Nate Silver has upgraded Democrats’ chances of winning the Senate to “Likely D,” with his forecast putting their odds at 75 percent.

Polling guru Nate Silver has upgraded Democrats’ chances of winning control of the U.S. Senate in November’s midterm elections, with his forecast now giving the party a 75 percent probability of victory.

Silver’s FLIPR 2026 midterm election forecast, published by Silver Bulletin, previously classified Democrats’ chances as “Lean D” as their prospects of retaking the chamber improved. The forecast has now moved into the “Likely D” category, marking a further shift in the model’s outlook.

Silver’s model uses polling data and other indicators to estimate the likelihood of different election outcomes. Its probabilities are estimates rather than guarantees, and the outlook can change as new polling and other information become available, but the latest upgrade suggests the model increasingly favors Democrats in the battle for the chamber.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    35·
    6 days ago

    I have issues with Silver too, but to be fair, an 80% likelihood should be wrong one time in five. If it always predicted the winner, the 80% figure would be inaccurate.

    I think people confuse predicted chance of winning with predicted poll results, where 82% would indeed predict an unstoppable landslide.

    • Zedstrian@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      9·
      6 days ago

      It should be more accurate when predicting the aggregate outcome of multiple races instead of one (assuming weak correlation).

      Due to the Electoral College, predicting the outcome of a Presidential election is effectively predicting the aggregate outcome of multiple state races.

      • Hapankaali@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 days ago

        The Electoral College and the popular vote are very strongly correlated. The EC only ever comes into play when the election is very close in terms of popular vote, and then polls can’t give a (near) certain answer anyway.

        In fact, US elections are much easier to predict using polling than elections in most other places, because a) the US electorate has extremely high voter loyalty compared to typical values elsewhere, especially in functional democracies and b) there is a lot of high-quality polling data available.

        • granch_bibblyfibble@piefed.socialEnglish
          2·
          5 days ago

          Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by more than 2% of the popular vote, which I would say is not “very close” in this context. So I’m not sure I agree with your premise.