538 senate model now out

[Astatine]

Silver once again shows his hand. He says that this year his default will be the deluxe model for seemingly no other reason other than that it's the most favorable to Republicans.

Don't be such a hack. 538 always uses the fundamentals-inclusive model as its default. It did the same thing in 2018 and in fact that time it led to overestimating the Democrats (since most incumbents were Democrats that cycle). There's a legitimate criticism that his model weighs incumbency too heavily, but that's different from accusing Nate ing Silver of having a partisan agenda.

The deluxe model is the model including pundit ratings and fundamentals, the classic includes fundamentals only. In 2018, the classic model was the standard being instantly shown, now it is the deluxe model. The deluxe models gives Democrats a 58 % chance of gaining control of the Senate, while the classic model says it is 64 %. Considering how Nate Silver jumped on the horserace narrative for the the presidential model, this seems... noteworthy, at least.

[Sorenroy]

Silver once again shows his hand. He says that this year his default will be the deluxe model for seemingly no other reason other than that it's the most favorable to Republicans.

Don't be such a hack. 538 always uses the fundamentals-inclusive model as its default. It did the same thing in 2018 and in fact that time it led to overestimating the Democrats (since most incumbents were Democrats that cycle). There's a legitimate criticism that his model weighs incumbency too heavily, but that's different from accusing Nate ing Silver of having a partisan agenda.

For the record, the 2018 model used the "Classic" model as its default. Their own coverage of their models two years ago was that the "Deluxe" was probably a slightly better forecast, but that they were defaulting the Classic because it was more reflective of 538's own data and didn't reach beyond the site. I don't think the change is a conspiracy, especially since they probably should have been going with the best model before anyway, but there's no doubt that they changed it up for this year.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Silver once again shows his hand. He says that this year his default will be the deluxe model for seemingly no other reason other than that it's the most favorable to Republicans.

Don't be such a hack. 538 always uses the fundamentals-inclusive model as its default. It did the same thing in 2018 and in fact that time it led to overestimating the Democrats (since most incumbents were Democrats that cycle). There's a legitimate criticism that his model weighs incumbency too heavily, but that's different from accusing Nate ing Silver of having a partisan agenda.

For the record, the 2018 model used the "Classic" model as its default. Their own coverage of their models two years ago was that the "Deluxe" was probably a slightly better forecast, but that they were defaulting the Classic because it was more reflective of 538's own data and didn't reach beyond the site. I don't think the change is a conspiracy, especially since they probably should have been going with the best model before anyway, but there's no doubt that they changed it up for this year.

Nobody says it's a conspiracy or he does it for partisan reasons. The guy is simply trying to cover his ass in case of a new 2016 or a new Florida 2018. It's the same reason why his presidential model and poll aggregate favor Trump this year.

[WD]

Silver once again shows his hand. He says that this year his default will be the deluxe model for seemingly no other reason other than that it's the most favorable to Republicans.

Don't be such a hack. 538 always uses the fundamentals-inclusive model as its default. It did the same thing in 2018 and in fact that time it led to overestimating the Democrats (since most incumbents were Democrats that cycle). There's a legitimate criticism that his model weighs incumbency too heavily, but that's different from accusing Nate ing Silver of having a partisan agenda.

For the record, the 2018 model used the "Classic" model as its default. Their own coverage of their models two years ago was that the "Deluxe" was probably a slightly better forecast, but that they were defaulting the Classic because it was more reflective of 538's own data and didn't reach beyond the site. I don't think the change is a conspiracy, especially since they probably should have been going with the best model before anyway, but there's no doubt that they changed it up for this year.

Nobody says it's a conspiracy or he does it for partisan reasons. The guy is simply trying to cover his ass in case of a new 2016 or a new Florida 2018. It's the same reason why his presidential model and poll aggregate favors Trump this year.

He has no integrity, thats all. Also it’s hard to take this model seriously when it gives Jones a better chance of winning than Ossoff LMAO.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Ginsberg dying helps Trump moreso than Biden, Justice Barrett and adoption and birth control are the norms now, not abortion

I guess that CRT packing plan is really gonna have to go into effect. Thanks for nothing to both Clinton's, Bill for nominating an elder judge and Hilary for losing

[Sorenroy]

Silver once again shows his hand. He says that this year his default will be the deluxe model for seemingly no other reason other than that it's the most favorable to Republicans.

Don't be such a hack. 538 always uses the fundamentals-inclusive model as its default. It did the same thing in 2018 and in fact that time it led to overestimating the Democrats (since most incumbents were Democrats that cycle). There's a legitimate criticism that his model weighs incumbency too heavily, but that's different from accusing Nate ing Silver of having a partisan agenda.

