Nate Silver sees major Republican gains in Congress next year

[Seen the light]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/13/nate-silver-sees-major-gains-for-gop-in-2010.html

PITTSBURGH — It's fast becoming conventional wisdom, but statistics wonk Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com reiterated that Democrats should be nervous about the 2010 midterm elections. "I don't think you should feel at all comforted by 2010," said Silver. The political prognosticator predicted a 20- to 50-seat loss in the House for the Democrats and either a one-seat gain or as much as a six-seat loss for the Democrats in the Senate. This comes from the same numbers guru who called the presidential election results correctly in 49 states. "Don't be complacent about 2010," Silver warned bloggers and activists attending the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh.

It goes on to say that President Obama is still looking just fine for 2012.

I've been monitoring state polls lately and they have not been too kind to Democrats. Chris Dodd is not doing that hot. Arlen Specter has been crashing in the polls lately. Blanche Lincoln has had a poll come out this week that didn't look that hot which is very surprising. On the governor side, I know Deval Patrick is showing a lot of weakness right now.


Anyway, what do you think of this?

[Emit]

1. I've met that man, heard him speak, and followed his blog. He knows his stuff.

We have work to do, but a lot will depend on who the Repugs have running.

Edited to add, however, in what context was this said, I wonder? The link you posted doesn't elaborate, doesn't indicate the context he may have said such a thing, nor does it link to anything he's written that I can see. I will remain skeptical until I read the entire context or read something he's written about on the subject. But he is very good at what he does.

[Seen the light]

5. I agree, Nate Silver is great.

I had 538 as my home page throughout much of last year.

[Skip Intro]

2. Way too early to predict 2010, imho.

[BlooInBloo]

8. It's a snapshot.

[Gormy Cuss]

80. Yes, that's exactly right. It's a prediction based on today's environment.

There's time and there are ways to sway that result on both sides.

[Johonny]

25. I'll go with that

[47of74]

3. Well, maybe if Reid and Pelosi would grow some halfway decent spines

We wouldn't have as much trouble.

And hopefully that one seat gain will be from Grassley finally being defeated.

It's all the more reason to stop this bi-partisan horseshit and get to work.

[newtothegame]

92. No doubt! Down with all opposition voices!! n/t

[hwmnbn]

4. We voted for real change...

we've gotten chump change.

[Capn Sunshine]

88. that is a great astroturf line

you should go pro

[polichick]

6. Ignorant bullies score over smart weaklings in America - something Dems don't seem to get. nt

[WeDidIt]

7. It's a reflection of the timidity

If they were bold, there would be no problems.

Their timidity will kill them.

[Kerrytravelers]

9. It makes me think that apparently the general voter continues to fall for nonsense and scare tatics.

Death panels? Kenyan fraud?

This country is more than circling the drain. We've plummeted directly down the drain and are quickly working our way to the sewer faster and faster by the minute.

I fear for this country.

[TxRider]

31. Not really

What your seeing is independents switching back due to the high spending and deficit soaring.

Like it or not, both parties have to court independents, as they decide the elections now.

Obama did a brilliant job of swinging them to his side in the election, but the bills rammed through are driving independents away.

[Kerrytravelers]

36. The ramming of what bills?

I'm quite curious as to what you're referring to.

[Ikonoklast]

37. Right-wing talking point.

"Ramming" through what bills, exactly? I'd like to know that myself.

[kelly1mm]

57. Just a guess but according to my family members the list is

1) First and second stimulus
2) Cap and trade
3) Cash 4 clunkers
4) GM/Chrysler bailouts
5) Health care reform bills (attempted ramming)

[Kerrytravelers]

59. Wow. Dinners with your family sounds like dinners with my in-laws.

Fun fun fun.

[kelly1mm]

61. It really is fun. They don't think beyond soundbites about these things.

It does give me pause before attacking the protesters though - they are not evil so much as (willfully) uninformed. They can't tell me why they don't like these things but they know there against it. The more politically savvy do raise the costs aspects which I have to admit should be considered.

