Photo via Silver Bulletin

Expert ratings are ignoring signs of a blue wave

Read the original at Silver Bulletin ↗
Cite

Silver, N. (2026, September 20). Expert ratings are ignoring signs of a blue wave. Silver Bulletin. https://www.natesilver.net/p/expert-ratings-are-ignoring-signs

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Silver Bulletin · collected 2026-09-20 · by Nate Silver commentary

Quick Summary

FLIPR, a political analysis model, now predicts Democrats have between a 63% to 69% chance of winning control of the U.S. Senate, contrary to other experts like The Cook Political Report who still classify several races as toss-ups. FLIPR's prediction aligns closely with prediction markets showing Democrats at a 61% likelihood of success. The article highlights how current economic issues such as high gas prices and President Trump’s low approval ratings are bolstering the Democratic advantage, consistent with historical trends in midterm elections.
Written by AI on 2026-09-21, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

Nate Silver's analysis in the Silver Bulletin suggests that forecasts predicting a Republican victory in the U.S. Senate are overly conservative compared to model predictions. According to FLIPR, Nate Silver’s forecasting tool, Democrats now have between 63% and 69% chance of winning control of the Senate across various versions of the model. The "Deluxe" version predicts a 65% likelihood for Democrats, indicating that the battle is no longer a toss-up but leaning slightly toward Democrats.

Silver notes that prediction markets also favor Democrats with around a 61% probability. In contrast, expert ratings like those from the Cook Political Report, which still classify seven races as "toss-ups," appear out of sync with these predictions. For instance, in New Hampshire, models and markets show Democrats as heavy favorites despite being labeled as toss-ups by some experts.

This discrepancy highlights a potential misalignment between expert ratings and data-driven model forecasts, suggesting that current expert assessments might underestimate Democratic chances in the upcoming Senate races.

Written for “Midterm Election Predictions” on 2026-11-02, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Midterm Election Predictions
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 4% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 1 of 17 claims Outlet record 70/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of political polling and forecasts for upcoming midterm elections, rather than describing the same specific incident or occurrence.”
The Independent
⚖️ Leans strongly left further left than this Hedges 2 of 34 claims Outlet record 59/100
“The articles discuss general trends and poll outcomes in different states but do not describe the same specific incident or occurrence.”
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 0 of 4 claims Outlet record 70/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of election forecasts and outcomes without describing the same specific incident.”
Daily Mail
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 2 of 20 claims Outlet record 69/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of political polling forecasts and do not describe the same specific event.”
New York Post
Hedges 3 of 22 claims Outlet record 66/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of political forecasting and polling but do not describe the same specific event or occurrence.”
The Independent
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 1 of 16 claims Outlet record 59/100
“The articles discuss overall trends and poll results for the races leading up to November midterms but do not describe a single specific incident or occurrence.”
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 3 of 39 claims Outlet record 70/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of Senate race polling and forecasts, rather than a single specific incident.”
Washington Examiner
Hedges 7 of 70 claims Outlet record 70/100
“Article A discusses general trends in Senate election forecasts, while Article B focuses on a specific campaign in Iowa.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
24
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
4%
1 of 24 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans left
expected in commentary, which argues a position · beta estimate
Publisher signals
not measured
these signals count newsroom corrections; Commentary has none to count
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-21 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Silver Bulletin · 57 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Nate Silver
39 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Believe it or not, I get more sleep than you might assume — and the extra hour helped — but I’m no longer as much of a night owl as I pretend to be.
2026-11-02 · assertive framing · The NYT/Siena polls show a blue tsunami
🔮 I figured the post would start by talking about some of Sunday morning’s more interesting polls.
2026-11-01 · assertive framing · Could Haley Stevens cost Democrats the Senate?
🔮 Our customers tended to scroll through the simulations until they’d encounter one of the weirder maps, and then they’d sometimes use that as a way to express doubt about the forecast.
2026-11-01 · assertive framing · 13 maps for the morning after the midterms
🔮 I think you’d agree that it would be pretty weird for a fox to be friends with a dolphin?
2026-10-31 · assertive framing · SBSQ #32: SuperMegaJumboDeluxe Edition
🔮 We’ll try to space things out, but it’s possible that dishes will pile up and there will be some dry spells, or that you’ll get more than one newsletter or more than one FLIPR update in a day.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · The cognitive dissonance election
🔮 For example, if Democrats have a good night next Tuesday and Peggy Flanagan easily wins in Minnesota, our newsletter from earlier this month that seriously contemplated Michele Tafoya’s chances might be one of those.
🔮 But I’m feeling a little meta-d out this weekend — maybe it was seeing You Can See Everything on Friday.1
2026-10-25 · assertive framing · Let’s talk shop about every Senate race
🔮 Strategic Vision “polls” exhibited statistical patterns — namely, being far more likely to contain some trailing digits (such as 5, 7, 8 and 9) than others, including on obscure questions they probably thought would never be scrutinized — that were canonical signs of forged election results in authoritarian regimes.
2026-10-22 · assertive framing · Fake polls are a real problem
🔮 But leave that philosophical question aside for now — because after a long week of travel,1 I could use a simpler Model Talk.
2026-10-17 · assertive framing · The good, bad and ugly outcomes in the Senate
🔮 Below, you’ll find our forecast for each 2026 Senate race, along with how our numbers have changed over time and which states are likeliest to decide control of the chamber.
2026-10-15 · assertive framing · FLIPR 2026 Senate forecast
Also by Nate Silver
The NYT/Siena polls show a blue tsunami
2026-11-02 · Silver Bulletin
13 maps for the morning after the midterms
2026-11-01 · Silver Bulletin
SBSQ #32: SuperMegaJumboDeluxe Edition
2026-10-31 · Silver Bulletin
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 39 articles by Nate Silver →

