NewsTrust - All Rated Stories

5 Reasons Democrats Could Beat the Polls and Hold the House

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Nov. 02 (Opinion) - While our forecast and a good deal of polling data suggest that the Republicans may win the House of Representatives on Tuesday, perhaps all is not lost for the Democrats. Here’s one possible scenario for how things might not end up as expected.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.1 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Oct. 31 (News Analysis) - Dawn breaks over New York City on Wednesday, Nov. 3. Democrats catching the early train to work are thinking about adding a little whiskey to their morning coffee. Because the headlines they are reading are truly terrible.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.4 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Early Voter ‘Enthusiasm Gap’ Appears Consistent With Polls

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0700

New York Times - By Nate Silver - Oct. 25 (News Analysis) - Early voting suggests an enthusiasm edge for Republicans, although the data are somewhat ambiguous.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.7 average - 5 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Something Fishy in South Carolina?

Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Tom Schaller - Jun. 12 (News Analysis) - Is there something suspicious about the results in the US Senate primary victory of unknown Democrat Alvin Greene, who defeated fellow Democrat Vic Rawl, 59 percent to 41 percent? I'm not sure yet, but there is a whiff of something strange going on here.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.3 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

What Tuesday Really Meant

Thu, 20 May 2010 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - May. 20 (News Analysis) - There were five races that we were tracking closely over the course of the evening -- and I've already seen analysts drawing flimsy conclusions from each of them.Pennsylvania -- Democratic Senate primaryThe results: Joe Sestak defeats Arlen Specter, 54-46.The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Democratic establishment.The reality: Certainly, Specter had the support of a lot of Very Important People, including the President, many unions, and the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But in many cases, it seemed perfunctory. The White House elected not to send either Barack Obama or Joe Biden to the state in the closing days. The unions were nominally supporting Specter, but were concentrating their cash in Arkansas and elsewhere. As Sestak began to emerge as the superior general election candidate, their support grew even more tepid. This was an important win, and the netroots progressives who championed Sestak's campaign deserve all the credit in the world. But something can be dramatic without being especially surprising. Joe Sestak is a mainline, lunchpail Democrat who defeated a very unpopular Republican-turned-Democrat who ran an awful campaign and who Pennsylvania Democrats weren't used to punching their ticket for. No huge shock there.Kentucky -- Republican Senate primaryThe results: Rand Paul defeats Trey Grayson, 59-35.The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Republican establishment.The reality: Because of Paul's impressive 24-point margin of victory, almost any explanation you might proffer probably contains some element of truth. But for all his libertarian and tea-party dressing, Paul in fact ran on a fairly conventional, conservative platform. He's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration ... there are only the faintest hints of libertarianism here. This was probably a good thing for him because Kentucky, which has traditionally been socially conservative but economically moderate, is pretty much kitty-corner to the libertarian side of the political quadrant. This was actually very clever, in a lot of ways -- Paul's last name (and decision to affiliate himself with the tea party) gained him national attention and fundraising and earned media, but to people in Kentucky, he ought to have been a very comfortable choice who was somewhat more fresh-faced than his rival. The branded product beat the generic one.Paul might have some trouble in general election, especially after somewhat underwhelming turnout in the primary (Democratic turnout was actually 60 percent higher, although Democrats enjoy a substantial registration advantage in Kentucky). But that's more because of his inexperience and standoffishness and less because of his platform.Kentucky -- Democratic Senate primaryThe results: Jack Conway defeats Daniel Mongiardo, 44-43.The conventional wisdom: What? The Democrats had a primary too?The reality: Yes, they did -- and it was the closest race of the night, with Conway taking an early lead from a substantial advantage in Louisville and Lexington but Mongiardo, who was stronger in rural areas, nearly closing the gap by the end of the night. Conway had polled somewhat better in general election matchups so this is a result most national Democrats will be pleased with -- although the way that Attorney Generals have been going lately, maybe he'll prove to be a bit jinxed.Arkansas -- Democratic Senate primaryThe results: Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter head to overtime. Lincoln has 45 percent of votes counted so far tonight, and Halter 43 percent, but a majority was required to avoid a run-off.The conventional wisdom: Lincoln spent too much time hanging out in the middle of the road and got run over.The reality: There are parallels between what Rand Paul accomplished in Kentucky and what Bill Halter did in Arkansas. As I mentioned earlier, Kentucky is not a particularly good state for real libertarians. Likewise, Arkansas is not an especially good state for netroots progressives, who are mostly white, liberal, and college-educated, whereas the state's Democratic primary electorate is 61 percent non-college, 64 percent non-liberal, and contains a fair number of black voters.Halter endeared himself to national progressives and to unions with his vocal support of the public option, giving him money, momentum and media attention. But to Arkansasans, he was a relatively familiar face (as the sitting Lieutenant Governor) who ran a relatively non-ideological campaign, railing against corruption, bailouts, and wishy-washiness, as challengers of all political persuasions are doing. Halter came out against cap-and-trade, on the other hand, and tried his best to avoid taking a position on contentious social issues.Certainly this is a rough environment for moderates, but Lincoln made matters worse by drawing unnecessary attention to herself on health care, and by picking the wrong issues to moderate upon: yes on TARP, no on the public option] is a set of positions that very few rank-and-file Democrats (or voters of any kind) will share. And she was a very incumbent-y incumbent in an environment where incumbents are not popular.Of course, we should not yet be speaking about her in the past tense; Lincoln could still win the run-off. But I suspect that the presumably superior enthusiasm of Halter's voters will pay off for him in three weeks. Turnout was actually not bad in Arkansas -- in fact, it slightly exceeded turnout in the 2008 Presidential primary -- but I don't know if Blanche Lincoln is the sort of person for whom people are going to get up off the couch to vote for twice in one month.Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District -- Special electionThe results: Mark Critz (D) defeats Tim Burns (R), 53-45.The conventional wisdom: A big, clutch win for Democrats.The reality: Neither outcome would have been surprising here. The polling showed a toss-up, and the district (with a PVI of R+1) is close to the national median. There's a lot of variance in open-seat elections for the House; even in an environment like 2008, Democrats would have had about a 30 percent chance of losing this seat, and even in one as relatively poor for them as 2004, they would have had about a 40 percent chance of winning it.Still, the 8-point margin of victory was surprising. As I wrote yesterday morning: "It's really only if one of the candidates wins by middle-to-high single digits ... that [PA-12] might tell us something", and Critz met that threshold.Republicans have some decent excuses; they may have been harmed by the fact that there was a contentious Democratic Senate primary occurring at the same time, for instance, and the DCCC seems to have a peculiar knack for winning special elections. The Democratic candidate ran against his party's health care bill! But make no mistake: there are garbage cans being kicked, and consultants being sworn at, at NRCC headquarters right now. And the Republicans may need to engage in some self-reflection about whether nationalizing the race will be the optimal strategy in each of 50 distinct states and 435 distinct Congressional Districts.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.1 average - 7 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Republicans on Wrong Side of Public Opinion