[KamaAina]

43. I don't know what "your" seeing,

but what I'm seeing is the right-wing noise machine fouling the air 24/7 again, now actually resorting to brownshirt tactics at these town halls, and as usual, people falling for it. :eyes:

[Doctor_J]

49. tee-hee

did someone order a pizza?

[DCKit]

78. You funny. n/t

[Selatius]

62. The Republicans can't win. The only way they could whip Dems is if liberals stay home and don't vote

A lot of liberals were pissed off in 1994. They were angry about the failed health care reform that Clinton tried to pass, and they were absolutely infuriated with the passage of NAFTA as well as the abolition of the FDR-era welfare program Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

What did they do? In 1994, they simply didn't vote. They stayed home. Republicans demolished Democrats that year sweeping to power in both the House and Senate.

[RagAss]

10. Nate knows his stuff. We need to get to work.

[babylonsister]

11. I sure would like to know what Nate said specifically. Consider this source.

There's nothing on the google or his site.

[depakid]

35. General trends:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/looking-forward-to-2010.html

[babylonsister]

39. I saw that, but that's not Nate. nt

[Beetwasher]

87. BINGO!

Nothing on Nate's site. Where's this guy get this from? There's no source.

[BlueJazz]

12. I say..If this batch of Democrats don't pull together and do whats right, Lets...

...get a site and movement going to throw the spineless bastards out.

[elocs]

22. Republicans seem to know how to pull together toward a common goal.

Democrats seem to stake out their own turf to the exclusion of working together toward a common goal. Will Rogers had it right: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

[BrklynLiberal]

24. Ignorant, mindless hordes are easier to manipulate...

[elocs]

27. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Ben Franklin said that. What about that is difficult to understand? Or did Franklin believe the other Founding Fathers were ignorant, mindless hordes?

[BlueJazz]

46. I think what we are saying is ...If the Republicans were for Single Payer Heathcare..

...it would have already been passed.
The Repugs would have told the Democrats to "Fuck off Assholes, We're in power now and we'll do what's best for the Country"
The Democrats just bend over and say..."Please...oh Please Fuck Me..I ...I like it"

[BrklynLiberal]

94. Thank you!!!

:thumbsup: :hi:

[kelly1mm]

58. and unfortunately they vote. nt

[Doctor_J]

50. it's too late

Reid is so weak, this batch of Dems is going to be thrown out in favor of Repukes next year

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Nate is right, and at this point it is a self inflicted wound

I would not be too shocked if one chamber is lost either.

Call me Cassandra, go ahead, but as long as dems don't stand for anything (perceptions here, out there in them streets) this will continue to happen.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. The true Liberals and the Progressives need to stand up and demand that the

rest of the "Dems" show some courage and commitment to the public that voted for them...

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Agreed

[depakid]

34. That's not in the cards

The prospects for losers comes in districts with relatively small "swings" -or spreads.

Progressives are more likely to stay home there, and Republicans are more likely to turn out.

Think about it. Who's all fired up to go work for some blue dog?

[deaniac21]

14. Big news here. The minority party always gains in the next election

ater a presidential election.:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

15. I'm mostly worried about state houses

It wouldn't shock me to see some losses in the House but I think we can actually pick up a few in the Senate. Most of those battles will be fought in their territory. I don't see losing either House.

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. 53 in the Senate, with Sanders, but without Lieberman...

...CT, CO, DE, IL, WV, and HI (the latter two due to deaths and/or retirements) plus one of the following -- AR or NH.

And the House: 226.

It will be Democrats, especially progressive Democrats staying home, punishing incumbents like Dodd, and not a super-strong performance by the other party, that makes the difference.

You can see this future on this board.

[cally]

17. If the economy improves,

and health care reform is passed soon, then maybe these numbers will improve for Democrats. Nate usually gets it right so I hope the political environment changes enough to change his predictions.

[babylonsister]

18. From less than a month ago: 2010 House outlook: Democrats look secure

2010 House Outlook: Democrats Look Secure

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003177606&cpage=1

[Seen the light]

19. I believe that's only referring to the Democrats retaining their majorities

Even if what Nate Silver predicts comes true, we will still have a Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid come 2011. They'll just have less Democrats to work with.

