polls is more Democratic than the 2008 electorate was, and Obama’s two best recent polls are among the oldest.
But look at some of the weights applied to the individual polls in Silver’s model. The most current Public Policy Polling survey, released Saturday, has Obama up only one point, 49–48. That poll is given a weighting under Silver’s model of .95201. The PPP poll taken last weekend had Obama up five, 51–46. This poll is a week older but has a weighting of 1.15569.
The NBC/Marist Ohio poll conducted twelve days ago has a higher weighting attached to it (1.31395) than eight of the nine polls taken since. The poll from twelve days ago also, coincidentally enough, is Obama’s best recent poll in Ohio, because of a Democratic party-identification advantage of eleven points. By contrast, the Rasmussen poll from eight days later, which has a larger sample size, more recent field dates, but has an even party-identification split between Democrats and Republicans, has a weighting of .88826, lower than any other poll taken in the last nine days.
Furthermore, Silver explained on Saturday that a tie in the Gravis Marketing Ohio poll is actually a negative for Romney in his forecast because Gravis shows a Republican-leaning bias in polling. But the Gravis poll released Saturday has a nine point advantage in party identification for Democrats — almost double the Democrats’ advantage in the 2008 election. Then, regarding the PPP Ohio poll mentioned above (where Romney cut Obama’s five-point lead to one in a week), Silver notes that “Public Policy Polling has lost most of the strong Democratic lean that it had earlier in the cycle.” He means that PPP’s polling results have tended to favor Obama less than they used to, and thus that the “house effect” of their Democratic tilt has lessened. But this subjective measure fails to take into account the possibility that Romney is doing better among the same samples. The PPP poll of Ohio actually leaned more Democratic this week; Democrats had an eight-point party-ID advantage this week but only a four-point advantage last week. So while the poll swung more to Obama’s advantage in the sample, Silver declares that it has actually lost its “Democratic lean.”
Here's the 2nd half of the article:
Whatever the explanation, Silver’s strong showing in the 2008 election, coupled with his consistent predictions that Obama will win in November, has given Democrats a reason for optimism. While there is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of the polls, it should be noted that Nate Silver is openly rooting for Obama, and it shows in the way he forecasts the election.
On September 30, leading into the debates, Silver gave Obama an 85 percent chance and predicted an Electoral College count of 320–218. Today, the margins have narrowed — but Silver still gives Obama a 67 percent chance and an Electoral College lead of 288–250, which has led many to wonder if he has observed the same movement to Romney over the past three weeks as everyone else has. Given the fact that an incumbent president is stuck at 47 percent nationwide, the odds might not be in Obama’s favor, and they certainly aren’t in his favor by a 67–33 margin.
The main reason that Silver feels Obama is still an overwhelming favorite is that while Romney has surged in the polls to tie (or lead) Obama nationally, the challenger is still, in Silver’s opinion, a long shot to pull together enough battleground states to get to 270 electoral votes. This is the real problem with Silver’s model in the eyes of many Romney backers — the “weighting” he puts into state polls gives an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective. For example, Silver currently gives Obama a 70 percent chance of winning Ohio. A component of this is a weighted “polling average” of Obama’s support at 48.2 percent to Romney’s at 45.2. The current Real Clear Politics average is nearly a full point more favorable to Romney: It has Obama at 48.1 and Romney at 46.0. The difference comes from the fact that Real Clear Politics gives equal weight to all of the polls it includes and uses only the most recent polls from each polling organization in a given timeframe.
While many in the media (and Silver himself) openly mock the idea of Republicans’ “unskewing polls” (and I am not a fan of unskewedpolls.com by any means), Silver’s weighting method is just a more subtle way of doing just that. I outlined yesterday why Ohio is closer than the polls seem to indicate by looking at the full results of the polls as opposed to only the topline head-to-head numbers. Romney is up by well over eight points among independents in an average of current Ohio polls, the overall sample of those same polls is more Democratic than the 2008 electorate was, and Obama’s two best recent polls are among the oldest.
But look at some of the weights applied to the individual polls in Silver’s model. The most current Public Policy Polling survey, released Saturday, has Obama up only one point, 49–48. That poll is given a weighting under Silver’s model of .95201. The PPP poll taken last weekend had Obama up five, 51–46. This poll is a week older but has a weighting of 1.15569.
The NBC/Marist Ohio poll conducted twelve days ago has a higher weighting attached to it (1.31395) than eight of the nine polls taken since. The poll from twelve days ago also, coincidentally enough, is Obama’s best recent poll in Ohio, because of a Democratic party-identification advantage of eleven points. By contrast, the Rasmussen poll from eight days later, which has a larger sample size, more recent field dates, but has an even party-identification split between Democrats and Republicans, has a weighting of .88826, lower than any other poll taken in the last nine days.
Furthermore, Silver explained on Saturday that a tie in the Gravis Marketing Ohio poll is actually a negative for Romney in his forecast because Gravis shows a Republican-leaning bias in polling. But the Gravis poll released Saturday has a nine point advantage in party identification for Democrats — almost double the Democrats’ advantage in the 2008 election. Then, regarding the PPP Ohio poll mentioned above (where Romney cut Obama’s five-point lead to one in a week), Silver notes that “Public Policy Polling has lost most of the strong Democratic lean that it had earlier in the cycle.” He means that PPP’s polling results have tended to favor Obama less than they used to, and thus that the “house effect” of their Democratic tilt has lessened. But this subjective measure fails to take into account the possibility that Romney is doing better among the same samples. The PPP poll of Ohio actually leaned more Democratic this week; Democrats had an eight-point party-ID advantage this week but only a four-point advantage last week. So while the poll swung more to Obama’s advantage in the sample, Silver declares that it has actually lost its “Democratic lean.”
