Silver: Saying it’s not a blue wave “is dumb”.

[ataraxia]

Silver: Saying it’s not a blue wave “is dumb”.

Well, it's been coming on real slowly, but inevitably. "Wave" may not capture it as much as just a blue steamroller.

 

[Perotista]

Nicely done, Pero. Can't wait to see how you do in 2020.

2020 is right around the corner. Until we know the candidates, it is just a guessing game. If the Democrats nominate a decent candidate, not a Hillary Clinton type, it may be all over for the trumpers. Time will tell.

In the senate for 2012 the Republicans will be defending 21 seats to 12 for the Democrats. Even this far out, the numbers there favor the Democrats into taking back the senate. Whether they will or not, we'll have to wait to see whom the candidates are.

 

[Casca XV]

Do some research. You can find it in this thread. The senate election has to be seen in the context of Democrats defending 25 seats compared to the Republican's 10. One other fact - the nearly seven million more Democratic than GOP votes nationally was the fourth highest margin ever. It was wave comparable to other waves.

It's being exposed that most Democrat voters dont actually exsist.

Right now the GOP has to win most elections in a landslide just to keep dems from stealing them.

The good news is its now all exposed.

 

[JackA]

It's being exposed that most Democrat voters dont actually exsist.

Right now the GOP has to win most elections in a landslide just to keep dems from stealing them.

The good news is its now all exposed.

Have a nice nap.

 

[ataraxia]

It's being exposed that most Democrat voters dont actually exsist.

Right now the GOP has to win most elections in a landslide just to keep dems from stealing them.

The good news is its now all exposed.

Oh I see. It must work the way Trump has told us (with absolutely zero evidence, of course):

"When people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles. Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again. Nobody takes anything. It’s really a disgrace what’s going on.”
-Donald Trump

So wow. That really gives me some ideas. Can I go to my car and come back with a Groucho Marx moustache and vote again? :lamo



Or how about this one? This will surely fool the guys at the polling places:

 

[veritas1]

Dems generally don’t do well in midterms because it’s mostly older voters who vote in midterms. Old cranky Republican voters.

The fact that they took the house is impressive. I would be seriously concerned about how close they came to taking down Ted Cruz in Texas. They won a seat in Arizona of all places.

Deeply conservative districts flipped. But if living in a delusion makes you feel better then continue. But Dems can now issue subpoenas. They can investigate how Kushner and Trump extorted Qatar for loans. Subpoenas are real. They can vote to impeach that’s real. A senate trial would be incredibly embarrassing for Trump when facts are exposed.

Sleep tight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, assuming you guys have any facts, something you've been noticeably short of.

 

[Slavister]

Oh puhleeze, that's just them trying to "justify" that they ****ed up so horribly. In point of fact even before the election Silver admitted to how he acted like a pundit and didn't actually use a statistical model on Trump leading up to the primaries. And even after admitting that he royally ****ed up by giving Hillary over a 70% chance at winning in November. Though I could have sworn it was at 83% on election night but that seems to have funnily enough been changed to 71%. Or was that CNN? :shrug: either way, they screwed up royally. How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump

No, in 2016 he predicted Hillary but he gave Trump a reasonable shot, which Trump made. Trumpsters who love to mock the pollsters conveniently forget that Hillary proved them mostly right in winning the popular vote.

They DID get that one wrong... this was not a measurement of popular vote. It was a specific measure for who will win EC.

 

[tres borrachos]

They DID get that one wrong... this was not a measurement of popular vote. It was a specific measure for who will win EC.

View attachment 67244352

I'd take 1 out of 4 odds any day.

Giving Trump a 28.6% chance of winning seems very reasonable.

 

[JackA]

I'd take 1 out of 4 odds any day.

Giving Trump a 28.6% chance of winning seems very reasonable.

Better than four to one odds. Bound to win a lot of races.

 

[uptower]

It's definitely a big thing. The Senate wasn't really in play so the GOP has nothing much to boast about: they got a couple of unsafe Dems in red states, yeah okay that's fair. The Dems took their biggest sweep since Watergate.

Moreover it's the type of Dems who won: more women, LGBT, minorities, Muslims. And local and state elections were pretty solid too. They took a lot of legislatures and governorships; a lot of judicial slots. In Houston 59 conservative judges were replaced with progressives which will have a lasting effect.

Furthemore look who lost: most of the white-supremacists and bigots who elbowed their way through the primaries got trounced: mysogynists lost to women, homophobes to gays, racists to minorities. This is a broad indicator of the demographic shift underway: politics, at least among the Dems, is not just for old white dudes anymore.

 

[uptower]

They DID get that one wrong... this was not a measurement of popular vote. It was a specific measure for who will win EC.

View attachment 67244352

That was not 'wrong'. They predicted who had a chance: Clinton had a bigger chance, and Trump had a smaller one - but it is still a chance. No guarantees on the day. The only time I bet on a horse, I chose one with 9-1 odds against and won. It was in the race, it had a chance.

So yes polls and stats are still a good indicator of chance. Not a crystal ball.

