I'm afraid old Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight is going to end up completely discrediting himself with this call that the D's take the House... he is saying 88% odds it will happen. I just don't see it...
It's a reasonable model. It's just statistics. I don't see how it discredits him if the 12% chance comes up. It's just based on available data (largely the remaining people in America with land lines, LOL.) He was one of the only pollsters saying there was a decent shot of: HRC wins popular vote, Two Scoops wins electoral college in 2016. I watched his % chance of that grow day by day in October of 2016, and sure enough, he was onto something. Cheers.
I don't think his analysis is flawed. Do you think he's wrong about the Republicans keeping the Senate too? It is interesting to note PredicitIt is basically around 35% chance for Republicans to keep house control. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-need-a-systematic-polling-error-to-win-the-house/ The reason it’s counterintuitive is because you can’t really identify 23 districts that are safe bets to flip to Democrats (that’s the number they need to take the House). In the Deluxe version of our model (the one I’ll be focusing on here), only 193 seats are considered to be “solid Democratic” (at least a 95 percent chance of a Democratic victory). If Democrats won only those seats and no others, they’d actually lose two seats from the 195 they control now. Another 15 seats are “likely Democratic,” where Democrats have at least a 75 chance of winning. Win those as well, and Democrats are … still up to a net gain of only 13 seats. The model then has 34 seats in its three most competitive categories: “lean Democratic” (eight seats), “toss-up” (16 seats) and “lean Republican” (10 seats). If Republicans win 24 of those 34 seats — assuming everything else goes to form — they’ll keep the House. How hard is that? Because of the possibility of a systematic polling error, it isn’t really that hard at all. If there’s a typical polling error of 2 to 3 percentage points and it works in Republicans’ favor, the House would be a toss-up. We might not even know the winner for several days as everyone waits for additional mail ballots to be returned from California. Thus, the Lite forecast gives Republicans a 2 in 9, or 22 percent, chance of keeping the House based on the possibility of a systematic polling error. Their chances are 18 percent in Deluxe and 15 percent in our Classic version, meanwhile. That isn’t a great position, but those are real, tangible chances. https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-the-house-but-theyre-pretty-clear-favorites/ I’ll return to the micro vs. macro theme in a moment, but in case you aren’t reading any further, I want to leave you with this graphic. It shows the range of possible outcomes from the Deluxe version of our forecast, which is the version we expect to be most accurate and the one that will be the basis for our live-updating election night forecast. It’s all derived from how accurate polls and forecasts have been in the past, considering real-world uncertainties. And it conveys several important themes for how to think about our forecast: The range of possible outcomes is wide. The shaded area, which covers the middle 80 percent of the forecast, runs from a Democratic gain of only 20 House seats, fewer than the 23 they need to win the House, all the way up to a gain of 54 seats. And remember, that covers only 80 percent of outcomes. There’s a 10 percent chance that Democrats gain more than 54 House seats, and a 10 percent chance they gain fewer than 20. The ranges in the other versions of our forecast, Classic and Lite, are wider still, with the potential for Democratic gains running up to about 60 seats. Nonetheless, the considerable majority of the range is in Democratic territory. The Deluxe forecast shows them picking up a median gain of 35 seats and a mean of 36. So they do have some margin to spare. Finally, the range is asymmetric, with the left tail (showing Democratic gains of 50+ seats) stretching out further than the right tail (showing a “red wave”). That’s because if Democrats beat their polls by a couple of points, they could begin to plunder seats that were gerrymandered to be “safe” for the GOP.
Everywhere I'm seeing (Other than Fox) is saying that the House is an inevitability for the Dems and that the Senate will be within 1 and could go either way, leaning Rep currently.
...Grassley's still mad that he was there in 1920, and nobody took his dissention seriously when he warned everybody in the Senate that giving women the right to vote was a mistake...
Dems won't retake the Senate. They would be lucky just to break even considering they are defending 23 seats vs just 8 for Republicans.
I remember early voting looked promising in 2016 too. A frenzied base isn't enough to predict what the normal population do.
So many people still don’t understand stats and polling. NBA stats said CP3 has a 90% chance of making his free throw. He missed last night. NBA credibility is completely shot!
It's quite irresponsible for normal, good, friendly everyday people and family members to allow their mind to believe in this type crap, but it happen too easily. It's quite common too - ref: lesser of two evils.
Oh sure... you and the other russian disinformation trolls have spun that yarn out for a while now. Though this is an interesting version of that fable... so Hillary Clinton hired Steele? Were either of them wearing hats when she hired him?
Sincerely, that is probably a good thing for your mental health. He is a very skilled peddler of delusion and alternative fact, a flagrant abuser of his audience's worst fears and tendencies, demonizing both their fellow citizens and also objectivity itself. When people ask "how did we get so divided in this country?" you can't answer that without at least a solid mention of Rush Limbaugh.
