Fat hurts wrote:
Average Jose wrote:
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.
The PA redistricting ended up being YUGE too.
Nate choked 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.
For most of the higher-profile races, the polls generally leaned more Democratic than the actual outcome.
That almost always happens. The undecideds typically break in a single direction which is a phenomenon the polls can't capture before election day.
Another factor is that the turnout models may have been wrong. This election certainly had turnout that was unprecedented for a mid-term in recent years. So if most of the polls used roughly the same turnout models then they would all be off in the same direction.
Man Overboard wrote:
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!
We can look forward to the "I was willing to give her a shot but she blew it" tweet when things don't go his way.
Man Overboard wrote:
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!
It's amazing because it's another example of how Tiny doesn't understand how the government works.
The Republicans don't get to vote on the Democrats' nominee for speaker. This is done through a caucus. Once it goes to the floor, all the Democrats will vote in unison.
Fat hurts 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.
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.
Ha! Please. There's no reason to be defending Silver here. He was quite a bit off, I'm sure even he would admit it.
Do you not understand that his entire objective, and what he would consider success, is to put the center of that Bell Curve right where the outcome ends up?
means a lot wrote:
Man Overboard wrote:
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!
We can look forward to the "I was willing to give her a shot but she blew it" tweet when things don't go his way.
Hey- morans- use your head. He knows that TDS forces the Left to oppose anything and everything he says. He knows this will make them want to choose someone else.
You guys STILL don't get it.
Nate choked wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
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.
Ha! Please. There's no reason to be defending Silver here. He was quite a bit off, I'm sure even he would admit it.
Do you not understand that his entire objective, and what he would consider success, is to put the center of that Bell Curve right where the outcome ends up?
You are again showing that you don't understand math.
When you model probabilities your goal is to get your model close to the probabilities that exist in the real world.
For instance, if you are modeling dice, you model will show that the most likely outcome is seven. But if you roll the dice one time and it comes up with a nine, that doesn't mean your model was wrong.
Do you understand it now?
Although the President's party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans gained six seats in the U.S. Senate, expanding its minority, and also gained 680 seats in state legislative races, to break the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974. This left Republicans in control of 26 state legislatures, compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats. After the election, Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships.
I see it as a feeling of a disappointing night for Democrats.
Losing Indiana and Missouri, even though they are red states, is tough because the Democrats were favored to hold those seats.
Losing the Florida senate seat would be a very big deal. That's a swing state. all of those motivated young voters and Hispanic voters were supposed to be upset with the Trumpian Republicans.
Texas would have been nice but they did put a scare in them.
N Dakota is gone and Montana isn't looking good. Deep red states, though.
Dems flipped Nevada and Arizona is still close.
The good news for Democrats in the Senate is that these are the states that Trump won in 2016 but Dems just won in the Senate:
PA, OH, WV, MI, WI
Trump would need to win them again in 2020 to have a chance at reelection if he is on that ballot.
Here are the states that Hillary won in 2016 that went Republican in the Senate this year:
Zero
Democrats (and those that caucus with them) went 17 for 17 in Senate races where Hillary won
And now the good news for Democrats:
They take back the House after 8 years of Republican control.
The ACA (Obamacare) will be saved. The Republicans can not change that law now after years of campaigning how they would repeal and replace. They didn't even try this last year in power.
Preexisting conditions will be protected. Minimal coverage will be assured. Staying on your parent's insurance until age 26 remains protected. The insurance exchange availability remains law.
The Republicans did strip the mandate. That makes premiums go up since everyone doesn't have to chip in.
We will not get another irresponsible tax cut that hurts our military funding.
And of course, there is a path now to impeach Trump.
Sure, Mueller will have a report or reports still to present.
But Trump is already an unindicted participant in campaign finance fraud with Michael Cohen.
He already can be accused of violations of the Logan by directing Flynn to speak sanctions with Russia before the inauguration.
He already is under investigation for violations of the Emoluments Clause.
Impeach him. Get him on the stand. And watch the perjury pile up.
Fat hurts wrote:
Nate choked wrote:
Ha! Please. There's no reason to be defending Silver here. He was quite a bit off, I'm sure even he would admit it.
Do you not understand that his entire objective, and what he would consider success, is to put the center of that Bell Curve right where the outcome ends up?
You are again showing that you don't understand math.
When you model probabilities your goal is to get your model close to the probabilities that exist in the real world.
For instance, if you are modeling dice, you model will show that the most likely outcome is seven. But if you roll the dice one time and it comes up with a nine, that doesn't mean your model was wrong.
Do you understand it now?
This is a bad analogy. The chance of rolling a 7 is totally discrete at 1/6 for every single roll of a pair of dice.