For the record, the 2018 model used the "Classic" model as its default. Their own coverage of their models two years ago was that the "Deluxe" was probably a slightly better forecast, but that they were defaulting the Classic because it was more reflective of 538's own data and didn't reach beyond the site. I don't think the change is a conspiracy, especially since they probably should have been going with the best model before anyway, but there's no doubt that they changed it up for this year.

Nobody says it's a conspiracy or he does it for partisan reasons. The guy is simply trying to cover his ass in case of a new 2016 or a new Florida 2018. It's the same reason why his presidential model and poll aggregate favors Trump this year.

He has no integrity, thats all. Also it’s hard to take this model seriously when it gives Jones a better chance of winning than Ossoff LMAO.

You're both saying that Nate Silver is making his model worse in order to lean on the numbers and fabricate a good outcome for the Republicans when Silver himself has said that's absolutely not true. That's not conspiratorial thinking? I don't doubt that thought was put into switching the default model from Classic to Deluxe, but I doubt it was to collect brownie points from people who don't understand how percentages work.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Its gonna be a 291-247 EC map, FL, NC are gonna vote R and AZ, CO, ME, NC and SC gives Ds 51 seats without that GA, all the other races are Safe partisan trends

Disappearing Daines will get reelected like Disappearing Markey, whom Markey since renomination hasnt made a single floor speech about stimulus
 

[Antonio the Sixth]

The amount of bullsh*t Nate Silver gets from statistically illiterate morons who can't fathom a model that doesn't confirm their priors is genuinely staggering. I don't even like the guy! He's just a bland, unoriginal pundit who happens to be good at math. And yeah, he makes plenty of modeling choices that I think are silly (I already criticized the experts thing in 2018). But some of you people are incapable to criticize him on anything more than dumb partisan hackery. It's really sad.

[WD]

The amount of bullsh*t Nate Silver gets from statistically illiterate morons who can't fathom a model that doesn't confirm their priors is genuinely staggering. I don't even like the guy! He's just a bland, unoriginal pundit who happens to be good at math. And yeah, he makes plenty of modeling choices that I think are silly (I already criticized the experts thing in 2018). But some of you people are incapable to criticize him on anything more than dumb partisan hackery. It's really sad.

It’s not partisan hackery to point out legitimate flaws in the model. Silver isn’t some God whos above criticism.  This model:

1. Has Jones as more likely to win than Ossoff, Bollier and Hegar. I don’t even need to explain why this is absurd.

2. Gives McSally a better chance of winning than James. Sorry, but McSally is down by double digits on average, is underperforming Trump, and would probably lose even if he carried the state. She’s beyond DOA. James on the other hand is performing on par with Trump, has narrowly the gap recently, and is in a much more demographically friendly state.

3. Gives Bullock and Gardner equal chances of winning. Yeah, in a D leaning year an incumbent Republican Senator trailing by double digits in a D trending state is just as likely to win as a Democratic Challenger who’s trailing by no more than 3 on average in a state that’s quite friendly to Democrats downballot. Not to mention that Biden will win CO by more than Trump will win MT, numerous polls have shown Trump winners MT by mid to high singel digits, while nearly ever CO poll has shown Biden up double digits. Gardner requires much more ticket splitting to win than Bullock. To give them equally probabilities of winning is just malpractice.

This has nothing to do with confirming anyones “priors”, it’s about Creating a model that doesn’t contradict polling and partisan lean of individual states just because Silver is worried about getting burned again like he did in 2016.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You're both saying that Nate Silver is making his model worse in order to lean on the numbers and fabricate a good outcome for the Republicans when Silver himself has said that's absolutely not true. That's not conspiratorial thinking? I don't doubt that thought was put into switching the default model from Classic to Deluxe, but I doubt it was to collect brownie points from people who don't understand how percentages work.

You people need to understand that Silver isn't anymore an unknown nerd who crunches numbers for fun on Daily Kos. He is now a big-name data pundit with a big site and a bunch of people working for him. He took a lot of heat in 2016 and it's obvious that criticism stung him.
He didn't change his model to make it worse but to hedge his bets in case a black swan event happens again this year. Not to mention that a horserace narrative benefits him personally because it means more clicks for his site.

[wbrocks67]

I mean, the Model barely has Hickenlooper winning by 5 in Colorado. That in and of itself is ridiculous

[Antonio the Sixth]

The amount of bullsh*t Nate Silver gets from statistically illiterate morons who can't fathom a model that doesn't confirm their priors is genuinely staggering. I don't even like the guy! He's just a bland, unoriginal pundit who happens to be good at math. And yeah, he makes plenty of modeling choices that I think are silly (I already criticized the experts thing in 2018). But some of you people are incapable to criticize him on anything more than dumb partisan hackery. It's really sad.

It’s not partisan hackery to point out legitimate flaws in the model. Silver isn’t some God whos above criticism.  This model:

1. Has Jones as more likely to win than Ossoff, Bollier and Hegar. I don’t even need to explain why this is absurd.

2. Gives McSally a better chance of winning than James. Sorry, but McSally is down by double digits on average, is underperforming Trump, and would probably lose even if he carried the state. She’s beyond DOA. James on the other hand is performing on par with Trump, has narrowly the gap recently, and is in a much more demographically friendly state.

3. Gives Bullock and Gardner equal chances of winning. Yeah, in a D leaning year an incumbent Republican Senator trailing by double digits in a D trending state is just as likely to win as a Democratic Challenger who’s trailing by no more than 3 on average in a state that’s quite friendly to Democrats downballot. Not to mention that Biden will win CO by more than Trump will win MT, numerous polls have shown Trump winners MT by mid to high singel digits, while nearly ever CO poll has shown Biden up double digits. Gardner requires much more ticket splitting to win than Bullock. To give them equally probabilities of winning is just malpractice.

This has nothing to do with confirming anyones “priors”, it’s about Creating a model that doesn’t contradict polling and partisan lean of individual states just because Silver is worried about getting burned again like he did in 2016.

No, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You could say that the model gives too much weight to incumbency and expert ratings, and I'd be inclined to agree with that, but instead you have to make sensationalistic appeals to specific race forecasts (criticizing a statistical model for producing forecasts you disagree with is basically like being against statistical models as a concept) and baselessly assert that Silver is deliberately skewing his model toward the GOP even though it makes absolutely no sense for him to.

If we needed any proof, the fact you seem to believe he got "burned" in 2016 definitively shows that you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Stuart98]

Hmm, yes, the "being down 18 points in the polls make you more likely to win" take from the 538 classic model here:



The other two models also show (less dramatic) swings towards Jones. I'm dumbfounded at what they're seeing that's good news for him here. This is literally the worst poll for Jones so far this cycle.

[wbrocks67]

yeah, it's clear that the AL + CO models are giving way too much credence to Jones and Gardner being Incumbents

[ProgressiveModerate]

Hmm, yes, the "being down 18 points in the polls make you more likely to win" take from the 538 classic model here:



The other two models also show (less dramatic) swings towards Jones. I'm dumbfounded at what they're seeing that's good news for him here. This is literally the worst poll for Jones so far this cycle.

But muh fundementals. When you think about it, that -18% poll is good for him because he greatly outperformed AL's PVI's last cycle, and as we know from 2018, incumbency is the end all be all.

[Sorenroy]

Hmm, yes, the "being down 18 points in the polls make you more likely to win" take from the 538 classic model here:



The other two models also show (less dramatic) swings towards Jones. I'm dumbfounded at what they're seeing that's good news for him here. This is literally the worst poll for Jones so far this cycle.

Looks like it was an error. They updated it and now Jones only has a 24% chance to win in the Deluxe model (down from 28% yesterday). Probably just reversed the numbers or something.

[Stuart98]

Hmm, yes, the "being down 18 points in the polls make you more likely to win" take from the 538 classic model here:

<snip>

The other two models also show (less dramatic) swings towards Jones. I'm dumbfounded at what they're seeing that's good news for him here. This is literally the worst poll for Jones so far this cycle.

Looks like it was an error. They updated it and now Jones only has a 24% chance to win in the Deluxe model (down from 28% yesterday). Probably just reversed the numbers or something.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1308427398359252992
Not an error per se, but unintended behavior.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hmm, yes, the "being down 18 points in the polls make you more likely to win" take from the 538 classic model here:

<snip>

The other two models also show (less dramatic) swings towards Jones. I'm dumbfounded at what they're seeing that's good news for him here. This is literally the worst poll for Jones so far this cycle.

Looks like it was an error. They updated it and now Jones only has a 24% chance to win in the Deluxe model (down from 28% yesterday). Probably just reversed the numbers or something.

Not an error per se, but unintended behavior.

See, the rational answer to faulty model outputs is to identify specific design flaws and correct them. But some people prefer to just scream "NATE SILVER IS A HACK HE'S JUST COVERING HIS ASS SOMETHIN SOMETHIN 2016!!!1!!1!11" it seems.

[Left Wing]

Would like to note that FiveThirtyEight now forecasts that Ricky Harrington is more likely to win than Bullock, so make of that what you will

[Left Wing]

Would like to note that FiveThirtyEight now forecasts that Ricky Harrington is more likely to win than Bullock, so make of that what you will

Okay they just fixed it.