[BrklynLiberal]

20. I am hoping that somehow the trend can be reversed.....please please please....

How can a party that was literally teetering on the edge be in a position to make gains!!!????

This is just horrible!!

I hoipe that it is just a trend that will change and not an accurate prediction..... :(

[kevinbgoode]

21. I just disagree

The guy might know his stuff, but frankly, I don't know anyone who views voting for a Republican, who they don't trust either, as the alternative for the anger they feel at Democrats.

This is not to say that many Democratic officials have not shown themselves to be outrageously out-of-touch.

The party needs to worry about those of us they are quickly turning off - it's going to be hard to convince me to vote for a blue dog just to keep the party in the majority, especially if I'm not going to ever get MY voice heard.

[starroute]

28. A lot of it has to do with turnout

What we're seeing right now in the town halls is that supporters of health care aren't passionate enough to come out and agitate for it -- but opponents are intensely motivated.

If the same thing is true of the 2010 elections -- especially given that they're midterms -- the GOP could take a lot of seats on turnout alone.

What concerns me most, as someone suggested above, is the state houses -- because that will determine the redistricting after the 2010 census.

[unblock]

29. off years are almost always a gain for the out party.

50 seats in the house would be bad indeed, but small losses in both houses would be quite normal.

[bvar22]

30. Harry Truman agrees.

"When given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican, the people will always pick Republican every time." -Harry Truman

If we are still mired in two expensive Wars, the "recovery" remains jobless, Wall Street gets more "Bailouts", and the Democrats are successful at fucking up Health Care Reform (Mandates without a REAL Public Option available to ALL), then they deserve to lose in 2010.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[rudy23]

32. They're giving no alternative to the yelling on the right . They're acting like it's 2004 and we're

in the minority in every branch.

Either they're the worst politicians in history, or they're doing they're jobs as the "good cops" of the oligarchy.

[depakid]

33. See ya around blue dogs....

You made your beds.

[Norrin Radd]

38. I got the impression from his blog that Nate leans right.

[Davis_X_Machina]

40. He's as liberal as you or I, only...

...he's got numbers to keep him honest, and you can only massage them so much when they say something you don't want to hear.

The Democrats in Congress are in deep trouble.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

41. LOL, no he doesn't.

[Norrin Radd]

42. Not convinced.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. He spent most of 2008 calming hysterical Dems after each Zogby "OMG McCain is gonna win" poll.

[Norrin Radd]

45. Still though, I cannot recall specifics this moment (as I'd have to go through his

archives), but some of his older posts gave me that impression.

[rudy23]

63. Somebody just posted his essay on "rational" Dems vs. "radical" Dems

It was from February, but someone posted it on another board just yesterday. I responded by saying Silver sounded like a DLC apologist. After reading some more of his stuff, I think he's just too left-brained for my tastes, but he seemed like a lib to me.

[Arkana]

47. Come on, Nate...50 seats? Really?

[KittyWampus]

48. no one has yet provided a link to his actual quotes so we can see context etc.

[Beetwasher]

86. BINGO!!

I call bullshit. I can't find this on Nat's site.

[Uzybone]

51. They better listen

and do more of what we voted them in there to do. There are no coattails to ride in 2010.

[Doctor_J]

52. they won't

they have 60 fucking senators and can't even get a vote.

Also, a major purge of Big Media is needed before democracy returns.

[JerseygirlCT]

53. I think a lot will depend on what they actually get done

and on what condition the economy is in then. Much can (and probably will) change between now and then.

And I think Chris Dodd will be just fine, btw. Who is going to challenge him? CT is the land of steady habit, remember.

[steelmania75]

54. Hopefully it'll be the conservadems that lose their jobs.

[Rex]

55. Nate pass whatever you are smoking.

20 - 50? :rofl:

[struggle4progress]

56. Here's what might go wrong: Repubs throw red meat to their base, Dems don't stand up to Repubs,

Repub base turns out in full force, too many Dems stay home

About half the voters show up in a Presidential year, but only about a third in a midterm

National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

[rudy23]

64. That's how I see it. Where's the passion from the Obama campaign that had us fired up

if only for a little while?

