Nate Silver: Forget Quinnipiac. Obama is behind on Rasmussen

[Blue Yorker]

The swing in Colorado has been dramatic,, according to Quinnipiac.

But the pollster exposed by Nate Silver as the worst in 2010, with a pro-Republican bias, says Obama is behind by 2%.

Since Nate Silver's article was meant to be pro-Romney (in order to keep Republicans from stop reading his column), Silver does not mention the dramatic rise in Colorado's Q poll. This is called cherrypicking.

Obama's bump has remained steady in Ipsos and has even increased in Rand lately, but he chooses to mention Gallup and Rasmussen in his headline.

Not a good journalist.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/sept-18-obamas-bounce-erodes-in-two-tracking-polls/

[HERVEPA]

1. Total bull

Any unbiased person who has read Nate for a long time knows this.

[Dawgs]

9. I read his posts every single day, and have for 4+ years.

The OP is right. He's trying his hardest to keep this race close, and you can tell by how much he puts faith in the polls that he previously claimed were right-leaning.

It's become increasingly more apparent in the last few days.

[HERVEPA]

11. Geez. His Nowcast has Obama at over 90%

His election day forecast has him a 3-1 favorite.
He has the Dems holding the Senate.
Things can happen to change a race. They are not likely though.
And the video is not yet in the polls.

[Dawgs]

17. So you agree with me?

[HERVEPA]

19. Uh, no.

If your thoughts were correct, why would he put Obama at 90%.
Why wouldn't he fudge the Nowcast also.
Why would he have had Obama at 79% a week or two ago?

[Dawgs]

21. Ah, you're arguing something that has nothing to do with this thread.

The OP and myself are talking about Nate's articles, not his predictions. We agree with his forecasts, and that is the problem. His analysis doesn't match up with his very own predictions.

If he really thinks that Obama will easily win Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, then why does he write articles like it's a dead heat? It doesn't make sense.

[HERVEPA]

25. OK. I understand what you're saying,

but I don't agree with your interpretation of his articles. I think the 72% is pretty much in line with his verbiage.

[regnaD kciN]

27. Uh...Nate dropped the "Now-cast" yesterday...

...and now has Obama's odds at 72.9%, down almost nine points since last week.

[Grown2Hate]

33. What do you mean by "dropped the now-cast"? It's still there, and gives President Obama a

WHOPPING 94.4% to 5.6% advantage over Rmoney.

[TexasCPA]

2. Obama is not behind in Rasmussen

"When “leaners” are included, the race is tied with both Obama and Romney at 48%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question."

[CoffeeCat]

4. We all know that Rasmussen is a right-wing polling group...

And I've come to this conclusion--That Rasmussen does honest polls and disseminates honest results most of the time. However, when they are needed to spin the numbers--Rasmussen steps in and releases bogus polls results.

It's very obvious.

Gallup also engages in this practice as well.

It makes sense. Gallup and Rasmussen aren't run by idiots. You can't always release poll numbers that favor the party in which you serve. You have to routinely release polls that are accurate. Then, when you release your bogus, fake polls--you can harken back to all of the times that you've had accurate polls.

Gallup and Rasmussen have long been used as tools for propaganda.

There are forces who want this to be a tight race. I think those who want tight polls--are doing this to justify and explain away election-day results that are rigged due to voter-suppression tactics and other shenanigans such as machine-vote tampering.

After everything that has happened--our successful convention (Romney's failed convention), Romney's Libya gaffes and now Romney's "47 percent" disaster---no way in hell are these guys tied. Absolutely no way. Besides, nearly all of the polls show a widening and big lead for Obama in most of the swing states.

I'm really sick of the lies and the propaganda. These people are not fooling anyone.

[TexasCPA]

8. I pay more attention to Intrade

Gamblers are biased to making money and not political parties. Speaking of weird polling. The new AP poll seems a little funky to me.

Registered voters: Obama 50%, Romney 40%
Likely voters: Obama 47%, Romney 46%

How do you lose that much of a percentage between registered and likely?

[HERVEPA]

12. Well. Intrade has Obama lower than Nate.

Perhaps reflects that people more likely to bet and have more money to bet are Rethuglicans.

[abumbyanyothername]

31. Intrade is not trying to predict a win or loss for the candidate

rather it establishes a trade where both buyer and seller believe that they can make money.

And both may be right.

I could buy Obama at 68 (assuming I was not in America) thinking I could sell him at 76. Meanwhile the seller could be selling at 68 thinking she could cover at 59. And we might both be right.

[HERVEPA]

34. I understood that

And why do you think you can't trade on Intrade in the U.S.? You can.

[abumbyanyothername]

36. My understanding was not the Election contracts. nt

[grantcart]

23. welcome to DU

[WI_DEM]

3. Silver is a bum...until the next time he writes something pro-Obama.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Exactly.

[woolldog]

5. Disappointed in Nate Silver since he moved to the NYTImes

He seems to be obsessed with "balance" now instead of simply calling it how he sees it. He feel he has to have some positive story lines for Romney either to increase readership or to insulate himself from charges of bias so he's bending over backwards to find or invent some storylines for Romney.

A couple of days ago he had an article about how the electoral college will be a challenge for Obama, or some such nonsense. ok his model at the time showed an Obama victory at 76% and 300+ EVs. It was just ridiculous as anyone who follows the state by state polling numbers and has played with the scenarios knows.

I actually don't read most of his articles anymore, or even check into that site much.

[Doctor Jack]

7. I agree, he's too wishy-washy now

In 2008, he called it like he saw it. Now he is into false equivocation.

He reminds me of Chuck Todd. Todd is a smart guy that does know a lot of about politics and elections but acts completely neutered these days. Seem "fair" in your analysis at all costs.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. He's wishy washy because the polls are dynamic. They only give us a snapshot in time.

Polls fluctuate and that seems to be the problem.

[Dawgs]

10. It's pretty sad when people like you and me can see that without OH and VA, Romney has no shot.

And what's even more frustrating is that Silver knows this. He knows that Obama HAS BEEN ahead for 6+ months in the 6-7 states that Romney NEEDS to win, yet he puts out an article saying that Obama may be in trouble if the national polls move back to tied (like they were about one month ago).

It makes zero sense.

[fugop]

15. I guess we need to skip the analysis

That's the thing. When you look at his predictions by percentages, he's got Obama winning by 70-something percent. It's when he goes into analysis that he gets all, "Weeeelllll, he SHOULD win, but Romney COULD win, and here's what I maybe think kind of right now, but remember ANYTHING can happen so we don't know for SURE!"

Anyway, I think I'll stick with the numbers. Yes, some polls have narrowed, but the whole poll average, which once seemed great as a tool for balancing polls with bias, may have fallen victim to pollsters who are gaming the system. To keep polls that have been determined to have an obvious house bias (or ones like Gravis, which are so far beyond the realm of reality) ... well, it seems that inevitable will make the average worthless. All you'd have to do is flood the average with right-leaning polls and voila, the system is useless.

Oh well. Like I said, the predictions by state seem to be the best tool at this point. I really think that's where Obama's got him barely hanging onto the ropes.

[Dawgs]

16. Some polls have narrowed, but some of the state polls are taking off for Obama (ie. VA and MI).

And almost all of the other state polls that Romney needs still show a 2-4 point lead for Obama, and they have for months.

Those states include CO, FL, OH, WI and IA. The spread is even larger when you exclude the polls that have a house bias (even the left leaning ones).

I think Silver has been looking at so many numbers for so long that he's not thinking right.

