Subject: 538: A few problems
From: "John Isaacs" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Isaacs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:11:15 +0000

538<http://blog.livableworld.org/story/2014/3/27/15308/4363>
Mar 27, 2014
[Alison Lundergan Grimes]<http://blog.livableworld.org/story/2014/3/27/15308/4363>

Alison Lundergan Grimes

http://blog.livableworld.org/story/2014/3/27/15308/4363

The widely respected Nate Silver, who has been on target with most of his election predictions and analysis, has come out with his first official 538 scrutiny of the 2014 elections.

The report, which can be found here<http://53eig.ht/Q46P39>, suggests that the GOP is a slight favorite to capture the Senate in November.

I have no problem with the prediction. And Silver is a brilliant analyst.

But some of his race-by-race predictions are seriously out of whack.

Take the Kentucky Senate race. Polls show a tight race between Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) and Mitch McConnell (R). The Cook political report calls the race a toss-up. So would I.

Yet Nate Silver gives McConnell a 75% chance of winning the contest.

That's 3-1 odds. I would love to take that bet and put money on Grimes.

Similarly, in Georgia, where Michelle Nunn (D) has put together a great campaign, Silver gives her a 30% chance to win. Again, Cook rates it a toss-up. Again, someone wants to give me more than 2-1 odds, I will bet money on it. At least a dollar

In Virginia, Silver gives former GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie is given a 5% chance to end out on top.

I think that Sen. Mark Warner (D) is going to win that race, but come on, 20-1? I don't think that Gillespie would have run with those numbers.

So Nate Silver is a genius. But not a perfect one.

Nor are his numbers perfect.

John Isaacs
Executive Director
Council for a Livable World & Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
322 4th Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002-5824
Phone: (202) 543-4100 x.2222
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>