FiveThirtyEight Update: GOP still slight favorite to win Senate

[dmmidmi]

Haven't Silver's Senate projections been notably less accurate than his Presidential projections?

His final prediction in 2010 had both Bennett and Reid losing, and Miller winning in Alaska: http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate

His final prediction in 2012 had both Tester and Heitkamp losing: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/

[dmmidmi]

I love how when Nate Silver predicts every state right in the 2012 election and forecasts an almost inevitable Democratic majority for decades to come he's an Atlas folk hero, but now that he's using the same methodologies to arrive at the conclusion of a GOP Senate come 2015 he's now unreliable or along the lines of any other Sabato or Rothenburg type.

Nice move, Atlas.  Nice move.

And I can't wait to see the waterworks here when the GOP gets to 51 on election night.

No one has ever claimed that Nate Silver is infallible. He's generally one of the smarter guys in the room, but there are areas where he is very obviously stronger than others (his Presidential forecasts are clearly more accurate than his Senatorial forecasts--his NCAA Bracket prediction and Oscar winner predictions are horrendous).

Additionally, these forecasts aren't based on any sort of model. Right now, these forecasts don't represent much of a departure from what Sabato and Cook are offering.

[dmmidmi]

Haven't Silver's Senate projections been notably less accurate than his Presidential projections?

His final prediction in 2010 had both Bennett and Reid losing, and Miller winning in Alaska: http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate

His final prediction in 2012 had both Tester and Heitkamp losing: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/

For those races he was basing it on the polls, and polls showed Miller ahead, Bennett, Reid, Tester, and Heitkamp behind.

That's simply not true.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/fivethirtyeight-forecast-g-o-p-senate-hopes-slipping/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Additionally, polling in the last month of the 2012 cycle showed Tester with a lead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Montana,_2012

and Heitkamp within the margin of error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_North_Dakota,_2012

[dmmidmi]

I love how when Nate Silver predicts every state right in the 2012 election and forecasts an almost inevitable Democratic majority for decades to come he's an Atlas folk hero, but now that he's using the same methodologies to arrive at the conclusion of a GOP Senate come 2015 he's now unreliable or along the lines of any other Sabato or Rothenburg type.

Nice move, Atlas.  Nice move.

And I can't wait to see the waterworks here when the GOP gets to 51 on election night.

No one has ever claimed that Nate Silver is infallible. He's generally one of the smarter guys in the room, but there are areas where he is very obviously stronger than others (his Presidential forecasts are clearly more accurate than his Senatorial forecasts--his NCAA Bracket prediction and Oscar winner predictions are horrendous).

Additionally, these forecasts aren't based on any sort of model. Right now, these forecasts don't represent much of a departure from what Sabato and Cook are offering.

So are both of those faulty as well this year regarding the Senate races?

I didn't say that. An earlier poster had said the following:

I love how when Nate Silver predicts every state right in the 2012 election and forecasts an almost inevitable Democratic majority for decades to come he's an Atlas folk hero, but now that he's using the same methodologies to arrive at the conclusion of a GOP Senate come 2015 he's now unreliable or along the lines of any other Sabato or Rothenburg type.

Nice move, Atlas.  Nice move.

And I can't wait to see the waterworks here when the GOP gets to 51 on election night.

Despite the fact that this analysis is admittedly not based on a comprehensive forecasting model, like the one Mr. Silver developed for 2012.

[dmmidmi]

I love how when Nate Silver predicts every state right in the 2012 election and forecasts an almost inevitable Democratic majority for decades to come he's an Atlas folk hero, but now that he's using the same methodologies to arrive at the conclusion of a GOP Senate come 2015 he's now unreliable or along the lines of any other Sabato or Rothenburg type.

Nice move, Atlas.  Nice move.

And I can't wait to see the waterworks here when the GOP gets to 51 on election night.

No one has ever claimed that Nate Silver is infallible. He's generally one of the smarter guys in the room, but there are areas where he is very obviously stronger than others (his Presidential forecasts are clearly more accurate than his Senatorial forecasts--his NCAA Bracket prediction and Oscar winner predictions are horrendous).

Additionally, these forecasts aren't based on any sort of model. Right now, these forecasts don't represent much of a departure from what Sabato and Cook are offering.

So are both of those faulty as well this year regarding the Senate races?

I didn't say that. An earlier poster had said the following:

I love how when Nate Silver predicts every state right in the 2012 election and forecasts an almost inevitable Democratic majority for decades to come he's an Atlas folk hero, but now that he's using the same methodologies to arrive at the conclusion of a GOP Senate come 2015 he's now unreliable or along the lines of any other Sabato or Rothenburg type.

Nice move, Atlas.  Nice move.

And I can't wait to see the waterworks here when the GOP gets to 51 on election night.

Despite the fact that this analysis is admittedly not based on a comprehensive forecasting model, like the one Mr. Silver developed for 2012.

I just wanted to be clear; since you said Silver was mistaken in his Senate forecasts, and you compared that forecast to Sabato's and Cook's, I assumed that you felt they were all off the mark.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm simply saying that the OP isn't comparing apples-to-apples here.

[dmmidmi]

In ND and MT, Silver's model gave too much weigh on "State fundamentals" at the expense of polls, which showed close races in both cases.

Shouldn't this cast some doubt on what he considers "state fundamentals"? For instance:

-Democrats have held Montana's Class 2 Senate seat since 1913
-They have also held North Dakota's Class 1 Senate seat since 1960

The concern here is that "state fundamentals" is just a fancy term for "conventional wisdom."