« NARN “THE FINAL WORD” TODAY FROM 3-5 P.M. | Home | COLEMAN’S CAMPAIGN PRESENTS “FRANKEN’S FRIVOLOUS FOLLIES” #2 »
538′S NATE SILVER: THE FORMER DAILY KOS CONTRIBUTOR #2
By Michael B. Brodkorb | November 22, 2008
As I noted in part #1 of my posts, numerous liberal bloggers, including the so-called “independent†media in Minnesota, are gushing about the analysis from FiveThirtyEight’s wunderkind Nate Silver.
Take a look at this post from liberal MN Indy which touts the expert analysis from Silver. In his original analysis, Silver predicts a big Franken win, saying the failed comedian is the “prohibitive favorite.†But as you can see, his opinion and prediction changes pretty steadily:
“Nate Silver, the fivethirtyeight.com political wunderkind whose prognosticating acumen landed him on the cover of today’s New York Times business section, breaks down the probabilities of who will survive the ongoing vote count in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race this morning (hat tip x 3: Braublog). His conclusion:
If, over the long run, we expect Franken to win 51% of corrected ballots, his odds of winning the recount may be quite strong — in fact, he may be the prohibitive favorite depending on the number of recounted ballots.
UPDATE: Silver has already revisited this in a new post. His adjusted take on the situation:
I hesitate to say this, but I think the evidence points on balance toward Franken being a slight favorite to win the recount.
UPDATE: In yet another installment, Silver says what we already knew: It’s a tie.
It is very, very close.” Source: Minnesota Independent, November 10, 2008
Click here for the complete post.
If this guy is as great as everyone says he is, then why is it news when he posts something that is already common knowledge?
Silver was an early proponent of the mythical Franken undervote, where during the course of the recount, we were expected to see large numbers of new Franken votes from Obama voters whose votes for Franken were inexplicably not counted.
“The long story short is as follows: if Al Franken in fact wins anywhere near 52.5% of the undercounted ballots, it is quite likely that he will prevail, even given what I would consider to be fairly pessimistic assumptions about the number of correctable errors. You could halve my estimate of the number of recounted ballots, for instance (to 5,623) and Franken still projects to prevail around 69% of the time. If, on the other hand, Franken only wins say 51% of the undercount, then the precise number of correctable errors is more important. I hesitate to say this, but I think the evidence points on balance toward Franken being a slight favorite to win the recount.” Source: FiveThirtyEight.Com, November 10, 2008
Click here for the complete post.
Of course, the basis for this theory, which Silver wasn’t afraid to say, was that Franken supporters were “vulnerable voters,†those who couldn’t figure out how to fill in an oval.
“Until now, however, we have been assuming that ballot tabulation errors are equally likely to favor Franken and Coleman — but this is probably not the case. Why not? There is substantial evidence that undervotes and overvotes are significantly more common among what we might call vulnerable voters — in particular, minorities, elderly voters, low-income and low-education voters, and first-time voters. A 2001 study for the House Committee on Government Reform, found that undervoted ballots were more than twice as common in minority-heavy, low-income precincts than in predominately white, upper-income precincts — even when using the relatively reliable, precinct-based optical scanning system that Minnesota uses. (The discrepancies are significantly higher when using less reliable technologies like punch cards.)”
###
Among other groups of vulnerable voters, however, Franken sigificantly outperformed Coleman. Franken led by 15 points among voters making $50,000 or less, while Coleman led by 3 among voters making between $50,000 and $100,000, and by 16 among voters making $100,000 or more. Coleman won white voters by 3 points, but Franken won among minorities by 40 points. And while there is no direct evidence of this in the exit polls, it is likely that Franken performed significantly better than Coleman among first-time voters. Source: FiveThirtyEight.Com, November 10, 2008
Click here for the complete post.
Silver isn’t alone is disparaging the intelligence of these voters. Bill Starr, a recount attorney for Team Franken recently gave his opinion on the make-up of Franken voters:
“Even the observers and lawyers have been instructed by their respective campaigns to not talk to the media. But Minneapolis lawyer Bill Starr, who is volunteering for the Franken campaign, was willing to say a few words. He said he thinks Franken will prevail. His hunch is based on a theory he has.
‘People who voted for Coleman are more likely to have taken the SAT in their lifetime,’ he said. ‘They’ve filled in circles. Franken voters are probably not college-educated. They’re new voters and immigrants. They’ve been brought in by groups like ACORN, from the inner cities. They’re more likely to make mistakes. I’ve bounced this off of minority people, and they agree with me.’†Source: MinnPost, November 19, 2008
Click here for the complete story.
Of course, as numbers from Minneapolis, St. Paul and St. Louis County have come in, it is becoming more and more evident that this theory that Franken would gain some 25,000 votes was nothing but wishful thinking.
In the end, it’s important to remember that statisticians like Silver can manipulate the numbers to fit their theories and personal beliefs just as easily as they can make educated guesses. So Team Franken, keep that in mind next time Silver predicts that you’re the winner and remember, don’t measure the drapes in your new Senate office just yet.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 11 Comments »
11 Responses to “538′S NATE SILVER: THE FORMER DAILY KOS CONTRIBUTOR #2”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Says the mouthpiece for the campaign that has declared premature victory not once, not twice, not three times, but four!
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 PM
So, a guy whose opinions are based on historically accurate analysis of data is not credible, but a site full of jackbooted thugs who base their posts purely on opinion are?
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:40 PM
“Says the mouthpiece for the campaign that has declared premature victory not once, not twice, not three times, but four!”
And is now reconsidering his previous proclamations of victory.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Mr. Michael B. Brodkorb: you’re a maverick.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Mike, I don’t think I’d call Silver’s estimation of the intelligence of the core Democrat demographic “disparaging”.
It’s common knowledge that the Democrat party runs like any other leftist authoritarian organization or government. At the top, you have a few power hungry, but highly intelligent leaders controlling a flock of gerbils that become less intelligent, but more virulent, the farther down the feeding chain you go.
That is why the people we see throwing their bodily waste at people during protests, as well as those that spend 80% of every day leaving asinine moonbat commentary on conservative web sites, are always so utterly stupid…they’re at the bottom of the heap.
The upper echelon does everything it can to assist them, but they cannot follow their drones into the voting booth (not that they wouldn’t love that). Left to their own devices these pathetic gerbils must depend on the intensive, but brief preparation they receive while being delivered to the polls….doesn’t always work out too well.
So, as much as I agree with your spot on analysis of Silver’s lack of talent, I do have to give him credit for not trying to deny the obvious.
Democrat voters are just not very bright….which is why they are Democrats Q.E.D.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Michael’s “spam filter” will not let me post the response to this entry that I would like to…why not Michael?
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 PM
I just can’t accept that a Democrat would ever manipulate statistics or present valid information at any time. However, I heard from Erik Paulsen that all Democrats are liars, so I guess that’s true.
Nevermind!
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 PM
It is common knowledge that Swiftee is a lonely man, devoid of any rational thoughts. Let’s all pray for his redemption.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 PM
This charlatin false-wizard of regression is full of horse-shit. I Master Frodo and Sam have with us the palantÃr of Orthanc, used by the powerful wizard Saruman.
The future results?
Coleman beats Franken by 99 votes! There you have it!
And this man with his regression who goes by the name Silver with his likely predictions using his sophisticated, but unmagical mathematical formulas attached with hunches and guesses… why he has no balls!
So what he suspects matters not, since he has not one ball to peer into unlike Sam and I. In it we see the future and its final!
Good day.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Nate Silver is statistician. He has an analysis based on assumptions. Those assumptions change based on the best available data. Silver lays out these assumptions every time he makes a prediction. If you want to go after him, go after his assumptions. You can call him names all you want, but that seems to be all you can do.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Wait! Myself and Sam have an update…it seems that while looking into the palintir that a minor change in the outcome of these one at a time handy counts has warranted a new declaration for the final count in the future! Do to unexpected gains in Hennepin County for Coleman the ending is thus: Coleman gains 49 more votes and so beats Mr. Franken by 148 votes! Instead of 99 Votes as stated before. We both will be watching for any new changes but wev’e see Al Franken over the last two weeks giving a concession speech over and over again and again so it is really hard to see how Coleman could lose.
What?…Oh Sam just heard that Gandolf will be back soon on his white horse in part because he is very curious who this Mr. Silver is.
Cheers.