Predicting 2012 the Nate Silver way
[Posted by Karl]
That title might be unfair, depending on how you view it, as I’ll explain later.
At the NYT, 538’s Nate Silver has set up a model for calculating the odds of various GOP candidates winning the 2012 presidential election. He wrote a long explanation for of the model the NYT magazine, and a short one for his blog. Silver’s model relies on three basic factors: (1) Pres. Obama’s approval ratings a year in advance of the election; (2) GDP growth in 2012; and (3) the ideology of the eventual GOP nominee. Let’s look at each factor in turn.
Approval rating: Silver asserts that a “president’s approval rating toward the end of his third year *** has been a decent (although imperfect) predictor of his chances of victory,” presumably based on his prior research. On the other hand, Gallup maintains that approval ratings at this juncture are not strongly predictive of an incumbent president’s re-election chances, and don’t become predictive until we move well into the election year. Thus, while it would be nice to believe Silver’s findings on approval ratings because they suggest Obama’s odds would be less than one in three, I don’t really buy it. Rather, I think Silver demonstrated the unremarkable theory that a sitting president near 50% has a good chance of reelection because not all the undecideds vote against the incumbent.
The economy: Silver chooses GDP growth, so I’ll have to get a little wonky to explain his thinking. Here’s Silver in the long explanation:
Growth rates during an election year are a good but imperfect indicator of electoral performance. The two times that economic activity actually shrank during an election year, 1980 and 2008, the incumbent party lost badly. The two times that it grew by more than 6 percent, 1944 and 1972, it won overwhelmingly. But Eisenhower won a landslide in 1956 despite tepid 1.8 percent growth, and George W. Bush won in 2004 with only 2.9 percent. The economy grew about 5 percent in 1968, but that wasn’t enough to save Humphrey.
Some political scientists have tried to explain these exceptions by resorting to an alphabet soup of economic indicators, conjuring obscure variables like R.D.P.I.P.C. (real disposable-personal-income per capita), which they claim can predict elections with remarkable accuracy. From the standpoint of responsible forecasting, this is a mistake. The government tracks literally 39,000 economic indicators each year. Although many (say, privately owned housing starts in Alabama) are obscure or redundant, perhaps two or three dozen of them are looked at regularly by economists.
When you have this much data to sort through but only 17 elections since 1944 to test them upon, some indicators will perform superficially better based on chance alone, the statistical equivalent of the lucky monkey from a group of millions who banged out a few Shakespearean phrases on his typewriter. Conversely, indicators like the unemployment rate have historically had almost no correlation with election results despite their self-evident importance. The advantage of looking at G.D.P. is that it represents the broadest overall evaluation of economic activity in the United States.
What’s going on in that passage is Silver’s criticism of the “Bread and Peace” forecasting model created by Douglas Hibbs — criticism that’s a bit overblown. He’s rhetorically over-the-top in that passage because even his own criticism shows that disposable income growth is slightly more predictive than GDP growth. Disposable income growth is not all that esoteric a concept; it’s essentially whether you’re finding more money in your pocket every payday as the election approaches. Conversely, I could abbreviate Silver’s presumed variable as R.P.C.G.D.P.G.L.I.A. — real per capita GDP growth, less inflation, annualized — to make it sound more esoteric than it really is. (Also, if you look at the examples Silver cites as problematic, one might hypothesize that wars had something to do with them — a factor Hibbs accounts for, but Silver does not).
GOP nominee ideology: Silver thinks this factor may help Obama and it may the most, er interesting. From Silver’s blog:
I will have more detail on how the ideology scores are calculated in a subsequent article, but they are based on a combination of three statistical systems: (i) DW-Nominate scores for candidates like Mrs. Bachmann who have been in Congress; (ii) CFscores, developed by the political scientist Adam Bonica, which estimate a candidate’s ideology based on his fund-raising; and (iii) surveys, which have asked voters to assess the ideology of the candidates on a five-point spectrum from very liberal to very conservative.
In the long explantion, Silver notes the “difference between Romney and Perry amounts to about 4 percentage points at the ballot booth.” However, the general consensus among political scientists is that the difference between a moderate and conservative candidate is about 1% or 2%, not 4%. It will also be interesting to see the guts of Silver’s relative rankings of the GOP nominees. Romney, Cain and Perry have not been in Congress and thus do not have easily comparable DW-Nominate scores. Looking at ranking by fundraising, I can show you a June 2011 measurement, based on data from prior campaigns, that shows — as Silver posits — that Perry is to the right of Cain. But that chart also suggests Santorum is to the left of Romney and Mitch Daniels is to the right of Perry. Or I could show you the October 2011 measurement, based on data for this cycle, that places Cain well to the right of Perry and just barely to the left of Bachmann — contra Silver’s assumption. And Silver does not reveal his polling source, so it cannot be evaluated at this time. Silver’s placement of Cain to the left of Perry seems to conveniently match the current poll positions of the NotRomneys, so I would await further explanation.
