Princeton Election Consortium

A laboratory for innovation in democracy. Since 2004

Aug 13: Biden 357 EV (D+6.1% from toss-up), Senate 52 D, 48 R (D+4.0%), House control D+3.5%
Moneyball states: President AZ NV AR, Senate MT KS AK, Legislatures KS TX NC

The 500,000th site view…

October 8th, 2008, 9:09pm by Sam Wang

…will occur around 1:00am tonight. Our per-day traffic is about 5-10% that of,, or FiveThirtyEight. Not so bad for a site that went dormant in 2004 and re-launched in late July. Thank you all. (And you are most welcome to exit this site via my ActBlue page.)

Tags: Site News

16 Comments so far ↓

  • Bill B

    I’m proud to contribute to your half-million. Thanks for all you do.

  • Becca

    Hey, stop blogging and come home!

  • Alex

    I read your site via RSS, so I don’t know think that’s counted.

    Anyway, your work has been a immensely valuable resource and it is certainly appreciated by your readers.

  • Aaron

    Prof. Wang,

    I wanted to offer my congratulations and also relay to you a very cool reference to your site that happened today. I am a 1st year MSTP (MD/PhD) student at Stanford and we have weekly lunches with the chairs of each department. Today, it was the neuroscience department and Prof. John Huguenard talked to us. During the course of the lunch, the topic of the election came up and Prof. Huguenard mentioned a departmental alumnus, now at Princeton, who runs a website that will predict the winner of the election based off the polls.

    “Sam Wang!” I interjected. ” I know the site, I go to it probably 10 times a day! I used to visit it in 2004. I’ve even emailed him suggestions to the site!”

    What a small world.

    Congrats again.


  • James

    And thanks from me as well.

    (Did I hit the magic number???)

  • snowball

    Congratulations on your excellent work.

    By the way, is 538’s Nate Silver at it agai?

    “p.s. The other term conspicuously absent from last night’s debate? “Maverick”.”

    Does he mean you, Sam? I really don’t get why there is such animosity between you two (I haven’t been following both sites for very long, but he seems to be much more aggressive for some reason). If I didn’t know any better, I’d think he’s running a political campaign…

  • Suzii

    Did we hit it yet? I can’t wait to hear.

  • John S

    Thanks so much for your website. I really do appreciate all the hard work you have invested in making this information available to those interested in the future of our country. I am employed as a security guard and your website enables me to speak with people interact with in an educated manner as it relates to the probablity of the election results. Best Wishes and may your audience continue to increase!

  • Sam Wang

    Thanks to everyone. It’s been more fun this year than I imagined. I think we’re entering a less suspenseful part of the campaign, but I’m sure many of you will be coming back.

    Snowball, please. I may be competitive but I am not schizophrenic! Anyway, it’s like the national race: the one who is behind is more aggressive. Last week I did encounter a graduate student in the Politics department who asked questions suspiciously like the ones that Nate Silver asks. I said that I was just a maverick.

    Suzii and James, we hit 500,000 at 3:00+/-2:00 AM so it could have been Suzii. That’s not counting RSS feed, the cell-phone-only population, or people who say they read this site but really prefer RealClearPolitics. Sorry, feeling silly this morning!

  • Gerry E.

    I viewed your website daily leading up to the election in 2004. While I was disappointed with the final outcome, I thought the analysis was amazing.

    I was hoping that you would do the same for this year, but I was having trouble finding it. Yesterday, on my 53rd birthday, I found it. Thank you for my “present”!


  • Deanna

    Sam, This site is a haven of sense and sanity. I love it, and so do many of my colleagues at the University of South Carolina. Thanks!


  • snowball

    Well Sam, my vote’s with you, in any case! In fact, the more someone appears on TV touting their ‘special powers’, the more suspicious I become of their motives and ability. I had first come across your work in a podcast and have been very impressed by the site since.

    Keep it up.

    PS Thanks for making all the (important) code available, by the way!

  • Becca

    Hey! Get back to work!


  • Observer

    Remember, no food fights. Silver’s reference to ‘no mention of “Maverick” seemed to me to be a routine mention of McCain giving up on the term throughout the second debate. I didn’t see any reason to view it as any kind of reference to Sam. Nor have I seen any criticism of Sam or this site over at 538. (If I’ve missed something, somebody can tell me.)
    I check both sites every day. (OK, sometimes far more than that.)

  • Bill B

    With regard to snowball’s scrying Silver’s intent.

    Friends: Do we really need attack ads on this site?

    You have to work very hard to find a dig at this site in the 21-2 post. (You have to work not at all to find mockery of McCain in it.) Occam’s razor would seem to apply. In any case, the usefulness and academic integrity of this site stands on its own. Tit-for-tat fanboyism doesn’t become this community; it diminishes it.

    I don’t believe that Nate Silver is “at it again” or that he was ever “at it.” A single time, in response to a specific question, he said “Sam Wang is a good guy and does good work,” but that he wasn’t interested in one of the primary questions with which this site concerns itself.

    He said it in a way that could be considered intemperate. He responded in a way that could be considered boorish in academic circles. He’s not an academic.

    On 538, I see only respect for the kind of transparency, rigor, and dedication that we see here. Could we all just appreciate what’s useful, ignore what isn’t, and leave the drama to the daytime TV?

  • Sam Wang

    Um, guys…I thought snowball was just making fun of me. Kind of like Gaslight, you know? Except with polling geeks instead of Ingrid Bergman. In this elaborate analogy, snowball is Charles Boyer.

    Look, if we were going to engage in trash talk, we could certainly do better than this thread. Enough now!

Leave a Comment