• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Nate Silver is back

Nate predicts a 60 percent chance the GOP will retake the Senate - who can object?
 
maxparrish said:
Nate predicts a 60 percent chance the GOP will retake the Senate - who can object?
Click to expand...

Any patriotic Real American can object, but I'm sure all the America-hating fascist-communist Islamo-atheists will just blindly believe whatever that liberal says despite knowing that he is a liberal.
 
I will. Your pack of bastards isn't just going to NOT win the Senate, it's going to lose seats net.

If you look at his past Senate projections, Silver has been wrong in the GOP's favor every single time.

This projection is based on zero current polling, as his own dunces admit.

There are also three possible Democratic pickups listed by DSCC that he's leaving out: Maine, Georgia and Mississippi.

To that I'd add South Carolina's non-special (and maybe its special) and Tennessee... possibly Texas if Wendy Davis can get the vote out for the no-name taking on Cormyn.

The problem is that both the economy and opinions on Obamacare are going to improve. Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana are all going to firm up for the Democratic incumbent. Probably West Virginia too, especially if Capito loses the Primary. Montana will also hold firm. Kentucky we already know McConnell is dead in. The only Democratic held seats that actually worry me are West Virginia and South Dakota, and South Dakota much moreso. I'm certain that either Georgia or Maine will flip Blue, possibly both.

One last interesting thing to watch out for is if Brad Henry or Brad Carson jumps into one or both of the Oklahoma races.

The numbnuts will continue to send Tea Partiers to take down normal conservatives and lose for it.

In short, expect a net Tie in the Senate with a slight edge for Democratic gains.
 
maxparrish said:
Nate predicts a 60 percent chance the GOP will retake the Senate - who can object?
Click to expand...

I don't know what I'll put the probability at, but Nate's model isn't that compelling at this juncture. We'd be getting more through dynamic analyses of the races that I think explain things like why Hagan, Begich, and maybe even Landrieu will have less difficulty getting the kinds of votes 538 and most others are saying they can't get. The extrapolation from national or presidential demographics just don't cut it. Certain regions vote differently demographically.

Regardless, Nate's model is superfluous and tells us virtually nothing. When accurate information is available, it is baked into the polls
 
Duke Leto said:
I will. Your pack of bastards isn't just going to NOT win the Senate, it's going to lose seats net.
Click to expand...

They may not win the Senate, but a person would have to be the world's most cocooned Democrat zealot to seriously assert that the GOP will lose Senate seats in net.

If you look at his past Senate projections, Silver has been wrong in the GOP's favor every single time.
Click to expand...
I am sure he, as others, adjusted his methods after 2012 - most analysts do after an election. And by the way, he does not always error on behalf of Republicans, he under-estimated, more than most, the Republican House gains in 2010.

There are also three possible Democratic pickups listed by DSCC that he's leaving out: Maine, Georgia and Mississippi. To that I'd add South Carolina's non-special (and maybe its special) and Tennessee... possibly Texas if Wendy Davis can get the vote out for the no-name taking on Cormyn.
Click to expand...
Most of this is laughable wishful thinking and faith based prayer. [/quote] Of course he left them out, only Bagdad Bob could sell these as in contention (hell, Wendy Davis is already in serious trouble).

NOBODY rates these States as in contention...well, except the party apparatchiks working for the DSCC. For example, Sabato rates the incumbent Collins as 95 percent likely to win. South Carolina will be secured by Graham, and then he will easily win the general.

The problem is that both the economy and opinions on Obamacare are going to improve. Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana are all going to firm up for the Democratic incumbent. Probably West Virginia too, especially if Capito loses the Primary. Montana will also hold firm. Kentucky we already know McConnell is dead in. The only Democratic held seats that actually worry me are West Virginia and South Dakota, and South Dakota much moreso. I'm certain that either Georgia or Maine will flip Blue, possibly both.
Click to expand...
It might be helpful for you to open the hatch on the Democratic echo chamber and get a little fresh air with the pro's.

It is possible, as dismal as the polls look in Arkansas and Louisiana for the Demo's to survive. And Alaska is a tossup, depending on whether or not the Republicans nominate a quality candidate. McConnell will secure Kentucky. If Capito wins the primary, as she is very likely to do, West Virginia turns Red. South Dakota easily goes Republican if they avoid nominating a nut-job (as it seems they will). Montana will likely go Red, Daines is a quality candidate and Walsh was an appointment.

And as to the question of Georgia or Maine flipping blue, well...Maine will not (period). Georgia is unlikely to turn blue.

Here are the guys you ought to be reading:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/category/2014-senate/
http://cookpolitical.com/

And for the fun of it you might look at a model that says there is an 80 percent chance the GOP will take the Senate. Personally, I don't believe it BUT it is an interesting read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ook_at_dems_chances_of_losing_the_senate.html

One last interesting thing to watch out for is if Brad Henry or Brad Carson jumps into one or both of the Oklahoma races.