Indeed, a larger criticism (for now) is that Silver, for all of the explanation in the NYT magazine in the blog, still leaves out details of how he ranked the GOPers and, more importantly, how each of the three factors are weighted. I suppose a hacker could bust open the interactive app at the NYT site, but Silver is someone fond of demanding transparency of others while occasionally opaque himself. In the past, he has eventually come around to transparency, so I would hope Silver is merely dragging out the reveal to provide more content for his blog.
Beyond that, it is disappointing that he chose to have his model predict odds of the various GOPers winning, rather than, say, a share of the two-party vote. That would have allowed easier comparison with other competing models. Given Silver’s approach, it will be easy for him to dismiss a GOP win, even by a more “extreme” candidate, not as a failure of his approach, but a simple case of a candidate “beating the odds.”
–Karl
For Silver and other Democrats, a loss must not be construed as a refutation of their core principles… so they will do what it takes to create a narrative that explains it away.
ColonelHaiku (fbf87d) — 11/5/2011 @ 11:45 amNate Silver wants Obama to win so badly so he can declare martial law when the economy collapses not realizing he will be the first thrown into the gulags.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 12:04 pmP.S. – Silver assumes that Bachmann is about as “extreme” as Reagan, and everyone else (except Ron Paul) is considerably more moderate.
Karl (f8f210) — 11/5/2011 @ 12:08 pmMitch Daniels why hast thou forsaken us
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/5/2011 @ 12:20 pmPredicting Gorebull Warming the Nate Silver way.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 1:03 pmIf the current Urban Street Theatre continues, it will discredit the party that occupies the WH, just as the Chicago contretemps in ’68 put paid to any chance Humphrey might have had against Nixon – and, with a three way race, he could have had a chance of Nixon and Wallace spliting the “right”, and letting him win with a plurality; but the violence of the Left that was on nation-wide display during the convention, turned the center against The Happy Warrior and his long association with Liberalism, and they joined hands with the Establishment GOP to elect Tricky Dick.
AD-RtR/OS! (5397f3) — 11/5/2011 @ 1:11 pmThe Occupy movement is more and more perceived to be a creation of the President’s Left-Wing (one which he warmly and publically embraces), and will push whatever Indies haven’t already abondoned him into the arms of the GOP Standard-bearer.
Speaking the truth about Newt is now going full bircher. The newtbots are outdoing the Perrybots in the see how much I can despise them department.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 1:29 pmAnyways Nate Silver is a farcer.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 1:29 pmThe MSM meme that we’ve seen a turnaround is totally bogus even liberal academics do not believe for a moment. State and local revenues are crashing and most school districts are traipsing out new levies for the primary season.
The super committee is a bust and will end in higher taxes and fees. Interest rates are heating up and will, if not kill QE3, the latter will goose global inflation too quickly to be maintained for a quarter.
Bond rates for everyone except US Treasuries are headed up. Emeging economies are in extremis.
The sum is generally bad to devastating economic news–mostly ignored by the MSM–thru to the general election.
Upheaval is barely rolling.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/5/2011 @ 1:30 pmbad news all the time
ColonelHaiku (fbf87d) — 11/5/2011 @ 1:43 pmthe smegma economy
silversmith at work
We need to reform Social Security like they have in chile.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 1:46 pmInterestingly, the Chilean model is something Cain has written and addressed on his show.
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/5/2011 @ 2:26 pmChilean SocSec is a Child of Milton Freidman – the Dems could never go there.
AD-RtR/OS! (5397f3) — 11/5/2011 @ 3:01 pmJon. Huntsman.
tifosa (3265d9) — 11/5/2011 @ 3:36 pmmy understanding was there would be no Jon Huntsman
do we have a problem here?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/5/2011 @ 3:43 pmThe Republicans are playing coy with Jonny. It’s all very flirty and charming.
tifosa (3265d9) — 11/5/2011 @ 4:00 pmti fosa too much
ColonelHaiku (fbf87d) — 11/5/2011 @ 4:02 pmrubber hosah to your brain
and m00nbat dogma
tifosa is just pining for the R candidate most palatable to his side.
Since he knows that Barry Teh-one-and-done is already preparing his memoirs.
Icy (8bf790) — 11/5/2011 @ 4:26 pmTiffy is well and truly an idiot.
JD (bd50d3) — 11/5/2011 @ 5:17 pmIt is encouraging that the MSM is already putting the Obama loss to come in hard terms of real economic variables. It has to kill them.
Don’t get the Huntsman thing either. He’s tracked as little as 1%, with Gary Johnson and Santorum. He is already a noncandidate, whether he knows it or not.
Why is Bachmann rather than Paul included? I understand how and why Paul is problematic. But he is way more plausible in a relative sense than Bachmann or Huntsman.
And yet we KNOW the GOP is quite capable of messing this up.
Bugg (ea1809) — 11/5/2011 @ 5:22 pmWhat I would like to see is how this translates into electoral votes, how would these variables impact individual states, and how that would affect the outcomes in each, the resulting red/blue breakdown in electoral terms. That would be fascinating.
Bugg (ea1809) — 11/5/2011 @ 5:26 pmawww Colonel, another Haiku for lil’o’me…
tifosa (3265d9) — 11/5/2011 @ 5:42 pmJD, studying Alinsky???
btw, if you’re not watching the #Caingrich “debate” you’re missing must zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz TV
tifosa (3265d9) — 11/5/2011 @ 5:48 pmI’m not watching it but that’s just cause I already made up my mind to vote for Mr. Herman cause of he’s been thoroughly vetted now
like a banshee
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/5/2011 @ 5:55 pmROFL!!
tifosa (3265d9) — 11/5/2011 @ 6:08 pmhttp://ogdaa.blogspot.com/2011/11/modesto-aint-new-york-motherfucker-we.html
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
ColonelHaiku (fbf87d) — 11/5/2011 @ 6:20 pm…and the winner of the #Caingrich lovefest is…..Barack Obama!
tifosa (3265d9) — 11/5/2011 @ 6:35 pmAnd the winner of the Idiot award is Tifosa.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 7:08 pmYou people are not liberals.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 7:12 pmTifosa gets all giddy and orgasmic now that a Dem is the boss of the CIA.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 7:18 pmAnd by the way how do the left know about Reagans motives?
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 7:21 pmI know the Dems are depending on the “Hey, it could be worse” strategy.
I also know that Dems think the right is really, really stupid.
But as long as OWS keeps up, I don’t think whoever is nominated has much of a problem.
Just repeat Pelosi’s and Obama’s encouragement on a loop and there’s probably not much to worry about. Those fools think it’s 1968 again and we all know how that election turned out.
That’s not necessarily a good thing, but it does highlight who is not especially “smart.”
Ag80 (ec45d6) — 11/5/2011 @ 7:22 pmSorry Saddam was a terrorist useful idiots.
By the way Nate is an douschebag.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 8:34 pmAnd the winner of the “All — and I really do mean ALL — I’ve got are a string of ad homs & non sequiturs” award is . . .
Icy (8bf790) — 11/5/2011 @ 8:37 pmawww Doh, an Iraq apologist too?? Man of many hats….
tifosa (3265d9) — 11/5/2011 @ 9:51 pmAwww a Saddam apologist?
ESAD Tifosa.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 10:40 pmLook you fiscal marxists had your chance but failed the people miserably.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 10:41 pmAll leftys are greedy with their money but not with others money.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/5/2011 @ 10:51 pmI love how the perrybots are accusing us on Patterico of being Romney stalking horses.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/6/2011 @ 12:12 amYeah, anyone who goes on about his magic predictive theory and then includes Jon Huntsman as a serious
Republicancandidate can’t pass the laugh test.The idea that candidates can be evaluated on a liberal-conservative axis is also pretty simplistic, when a statist-libertarian axis also exists.
Lastly he suggests that liberal is always preferable to conservative and only in extreme times can conservatives be elected.
Just not credible. But then, it’s in the NY Times, so that’s redundant.
Gov Perry (563f77) — 11/6/2011 @ 12:19 amDamn, need to remember about the sock.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/6/2011 @ 12:20 amAnd how does anyone expect robust economic growth via increased government control of the economy. That’s like trying to speed up a car by braking.
Gov Perry (563f77) — 11/6/2011 @ 12:23 amI swear that sock has a mind of its own.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/6/2011 @ 12:23 amHuntsman is in the race solely as a service to obama.
dunce (15d7dc) — 11/6/2011 @ 1:22 amDead meat is a goof and fool to Europe, a shrinking coward to Asia, a murderous fraud to Islam and Franklin Marshall Davis Jr. to Amerikkka.
Nixonian in every sense only doubled down.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/6/2011 @ 5:37 amThis goes back to the other thread, but my friend Clarice, gave a little wayback machine, of how they will cover in the future;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/razing_cain.html
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/6/2011 @ 5:47 am#42, FYI, the sock does have a mind of its own. It’s the same useful device that remembers your regular screen name and email address and conveniently enters them in the required boxes above.
The useful device simply remembers the last name you posted under (regular name or sock name) and reliably enters it the next time you click on Comments. Consequently, following a sock comment, the next time you post you’ve got to submit a comment under your regular screen name or the sock name will continue on indefinitely as your default name.
ropelight (2a9876) — 11/6/2011 @ 6:04 amMaybe Nate can throw these stats in the blender, and puree for flavor:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/6/2011 @ 8:02 amThe perryturds will vote Obama if Cain gets the nominee. Can we stop pretending their allys of america.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/6/2011 @ 8:33 am#47, Yes, but note the sequence above: sock, me, sock(!), me
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/6/2011 @ 10:25 amNate Silver completely ignored third parties.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/7/2011 @ 9:56 am