It seems like he threw water on his own fire. If you can trace it back to one day, it was the day he picked Rahm Emanuel as his number one draft pick.

[BzaDem]

70. It has nothing to do with Rahm Emanuel.

Enthusiasm voting against something is much more powerful than enthusiasm voting for something. Right now, our party is probably divided between those who are enthusiastic about what Obama is trying to do and those who are perpetually disappointed at everything Obama has done and is trying to do. Very little will please the latter group, since it seems that if something is in the realm of possibility, it would not be acceptable to the latter group.

On the other hand, the Republican party is not only united (which we are not) but energized, just as we were in 2006 and 2008. They have many differences with each other, but those differences pale in comparison with the differences they have with Democrats.

Who wins when you have a united, energized opposition against a divided status quo that is not as enthusiastic? The opposition wins easily. The seeds of 2010 were planted by the outcomes of 2006 and 2008, and there isn't a huge amount anyone can do about it. The impact can certainly be mitigated. If progressives and bluedogs can find a compromise somewhere between public option and no reform, and pass it as a united party, that might significantly mitigate the damage. The conservatives will remain united, but passing a center-left healthcare bill will hurt their enthusiasm and help us among independents. Or, progressives can stand up for what they believe is right and block moderate healthcare reform without a strong public option. That massive failure on the part of the Democratic party would unite conservatives and independents, and deliver one if not both houses of Congress to Republicans. Looking at history, it will probably be 10-20 years before we get these kinds of majorities to try to attack healthcare again. And historically, what they will be debating in 10-20 years will be breadcrums compared to the most centrist, moderate package that is being proposed here.

[rudy23]

71. We wouldn't have to be compromising with Blue Dogs if Rahm hadn't recruited them.

I'm sick of all these posts blaming progressives for "not being happy with anything" because they won't cave to the Blue Dogs. Who's sticking up for us? (by "us" I mean moderate to left leaning Dems, not Republicans posing as Dems) We know whose side Rahm is on. How are we in the Democratic base supposed to get fired up about that?

[BzaDem]

73. Really? Who would you rather compromise with? Blue dog Democrats or Republicans?

Rahm managed to recruit Democrats to win in districts where people are very conservative and hate liberal policies. If you had your way, we would be negotiating with center-right republicans instead of center-left Democrats.

Did you see what happened in the House? The concessions the Blue Dogs managed to get maybe amounted to 5% of the bill. The other 95% percent remained intact, so much so that the Blue Dogs had to spin to try to convince people that they actually got anything out of the deal.

How do you think that would work if we were instead negotiating with the Republicans who lost against the Blue Dogs in 2008? Well, let's look at the Senate, where Baucus/etc is negotiating with Grassley/etc. In those negotiations, the public option has already been taken off the table, and subsidies for the poor have dropped significantly. Would you rather that have happened in your hypothetical House of Representatives without blue dogs?

[rudy23]

74. You know that in many of those districts, recruiting a Blue Dog wasn't necessary to win.

Why are you always telling people to go vote for Cheney or Palin if we don't like the Blue Dogs? You sound exactly like Rahm and his ilk in DC, who are THRILLED that we have no other choice between the Republican and the Repub-lite. Doesn't it at least upset you as a Democrat that these are our only choices? Why the glee? The "go vote for Cheney if you don't like it" crowd in DC is far removed from how the Blue Dogs are affecting real Democrats. It's not like they have to worry about insurance. I guess you thought those commercials targeting Blue Dogs were fucking stupid, too.

I don't know how you count Baucus as center-left. Why defend Rahm Emanuel on a Democratic site, when he's hurt so many progressives, as he's doing now? What is he doing to counter the noise machine coming from the right? Nothing, because he's tag teaming with them to hurt progressives---the majority of the country who favor the public option, and who worked and donated to get Obama elected.

I've called the White House and told them that I refuse to support the President in 2012 if Rahm Emanuel is in his cabinet. I know others who are just as upset are following suit. The way he's thrown us under the bus during this debate is infuriating. The way you defend him is baffling---what's your connection to him? I can't blame him entirely though--Obama made him his number one draft pick. I'm getting that sinking feeling I got after the '06 elections when I realized that now that "we" are in power, "we" were in cahoots with "them" all along. They better right this ship fast, or they will squander the last bit of hope that Americans will ever have in a public official again.

[BzaDem]

75. Rahm simply represents a view of reality that is different than yours.

Look at each district in terms of D - R, where D is the percentage of the population that is Democratic and R is the percentage of the population that is Republican.

If you look at districts in this way, they range from about +30 to -30 (with a high concentration around +10 to -10).

In an environment such as election 2000, districts with positive scores will generally elect a Democrat, and districts with negative scores will generally elect a Republican. In an environment such as election 2006 or 2008, even districts with -4 or -5 can elect a Democrat. But districts that are -10 or -20 will still elect a Republican. (This is in general -- there are of course always a few exceptions.)

The point is, there is always a "center" point, by which districts above it will primarily elect Democrats and districts below it will primarily elect Republicans.

Rahm's goal is to move that "middle" point as far to the left as possible. To do that, he needs to find conservative democrats in districts whose scores are (say) -5 to -10, so that we win in these types of districts. Because if we put up a Dennis Kucinich in a -10 district, the district will happily and enthusiastically vote for a Cheney. After all, there are 10% more Republicans in the district than there are Democrats!

Your worldview is entirely different. You don't seem to concede that there is a "middle", beyond which most districts above it will elect Democrats and most districts below it will elect Republicans. You seem to think that every district (even ones that are 60% Republican to 40% Democrat) might elect a liberal Democrat over a Republican. You attack Rahm for thinking that it takes a certian kind of Democrat to be elected in a 60% Republican/40% Democrat district. You hate him for thinking that.

Luckliy, it is Rahm that is influencing who runs in these districts, and not you. Rahm faces real consequences for failing to elect Democrats. If he doesn't pick the strategy that elects the most Democrats, he will lose his job and our shared Democratic policy goals will not be enacted. On the other hand, you face no consequences for having such a wrong-headed philosophy beyond the message board at which you post at. You (and like minded people) can post day after day about how Blue Dogs are all evil and if only we ran liberals in their places they would win. It gets posted so much that other message board lurkers start to think it is a legitimate and correct point of view. But it isn't, and that's why the people in power will not attempt such a strategy.

The crux of all this is that you can't seem to separate substantive points from political realities. Rahm is not THRILLED from a policy standpoint that we have to put up with centrist policies in some areas. He would much rather have more liberal policies. But it is not Rahm's job to crow on a message board -- it is Rahm's job to act to get Democrats elected and policy through. Rahm IS THRILLED about being able to do that, by finding the certain type of Democrat that can win in -10 districts and whose help will allow progressive policy to be enacted, even if it is not everything we wanted.

[rudy23]

77. You seem to know the inner workings of Rahm's mind very well.

He's no Howard Dean. And stop throwing around "message board" as an insult on a message board. Why are you here if this is such a low form of debate?

Why do 60-70% of the country consistently poll in favor of liberal values, but not as many identify as Democrats? Because when given a choice between the Republican and the Republican, most people will vote Republican.

I don't know why your loyalty is so strong, but Rahm's attacking of PROGRESSIVES' failure to compromise with the Blue Dogs he recruited is going to make for a horrible narrative, should healthcare reform fail. Especially since we should be negotiating from a position of strength. Progressives have the country behind them, and the majority in Congress. Supposedly the White House, too. We were promised hope and change, and we got an agenda set by someone chasing the center right, when the left has given this admin the biggest mandate in a generation. No one respects Rahm's lack of backbone, and willingness to sell out his base. I can take compromise, and I can take concessions towards the center. We both know the "center" is artificially skewed between the right's extreme stance, and the already compromised left.

You can insult the "message board" all you want, but you know we are the alphaconsumers of political news, and eventually the views of the blogosphere trickle down to the mainstream---a process Rahm seems awfully fond of. Again, he's no Howard Dean, and he's destroying the president's campaign narrative for "hope" and "change." If healthcare reform fails, the blame will be squarely on his shoulders. At least he's not in Congress anymore.