The chance of Joe Donnelley losing can be claimed in one poll as 10% for example. Another poll can claim he has a 60% chance of losing. Any poll that as a non-zero chance of either outcome is "correct," but that does not mean they were accurate.
L L wrote:
I see it as a feeling of a disappointing night for Democrats.
They lost the emotional races : Beto, Gillium, and TN and Arizona to a lesser extent.
They hit a double. Not bad at all, but they were hoping for a home run.
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.
Since 1946, the average midterm loss for the president's party is 25 seats.
so this is pretty big. 40% more than average. Can't call it a trickle.
Racket wrote:
L L wrote:
I see it as a feeling of a disappointing night for Democrats.
They lost the emotional races : Beto, Gillium, and TN and Arizona to a lesser extent.
They hit a double. Not bad at all, but they were hoping for a home run.
I'd call it a triple. Beto winning would have been a home run. Gillum (notice the spelling) was a surprise loss...not a huge surprise, but a surprise nonetheless. No one really thought they had a chance at taking the Senate, so if they did that, that would have been the very rare perfect game.
Flagpole wrote:
Racket wrote:
They lost the emotional races : Beto, Gillium, and TN and Arizona to a lesser extent.
They hit a double. Not bad at all, but they were hoping for a home run.
I'd call it a triple. Beto winning would have been a home run. Gillum (notice the spelling) was a surprise loss...not a huge surprise, but a surprise nonetheless. No one really thought they had a chance at taking the Senate, so if they did that, that would have been the very rare perfect game.
I blame pundits who pronounce his name as Gill-YUM for the discrepancy.
Flagpole wrote:
Racket wrote:
They lost the emotional races : Beto, Gillium, and TN and Arizona to a lesser extent.
They hit a double. Not bad at all, but they were hoping for a home run.
I'd call it a triple. Beto winning would have been a home run. Gillum (notice the spelling) was a surprise loss...not a huge surprise, but a surprise nonetheless. No one really thought they had a chance at taking the Senate, so if they did that, that would have been the very rare perfect game.
Yeah I don't really get the Debbie downer spins from Dems on this.
The house flipped huge and the suburbs proved they are highly anti-trump.
Now we don't have to care so much about what potus thinks, because there is a check on his power. Let him tweet all he wants - Schiff and CUmmings can do something about it now.
The senate had a couple bad surprises, but we knew it would stay red, so no real loss. We can hope mitt romney will have a spine and do some checking and balancing for the nation. Meanwhile, the 2020 senate map is pretty good for the Dems.
On the governor and statehouse level this was a very good day for the dems.
So there is little reason to be sad here, except for losing special candidates like Beto and Gillum. Hey, they can run for prez now.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are again showing that you don't understand math.
When you model probabilities your goal is to get your model close to the probabilities that exist in the real world.
For instance, if you are modeling dice, you model will show that the most likely outcome is seven. But if you roll the dice one time and it comes up with a nine, that doesn't mean your model was wrong.
Do you understand it now?
This is a bad analogy. The chance of rolling a 7 is totally discrete at 1/6 for every single roll of a pair of dice.
The chance of Joe Donnelley losing can be claimed in one poll as 10% for example. Another poll can claim he has a 60% chance of losing. Any poll that as a non-zero chance of either outcome is "correct," but that does not mean they were accurate.
Face it. You don't understand math.
Each time there is an election day, that is a discrete event. It's exactly the same as a single roll of the dice.
If you want to argue that the polls used a bad methodology then point out why. If you want to argue that Nate's aggregation algorithms are wrong then point out why.
But you are still saying Nate did something wrong because a single discrete event didn't fall right in the middle of his bell curve. Learn math. It's a wonderful tool that will serve you well throughout your life.
Racket wrote:
L L wrote:
I see it as a feeling of a disappointing night for Democrats.
They lost the emotional races : Beto, Gillium, and TN and Arizona to a lesser extent.
They hit a double. Not bad at all, but they were hoping for a home run.
Good analogy.
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.
Do you think it’s easy to model newly unleashed racism and hate among voters? The caravan fairytale played so well for those Senate races. Suddenly, from last night on the caravan ceases to exist... funny thing huh
Senate was always a long shot, they may have missed but were directionally right.
I don't think the Democrats won a single major race last night outside of any House races.
They either lost every close race or their expected wins were closer than they were supposed to be.
Trollminator 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.
Do you think it’s easy to model newly unleashed racism and hate among voters? The caravan fairytale played so well for those Senate races. Suddenly, from last night on the caravan ceases to exist... funny thing huh
Senate was always a long shot, they may have missed but were directionally right.
Yes, and to the extent that those things are not captured it would be the fault of the pollsters. It has nothing to do with Nate's algorithm.