The numbnuts will continue to send Tea Partiers to take down normal conservatives and lose for it.

In short, expect a net Tie in the Senate with a slight edge for Democratic gains.
Click to expand...

Two points:

First, you are correct that Brad Henry would make it interesting. Still, as Governor Henry supported Obama early on, and the Obamacare tag (and poor economy) will most likely turn back an upset. Okies HATE Obama.

Second, I see that when you say "net Tie" and 'slight edge for Democratic gains' you may misunderstand the electoral landscape. Republicans will have the net gain in seats, Democrats the net loss and the question is will it be enough to control the Senate.
 
Duke Leto said:
I will. Your pack of bastards isn't just going to NOT win the Senate, it's going to lose seats net.

If you look at his past Senate projections, Silver has been wrong in the GOP's favor every single time.

This projection is based on zero current polling, as his own dunces admit.

There are also three possible Democratic pickups listed by DSCC that he's leaving out: Maine, Georgia and Mississippi.

To that I'd add South Carolina's non-special (and maybe its special) and Tennessee... possibly Texas if Wendy Davis can get the vote out for the no-name taking on Cormyn.

The problem is that both the economy and opinions on Obamacare are going to improve. Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana are all going to firm up for the Democratic incumbent. Probably West Virginia too, especially if Capito loses the Primary. Montana will also hold firm. Kentucky we already know McConnell is dead in. The only Democratic held seats that actually worry me are West Virginia and South Dakota, and South Dakota much moreso. I'm certain that either Georgia or Maine will flip Blue, possibly both.

One last interesting thing to watch out for is if Brad Henry or Brad Carson jumps into one or both of the Oklahoma races.

The numbnuts will continue to send Tea Partiers to take down normal conservatives and lose for it.

In short, expect a net Tie in the Senate with a slight edge for Democratic gains.
Click to expand...

What have you been smoking? Wendy Davis win Texas? When pigs fly. You think Susan Collins is in trouble in Maine. I've not seen a hint of it. And Dems win Mississippi? AND Oklahoma? AND South Carolina? You're a pile of laughs. Obamacare will be MORE unpopular by election time because many of the provisions that Obama has delayed because they were unpopular will be coming into effect by then. Meanwhile the economy, which DID improve in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2013 without helping Obama's popularity or the Dems prospects very much, is now getting worse.
 
wufwugy said:
I don't know what I'll put the probability at, but Nate's model isn't that compelling at this juncture. We'd be getting more through dynamic analyses of the races that I think explain things like why Hagan, Begich, and maybe even Landrieu will have less difficulty getting the kinds of votes 538 and most others are saying they can't get. The extrapolation from national or presidential demographics just don't cut it. Certain regions vote differently demographically.

Regardless, Nate's model is superfluous and tells us virtually nothing. When accurate information is available, it is baked into the polls
Click to expand...

At this point I don't see where any model is exactly "compelling." However, if Republicans win where the polls show that they have a comfortable lead and win half the states that polls show to be a toss-up, then they win control of the Senate. So Democrats have to win MORE than half the toss-ups. That puts Republicans at somewhere better than 50-50 so 60% doesn't sound like such a bad figure to grab out of the hat.

The reason Silver is coming under such an attack, is because he is read mostly by LIBERALS. The DNC doesn't want liberals to hear that their prospects are so bad from a voice that has credibility among them. So now they have to attack his credibility.
 
I should add that Nate Silver isn't simply in trouble for predicting a Republican advantage in the Senate races. The Times and other liberals are also attacking him for hiring Roger Pielke, Jr. as a climate science adviser. When it comes to the question of climate change, it seems that Pielke is a middle-of-the-road guy, and in today's political environment that is not enough. Essentially, Pielke accepts the greenhouse gas model of climate but considers that actual degree of warming due to this effect as to others still to be an open question. And that leads to the question of how much we should be looking to prevent climate change and how much we should rely on adaptation. But Pielke holds a Ph.D. in political science, not climate science, and that is one of the objections being raised. That is rather silly. Lots of people on both sides of the debate do not hold science degrees. The issue is how well-informed they are on the literature that is available. Gavin Schmidt of RealScience, for example, does not hold a climate science degree, but he still writes on the subject and comments on his blog. (Pielke's father, however, is a professor of climate science and the son holds views similar to his father who argues that there are other man-made effects on climate that are being overlooked because of the focus on greenhouse gases).

So Nate is also in hot water for not hewing to the politically correct line even though his only sin is that he has an adviser who takes a more nuanced view of the issue than the climate alarmists are pushing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom