Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Douglas Mataconis, Christian Science Monitor: Unlike pretty much every other polling analyst out there -- ranging from Nate Silver to The New York Times's Upworthy to more traditional analysts, like Larry Sabato, Charles Cook and Stuart Rothenberg -- [Princeton statistician] Sam Wang believes that the Democrats are likely to hold on to the Senate this year, indeed he currently gives them a 72% chance of holding on to the Senate. While this is certainly a contrarian point of view at the moment, it's worth noting that Wang did accurately predict the outcome of every Senate election in 2012 and, while he hasn't gotten the same press that people like Nate Silver have, his conclusions are at least worth paying attention to as we head into the final six weeks of the midterms.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Wang explains his reasoning in a blog post at Princeton Election Consortium. He writes, "Across the board, Democratic candidates in the nine states above are doing better in the polls-only estimate than the mainstream media models would predict. This is particularly true for Alaska, Arkansas, and North Carolina. In these three states, Democrats are outperforming the expectations of the data pundits (The Upshot's Leo, Nate Silver, Harry Enten, John Sides, etc.)."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If they had passed real national health care 6 years ago, they would control congress.

#1 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-09-02 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Let's hope so...
In the meantime, someone PLEASE use your time machine to bring Barry Goldwater from 1964 to the present, just so we can see him punch Ted Cruz in the mouth for sullying the conservative movement...

#2 | Posted by catdog at 2014-09-02 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, obviously Wang doesn't live in reality. OF COURSE the media is trying to say the Reps are going to win. That ensures the Dems go out and vote. I mean, I'm not a poli-sci graduate or expert in politics and this is so ridiculously obvious and is done every time Reps have a chance. This is why America has become the Liberal land it is today with no regard for how our decisions impact the country.

#3 | Posted by humtake at 2014-09-02 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

#1

Yes, because it was so easy to pass the watered down ACA.

I wonder about some people's grasp on the reality of politics.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2014-09-02 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they had passed real national health care 6 years ago, they would control congress.

#1 | Posted by Shawn

I wish they could have. Unfortunately, regardless of the myth that the dems could have passed anything they wanted because they controlled congress, it was and still is impossible.

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-09-02 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If they had passed real national health care 6 years ago, they would control congress.

Don't you remember Joe Lieberman? He refused to vote for cloture if the bill contained a "public option."

#6 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-09-02 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wish they could have. Unfortunately, regardless of the myth that the dems could have passed anything they wanted because they controlled congress, it was and still is impossible.

-----------

Then if they had really believed in it they could have stood up for it and blamed the other party for failing to pass it.

They don't do this precisely because they serve the same mafia don, that created romneyobama care in the first place.

There is no difference between the parties.

Just different advertising.

The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference. -- Ralph Nader

#7 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-09-02 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Yes, lets keep the Dems in charge so we can have MORE of what they have wrought.

We want to see MORE racial devisiveness, more radical Islamic murders on prime time TV, MORE land grabs by the Russians with no opposition, MORE decline in the numbers of working Americans, MORE people on food stamps, MORE fiscal irresponsibility, and MORE blaming Bush for the failures of the Democratic party and its minions.

#8 | Posted by Marty at 2014-09-02 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Rethugs currently control spending. The results speak for themselves. They need to be booted.

#9 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-02 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm with you Marty. We need more of ALL that crap.

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-02 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rethugs currently control spending. The results speak for themselves. They need to be booted.

#9 | Posted by nutcase

Get real nut........... it has to pass BOTH houses and the pres has to sign it.

who controls the senate?
what party is little o?

#11 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-02 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does it matter who takes the senate?

Obama will sign nothing, call the opposing party names and crack jokes about them, use bad analogies and metaphors, then tell reporters "folks are tired of Washington in-fighting"; as if he is a spectator instead of a participant.

In short Obama will use anything save logic and rational thinking to protect his precious image, American's be damned. He made his money.

#12 | Posted by danv at 2014-09-02 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dr. Wang and Nate Silver both provided models that were all but inerrant in 2012, but they made essentially the same predictions. It's going to be interesting to see who's better at building models for 2016, given that their models are -- thus far -- predicting very divergent outcomes.

I don't know as much about Dr Wang's work as Silver's, but after a bit of reading about his methodology it appears they diverge in methodology as well: Wang's methodology appears to be a mostly (if not exclusively) frequentist approach in meta-analysis of a load of polls, while Silver uses bayes method, and includes "econometric indicators" and his own economic modeling terms in addition to polling data.

of course, both men take into account the daily trickle of data and incorporate that into their simulations, so plenty could change between now and then.

#13 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-09-02 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

What matters is how the people vote and he has no way to predict this.

None of the current polling systems work any more.

#14 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-09-02 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone tell this Wang fellow Nate Silver has already given it to the republicans.

and we all know Nate Silver is never wrong.

#15 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-09-03 03:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort