Add the four combos together and you get 8.3% + 9.7% + 44.3% + 37.7% = 100%.
That's it.
Simple.
Rojo instinct was right.
Silver is wrong.
You are so dumb it hurts. You are making a fundamental assumption: that the probabilities you lifted from Nate Silver are independent. The reality is that they are not. Instead, they are joint probabilities. That's why in the same piece Nate Silver mentioned the numbers that Rojo (and you) are confused by.
This is incredibly tough. Silver cracked the code in 2008, and his reputation today largely rests on his correct prediction that Obama would win. Since 2016, though, he's been off, and sometimes horribly so. The clowns on PredictIt are having a field day with his last name.
But...I think it's important to take a step back and remember that his prediction here is based on a model that he has designed, and that we don't know the specifics of that model. A lot of it clearly rests on polling, and...well...the polls have been off for several election cycles. So much so that RealClearPolitics has taken the unprecedented step of *adjusting* polls based on previous error (which I think is highly dubious) to get the likely outcome.
I don't think his model accounts for variables that matter to the average American (inflation, esp. the cost of gas) and he has a clear blindspot for the culture wars. Culture war issues have turned every election post-2016 into something like a collective LARP of "Gangs of New York" where opposing ideologies duke it out to see "who holds sway over the Five Points."
Lastly, he seems to be defining his overall prediction on "possible outcomes" and tallying the number of those outcomes to figure out who is favored. So...in what world is a 56 seat Dem senate even a possible outcome? Or any outcome that has more than 50 Dem seats, for that matter.
As always, it is all about turn out. When more people turn out in any election DEMS win.
Alan
Mail in your ballots early and the dems will take the house and senate 100%
Nate Silver is a fraud. The best pollster in the biz is Rich Baris.
Textbook Nate Silver, using pseudo-statistical arguments with no empirical evidence to argue that he will be right no matter who wins.
There is no evidence pollsters overcorrected: 1) the primaries don’t support that and 2) disparity between Media/UNV & IND state polls persists. https://t.co/CBMPJTkpYU
— Rich Baris "The People's Pundit" (@Peoples_Pundit) November 4, 2022
Because the probabilities that the Democrats win the House and that they win the Senate are not independent events - in fact they are highly correlated. In a world where Democrats did win the House, there is virtually no chance that they lost the Senate, because that would mean Democrats are significantly outperforming expectations (i.e. a larger percentage than expected of those voting are choosing Democrats).
I realize that you probably completed a rudimentary probability lesson during a high school math course once upon a time, but that doesn't somehow make you cleverer than actual statisticians. You're just a massive victim of Dunning-Kruger. To be fair, that seems to be your thing.