Well if you were smart, you'd trust me. If you are a Democrat, you'll trust whatever gives you the most positive I trust RCP averages more than I trust 538, that said, there's no way of knowing for sure what will happen because we don't know what turnout will look like and there are a lot of races and a lot of states that are absolutely neck and neck when it comes to the polls.
The number of toss up states on the RCP map is astonishing and shows how much ground Hillary has lost since her peak in late October. How the early East Coast results go tomorrow should be very telling for how the night is going to go. Trump's margin of error is so razor thin that I think a close loss in a state like Florida will cost him, even if he runs the table with the other "Too close to call" states. I'm going to say Dems +3 in the Senate, so the GOP holds on. Florida (29) - Too close to call New Hampshire (4) - Too close to call North Carolina (15) - Too close to call Maine CD2 (1) - Too close to call Nevada (6) - Too close to call Pennsylvania (20) - Probably Hillary but it's way closer than I expected Colorado (9) - Probably Hillary New Mexico (5) - Probably Hillary Michigan (16) - Hillary Ohio (18) - Trump Maine (2) - Hillary Virginia (13) - Hillary Georgia (16) - Trump Arizona (11) - Trump Iowa (6) - Trump
Race-by-Race 538 is agreement with RCP poll averages in terms of who is more likely to win (with the exception of NH which they show as a tie). Its also factoring the fact that turnout could vary and that there are a lot races that are neck-and-neck (among other things). Let me put it another way you might understand: even though Republicans are slight favorites in a lot of the races, the fact that they have to defend so many seats means there is about a 50/50 chance democrats will reach that +4 number.
Sure they are defending a lot of seats, but given that they are leading in the polls in all but 3 of them, it would suggest that the +3 is a lot more likely.
Hmm.....maybe a math example would help here. For the sake of assumption lets say Democrats will win IL, NV, PA, and WI. Thats +3. Then they need to take one of NC, NH, MO, or IN. Lets give winning percentages of 80%, 70%, 95%, and 80% (respectively). For the Republicans hold on to all of these seats, the likelihood would be .80 x .70 x .95 x .80 = .4256 = 43%. This was a crude example but this is what 538 does just on a far more sophisticated scale.
I understand what they do.... My point is that I don't believe that a race where a Republican is up 2 points in the polls is more likely to lose simply because that Republican is one of many Republicans defending their seats. I know why they run their models like that, but it's why I prefer looking at poll averages instead.
Hmm, you missed my point completely. Republicans may have an advantage in 4 races individually but when you consider that the Republicans have to win all of them then it becomes a 50/50.
No....I understood that entirely. What you are explaining is essentially a parlay bet and I'm saying that gambler's BS shouldn't be what we are looking at. If you look at the individual races without trying to weight them based on an outside factor that is entirely irrelevant then you would say that +3 is the most likely scenario given all of the available information.
Your understanding of probability is terrible. Maybe a basketball example would help. Lets say someone is a 60% free throw shooter. He goes the line to shoot two free throws. Your logic would tell us the most likely scenario is that he makes both of them. Math tells us the most likely outcome is make 1, miss 1 (36% to make both, 48% 1 of 2, 16% to miss both). Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?
That's not what you are saying at all. I'm telling you that a 90% FT shooter is probably going to make a FT, you are saying that since there are 5 others taking shots, that means it is less likely that the shooter will make it. Again I do understand what you are trying to say, I'm just saying that it's not what I pay attention to when I am looking at individual races. You want to look at it as a whole and I'm looking at it race by race. In fact, it's almost a gambler's fallacy that you are falling victim to suggesting that the Democrats will be "due" to win based on the number of races while ignoring the polls.
I'm not ignoring the polls at all - I've said they are favorites in those individual races. Sounds like we agree but you prefer to talk about individual races rather than the whole picture. Also, I can guarantee you that NH is closer than that 90% figure you're giving
I'm saying that the "whole picture" in no way impacts the individual races, so if you are in any way weighing the outcomes of individual races based on a "big picture" then you are wrong. A 60% FT shooter has a 60% chance of making a shot even if he's the last of a string of shooters who have all made a shot. If you flip a series of coins and 10 in a row land heads, the likelihood of the final coin landing heads is the exact same as it was for all of the other coins you flipped. When I see a series of races where one party is ahead, it doesn't make it more likely that the person trailing will win simply because all of the other races were won by the opposition party.
Seriously, the guy should just say "I like that result more because it would make me happy" and be done with it rather than coming up with some convoluted excuse for why outcomes of races will be determined based on the number of races there are.
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.270towin.com/maps/ndwPw"><img src="http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/ndwPw.png" width="800"></a><br><small><img style="vertical-align: middle;" src="http://www.270towin.com/uploads/3rd_party_270_30px.png" alt="" /> Click the map to create your own at <a href="http://www.270towin.com/maps/ndwPw">270toWin.com</a></small></div> Playing devil's advocate here...this is ABSOLUTELY the most favorable map I could predict for Trump tomorrow night. He would have to flip polling on its head in multiple swing states just to achieve this loss. Long story short, I cannot possibly fathom Clinton receiving less than 273.
she's certainly not the candidate that i voted for but i'm pretty sure we know how this is going to turn out. it's left me pondering: does clinton reach 300 before trump reaches 200? does trump even reach 200? what is the best election viewing snack?
From your posts I have read in the last 24 hours the number one reason everything you said is wrong will be "turnout" that one word can mold all of your wrong predictions into not really being wrong. Because who can really predict what "turnout" and "enthusiasm" will be right??