Topics

Democrats FLIPR Republicans Senate the U.S. Senate

Subjects

Democrats NORP · 11× Senate ORG · 3× Trump PERSON · 3× Republicans NORP · 2× Congress ORG · 1× Congressional NORP · 1× New Hampshire GPE · 1× The Cook Political Report ORG · 1× the U.S. House ORG · 1× the U.S. Senate ORG · 1×

Narrative

Our model includes an internal calculation of what it thinks the national environment “should” be given the president’s approval rating, the results of the previous Congressional election, and the level of political polarization.2 This calculation, which is calibrated based on all races for Congress since World War II, has only a modest effect on the model3, but it still serves as a good benchmark.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-21
🔮 It’s sometimes nice for forecasters when races are toss-ups; it keeps you from putting your neck out too far.
2026-09-21 · Silver Bulletin
Expert ratings are ignoring signs of a blue wave · assertive framing

Claims (24 extracted, 1 hedged)

In FLIPR’s view, it’s no longer accurate to describe the battle for the U.S. Senate as a “toss-up.” asserted
it → ’ → up
In our terminology, that designation covers all races where neither party has more than a 60 percent chance of winning. asserted
party → cover → chance
But Democrats’ Senate chances are now between 63 percent and 69 percent in all three versions of FLIPR, including 65 percent in our headline “Deluxe” version. asserted
chances → include → version
It’s sometimes nice for forecasters when races are toss-ups; it keeps you from putting your neck out too far. asserted
it → ’ → neck
Democrats are kicking the equivalent of a 50+ yard field goal. asserted
Democrats → kick → goal
Kickers make most of those kicks these days, but there are still plenty of ways to shank it. asserted
Kickers → make → it
But for what it’s worth, FLIPR is in pretty strong alignment with prediction markets, which have Democrats at 61 percent to win the Senate. asserted
which → ’ → Senate
Conversely, expert ratings imply a much different political environment. asserted
ratings → imply → environment
The Cook Political Report, for example, counts seven races as “toss-ups,” including states like New Hampshire where models and prediction markets imply that Democrats are heavy favorites. asserted
Democrats → count → Hampshire
And it’s becoming harder to justify by the day. asserted
it → become → day
There’s not much longer to go — 44 days until Nov. 3 — and both national polls and race-by-race polls have been extremely strong for Democrats since Labor Day. asserted
polls → ’ → Day
Democrats’ big lead on the generic ballot is consistent with history It’s not hard to understand why Democrats have made further gains in polls lately. asserted
Democrats → ’ → polls
Gas prices have spiked to almost $4.50 per gallon, up 37 cents from a month ago and $1.29 from a year ago. asserted
prices → spike → gallon
Diesel prices have risen even more and affect more consumers than you might think. uncertain
you → rise → consumers
Meanwhile, President Trump’s disapproval rating is now 58.9 percent, the highest of his term so far, and his net approval rating of -20.5 is basically tied for his worst.1 asserted
rating → tie → worst.1
Our model includes an internal calculation of what it thinks the national environment “should” be given the president’s approval rating, the results of the previous Congressional election, and the level of political polarization.2 This calculation, which is calibrated based on all races for Congress since World War II, has only a modest effect on the model3, but it still serves as a good benchmark. asserted
it → include → benchmark
Currently, it says Democrats “should” win the popular vote for the U.S. House by 8.7 points. asserted
Democrats → say → points
In other words, that’s what history says to expect in a midterm with a president this unpopular, even after accounting for the fact that high partisanship dampens political swings. asserted
partisanship → ’ → swings
So … where exactly do Democrats stand on the generic ballot? asserted
Democrats → stand → ballot
They’re up almost exactly that amount, 8.6 percentage points, after applying FLIPR’s likely voter adjustment: asserted
They → ’re → adjustment
So 2026 is a year when current and historical trends align in a surprisingly neat way. asserted
trends → align → way
But an environment like this would produce huge gains for Democrats. asserted
environment → produce → Democrats
As Nate Cohn writes, we’re tracking toward around an 11-point swing from 2024, when Trump and Republicans narrowly won the popular vote for both the presidency and the House. asserted
Trump → write → presidency
That’s an interesting number if you look at the 2024 presidential vote because it means potentially breaching the “red wall” of states that wouldn’t ordinarily be competitive. asserted
that → ’ → states
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support