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Feb. 09 (News Analysis) - An analysis of 25 key issues shows that Republicans tend to be on the wrong side of public opinion more often than the Obama administration.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.0 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Politics Done Right: 20 Questions for Bill Killers

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Dec. 20 (News Analysis) - 1. Over the medium term, how many other opportunities will exist to provide in excess of $100 billion per year in public subsidies to poor and sick people?

NewsTrust Rating: 3.0 average - 3 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Comparing the Votes of the Rich and the Poor

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Andrew Gelman - Oct. 27 (Special Report) - As just about everybody knows by now, richer Americans tend to vote Republican while poorer Americans go for the Democrats. But this isn't true for all groups. For an amusing example that we discussed in our book, a survey found that richer journalists

NewsTrust Rating: 3.3 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

When You Assume, You Make a Mess Out of Your Poll

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Sep. 14 (News Analysis) - It's a bit difficult to reconcile the results of three questions from the new Washington Post/ABC News poll on health care reform

NewsTrust Rating: 3.9 average - 3 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Are The Health Care Protests Working? And are Liberals Helping Them?

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Aug. 13 (Opinion) - It's been interesting to digest the interaction between liberal and conservative blogs on the issue of the health care protests. If you take a look at a service like Memorandum, you'll find that stories about the protests have almost always been the lede in the blogosphere over the course of the past 10-14 days. There are daily, and sometimes even hourly, ebbs and flows in who seems to be pushing the stories -- conservative blogs one day, liberal blogs the next.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.1 average - 6 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

On Health Care, Bipartisanship without Compromise?

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Jul. 18 (News Analysis) - The big news of the day is the letter sent by a "gang" of six "bipartisan" senators (there was a sale on scare quotes at Target today) urging Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell (and by implication, the White House) that "taking additional time" on health care would be advisable. It's easy to read the letter cynically: "later" in senate speak quite often means "never". That might be particularly so on health care: odds are, frankly, that the Administration will continue to lose political capital until the unemployment rate improves, which even if a recovery in GDP growth is around the corner (which many economists think it is) is liable to take some time. Push this debate back to the autumn, and the effort could be being lead by a President whose approval ratings are in the low 50's or perhaps even the high 40's.