Silver isn't a liar, he's a partisan.
3 to 1 is nuts, 2 to 1 was much more acceptable to me. I've always thought it was 60/40 until about 2 weeks ago and I thought it had gone down to 55/45ish. Personally I believe it will be a Romney victory but I can choose to believe whatever I want, its a free country and I like being positive.
3 to 1 is nuts, 2 to 1 was much more acceptable to me. I've always thought it was 60/40 until about 2 weeks ago and I thought it had gone down to 55/45ish. Personally I believe it will be a Romney victory but I can choose to believe whatever I want, its a free country and I like being positive.
ArlingtonDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,861
- Reaction score
- 413
Again, the article is basically saying you shouldn't weigh polls, and then goes on to say that they don't like how Silver does it and alleges partisan bias (which, again, makes zero sense for Silver, professionally or financially, in an industry where accuracy is what your next four years worth of paychecks will be based upon). Meanwhile, Silver is saying that all polls are not created equal, and shouldn't be treated as such, because not every polling group uses proper methodology. And he believes that such careful source inspection separates the wheat from the chaff.
Evaluating sources and weighing them by their rigor is how Silver has been able to be so accurate. That is not partisan, since it worked equally to show a GOP surge in 2010. And that is the disconnect.
If you want to say his formula is flawed, go ahead. But it's not intentionally warped to get Obama outcomes, unless he plans to retire in seven days.
Evaluating sources and weighing them by their rigor is how Silver has been able to be so accurate. That is not partisan, since it worked equally to show a GOP surge in 2010. And that is the disconnect.
If you want to say his formula is flawed, go ahead. But it's not intentionally warped to get Obama outcomes, unless he plans to retire in seven days.
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
HASHTAG WAR
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
Whenever I am trying to determine who is a more credible source of information on any topic, I try to figure out the incentives that might be motivating the source.
In the case of Silver vs. Republican Punditocracy, I figure Silver has extremely strong incentives to be accurate with his model. He has staked his credibility and his future career on his model being accurate, no matter who wins. Even though I think he would be the first to tell you that a 75% chance for Obama to win is still a 25% chance for Obama to lose, if he goes into election night showing Obama at 75% and Romney wins, his blog and paycheck from the NYT are over.
On the other hand, the Punditocracy has no incentive to be accurate, because they will still have their bloviating jobs whether their prognostications and allegations are accurate. In fact they have every incentive to be biased against anything that shows their guy losing, because that might depress the Republican turnout.
Given those incentives, I find Silver to be far more credible than any talking head on Fox or any right-wing internet pundit.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am voting for Gary Johnson, so I don't really have much of a dog in this fight.
In the case of Silver vs. Republican Punditocracy, I figure Silver has extremely strong incentives to be accurate with his model. He has staked his credibility and his future career on his model being accurate, no matter who wins. Even though I think he would be the first to tell you that a 75% chance for Obama to win is still a 25% chance for Obama to lose, if he goes into election night showing Obama at 75% and Romney wins, his blog and paycheck from the NYT are over.
On the other hand, the Punditocracy has no incentive to be accurate, because they will still have their bloviating jobs whether their prognostications and allegations are accurate. In fact they have every incentive to be biased against anything that shows their guy losing, because that might depress the Republican turnout.
Given those incentives, I find Silver to be far more credible than any talking head on Fox or any right-wing internet pundit.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am voting for Gary Johnson, so I don't really have much of a dog in this fight.
Spot the Wonder
Well-known member
TR1982
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,244
- Reaction score
- 156
The only thing more amusing than the idea that Silver is intentionally skewing his numbers for Obama is the idea that his model is flawless. The same people who challenge Republicans to present proof that there is a flaw in his methodology can only bring up his performance in 2008 and the fact that he has a blog on the New York Times website as evidence that his model is actually any good. Guess what? Rasmussen had a nearly flawless 2008. I don't see you guys falling over yourselves to show the flaws in his methodology. And while there may be some, his polling methods overall undoubtedly hold up to the same low level of scrutiny you guys subject Silver's model to.
Shooshmoo
Well-known member
Link?
DeacLaw05
Well-known member
Really the only conclusion I can draw from reading this thread is that of all of those that are polling the electorate or taking positions regarding the likely outcome of the election, Nate Silver is the only one whose professional reputation is riding on the outcome of his predictions, and thus he is the only person likely to tell the truth. Amrite?
Bingo!!
Follow the money!
If Gallup or Rasmussen or PPP get it wrong, what happens? They keep going.
If Silver is wrong he loses his million dollar job and he is replaced by a new flavor of the month, he's on the street.
Who needs to be right the most?
Follow the money!
If Gallup or Rasmussen or PPP get it wrong, what happens? They keep going.
If Silver is wrong he loses his million dollar job and he is replaced by a new flavor of the month, he's on the street.
Who needs to be right the most?
PhilliesDeacs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,450
- Reaction score
- 164
No, because his model is predicting an Obama win, so he must be biased. Liberal media.