 

[Slavister]

That was not 'wrong'. They predicted who had a chance: Clinton had a bigger chance, and Trump had a smaller one - but it is still a chance. No guarantees on the day. The only time I bet on a horse, I chose one with 9-1 odds against and won. It was in the race, it had a chance.

So yes polls and stats are still a good indicator of chance. Not a crystal ball.

Fair enough

 

[Casca XV]

Oh I see. It must work the way Trump has told us (with absolutely zero evidence, of course):



So wow. That really gives me some ideas. Can I go to my car and come back with a Groucho Marx moustache and vote again? :lamo

View attachment 67244333

Or how about this one? This will surely fool the guys at the polling places:

View attachment 67244334

No evidence? this after an extreme short internet search:

https://www.politico.com/states/flo...on-documents-tied-to-florida-democrats-695299

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQQ8EBEGT-Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5H_wEjN3OI

 

[ataraxia]

It's going to be funny to watch the dems eat their own in the House. The seats they gained will be gone in 2020 because they will get nothing done except for fighting amongst themselves.

Yes! Unlike what those Republicans have done the last 2 years!:lamo

 

[RileyCoyote]

Yes! Unlike what those Republicans have done the last 2 years!:lamo

No argument here. Congress may as well be one, big party of shiftless losers who accomplish nothing and keep getting re-elected. The difference in you and I is that I acknowledge they ALL suck.

 

[Fletch]

But then there’s plenty of dumbness around.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-it-was-a-blue-wave/

The ones that seem obsessed with putting a name like 'blue wave' to the election are you guys on the left. The expectation that the dems would retake the House has existed since the day Trump was elected. The question is, did the dems do better than expected.

 

[Fletch]

Furthemore look who lost: most of the white-supremacists and bigots who elbowed their way through the primaries got trounced: mysogynists lost to women, homophobes to gays, racists to minorities. This is a broad indicator of the demographic shift underway: politics, at least among the Dems, is not just for old white dudes anymore.

Care to put some names to those allegations, or are you just spewing crap.

 

[ataraxia]

The ones that seem obsessed with putting a name like 'blue wave' to the election are you guys on the left. The expectation that the dems would retake the House has existed since the day Trump was elected. The question is, did the dems do better than expected.

That’s not what Trump was saying when telling us all about the red wave that was going to happen instaead. Were you rolling your eyes like the rest of us when he was saying that?

 

[Fletch]

That’s not what Trump was saying when telling us all about the red wave that was going to happen instaead. Were you rolling your eyes like the rest of us when he was saying that?

I dont hang on Trumps every word the way you guys on the left do. Dems were always going to gain seats for two main and obvious reasons. 1) Dems were woefully underrepresented in every level of government. We are basically a 50/50 country yet republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, the House, a majority of governorships and a majority of State Houses. Even after the election, dems are probably still slightly underrepresented. 2) Dems had all the enthusiasm due to reason #1 and Trumps victory in 2016.

Was it a Blue Wave? Sure, whatever. It was likely more a Blue Tide still reversing the red Tsunami that hit in 2010

 

[poweRob]

Shhh...let them continue to believe they are "winning."

I'm fine with that. They "feel" they are winning so they are happy. We ARE winning so we are happy. Win win all around.

 

[poweRob]

Pre Kavanugh the left was boasting they would take back both chambers of.Congress. On election day they underperformed and only took the House. Most people wouldn't consider not obtaining your stated goal As a massive victory or wave. There was nothing spectacular, unusual, or outstanding about this election.

Only wishful thinking could beat the senate this year the way it was laid out. Its not like both sides had equal amount of seats up for grabs there.

 

[cpwill]

They've never been coy about their political preferences. But I've been listening to them regularly for two years and I can tell you they leave their biases behind where analysis is done. In just the last episode I listened to their members agree that a Republican political ad was "very good," and this is not uncommon for them. You don't have to believe me, but it's true.

I listen to and like them as well. But, while they are good at the data, they do not leave their biases behind. I would very much like to see them deliberately hire a data junkie who came from the right side of the aisle, so they would have someone to identify and challenge unseen assumptions. It would be a good methodological inclusion.

 

[poweRob]

There was a blue wave in Florida's Broward County but the tens of thousands of newly discovered democrat votes found after the election was over still failed to overturn the red wave which hit there on election night.

ON the left there was a blue wave, that accidentally caused a reaction on the right of a tin-foil wave.

 

[poweRob]

The GOP increases it's majority in the Senate, only the third time in a 100 years that has happened in the first mid term.

Dems has a smaller than average gain in congress.


"Not a Blue Wave" is accurate.

see #34, we are winning

Yes... YEESSS! You are winning!

And may you keep on "winning" like this.

 

[Cardinal]

I listen to and like them as well. But, while they are good at the data, they do not leave their biases behind. I would very much like to see them deliberately hire a data junkie who came from the right side of the aisle, so they would have someone to identify and challenge unseen assumptions. It would be a good methodological inclusion.

Their data is regularly tested by the outcomes of elections. If their models are flawed, that will be shown for all to see.