Nate Silver: Narrow Obama Advantage in Second Debate

[regnaD kciN]

His comment is based on the snap polls from places like CBS and CNN. He says it's way too soon to tell what the long-term effects of the debate will be, but his current guess would be an eventual Obama lead of around 2%.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[bigdarryl]

1. Did he make the same conclusion in the 1st debate ?

Because if he didn't he's showing his bias.These guys running these polls kill me always pooping poll numbers that might show the President in some lead

[helpisontheway]

2. Nate does not have a clue

All he does is plug numbers in his little program. He needs to rely on the poll numbers that he gets and stop predicting crap because he sucks at it.

[flamingdem]

8. Yet he seems to fancy himself a pundit

He needs to stay in geekland and not venture into punditry, imo

[Maximumnegro]

19. Agreed.nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. Ya know, I just started hearing about this Nate Silver guy...and now he is everywhere

who the hell is he, what makes him the all-knowing expert?

Did he get find a genie in a bottle and wish that the whole world would defer to him? And suddenly he is everywhere!

[Webster Green]

4. He gained notoriety with his very accurate 2008 predictions.

He pretty much nailed every state in the presidential race, and only missed one senatorial race.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

7. That was when he focused on stats

Now he's trying to be a pundit as well and frankly he's not very good at it.

[hack89]

10. He is very focused on stats

everything he says is based on his model.

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Nothing wrong with Nate Silver

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. I am not saying anything is wrong with him...

Just that I have never heard of him...and suddenly he is the talk of the town. He is mentioned on every show on msnbc, in every blog....

[Joe the Revelator]

11. I say this with no snark, but how did you miss him last cycle?

He was the wunderkin in 2008. The Oracle if you will. He changed polling.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. I don't know! Perhaps tequila effects memory?

[onenote]

21. The fact you never heard of him says more about your familiarity with politics

than it says about Nate.

[Evergreen Emerald]

33. Whatever.

[JiminyJominy]

9. Its Official

I am living in a bizarro world.

What I saw last night was an absolute annihilation. It was as much an annhilation as the one Romney put on Obama in Debate one.

I like Silver but its clear to me the press and Silver types NEED this election to be close. A closer election is better business for them.

[Zoeisright]

13. And in that first debate, Rmoney lied constantly.

The first debate was NOT an annihilation. It was repuke dirty tricks.

[desertduck]

16. I am totally with you. I can't imagine how romney could be remotely close...

Espevially after the 47% outing.

[Democat]

14. Can anyone imagine a scenario where the media would declare Obama the clear winner?

If Romney left in tears half way through the debate, the media would say it was "very close".

[yellowcanine]

28. No actual tears but this pic tells you who Mitt thinks lost the debate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. He's Obviously Very Bright And A Great Statistician

I just don't see why some folks elevate him to demigod status.

[progressivebydesign]

18. Because America is obsessed with fame. People who shouldn't be are elevated to god status.

Happens all the time now. People love "personalities" and they vaulted this guy to god status because he was accurate on some stuff in 2008. Now, apparently, he is Bigger than God. And every word that drops from his lips is golden.

Seriously. He should stick to stats.

[WI_DEM]

17. Nate every once in a while you have to make an assumption based on your head/heart

not on the numbers of snap polls. Any thinking person watching that debate can tell who dominated it and the big talking points this morning is about Romney stepping into it on Libya.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Right--the replay of the "please proceed" video, the "Binders Full Of Women"

comment--too soon to say how damaging it will be for Mittens (will depend on the media--usually they only pound Democrats with bad debate moments), but it should be more helpful for Obama than he suggests.

[GallopingGhost]

20. Kind of makes you wonder if he is a Romney supporter.

Don't know much about him, everyone says he's great at what he does, but for this election, it seems to me he is on the rah-rah wagon for Romney, and not willing to give President Obama a crumb of anything positive.

I think saying President Obama had a "narrow edge" with the instant reaction polls is ludicrous. Not the ones I saw.

But that's little ol insignificant me.

[onenote]

23. Which instant reaction polls are you looking at?

Nate doesn't look at online polls that are fun, but not in any way scientific. He's identified the polls he is looking at and they support his conclusion that, based on those polls, the president scored a clear, but modest win.

The more important thing is that the President's performance reenergized Democrats and began the swing back in his direction. Over time, I suspect his momentum will build as a result.

[GallopingGhost]

25. I couldn't begin to tell you.

I was all over the internet last night, post-debate, voting in every poll I could find.

I'm not a poll junkie, and again, don't know that much about Silver. Made my comments based on what I've read on his site from this election; seems more pro-Romney than Obama. But that might be my own personal spin I'm reading into it. Just thought he would declare last night more of a victory for the President.

I agree completely with your last statements.

[onenote]

26. My point exactly. Those online polls we all love to vote in are fun but no one uses them

to actually analyze anything. So the fact that a bunch of polls (many of which various groups were trying to "DU" or "Freep&quot came out a particular way with a particular margin is meaningless when it comes to the type of analysis that someone like Nate Silver does. If you want to try to rebut his analysis with data, I encourage you to do so, but to cite nonscientific online polls and your own gut reaction as a basis for suggesting Nate is biased is ridiculous.

[GallopingGhost]

30. I am not trying to rebut anything.

From what I've read of him, he is a highly accurate pollster. And I wouldn't even attempt to rebut someone who analyzes data like he does; he is a pro.

Let me say it again, LOUDLY...I was just venting a bit of frustration over the fact that President Obama was given just a narrow win, when clearly, it was much more than that. I am entitled to my curiosity, and my opinion, and my gut reaction. My excitement over President Obama's debate win last night caused me to question any negativity with zeal. Did you miss, "But that might be my own personal spin I'm reading into it?"

I abjectly beg your forgiveness for my ridiculousness.

[thevoiceofreason]

22. Nate doesn't poll

He has a forecasting model.

He tends to not make snap judgments - witness this headline from him 2 days after the first debate:

October 5, 2012, 7:25 am 193 Comments
Oct. 4: Too Soon to Gauge Impact of Debate on Polls
By NATE SILVER

So, let's see how this plays out. I personally love the timing - let this build!

[yellowcanine]

27. Best number is the clear advantage (O 53 - R 38) for likely voters in swing states. National "who

won the debate?) numbers are of little use now because they will be influenced too much by die hard Republican red state voters. The good numbers in swing states suggest Obama could get a bit of a bounce from the debate which might be sustained as we are getting so close to the election, particularly if he can turn in a similar performance in the last debate, which should be a more difficult debate for Mitt, given the foreign policy focus.

[DMacTX]

29. Nate was certainly an Obama fan in '08. I think he still is.

Is he reeling in some of his personal feelings as he is now part of the MSM? probably, to a degree.

Is it in his best interests to keep this race looking close? Yes.

However,...I think Nate calls it as it is and how he genuinely sees it. I think he is 100% legit and honest.

Just my $0.02

I do miss his 2008 style updates from phone banks etc, the GOTV info from grassroots. That set him apart in '08, it seems a little less involved this time around.

[budkin]

31. Yes he is and he predicted Obama and his reputation is riding on it

So why would he intentionally try and troll progressives. He's using the data he has

[TroyD]

32. It's always best to be cautious

And because the electorate is so divided, Nate is right that there likely won't be a big bounce from the debate.

So it's best to wait and see what happens. He already gets accused by Republicans of being an Obama shill, so he can't be making breathless predictions of an Obama surge without evidence to base it on.