[BzaDem]

79. You aren't even pretending to respond to anyting I've said.

You can't just pretend that the center is something other than the center. It is a mathematically defined concept. If the "center" is "artificailly skewed between the right's extreme stance, and the already compromised left," that just means on average that the country is more conservative than you would like.

I'd like to see your evidence for 60-70% of the country consistenly polling in favor of liberal values. The latest polls seem to indicate almost the exact opposite on healthcare. Larger pluralities are saying the status quo is fine. People say they want a public option if they get it for free, but not if they have to pay higher taxes for it.

And you give the left way too much credit for Obama's victory. The left is always going to vote Democratic, grudgingly or not. Political independents are the one that gave Obama his victory who in the past have denied Democrats' their victories.

[rudy23]

83. "The left is always going to vote Democratic, grudgingly or not"

Wow can't remember 9 years back?

If the Dems can't pass a decent public option, maybe some people stay home in '10 and '12, or don't contribute, don't post facebook links that show their friends why they should support a candidate. If team Orahma continues on the route they've been going on this debate, I'm certainly not donating my time or money like I did in '08. Not for another "lesser of two evils" election, when in '08 Obama said he'd be a different kind of politician.

I'm not arguing that there is no center--that would be impossible. I'm arguing that typically, when you hear a corporate Dem talk about chasing the "center", they're talking about the middle point between the extreme right and the compromised left. Which is totally convenient if you're a Blue Dog, b/c it's the perfect rationalization for serving the corporate interests that put them into office.

Part of the reason those poll numbers are shifting for the right is that there's no passion from the left in countering the right's propaganda. In fact, Rahm rebuked those who were trying to counter that propaganda.

A lot of people are sick of Rahm's, and seemingly your "let them eat cake" attitude on this life or death issue. It will start to show in the polls---the lowly "message boards" are always the canary in the coal mine on these issues.

[mvd]

81. I agree with you about the enthusiasm

Obama has done many great things, but "bipartisanship" is not going to work right now in DC. The two parties are just too different. I think Emanuel has been encouraging compromise when he should not. I didn't like him, but thought he would be a good pusher of the President's plans. You have to come out and stand for some things. That's something the centrist and conservative Democrats too often won't do. Some Democrats seem to be blocking Obama's plans more than they did Bush's. The left was a big part of Obama's win, because the grassroots and left were with him over his opposition to the Iraq war. Though I personally didn't see much difference between him and the other Democratic Presidential hopefuls (except for Kucinich and odd Gravel.)

It's true that in some districts Blue Dogs/conservative Dems are the only ones that can win, but to me, Emanuel's funding did seem slanted against Progressives. He even warned about progressives/liberals getting more power in the party.

[rudy23]

84. Hear, hear. nt

[Gabi Hayes]

60. course he's right, given the current situation. sad thing is, this fiasco just points out that we

have two wings of the same party:

the right wing and the far right wing, BOTH completely controlled by big business

how many know how much money the average senator has to raise EVERY DAY to run his next campaign?

[Quantess]

65. Unfortunately, he's probably correct.

[autorank]

66. Nate Silver dissed excellent evidence of election fraud in Iran

Back to fantasy baseball for him. He's the prototypical media creation.

=========================
http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2455&Itemid=2

There were troubling patterns in the announced vote totals that indicated a rigged contest. A statistical analysis from The Tehran Bureau (or pdf of site if it's down) showed nearly the same difference in votes from the first through sixth phase of reporting by government authorities. The poster, Muhammad Sahimi, concluded:

"Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own."

—The Tehran Bureau, Muhammad Sahimi, June 13, 2009 (or pdf of site)

This type of precision ignored factors like variable vote totals by region, ethnic group, and locality, e.g., city, town, and so forth. Juan Cole outlined several of the glaring inconsistencies in the election results that support this analysis.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com took a look at this data, called it "dubious," and concluded that it did not prove election fraud. He compared the actual reports of Iran election results to special model he built for the 2008 United States presidential election. Snip