[Jennicut]

28. Romney is toast without OH and VA.

Silver needs to keep getting people to read his blog. If he simply posts that truth everyday people would stop reading. Hence, his forecast is pretty high for Obama winning but his blog is all over the place. He knows Obama is favored. If Romney was ahead in most swing states and was polling like Obama was in VA and OH, it would be screamed off every rooftop and website. But hey, its a Democrat so we take what we can get. Silver is just playing the game the NYT wants him to play.

[S_E_Fudd]

6. Well if you read it...

He says quite clearly he has built in extra skepticism on Obamas numbers

The downward adjustment to Mr. Obama’s numbers will gradually fade out over the next week or so. Thus, if he holds his current position in the polls, he will begin to regain ground in the FiveThirtyEight forecast.

However, it is probably not a bad idea to take a slightly skeptical view toward Mr. Obama’s polls in the meantime. This is a tricky year for estimating convention bounces, with the two parties having held their conventions just one week apart, but if the model is reading the data wrongly, it will correct itself soon enough.

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

18. This analysis is all over the place

Apparently Nate is following one classic bit of advice:
When you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Trying to figure out what might be the point of this analysis is giving me a headache.

[MjolnirTime]

20. Nate gets paid more in a horse race.

[Dawgs]

22. Exactly. My guess is that it has something to with page hits. n/t

[TheDonkey]

24. His blog is garbage. You are quite observant in realizing why

He is playing games in order to keep his page clicks high so he is always teasing "bad news" for Obama so people keep checking in.

[november3rd]

26. Oh well

The Times has to keep those ads flowing, and a lot of those advertisers are GOP folks. That's the problem with our media model in this society. They are structurally incapable of consistently rendering accurate information.

Besides, it doesn't matter, anyway. Which candidate counts the most votes on election day is all that matters.

[aaaaaa5a]

29. If nothing else it shows he has no liberal bias as some have claimed.

This is where we are now in the media

People who are objective and simply state facts are accused of having bias. Therefore in order to appease everyone they must move to the right and show some right wing bias in order to be credentialed as a down the middle journalist.

Clearly, Ras is an outlier. It has been for years. Scott Rasmussen speaks at GOP fundraisers for heaven's sake. Before Nate "hit it big" he proved conclusively that Ras had a heavy right wing tilt. But still it must be included and carry heavy weight in any projections, because we wouldn't want to be called biased against our conservative audience..... NOW WOULD WE.

[AverageJoe90]

30. Silver's always done a fantastic job but I think he's slipping up a bit.

It seems he's gotten too obsessed with placating the Tebaggers this past week and a half or so.....what happened?

[fujiyama]

32. Romney basically needs the equivalent of a straight flush to win this

Obama at this point could afford to LOSE the following and still win:

WI, IA, CO, NC, IN, NH, and FL. And of course, IN is not really even being contested this time.

I read somewhere that NV is almost becoming demographically impossible for Romney to win. Of the real swing states, I gave Obama OH and VA, since I don't remember the last time I saw either state give Romney a lead. But it's worth playing around even a little more. Say somehow that VA goes back to its past and goes red again, but WI stays blue. Still a win. Say VA is red (along with WI), but he takes CO and NH? Still a win. Say he takes VA, but loses OH? Still a win. The numbers for Romney really look lousy. Obama's greatest advantage is the sheer number of realistic winning combinations he has available. Romney needs to run the gamut and it's more obvious every day as we approach election.

This election is far from being in the bag and will ultimately hinge on maximizing turnout and making sure Republicans don't get away with voter suppression efforts. But, what can I say? I'd much rather be in Obama's spot right now. He's at a much better spot now than he was in '08 at this time. Honestly after I woke up the day after election day (recovering from a night of partying), I was kind of shocked to even notice that IN and NC had gone blue...IN? NC? VA?

Now, we KNOW VA's in play and he's actually leading there. Pretty wild.

[TroyD]

35. Rasmussen claims Romney is +3 in IOWA today

Rasmussen Reports - Romney +3

Obama - 44

Romney - 47

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president