FiveThirtyEight says Dems have 75 percent chance of winning House

[akyron]

People keep harping on the popular vote, .

So true. This is quite puzzling as well since these elections are not decided in this manner. This is like scoring a golf game by how many basketballs one can sink. One may end up with a pretty low number and think well of yourself...but only in the throes of your own delusion and will have no actual effect on reality. So strange when people do that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Facts don't back you up. The press went after both candidates: https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/

You may want to dig deeper into your own article:

About Trumps coverage:

Trump’s general election news coverage fit the pattern of earlier stages of the campaign in several respects but not all. The major departure was that his general election coverage was overwhelmingly negative in tone. In our earlier reports, we documented the positive coverage Trump received during the nominating stage of the campaign, a pattern largely attributable to the press’s tendency to highlight the horserace in the pre-primary and primary periods. As Trump rose from single digits in the polls and then won key primaries, he got favorable press. It was a story of growing momentum, rising poll numbers, ever larger crowds, and electoral success. The fact that the horse race is the most heavily covered aspect of the nominating phase magnified Trump’s favorable coverage.

Trump’s general election coverage was a stark contrast. His coverage was negative from the start, and never came close to entering positive territory (see Figure 8). During his best weeks, the coverage ran 2-to-1 negative over positive. In his worst weeks, the ratio was more than 10-to-1. If there was a silver lining for Trump, it was that his two best weeks were the ones just preceding the November balloting.

About Clintons coverage:

Like Trump, Clinton’s coverage was negative in tone. Unlike Trump, it was a continuation of a pattern that had been set at the start of her presidential run. In the nineteen months leading up to the general election, there were only two months where Clinton’s coverage was positive on balance, and then by less than 5 percentage points in each case. The general election campaign continued the string. Her coverage in every month—August, September, October, and early November—was negative on balance. During the entire general election, there was only a single week where the balance was positive (see Figure 12). That week was the one following the first debate, where her strong performance pushed her into positive territory for the week, though by the slim margin of 4 percentage points.

It should also be noted that your source did not include op-eds and editorials or talk shows from the major news networks. Lots of people read/watch those and are often affected by it.

 

[thenotorious]

Labeling a person as a racist doesn't mean they are.

Words have meaning. Please open up a dictionary from time to time.

Trump is a racist. His supporters are racist. Racist white people don't get to dictate what is and isn't racist.

 

[thenotorious]

You may want to dig deeper into your own article:

About Trumps coverage:


About Clintons coverage:



It should also be noted that your source did not include op-eds and editorials or talk shows from the major news networks. Lots of people read/watch those and are often affected by it.

Those aren't news coverage, and isn't held to the same standard.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Those aren't news coverage, and isn't held to the same standard.

Doesn't matter. They STILL affect how people think and shows like Hannity, Rachael Maddow, Laura Ingraham etc etc etc are all highly watched news opinion shows that many of millions of people watch and listen to. They have just as much effect on how people will vote as just plain news stories. To make it only about news coverage is to tell only half of the story.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Trump is a racist. His supporters are racist. Racist white people don't get to dictate what is and isn't racist.

Talk about a racist statement.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Doesn't matter. They STILL affect how people think and shows like Hannity, Rachael Maddow, Laura Ingraham etc etc etc are all highly watched news opinion shows that many of millions of people watch and listen to. They have just as much effect on how people will vote as just plain news stories. To make it only about news coverage is to tell only half of the story.

Rachel Maddow deserves a better fate than to be carelessly linked with Hannity and Ingraham. Sure she is opinion, but her research is strong, annotated, and accurate. The other two can't say that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Rachel Maddow deserves a better fate than to be carelessly linked with Hannity and Ingram. Sure she is opinion, but her research is strong, annotated, and accurate. The other two can't say that.

Do you have anything to dispute what I said beyond opining that Maddow is somehow better?

 

[Howard the Duck]

Do you have anything to dispute what I said beyond opining that Maddow is somehow better?

No. Thanks for asking.

 

[Big Ed]

Doesn't matter. They STILL affect how people think and shows like Hannity, Rachael Maddow, Laura Ingraham etc etc etc are all highly watched news opinion shows that many of millions of people watch and listen to. They have just as much effect on how people will vote as just plain news stories. To make it only about news coverage is to tell only half of the story.

There is a reason more people are watching "Fox News" shows than the other networks - figure out why and maybe you'll have an epiphany.

 

[Big Ed]

Trump is a racist. His supporters are racist. Racist white people don't get to dictate what is and isn't racist.

So only black, brown, tan, yellow, green, purple, people get to dictate what is and isn't racist?

 

[Kal'Stang]

There is a reason more people are watching "Fox News" shows than the other networks - figure out why and maybe you'll have an epiphany.