NewsTrust Rating: 2.4 average - 3 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

George F. Will Admits Public Option Will Cut Costs

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Jun. 25 (Opinion) - Insurance exists because of the decreasing marginal utility of income: most people would rather have a 100% chance of paying $300 a month than a 1% chance of paying $30,000 a month. In fact, our hypothetical customer -- let's call him Frederick, after George F. Will's middle name -- might very well accept a 100% chance of paying $400 a month rather than take 1% chance of having to pay $30,000, which he might not be able to afford. This is true even though Frederick will lose $100 on this deal in an average month.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.5 average - 7 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Politics Done Right: Iran Does Have Some Fishy Numbers

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Renard Sexton - Jun. 15 (Investigative Report) - Again, as we have mentioned on several occasions, the numbers still do not prove any wrongdoing, as large scale changes in public opinion do happen regularly around the world. However, given the polling data in the run-up to the balloting, and the historical trend away from electoral domination in the first round by one candidate, this very fishy regional data tends to strongly support that which the canceled Mousavi protest was meant to express.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.9 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Obama: Highest Initial Approval For Elected President?

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Jan. 19 (Poll) - Barack Obama's favorability ratings have continued to improve as we approach Tuesday's inauguration. But how do they compare to those of his predecessors? The two highest initial, post-inauguration approval ratings as measured by Gallup belong to presidents who took over for others whose terms ended prematurely. About 86 percent of Americans approved of Harry Truman when he took over for FDR. And 77 percent approved Lyndon Johnson when he took over for JFK. The highest initial approval rating for a newly elected president, on the other hand, appears to belong to Kennedy, whom Gallup pegged at 72 percent approval shortly after his inauguration in 1961.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.7 average - 3 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Is Coleman's Goal a Do-Over?

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Jan. 17 (News Analysis) - If you read the rest of Marc's piece, it's clear that it has been informed by discussions with the Coleman campaign; he's basically reporting the Coleman campaign's spin on the process. Which is fine -- Ambinder is one of the few reporters out there who actually does a lot of reporting, and reporting someone else's spin, as Ambinder does, is very different from spinning yourself. (I do think that Ambinder takes a number of the Coleman campaign's arguments too credulously.) But the pattern is the same: an article that presents the Coleman campaign's version of events again concludes by dangling the possibility of a re-vote.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.4 average - 7 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Zogby Engages in Apparent Push Polling for Right-Wing Website

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - Nov. 18 (News Analysis) - The conservative website HowObamaGotElected.com reports that it has commissioned Zogby International to conduct a poll of 512 Barack Obama voters as part of what can best be described as a viral marketing effort to discredit the intelligence of Obama supporters.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.0 average - 3 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver, Mark Bluemthal - Nov. 04 (Special Report) - 1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.7 average - 3 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

What to Watch For - An hour-by-hour guide to election night

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Nov. 03 (Poll) - In 2000 and 2004, the outcome of the presidential race was unknown into the wee hours of the morning (and indeed for several weeks thereafter in 2000). This time, it is possible that we will be able to guess the winner of the presidential race relatively early in the evening. Regardless, there will be plenty to watch Tuesday night, particularly for those who can appreciate a good slugfest in the Senate. And lest we count John McCain out, we need only remember the polling disasters that befell states like New Hampshire in this year's primaries. Here, then, is what I will be watching each hour on election night. 6 PM EST. Polls close in portions of Indiana and Kentucky. I continue to find a hair's worth of tightening on balance in the state-by-state polls -- even as Obama's position in the national trackers seems to be roughly as strong as it has ever been. This, ironically, is the exact reverse of the position we saw earlier in the week, when the national polls seemed to be tightening even as the state polls weren't. However, Obama's win percentage has ticked upward again for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he's gotten some relatively good numbers out of Pennsylvania since our last update, with PPP and Zogby giving him leads of 8 and 14 points, respectively, and Rasmussen showing his lead expanding to 6 points after having been at 4 before. (The Zogby poll is probably an outlier, but may serve to balance out outliers like Strategic Vision on the other side). Secondly, McCain's clock has simply run out. While there is arguable evidence of a small tightening, there is no evidence of a dramatic tightening of the sort he would need to make Tuesday night interesting.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.9 average - 5 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Today's Polls, 10/24

Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

FiveThirtyEight - By Nate Silver - Oct. 25 (Poll) - This was something of a partly cloudy day for both candidates. The national polls generally contained reasonable news for Barack Obama, who advanced in four tracking polls to McCain's three (Rasmussen was flat). In addition, Obama pulled strong numbers from the weekly editions of the GQR/Democracy Corps and Economist/YouGov polls. On balance, we see this election as being very flat, but that is incrementally better news for McCain than yesterday's horrible polling day, when he looked to be ceding further ground to Obama. McCain's position has improved very slightly: we now give him a 5.1% chance of winning the election, up from 3.7% yesterday.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.4 average - 4 Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer