SF k CG bf wrote:
The results are good for my stocks, that's all I care about.
That makes you a bad person.
SF k CG bf wrote:
The results are good for my stocks, that's all I care about.
That makes you a bad person.
Let's look at first midterms for comparison: Obama lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.
Bill Clinton lost 54 in the House and 8 in the Senate..
Looks like Trump lost around 33-35 in the House and GAINED 4 or 5 in Senate.
That's better than Obama and Clinton by a lot.
Trump wins again!
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Let's look at first midterms for comparison: Obama lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.
Bill Clinton lost 54 in the House and 8 in the Senate..
Looks like Trump lost around 33-35 in the House and GAINED 4 or 5 in Senate.
That's better than Obama and Clinton by a lot.
Trump wins again!
That comparison means nothing for many reasons that I don't feel like taking the time to explain to you, and, it takes away from any pride you actually could have. Republicans have gained in the Senate in THIS election, so you should be happy about that just on its own merits. Obama and Clinton are old news, brother. Jump into today.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
agip wrote:
amusing that a 77% chance of winning the house is considered an unlikely event.
ah deplorables. Not even math is within their reach. Good luck, MAGAs.
The midterms will be like Election Night 2016. Another disappointment for the libs. No Blue Wave.
ah no. The House flipped. Probably 35 seats when it's all over.
rigged you going to admit you were wrong, like a big girl? Or just carry on, pretending that the House flipping with 35 seats was just a ripple, a random event?
Devin Nunes on the sidelines, rohrabacher gone...no one to run interference for the trump criminal family. Gonna see some fireworks next year.
so much for this guy's predictions. this from 11/9/17
zero percent, eh? Zero.
Where there any upsets at all or did every seat go the way the polls suggested? Kind of a boring election night.
Racket wrote:
Where there any upsets at all or did every seat go the way the polls suggested? Kind of a boring election night.
NY11
SC1
OK5
But yes, the polls were good on the house.
Florida senate and governor were upsets, as was IN senator.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.htmlagip wrote:
Racket wrote:
Where there any upsets at all or did every seat go the way the polls suggested? Kind of a boring election night.
NY11
SC1
OK5
But yes, the polls were good on the house.
Florida senate and governor were upsets, as was IN senator.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html
The polls were pretty bad for the Senate. I'll post more details soon, but it looks to be another fail for FiveThirtyEight, who gave just a 5% chance of the Republicans reaching 55 (which looks like the likely scenario now). They gave 54 seats just an 8.4% chance. With all of the poll adjusting that they do, they should be much better at these high-profile races.
Nate choked wrote:
agip wrote:
NY11
SC1
OK5
But yes, the polls were good on the house.
Florida senate and governor were upsets, as was IN senator.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.htmlThe polls were pretty bad for the Senate. I'll post more details soon, but it looks to be another fail for FiveThirtyEight, who gave just a 5% chance of the Republicans reaching 55 (which looks like the likely scenario now). They gave 54 seats just an 8.4% chance. With all of the poll adjusting that they do, they should be much better at these high-profile races.
Looks like they were pretty close to me :
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-the-13-races-were-watching/Flagpole wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Let's look at first midterms for comparison: Obama lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.
Bill Clinton lost 54 in the House and 8 in the Senate..
Looks like Trump lost around 33-35 in the House and GAINED 4 or 5 in Senate.
That's better than Obama and Clinton by a lot.
Trump wins again!
That comparison means nothing for many reasons that I don't feel like taking the time to explain to you, and, it takes away from any pride you actually could have. Republicans have gained in the Senate in THIS election, so you should be happy about that just on its own merits. Obama and Clinton are old news, brother. Jump into today.
Damn. Not even Flagpole can spin that.
LOL
Racket wrote:
Nate choked wrote:
The polls were pretty bad for the Senate. I'll post more details soon, but it looks to be another fail for FiveThirtyEight, who gave just a 5% chance of the Republicans reaching 55 (which looks like the likely scenario now). They gave 54 seats just an 8.4% chance. With all of the poll adjusting that they do, they should be much better at these high-profile races.
Looks like they were pretty close to me :
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-the-13-races-were-watching/
I won A LOT of money on bets last night.
10 if 11 and on my big play.
In the money wrote:
Racket wrote:
Looks like they were pretty close to me :
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-the-13-races-were-watching/I won A LOT of money on bets last night.
10 if 11 and on my big play.
What was the big play?
agip wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The midterms will be like Election Night 2016. Another disappointment for the libs. No Blue Wave.
ah no. The House flipped. Probably 35 seats when it's all over.
rigged you going to admit you were wrong, like a big girl? Or just carry on, pretending that the House flipping with 35 seats was just a ripple, a random event?
Devin Nunes on the sidelines, rohrabacher gone...no one to run interference for the trump criminal family. Gonna see some fireworks next year.
What’s average? 32 seats flipping? 35 not out of the ordinary.
Racket wrote:
In the money wrote:
I won A LOT of money on bets last night.
10 if 11 and on my big play.
What was the big play?
Senate
Trump got his nuts cut off yesterday. Let the impeachment begin.
Suck on that trumpettes.
In the money wrote:
Racket wrote:
What was the big play?
Senate
Did you bet they'd take 55+? Idk how that's a big play otherwise because it was basically a sure thing they'd maintain control
Nate choked wrote:
agip wrote:
NY11
SC1
OK5
But yes, the polls were good on the house.
Florida senate and governor were upsets, as was IN senator.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.htmlThe polls were pretty bad for the Senate. I'll post more details soon, but it looks to be another fail for FiveThirtyEight, who gave just a 5% chance of the Republicans reaching 55 (which looks like the likely scenario now). They gave 54 seats just an 8.4% chance. With all of the poll adjusting that they do, they should be much better at these high-profile races.
You are either being disingenuous or you don't understand how probability works.
There was an 80% chance that Republicans would end up with 49 to 55 seats. That's what we got.
Each outcome from 44 to 62 was given its own unique probability. One of them had to be right, but no individual outcome had a probability greater than 17.7%. Most of them were much lower.
You said that Nate failed because the true outcome was assigned a 5% probability. One of the outcomes had to be right and no outcome by itself had a high probability.
I think you need to go back to school and learn math.
Pretty amazing tweet from DJT:
In all fairness, Nancy Pelosi deserves to be chosen Speaker of the House by the Democrats. If they give her a hard time, perhaps we will add some Republican votes. She has earned this great honor!
Nate choked wrote:
agip wrote:
NY11
SC1
OK5
But yes, the polls were good on the house.
Florida senate and governor were upsets, as was IN senator.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.htmlThe polls were pretty bad for the Senate. I'll post more details soon, but it looks to be another fail for FiveThirtyEight, who gave just a 5% chance of the Republicans reaching 55 (which looks like the likely scenario now). They gave 54 seats just an 8.4% chance. With all of the poll adjusting that they do, they should be much better at these high-profile races.
For most of the higher-profile races, the polls generally leaned more Democratic than the actual outcome. Using the RCP PoPs as the basis, here are some I noticed as I watched the coverage last night:
(Race / PoP / Actual result)
Senate:
Donnelly-Braun / Donnelly +1.3 / Braun +9.7
Blackburn-Breseden / Blackburn +5.2 / Blackburn +10.8
McCaskill-Hawley / Hawley +0.6 / Hawley +6.0
Tester-Rosendale / Tester +3.3 / Rosendale +0.7
Nelson-Scott / Nelson +2.4 / Scott +0.5
Heitkamp-Cramer / Cramer +8.0 / Cramer +10.8
Manchin-Morrisey / Manchin +5.0 / Manchin +3.2
Governor:
Gillum-DeSantis / Gillum +3.6 / DeSantis +0.7
Reynolds-Hubbell / Hubbell +0.7 / Reynolds +3.0
Average Jose wrote:
agip wrote:
ah no. The House flipped. Probably 35 seats when it's all over.
rigged you going to admit you were wrong, like a big girl? Or just carry on, pretending that the House flipping with 35 seats was just a ripple, a random event?
Devin Nunes on the sidelines, rohrabacher gone...no one to run interference for the trump criminal family. Gonna see some fireworks next year.
What’s average? 32 seats flipping? 35 not out of the ordinary.
You can't really compare with past history. Gerrymandering technology has become much more refined in recent years. Because of this, the Democrats were starting with a huge disadvantage that has no historical precedent.