I don't care why. :shrug: People can watch whatever they want for whatever reason that they want. I'm just talking about the effects that our media had on the election. Something that many people seem to want to ignore talking about. Especially those IN the media.

 

[Big Ed]

I don't care why. :shrug: People can watch whatever they want for whatever reason that they want. I'm just talking about the effects that our media had on the election. Something that many people seem to want to ignore talking about. Especially those IN the media.

There is a real reason Trump has called the media an enemy of the American people - can you figure out why?

 

[ecofarm]

I don't care why. :shrug: People can watch whatever they want for whatever reason that they want. I'm just talking about the effects that our media had on the election. Something that many people seem to want to ignore talking about. Especially those IN the media.

Are you claiming votes are split because ratings are split? I think that's putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Kal'Stang]

There is a real reason Trump has called the media an enemy of the American people - can you figure out why?

This has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Are you claiming votes are split because ratings are split? I think that's putting the cart before the horse.

Nope. Read the rest of the thread to see my stance.

 

[Linc]

There is a real reason Trump has called the media an enemy of the American people - can you figure out why?

Because #45 Belongs in Siberia!?

 

[Kobie]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...t-says-dems-have-75-percent-chance-of-winning

Democrats have about a 75 percent chance of retaking the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, according to the data crunchers at FiveThirtyEight.

The website launched their new House forecast on Thursday, predicting an 80 percent chance that Democrats gain between 14 and 58 seats. The party needs a net gain of 23 seats to retake the House in November.

FiveThirtyEight says there is a 10 percent chance that Democrats gain fewer than 14 seats and a 10 percent chance of a big wave that would see them gain more than 58 seats.
=========================================================
Respected polling & analytics firm 538.com gives the Dems roughly a 75% chance of retaking control of the House in November. Now all the Dems have to hope for is for Donald to keep digging that hole he's gotten himself into.

That's now. The election is in what, three months? Let's not start sucking each others' dicks just yet.

538 does a great job of analyzing polls, but polls are merely a snapshot in time. They're based on asking people what they thing RIGHT NOW. Well, as anyone who has spent any time around people can attest to, what people think changes by the nanosecond.

 

[thenotorious]

Doesn't matter. They STILL affect how people think and shows like Hannity, Rachael Maddow, Laura Ingraham etc etc etc are all highly watched news opinion shows that many of millions of people watch and listen to. They have just as much effect on how people will vote as just plain news stories. To make it only about news coverage is to tell only half of the story.

It does tell the entire story. They're not obligated to go after "both candidates". They are not the news, and don't have to be. Just because they have a platform and other's don't doesn't mean they should have to suppress their free speech.

 

[Kobie]

Which is why I don't put much faith in polling predictions of the future. It gives people a false sense of what "should" happen. On election night CNN had Hillary Clinton winning by 98% at the start. IMO it is all those polling predictions that has helped foster some of the hatred that we see today. People were SO DAMN SURE that Hillary was going to win that many just can't accept the fact that she lost and as such will cling to anything that supports that belief.

Goddamit all to ****ing hell, when are you going to stop pretending that anyone gives (or even GAVE) a damn about Hillary ****ing Clinton? Jesus goddamn Christ this is getting annoying.

Objection to trump is not some tantrum because OMG HILLARY LOST! It's because he's a depraved, amoral, narcissistic lunatic who is completely unfit for the presidency.

 

[Big Ed]

This has nothing to do with the thread.

Absolute incorrect - has everything to do with the post. How do you (or anyone else) obtain an informed opinion when presented a limited view of the information - all "news" agencies are guilty of this, some more than others. Take the 2016 election as an example, most of the media claimed there was no path for Trump to obtain the needed votes, yet look at what they said and what happened. Many of those claiming no victory for Trump expected everyone to believe them and demoralized those who supported Trump. This thread's title seems to be in the same alignment; many of your claims as well.

 

[Kobie]

Uh huh...

And what were Hillary's chances of winning again?

Did 538 have Hillary's chances of winning at 100 percent? Do you guys even understand what percentages and probabilities mean?

 

[Kobie]

Well, it would be nice to restore some balance to the House.

But remind me again who 538 predicted would win the 2016 election....

GODDAMMIT. 538 didn't "predict" anything, any more than Vegas "predicts" that Notre Dame beats Syracuse by 10 1/2 at Yankee Stadium in two weeks.

 

[Big Ed]

Because #45 Belongs in Siberia!?

Sure - why not. And by the way, Buh-bumma was not an American citizen!

 

[Kobie]

Just yesterday I saw a Rassmussen poll

I stopped reading there. Rasmussen also has Trump over 50% while every other poll has him in the low 40s. Rasmussen is ALWAYS a GOP-friendly outlier. If you want to be taken seriously, stop citing that terrible poll.