Separated at Birth: Nate Silver and...?

So is NYT Nate Silver separated at birth from:  A Gypsy Fortune teller or Moneyball Oakland A's manager and saber-metric proponent Billy Beane?

Nate Silver separated at birth from: 

Billy Beane?

A Gypsy fortune teller?

So is Nate Silver's model a fraud or the real deal?  He did well in 2008 and 2010.  We will find out for sure November 6.  But as Stacy McCain at The Other McCain notes, Nate's numbers are not quite lining up:

Liberals may be stupid, but they’re not so stupid they can’t understand what John Nolte’s headline means:
GALLUP: Romney Up 52-45% Among Early Voters Dude. If Romney’s leading by SEVEN FREAKING POINTS in the early vote — and also leading by six points among voters who tell Gallup they plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6 — there is no way that Nate Silver can continue gazing at his Magic Forecasting Model™ and seeing a 72.9% chance of Obama being re-elected. He may continue telling that to his readers, but Nate cannot actually believe that.

Update:

Looks like a draw on early voting!   Nate has that working for him.

The issue is whether Nate is really trying to predict the outcome (whether his model is correct or not in doing so is another issue to be determined) or whether Nate is trying to influence the outcome (which would be unethical).

Dan McLaughlin at Red State has a great article:

We can’t know until Election Day who is right. I stand by my view that Obama is losing independent voters decisively, because the national and state polls both support that thesis. I stand by my view thatRepublican turnout will be up significantly from recent-historic lows in 2008 in the key swing states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado) and nationally, because the post-2008 elections, the party registration data, the early-voting and absentee-ballot numbers, and the Rasmussen and Gallup national party-ID surveys (both of which have solid track records) all point to this conclusion. I stand by my view that no countervailing evidence outside of poll samples shows a similar surge above 2008 levels in Democratic voter turnout, as would be needed to offset Romney’s advantage with independents and increased GOP voter turnout. And I stand by the view that a mechanical reading of polling averages is an inadequate basis to project an event unprecedented in American history: the re-election of a sitting president without a clear-cut victory in the national popular vote.Perhaps, despite the paucity of evidence to the contrary, these assumptions are wrong. But if they are correct, no mathematical model can provide a convincing explanation of how Obama is going to win re-election. He remains toast.

Is Nate Silver's Value at Risk?   

Tweet