Democrats to Nate Silver: You’re Wrong

Guy Cecil says the famed statistician was wrong in 2012 and will be wrong again in 2014 with his prediction of a GOP Senate takeover.

NEW YORK, NY - MAY 21: Nate Silver attends the 16th Annual Webby Awards at Hammerstein Ballroom on May 21, 2012 in New York City.
National Journal
Alex Roarty
Add to Briefcase
Alex Roarty
March 24, 2014, midnight

Demo­crats aren’t tak­ing Nate Sil­ver’s latest Sen­ate pre­dic­tion ly­ing down.

In an un­usu­al step, the ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Demo­crat­ic Sen­at­ori­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee on Monday is­sued a re­but­tal the famed stat­ist­i­cian’s pre­dic­tion — made a day earli­er — that Re­pub­lic­ans were a “slight fa­vor­ite” to re­take the Sen­ate. Sil­ver was wrong in 2012, the polit­ic­al com­mit­tee’s Guy Cecil wrote in a memo, and he’ll be wrong again in 2014.

“In fact, in Au­gust of 2012 Sil­ver fore­cast a 61 per­cent like­li­hood that Re­pub­lic­ans would pick up enough seats to claim the ma­jor­ity,” Cecil said. “Three months later, Demo­crats went on to win 55 seats.”

The DSCC memo took pains to com­pli­ment Sil­ver, say­ing his work at newly launched Fiv­eThirtyEight was “ground­break­ing.” And the group’s main cri­tique — that Sil­ver’s mod­el re­lies on a smat­ter­ing of haphaz­ard early polling in battle­ground states — is one that he him­self ac­know­ledges is a lim­it­a­tion.

But the com­pre­hens­ive push­back from Cecil, the power­ful com­mit­tee’s key staffer, is a test­a­ment both to the in­flu­ence Sil­ver wields and the sens­it­iv­ity of Sen­ate Demo­crats to the per­cep­tion they’re los­ing their grip on the up­per cham­ber. Oth­er out­lets have sug­ges­ted sim­il­ar odds on the Sen­ate, but none have earned this kind of re­but­tal.

Sil­ver earned fame and for­tune after he cor­rectly pre­dicted the out­come of the last pres­id­en­tial elec­tion des­pite the skep­ti­cism of many pun­dits, a res­ult that also earned him a great deal of cred­ib­il­ity with many voters. (In fun­drais­ing pitches this cycle, Demo­crats reg­u­larly in­voke his earli­er pre­dic­tion that the battle for Sen­ate con­trol was a “toss-up.”)

But in the memo, Cecil ar­gues that Sil­ver’s track re­cord is less than stel­lar. It cites four races in which Demo­crats won des­pite Sil­ver once pre­dict­ing oth­er­wise: Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and John Test­er in Montana in 2012, and Harry Re­id in Nevada and Mi­chael Ben­net in Col­or­ado in 2010.

“All four are sen­at­ors today be­cause they were su­per­i­or can­did­ates run­ning su­per­i­or cam­paign or­gan­iz­a­tions who made their elec­tions a choice between the two can­did­ates on the bal­lot,” said the ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or. “Only three Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bent sen­at­ors have lost reelec­tion in the last 10 years, and our in­cum­bents are once again pre­pared and ready.”

The nearly 1,000-word missive goes on to cite the ef­fect­ive­ness of the party’s at­tacks against con­ser­vat­ive third-party spend­ing, its $60 mil­lion field and voter-con­tact pro­gram known as the “Ban­nock Street Pro­ject,” and the op­por­tun­ity Demo­crats have in GOP-held seats in Ken­tucky and Geor­gia. “We don’t min­im­ize the chal­lenges ahead,” he said. “Rather, we view the latest pro­jec­tion as a re­mind­er that we have a chal­len­ging map and im­port­ant work still to do in or­der to pre­serve our ma­jor­ity.”

In truth, Sil­ver’s sug­ges­tions that Re­pub­lic­ans are fa­vor­ites to win the Sen­ate matched the as­sess­ment of most ana­lysts in Wash­ing­ton. A map that has Demo­crats de­fend­ing sev­en red states (Re­pub­lic­ans would need to win six to re­claim the ma­jor­ity), Pres­id­ent Obama’s slid­ing ap­prov­al rat­ings, and the mul­ti­mil­lions of dol­lars spent by out­side groups led by the Koch broth­ers-backed Amer­ic­ans for Prosper­ity have com­bined to give the GOP a clear op­por­tun­ity at the ma­jor­ity. Even be­fore Obama­care’s polit­ic­ally dis­astrous rol­lout, Demo­crat­ic strategists privately ac­know­ledged that con­trol of the Sen­ate was far from guar­an­teed in 2015.

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER GOP MODERATE TO HER SIDE
John Warner to Endorse Clinton
6 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will score another high-powered Republican endorsement on Wednesday, according to a campaign aide: retired senator John Warner of Virginia, a popular GOP maverick with renowned military credentials."

Source:
AUTHORITY OF EPA IN QUESTION
Appeals Court Hears Clean Power Plant Case
13 minutes ago
THE LATEST

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday "heard several hours of oral arguments" over the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan rules. The 10-judge panel "focused much of their questioning on whether the EPA had overstepped its legal authority by seeking to broadly compel this shift away from coal, a move the EPA calls the Best System of Emission Reduction, or BSER. The states and companies suing the EPA argue the agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate anything outside of a power plant itself."

Source:
$28 MILLION THIS WEEK
Here Come the Ad Buys
25 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"Spending by super PACs tied to Donald Trump friends such as Ben Carson and banker Andy Beal will help make this week the general election's most expensive yet. Republicans and Democrats will spend almost $28 million on radio and television this week, according to advertising records, as Trump substantially increases his advertising buy for the final stretch. He's spending $6.4 million in nine states, part of what aides have said will be a $100 million television campaign through Election Day."

Source:
UNLIKELY TO GET A VOTE, LIKELY TO ANGER GOP SENATORS
Obama Nominates Ambassador to Cuba
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
GOP REFUSED VOTE ON FCC COMMISIONER
Reid Blocks Tech Bill Over “Broken Promise”
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Monday night's debate may have inspired some in Congress, as Senate Minority Leader has decided to take a stand of his own. Reid is declining to allow a vote on a "bipartisan bill that would bolster U.S. spectrum availability and the deployment of wireless broadband." Why? Because of a "broken promise" made a year ago by Republicans, who have refused to vote on confirmation for a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to a second term. Harry Reid then took it a step further, invoking another confirmation vote still outstanding, that of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Source:
×