Nate’s Numbers: the numbers converge

I’ve spent all my professional life drenched in numbers and statistics so Nate Silver’s numbers fascinate me. It’s probably the same reason they drive Republicans and pundits to distraction. Unraveling trend is easier with numbers than hateful, wishful thinking motivated by political piety. So, Karl Rove got on TV–probably trying to save what’s left of his credibility–saying that Romentum was stopped by Sandy. Romentum was a bit of canard and it turns out so is Sandy. Silver tries to discern the possible factors behind the recent numbers and looks at the Sandy Factor.  That’s a relatively simple task for any one with a database and a background in trend analysis.

When the hurricane made landfall in New Jersey on Oct. 29, Mr. Obama’s chances of winning re-election were 73 percent in the FiveThirtyEight forecast. Since then, his chances have risen to 86 percent, close to his highs on the year.

But, while the storm and the response to it may account for some of Mr. Obama’s gains, it assuredly does not reflect the whole of the story.

Mr. Obama had already been rebounding in the polls, slowly but steadily, from his lows in early October — in contrast to a common narrative in the news media that contended, without much evidence, that Mr. Romney still had the momentum in the race.

Moreover, there are any number of alternatives to explain Mr. Obama’s gains before and after the storm hit.

  • Mr. Obama was adjudicated the winner of the second and third presidential debates in surveys of voters who watched them.
  • The past month has brought a series of encouraging economic news, including strong jobs reports in October and last Friday.
  • The bounce in the polls that Mr. Romney received after the Denver debate may have been destined to fade in part, as polling bounces often do following political events like national conventions.
  • Democrats have an edge in early voting based on states that provide hard data about which party’s voters have turned out to cast ballots. Some voters who were originally rejected by the likely voter models that surveys apply may now be included if they say that they have already voted.
  • Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have been running lots of advertisements, which could have some effect, especially in the swing states.
  • Mr. Obama’s voter-targeting operation may in fact be stronger than Mr. Romney’s and may have begun to show up in the polls.
  • Mr. Obama’s approval rating is at 49 or 50 percent in many surveys, a threshold that would ordinarily predict a narrow re-election for an incumbent.
  • Some elections “break” toward one or another candidate at the end as undecided voters tune in and begin to evaluate their decision.

Each of these hypotheses could merit its own article. But the point is that the causes for Mr. Obama’s gain in the polls are overdetermined, meaning that there are lot of variables that might have contributed to the one result.

If I had told you in January that Mr. Obama’s approval rating would have risen close to 50 percent by November, and that the unemployment rate would have dropped below 8 percent, you likely would have inferred that Mr. Obama was a favorite for re-election, with or without a hurricane and what was judged to be a strong response to it.

Whatever the causal factors, Nate’s numbers look good for the President.  Sam Wang–a Princeton number kruncher–says it not only looks like the President will hold his office but that the US Senate might see a Democratic Pick up of two.  This is an important firewall for those of us that care about things like Supreme Court appointments and getting rid of the filibuster silliness that has allowed the Republicans to basically thwart governing.  Dems may pick up Nebraska and Pennsylvania.

Rather than responding to the analysis, the Republicans continue to attack Nate Silver the man.  You may recall this Krugman piece last week about The War on Objectivity.

Brad DeLong points me to this National Review attack on Nate Silver, which I think of as illustrating an important aspect of what’s really happening in America.

For those new to this, Nate is a sports statistician turned political statistician, who has been maintaining a model that takes lots and lots of polling data — most of it at the state level, which is where the presidency gets decided — and converts it into election odds. Like others doing similar exercises — Drew LinzerSam Wang, and Pollster — Nate’s model continued to show an Obama edge even after Denver, and has shown that edge widening over the past couple of weeks.

This could be wrong, obviously. And we’ll find out on Election Day. But the methodology has been very clear, and all the election modelers have been faithful to their models, letting the numbers fall where they may.

Yet the right — and we’re not talking about the fringe here, we’re talking about mainstream commentators and publications — has been screaming “bias”! They know, just know, that Nate must be cooking the books. How do they know this? Well, his results look good for Obama, so it must be a cheat. Never mind the fact that Nate tells us all exactly how he does it, and that he hasn’t changed the formula at all.

This is, of course, reminiscent of the attack on the Bureau of Labor Statistics — not to mention the attacks on climate science and much more. On the right, apparently, there is no such thing as an objective calculation. Everything must have a political motive.

This is really scary. It means that if these people triumph, science — or any kind of scholarship — will become impossible. Everything must pass a political test; if it isn’t what the right wants to hear, the messenger is subjected to a smear campaign.

Any kind of scholarship has become challenging under Republican fanaticism as witnessed by the attacks on evolution, climate change, and the economic analysis that shows there is no such thing as an economic benefit created by low marginal tax rates for the rich.  Just ask scientists trying to get grants to study things like stem cell research. Fox gets people to believe anything.  Science causes them to retreat to their medieval churches and scream about intervention by celestial beings.  (So, if gawd caused Sandy to take out NJ and NY because of Gay Rights, does this mean gawd caused Sandy to give Obama momentum?  Ask Grand Inquisitor Pat Robertson about that one.)

Yes, Nate’s numbers took another upward tick this morning.  He also believes that Obama will take the popular vote which should be dismaying to all those journalists that keep wanting to turn this into a white knuckle election.

Silver also added to Obama’s likely number of electoral votes on Monday. He now sees the president winning 307.2 to 230.8 for Mitt Romney, a tiny tick higher than he saw the race on Sunday.

He also sees Obama capturing the popular vote, taking 50.6 percent to Romney’s 48.5.

Rachel Maddow insists the Republicans see the numbers and actually believe that their man Mittster is a goner.  The blame game has already begun.  Haley Barbor blames Sandy.  Lindsey Graham is actually looking at numbers and notices that that demographics are not in their favor.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:  ”If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn’t conservative enough I’m going to go nuts. We’re not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we’re not being hard-ass enough.”

– Politico quotes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), saying that demographics would be the only reason for a hypothetical Mitt Romney loss Tuesday.

Yeah, the blame game has begun and the election isn’t even over. Funny he should bring up Hispanic and black voters. Latino Decisions found that Hispanics support President Obama in historic numbers — 73 percent. They believe that’s enough to carry President Obama to victory in four swing states and ultimately to win re-election. Those four swing states are  Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and Florida.

This is closer to the truth.  Republican policy statements as expressed by “severely conservative” Mitt have driven off the young, hispanics, blacks, and women.   I had MSNBC on mute most of the weekend when they were following the candidates around.  All you have to do is look at the people used as back drops for candidates’ speeches to realize who really is on the losing side of US demographics.  This is part of the numbers game.  You can’t build momentum or fantasize a trend based on capturing an ever decreasing slice of the American Pie.

Which brings me to the post election deconstruction that should occur in the Republican party.  When will the actually give up on the Southern Strategy?  We’ve seen more race baiting in this election that I’ve frequently wondered if the ghost of George Wallace is running the Romney campaign.  We’ve seen attacks on women’s rights that make me wonder if Republicans know that women got the right to vote. We’ve seen support of policies that are based on show us your papers that remind me of old NAZI movies.  You can’t attack and demonize the majority of the electorate and expect the numbers to come in for you.  You also can’t build policy on attacking scientific models and theories.  The Republican party has definitely shown that its plan for America is to try to recreate the past no matter what the cost.

All I can say is go Nate go!  Win one for Ada Lovelace and the country.  There are easy ways to figure out which events contribute to trend and what’s just random.  People should pay more attention to Nate Silver and a lot less attention to the likes of Karl Rove and Haley Barbour.  Nate Silver bet Joe Scarborough $2000 that his analysis was right saying “Occam’s Razor: Pundits are useless”.   That’s something I completely grok.

“I think I get a lot of grief because I frustrate narratives that are told by pundits and journalists that don’t have a lot of grounding in objective reality,”


60 Comments on “Nate’s Numbers: the numbers converge”

  1. ANonOMouse says:

    I’ll be glad when Nate can hang his hat on an Obama win. I’ll also be glad when we can exhale.

  2. pdgrey says:

    Dak, you should be on Rachel with this post, I wish I could put on paper what you have written here today. I think these things, but you always amaze me. I am just wanting more people to here this!

  3. NW Luna says:

    A big shout-out to people of science and rational thought: Dak, Nate Silver, Paul K, William of Occam, and all the rest. Calmness amongst the the chaos of senselessness.

    • dakinikat says:

      Rational thought is a rare thing these days, isn’t it?

      • HT says:

        Actually, it’s not. It’s just that rational people don’t think that it’s necessary to scream they are being persecuted, and have no problem with religion other than wanting it out of government. The problem is with the media who keep on trumpeting the non-rational thoughts in an endless loop – for goodness sake Wars on Xmas, Easter, the easter bunny….. Who own the media? Check it out. It’s not pretty.
        My fear is that this meglomania of the religious right will spread because of the media propaganda, and because rational people don’t recognize the threat, they will not react.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      Ditto to that Luna!!!!

      Also thank you Dak for being a teacher who understands how to explain complicated issues in terms that those of us who aren’t number crunchers or scientists can understand.

      • NW Luna says:

        Ditto on the succinct and understandable explanation of complicated issues. I need more work on that for my field.

  4. bostonboomer says:

    Nate Silver got a public slap on the wrist from the NYT public editor for his twitter interaction with Scarborough. It will be interesting to see how close his estimates come to the real results.

  5. You all have seen Noonan’s attack on Silver. Well check this out:

  6. pdgrey says:

    Also Nate Silver is going to be on Colbert tonight.

  7. RalphB says:

    slideshow of the sprint to the finish, first picture is Obama and Springsteen in WI.

  8. NW Luna says:

    The voter-fraud scumbags are doing it even up here on the Left Coast and on the wet side of the Upper-Left-Hand Corner State!

    Complaints follow Republicans’ offer to deliver voters’ ballots.

    Volunteers and paid employees from the Republican party organizations of King County and Washington state also have been knocking on the doors of likely Republican voters who haven’t cast their ballots yet. They have been offering to answer questions, and to help fill out and deliver ballots to drop-off centers. Republicans say the effort is just part of a bigger push to turn out voters, typical of every election.

    While not illegal, the offer to deliver ballots inflamed Democrats and caused some residents to raise concerns with King County Elections Director Sherril Huff. On Sunday, King County Executive Dow Constantine — a Democrat — joined Huff at a Seattle news conference, urging residents to safeguard their franchise. “We are strongly advising citizens if they want to be sure their ballot is counted, don’t hand your ballot over to someone you don’t know,” Constantine said.

  9. ANonOMouse says:

    Final ABC/WaPo Tracking Poll:

    Obama 50
    Romney 47

    • pdgrey says:

      This was an ass stop to begin with, but no one knew this “the white people campaign” would appear with the “Teaist” of the crazy party would ever be ask to appear with a presidenital candidate. Scott is kryptonite low 30. Like I said why aren’t people angry at Scott. I vote tomorrow, I’m wearing a hoodie.

  10. dakinikat says:

    President #Obama Stood with Women: Now Gender Gap Shows Women Are Standing with Him #vote

  11. Boo Radly says:

    Happy Birthday Kat!! Great posts today as always.

  12. pdgrey says:

    OK some one explain why a campaign would do this except they really don’t give a damn about NJ