# Nate Silver Predicts GOP Will Take The Senate **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 26, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624 "2014-03-26T19:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/101 "2014-03-29T20:51:10Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Oh, I’m all for young people voting. Just not for Democrats unless they get progressive. Third party will do fine. Right. That’s what pseudo-progressives argued in 2000. They thought that Nobel Laurette Al Gore wasn’t pure enough and Ralph Nader was the man to support. Unfortunately Nader lied, saying he wouldn’t campaign in swing states. So the Democrats won over a majority of Florida voters, but not enough to overcome a conservative Supreme Court. Also, the Nader vote flipped New Hampshire, also sufficient to hand the election to President elect Gore. And so the Iraq War commenced: 2 trillion dollars down the shitter. After the election, Al Gore campaigned against global warming. Ralph Nader campaigned against [problematic NBA referee decisions](http://ronmwangaguhunga.blogspot.com/2008/06/media-whore-doevres-four-time.html). Basically, I can’t see a difference between Nader Greens and Republicans. It’s like tweedle dum and tweedle dee. Both oppose free trade in practice and both pursue the same ends: electing Republicans. Thank god we have real choices, like the Democratic Party. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/102 "2014-03-29T20:57:58Z")
> [@](#): > > They thought that Nobel Laurette Al Gore wasn’t pure enough… Misleading at best. At the time that Gore was running for president, he was not a Nobel laureate. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/103 "2014-03-29T22:18:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Are you thinking of the [Working Families Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party) or the [Socialist Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_USA) or the [Green Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States) or what? I like the Working Families Party platform best, but will go for the Green simply because they are better organized on a national level. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/104 "2014-03-29T22:24:01Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Right. That’s what pseudo-progressives argued in 2000. They thought that Nobel Laurette Al Gore wasn’t pure enough and Ralph Nader was the man to support. Unfortunately Nader lied, saying he wouldn’t campaign in swing states. So the Democrats won over a majority of Florida voters, but not enough to overcome a conservative Supreme Court. Also, the Nader vote flipped New Hampshire, also sufficient to hand the election to President elect Gore. And so the Iraq War commenced: 2 trillion dollars down the shitter. > > After the election, Al Gore campaigned against global warming. Ralph Nader campaigned against [problematic NBA referee decisions](http://ronmwangaguhunga.blogspot.com/2008/06/media-whore-doevres-four-time.html). > Basically, I can’t see a difference between Nader Greens and Republicans. It’s like tweedle dum and tweedle dee. Both oppose free trade in practice and both pursue the same ends: electing Republicans. Thank god we have real choices, like the Democratic Party. Hey, all the Democratic Party has to do to get my vote, and those of other economic progressives is to work harder on ending wealth inequality, improving employment rates, especially among the young, and supporting economic policies that make life better for the middle class rather than the One Percent. But they can’t be bothered to do even a little of that. You want to talk about Tweedledum and Tweedledee? That’s the Democrats and Republicans, on economic issues. Deal. Or don’t – but you won’t get progressive votes. I’m not voting for Republican Lite any more. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/105 "2014-03-29T22:58:05Z")
It’s a somber analysis based on data available at this time. It is based to no small part on an assessment that the national environment modestly favors Republicans (an assessment I wonder about) and the basic fact that lots of the states in question are Red states. Silver is usually pretty good at acknowledging the limits of the datasets avaialble and indeed he is [this time](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/) > [@](#): > > As always, we encourage you to read this analysis with some caution. … There are still more than seven months for news events to intervene and affect the national climate. > > There are 10 races that each party has at least a 25 percent chance of winning, according to our ratings. If Republicans were to win all of them, they would gain a net of 11 seats from Democrats, which would give them a 56-44 majority in the new Senate. If Democrats were to sweep, they would lose a net of just one seat and hold a 54-46 majority. > > So our forecast might be thought of as a Republican gain of six seats — plus or minus five. The balance has shifted slightly toward the GOP. But it wouldn’t take much for it to revert to the Democrats, nor for this year to develop into a Republican rout along the lines of 2010. … So take it for what it Silver himself claims it is worth. That said I have before this come to conclude that Silver has served his purpose: he brought big time aggregation to the public consciousness as a serious tool but his aggregation is not especially better than anyone else’s (and possibly not as good as Wang’s) and is no longer an uncommonly used tool. I had not seen his current format until now and must say I am unimpressed. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/106 "2014-03-30T00:30:24Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Hey, all the Democratic Party has to do to get my vote, and those of other economic progressives is to work harder on ending wealth inequality, improving employment rates, especially among the young, and supporting economic policies that make life better for the middle class rather than the One Percent. They do all of that. Seriously. Taxes have gone up on the 1% and the latter are moaning about Nazis. I only concede that the Dems haven’t gotten credit for this. [Details](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/opinion/krugman-paranoia-of-the-plutocrats.html): Now, just to be clear, the very rich, and those on Wall Street in particular, are in fact doing worse under Mr. Obama than they would have if Mitt Romney had won in 2012. Between the partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts and the tax hike that partly pays for health reform, tax rates on the 1 percent have gone more or less back to pre-Reagan levels. Also, financial reformers have won some surprising victories over the past year, and this is bad news for wheeler-dealers whose wealth comes largely from exploiting weak regulation. So you can make the case that the 1 percent have lost some important policy battles. The stimulus package was also pro-middle class, though it sure didn’t receive broad support. If true, that’s a problem, right? And it would be a worse problem to throw your support in with GOP enablers like the Green Party, at least until we establish an electoral system that doesn’t transform third parties into spoilers. (Cue Brainglutton et al & [proportional representation](http://www.fairvote.org/).) What Obama hasn’t done is engage in a lot of pro-99% rhetoric, notwithstanding 1% perceptions to the contrary. Which hurts him with the Nader crew. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/107 "2014-03-30T04:13:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > That said I have before this come to conclude that Silver has served his purpose: he brought big time aggregation to the public consciousness as a serious tool but his aggregation is not especially better than anyone else’s (and possibly not as good as Wang’s) and is no longer an uncommonly used tool. I had not seen his current format until now and must say I am unimpressed. I think Silver’s aggregation is great, but he also includes his own regression model of some sort based on “fundamentals” that I think he overweights. As I recall, this was Sam Wang’s main criticism from 2012, that Silver’s model was still giving lots of states, and Obama overall, a probability in the 60%-75% range when the polls were pretty clear. Wang’s model had those states and Obama’s overall chances over 90%. And really, when the results were in, Silver should probably have gotten more wrong than he did given the probabilities that he was putting up. But then, it was Nate Silver explaining to idiots like Joe Scarborough and the UnSkewed Polls guy why they were being idiots, and nobody with a national microphone was paying attention to Sam Wang, and they probably never will, no matter how good his predictions are. Which really points to the value that Silver adds to the discussion: he can communicate these ideas well, writing a steady stream of posts that explain what’s going on with the polls and breaking down the numbers in a way that a large audience finds appealing. As for the current Senate races, I eagerly await something from Sam Wang (who did in fact do a better job than Silver in the 2012 Senate races), but he seems pretty quiet at the moment. I think Silver’s model is, again, giving too much weight to the “fundamentals,” except that this time, with a lack of reliable polls as compared to October 2012, it’s pushing things further away from being a tossup. For Democrats who want to look at something more optimistic, Cook Political Report has [their forecast](http://cookpolitical.com/senate), which I understand weights the polls more, and it’s got a good number of tossups in there. Between the two, I’d say you get an accurate picture of where things stand for the Democrats now: the fundamentals favor the Republicans, but the polling hasn’t yet confirmed that that’s how things are going to go down. We’ve got a decent chance to pull this off if we can get the voters out in November. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/108 "2014-03-30T06:37:28Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I like the Working Families Party platform best, but will go for the Green simply because they are better organized on a national level. _sigh_ Even now, the Socialists get no love in America, not even from lefties . . . ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/109 "2014-03-30T10:42:58Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > After the election, Al Gore campaigned against global warming. Ralph Nader campaigned against [problematic NBA referee decisions](http://ronmwangaguhunga.blogspot.com/2008/06/media-whore-doevres-four-time.html). The defeat of Al Gore in 2000 by Ralph Nader is one of the saddest ironies of American politics. Gore was the best environmental major candidate ever, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt. I think he was as green as Nader. Gore was far more progressive than most, and was one of the few smart enough to [oppose the stupid trillion-dollar adventure in Iraq.](http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html) Yet two million “progressive” voters had to exercise their “opportunity of a lifetime” to defeat Gore. :smack: And all remain proud of themselves, never donning sackcloth and ashes. Have they no shame? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/110 "2014-03-30T11:18:33Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I like the Working Families Party platform best, but will go for the Green simply because they are better organized on a national level. That ain’t what I’d call a high bar to clear, being the best organized of those. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/111 "2014-03-30T16:22:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > _sigh_ Even now, the Socialists get no love in America, not even from lefties . . . Sadly, I spent some time around actual Socialists. Their understanding of what are loosely grouped as the social sciences, the basics necessary for successful politics and policies, were as close to nil as many of the posters here. I don’t think that’s merely anecdotal. As I read history, leftists have been as repulsed from socialism by actual socialists over the last forty years as conservatives are being repulsed by libertarians today and for exactly the same reasons. Overwhelming surety with zero corresponding correctness. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/112 "2014-03-30T17:36:22Z")
The term has simply outlived is usefulness, it belongs with Bertrand Russel, G.B. Shaw, and a bygone era of heavy industry. Mostly, lefties got sick and tired of trying to explain to morons why they were not the same as Communists. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/113 "2014-03-30T20:50:20Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Sadly, I spent some time around actual Socialists. Their understanding of what are loosely grouped as the social sciences, the basics necessary for successful politics and policies, were as close to nil as many of the posters here. > > I don’t think that’s merely anecdotal. As I read history, leftists have been as repulsed from socialism by actual socialists over the last forty years as conservatives are being repulsed by libertarians today and for exactly the same reasons. Overwhelming surety with zero corresponding correctness. You spent time around US socialists I gather. The word has different connotations in Europe, even a different meaning. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/114 "2014-03-30T21:37:10Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > We’ve got a decent chance to pull this off if we can get the voters out in November. Democrats voting in non-Presidential election years is like Republicans not acting crazy. Maybe someday it’ll happen… ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624/115 "2014-03-30T22:01:14Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > You spent time around US socialists I gather. The word has different connotations in Europe, even a different meaning. American, yes. But that is what we’re talking about in this thread. Socialism in America got stuck around the time of Eugene Debs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nate-silver-predicts-gop-will-take-the-senate/684624.md?page=5)