In addition to a flawed comparison to U.S. election reporting, Silver ignored the electoral success of reform movement candidate Mohammad Khatami in 1997 (70% share/80% turnout) and 2001 (78% share/70% turnout). Reform movement ally Rafsanjani won the two presidential elections before that in 1989 and 1993. Ahmadinejad's 2005 victory was a fluke due to a boycott by reformers after their candidates were by the guardian's council. Turnout was only 48%. Clearly, reformers are the dominant vote getters in open Iranian elections

With a history of reform candidate dominance in high turnout elections, we're supposed to believe that a 75% to 80% turnout in 2009 produced a lopsided victory for the radical Islamic candidate with failed economic policies.

http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2455&Itemid=2

[BzaDem]

69. I thought Nate's analysis of that specific piece of evidence was excellent.

He said that a national linear relationship between the total number of votes and the time they come in does not indicate fraud. As you point out, he showed how the 2008 election had a similar trend. It makes perfect sense -- as time goes on, votes that came in prior to the present are going to have a higher weight on the total percentage.

He did NOT attack linear relationships among local regions, ethnic group, locality, etc. He did not even say the election was not fraudulent. He simply said that ONE particular piece of evidence does not necessarily indicate fraud, and your article here does nothing to rebut that point.

[autorank]

93. Constructed comparisons mean nothing

The analogy he created himself from the U.S. data was skewed since it didn't reflect how reports are generated here. Therefore, the comparison was invalid.

On the specific issue of linear relationships and election fraud, the article pointed out this:

Then there are the striking similarities between the Iranian election and the 2006 Mexican presidential election. There was massive evidence of fraud from the destruction of ballots to phased election reports that were so perfect statistically that it appeared to be the product of http://www.stat.columbia.edu/%7Egelman/stuff_for_blog/Data%20Manipulation%20in%20Mexican%20Elections.pdf">computer generated program (which describes how the reporting in the Mexican election of 2006 tipped off many to many particular instances of fraud).

From Iranian Election Fraud 2009: Who Was the Real Target... and Why?

Here's more depth on the history of election questions about Iran since 2004.
http://electionfraudnews.com/News/For/iranresults.htm">Iran's 2009/2005 Presidential Elections - Curious Results. This data is all there and easy to access.

So if you take the time eto look at the presidential results over time plus the linear relationship issue, you come up with a different inference. If you don't, you're speaking from incomplete information on a key issue, as the guy with the American sounding name did as indicated in the article. That was painful to read in a publication by the Iranian resistance.

But here's the study that's the latest final word Preliminary Analysis of the Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election from Chatham House and independent British research firm.

[LiberalAndProud]

67. Oh crap.

Ben N. enjoys a 68% approval rating. I guess his seat won't be contested.

I don't know how to feel about that.

[LiberalAndProud]

68. Yea, but in the same piece, they may be stupid enough to

nominate Palin.


And it's really not a news article. I acually tried to click on the hyperlinks.

[Hekate]

72. Hekate sticks fingers in ears: LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't heeeeeear Nate Silver!

:yoiks:

[tomm2thumbs]

76. Bush was loved by his own Republicans going in, and treated as an outcast going out

2 months can be a game changer in politics. I remember when Giuliani was gonna be the one to beat - and then, well, we got McCain Palin. hahahaha Predicting anything now is a bit premature but I'll be he had the caveats of 'if nothing changes from here on out' or the like.

[mvd]

82. Still a lot of time

We could very possibly lose some ground, but hopefully we'll have a good health care plan enacted and the economy will be beginning to turn around by then.

[Beetwasher]

85. WHERE DOES NATE SAY THIS???

I can't find it on his site.

It wouldn't surprise me if this quote was something taken out of context. I'd like to see where this guy got it.

[sledgehammer]

90. Per the article, he was speaking at Netroots Nation n/t

[Beetwasher]

91. Well, Then Unless We Have CONTEXT, I Call Bullshit

He probably said something like "If Dems can't get H/C passed THEN they can expect losses...".

I'd be willing to bet there were significant qualifiers.

[sledgehammer]

89. If Dems can pass both healthcare and immigration reform by Jan 2011

Then I think losing the 60-seat majority in the Senate won't be all that bad a thing.

Except for if a Supreme Court needs to be nominated. That would suck.