This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Yesterday I looked at the presidential predictions. Today I'm looking at the Senate ones, with focus on those of us, individuals or aggregators, who made predictions on the victory margins.

Below are the predictions and average error for me, Nate Silver, Sam Wang, and the Huffington Post, Real Clear Politics, and Talking Points Memo aggregators.

The orange cells are the best calls for each race. The garish red and blues are races were the predictor got the wrong victor. So I erroneously thought Democrats would win Nevada and Republicans would win North Dakota.

Nate, RCP and I each got two of the 16 races wrong. Sam Wang, HuffPo, and TPM didn't get any wrong. Wang didn't make predictions on all of these races, just the ones that looked closest, so his perfect record is worth as much as anyone else's.

I may have had the lowest average error, but missing two races disqualified me from the crown. So of the people who called all the winners correctly, the winner is ... Huffington Post by a sliver.

A few quick notes:

I really don't understand why anyone respects RCP. They cherrypick polls and have a crap methodology. It wasn't so much that they missed two races, since both they missed were hard-to-call ones, but their average error (just like in the presidential results) is far beyond anyone else's.

The error margins are far bigger here than in the presidential race, and the reason is simple: There was far fewer polling for these races. The more polling, the more accurate the aggregation becomes.

Three of us got the North Dakota Senate race wrong. Silver only gave Democrat Heidi Heitkamp an 8 percent chance of winning! Or put another way, Republicans had an 92 percent chance of picking up the seat. So yeah, that was a crazy one. I went back and looked at the polling to see what I missed. Not much—much of the polling was either partisan (Dems had themselves +4, Rasmussen had GOP up +5, and they were both wrong), or unproven. This fresh new Pharos Research outfit had Heitkamp up +2, but they also had the Democrats trailing by just 2.7 in the Nebraska Senate race they lost by 16.2. They weren't looking very credible. But ultimately, even TPM composite had Heitkamp at 46, while HuffPo had her at 47.9. In a Red state, Heitkamp should not have gotten the undecideds, but she's a spectacular politician and somehow pulled it off.

Look how far off everyone was in Missouri. Most polling had the race close, but there were two standouts: SuveyUSA gave McCaskill a 15-point lead, DSCC internals had it at 12, while McCaskill campaign internals had it at 14. They seemed optimistic at the time, but they nailed it. For comic relief, the Republican pollsters at Wenzel Strategies, polling for Citizens United (yeah, that Citizens United), had Akin up four points at the same time as that McCaskill internal. It must've taken some serious unskewing to get those numbers.

I'm still struck by the wide disparity in many of these races among the pure poll aggregators (HuffPo, RCP, TPM). Just because someone says they're averaging out all the polls doesn't mean that they're doing it the same way. Or put another way, RCP really, really sucks.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to kos on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:21 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.


Your Email has been sent.