2018 mid-term forecast

[theeedude]

The hour of reckoning is coming for conservatives. They have awoken a sleeping giant.

 

[Commodus]

I'm cautious about declaring that there's a definitive Democrat sweep coming, but at the same time... whether or not you think Moore's defeat was partly a referendum on Trump, the reality is that Republicans have been losing key special elections in no small part due to opposition to Trump and the current strain of Republicans.

Here's a thought: what does Trump do if his nightmare comes true and the Dems get enough seats in both sides of Congress to impeach and convict him? Not that it's especially likely -- I'm just curious as to how he'd respond. He'd probably just whine non-stop until forced out, but I'd half-expect him to flee the country rather than risk giving up his luxurious lifestyle.

 

[Paratus]

Thank you. My comments are being taken out of context a bit by fskimopsy. I was talking about how Trump, I felt, had a very organic ground game and lots of public support despite what many media outlets said and polls suggested. I recall a video I saw where a pundit that had suggested Hillary would win and was looking at what went wrong after the election said something to the effect of, "we put too much faith in the poll numbers and didn't pay attention to yard signs." That is what my commentary about yard signs meant. Polls may have their usefulness, but there is more to the complete picture than them alone.

I wanted to revive this thread by noting that there's a degree of truth to this. Polls don't tell you everything. The point, however, is to not outright dismiss polls like some in the Trump camp do. They can definitely indicate overall sentiment and trends. If most polls show Trump at consistently low approval ratings, and they do, that's definitely going to have an effect on voting. And when you combine that with actual voting results? Damn straight the Republicans should be worried.

Folks like SlowSpyder have a tough time understanding this but the polls were basically very accurate. It was the pundits who were mostly wrong.

The polls suggested that Clinton would win but the difference between Clinton and Trump was about in the margin of error. That should have been read as a very close vote.

It was. Clinton won the popular vote easily but lost the electoral college. That should be a close turn out in anyone’s book.

Most of the pundits latched on to the fact that the polls slightly favored Clinton based on their belief a candidate as “unusual” wouldn’t win.

538 gave Clinton about a 66% to 33% chance to win. Folks like Slow would point to that and say see how wrong the stupid media was.

However if we showed SlowSpyder a guy loading two rounds into a six shot revolver, spinning the cylinder and playing Russian roulette with it, he would tell you it was absolutely not a surprise when the guy blows his head off on the first pull.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Do you have reasons for this logic? In off years, the party out of power almost always does better. So, if history is a guide, Democrats will do well in 2018.

But, we don't need distant history as a guide, we can go off of elections the last few months. In all of the 7 national special elections this year. Democrats have done between 3% and 30% better than they did in the last presidential elections (More lost a seat in an area that Trump won by 28%!) But it isn't just Moore, all 7 special elections had Democrats up more than expected. The average was a 16% boost, not a small number, but a full 16% more than expected from past elections. There wasn't a single election this year where Republicans outperformed.

What will turn that trend back to Republicans?

Yes, and Hillary/Kaine was supposed to win in 2016 and the Democrats were supposed to have a 2 or 3 member majority in the Senate and possibly take over the House. How did that work out for you guys?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You have to remember you're talking to a guy who thinks that he can more accurately predict election results than Nate Silver by driving around town and counting yard signs. This is not a joke.

I don't remember seeing many Trump yard signs. Not too many people wanted to expose themselves to the violence and crime that resulted from so many thug Democrats that were ripping up the signs and threatening the homeowners.
https://www.boston.com/news/politic...gotten-seriously-out-of-hand-in-massachusetts
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bellingham-man-electrifies-his-donald-trump-yard-signs/439215758
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/busted-yuge-surprise-for-woman-stealing-trump-sign/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/08/10/donald-trump-signs-stolen-moos-erin-pkg.cnn
http://6abc.com/politics/thieves-caught-on-camera-snatching-trump-signs/1471719/
http://gothamist.com/2016/08/07/staten_island_mans_huge_trump_sign.php


lots and lots and lots more.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't remember seeing many Trump yard signs. Not too many people wanted to expose themselves to the violence and crime that resulted from so many thug Democrats that were ripping up the signs and threatening the homeowners.
https://www.boston.com/news/politic...gotten-seriously-out-of-hand-in-massachusetts
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bellingham-man-electrifies-his-donald-trump-yard-signs/439215758
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/busted-yuge-surprise-for-woman-stealing-trump-sign/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/08/10/donald-trump-signs-stolen-moos-erin-pkg.cnn
http://6abc.com/politics/thieves-caught-on-camera-snatching-trump-signs/1471719/
http://gothamist.com/2016/08/07/staten_island_mans_huge_trump_sign.php


lots and lots and lots more.

Conservatives sound like the victims of terrible oppression here.

I mean things have gotten so bad that even the super conservative FBI has jointed in the conspiracy to oppress conservatives. I hope you guys are able to soldier in despite this terrible burden.

 

[woolfe9998]

Thank you. My comments are being taken out of context a bit by fskimopsy. I was talking about how Trump, I felt, had a very organic ground game and lots of public support despite what many media outlets said and polls suggested. I recall a video I saw where a pundit that had suggested Hillary would win and was looking at what went wrong after the election said something to the effect of, "we put too much faith in the poll numbers and didn't pay attention to yard signs." That is what my commentary about yard signs meant. Polls may have their usefulness, but there is more to the complete picture than them alone.

Polls are one thing. They have margins of error and aren't perfect. The problem right now for republicans is that we have actual results from 7 special elections, and those results show an average 16 point dem lean relative to recent past elections in those districts. That isn't polling where you take the opinions of a representative sampling of people. These are election results where millions of votes are counted. And in the past there have been strong correlations between special election results and the following year's mid terms. Good luck finding any contrary evidence that is better than that. You just have to hope the national mood changes over the next 11 months.

 

[dullard]

Yes, and Hillary/Kaine was supposed to win in 2016 and the Democrats were supposed to have a 2 or 3 member majority in the Senate and possibly take over the House. How did that work out for you guys?

I don't understand who you are referring to when you say "you guys". I didn't vote for Clinton. I voted for Stein (reluctantly because of her anti-science views, but other than that she was the best of the 4).

And why do you think they were supposed to win? The last three national polls taken were Trump +2 (when you include 3rd party candidates), Clinton +1 (when you exclude 3rd party candidates), and Trump +3. And those national polls don't break it down into electoral college votes.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Keep smoking what you are smoking, and you will be fine.

Guarantee you said the same thing when Trump was just starting to run....

All I'm saying, is quit thinking like a pompous retard like you know what the American public is capable of. They will double down on the stupid and beat you.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I don't understand who you are referring to when you say "you guys". I didn't vote for Clinton. I voted for Stein (reluctantly because of her anti-science views, but other than that she was the best of the 4).

And why do you think they were supposed to win? The last three national polls taken were Trump +2 (when you include 3rd party candidates), Clinton +1 (when you exclude 3rd party candidates), and Trump +3. And those national polls don't break it down into electoral college votes.

re-re-re-vision! yeah, We all knew Trump was going to win and the Democrats would fail miserably in the House and Senate races! Yeah, that's the ticket! We all knew it ! Even Natehole Silver and 538.

 

[fskimospy]

re-re-re-vision! yeah, We all knew Trump was going to win and the Democrats would fail miserably in the House and Senate races! Yeah, that's the ticket! We all knew it ! Even Natehole Silver and 538.

'Natehole'? What are you, twelve?

That's not even a good name. If you're going to act like a child at least put some effort into it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

For a counter-point from someone who has, you know, brains, and knows what he's talking about:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/special-elections-so-far-point-to-a-democratic-wave-in-2018/

Isn't that the same site who predicted this?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

And this far out...the only person you're fooling here is yourself.

 

[theeedude]

Guarantee you said the same thing when Trump was just starting to run....

All I'm saying, is quit thinking like a pompous retard like you know what the American public is capable of. They will double down on the stupid and beat you.

American public hates everything Republicans touch now. It was complacent in 2016, but not anymore. Even tax cuts are polling at 30%. You know you have a problem when people don't even want money from you.

 

[woolfe9998]

Isn't that the same site who predicted this? And this far out...the only person you're fooling here is yourself.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Why was that a bad assessment? It was a fair reading of the existing polling data. The analysts who gave Trump 10% or less (1% in the case of Huffpo) weren't reading the polling data correctly. Fivethirtyeight was. 28.6% is not all that unlikely.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't that the same site who predicted this? And this far out...the only person you're fooling here is yourself.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I'm not sure what you think you're saying here as things with a 28% chance of occurring happen all the time. Have you ever flipped a coin twice and gotten two heads? That's more improbable than Silver put Trump's victory. In fact, this is why before the election he wrote this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

Pretty smart guy, huh.

If you look at Silver's overall record he's been highly accurate so it sure sounds like someone you should listen to, no?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Why was that a bad assessment? It was a fair reading of the existing polling data. The analysts who gave Trump 10% or less (1% in the case of Huffpo) weren't reading the polling data correctly. Fivethirtyeight was. 28.6% is not all that unlikely.

I find their credibility to be somewhat lacking. But they're obviously telling you what you want hear....whatever makes you happy I guess.

 

[theeedude]

You are trying to explain statistics to folks who are still waiting for Reagan tax cuts to trickle down.

 

[fskimospy]

I find their credibility to be somewhat lacking. But they're obviously telling you what you want hear....whatever makes you happy I guess.

What source do you consider to be more credible?

 

[Jhhnn]

Isn't that the same site who predicted this?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

And this far out...the only person you're fooling here is yourself.

Heh. Trump is President by dint of an anomalous result of the Electoral College. Repubs held power in Congress riding on his coattails. Everything they've attempted or done so far violates the trust the public put in them.

This tax bill is an affront to common decency & fiscal responsibility. Everybody knows it, even the big money interests who paid for it. Tell us again who's fooling themselves.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not sure what you think you're saying here as things with a 28% chance of occurring happen all the time. Have you ever flipped a coin twice and gotten two heads? That's more improbable than Silver put Trump's victory. In fact, this is why before the election he wrote this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

Pretty smart guy, huh.

If you look at Silver's overall record he's been highly accurate so it sure sounds like someone you should listen to, no?

Pretty damn smart to cover his ass in the seemingly unlikely event his prediction was wrong.

And look at all the States he missed...some by wild margins! Like Wisconsin 83.5% - 16.5%.

 

[repoman0]

Isn't that the same site who predicted this?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

And this far out...the only person you're fooling here is yourself.

Since events with a probability of 28% never happen, you've sure convinced me.

Nah, just kidding. Someone doesn't understand statistics.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What source do you consider to be more credible?

Nothing this far in advance.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Since events with a probability of 28% never happen, you've sure convinced me.

Nah, just kidding. Someone doesn't understand statistics.

It was "a stunning rebuke of elites". Wouldn't you agree?

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty damn smart to cover his ass in the unlikely event his prediction was wrong.

And look at all the States he missed...some by wild margins! Like Wisconsin 83.5% - 16.5%.

So now you're going back through and cherry picking errors? That's ridiculous. Overall he's been very accurate and there's no disputing it.

As for 'covering his ass', he accurately described why this election had a high degree of uncertainty in it and he was right. This is in marked contrast with 2012 where, despite the candidates being separated by similar margins, he gave Obama more than a 90% chance of winning. This is what separates credible analysis from hack analysis, he stated the uncertanties in his model up front. It was the primary reason why his forecast was considerably more bullish on Trump than others.

So yes, he's pretty damn smart. He's also a credible source for electoral analysis. It's important not to dismiss credible sources just because they tell you things you don't like.

 

[theeedude]

Since events with a probability of 28% never happen, you've sure convinced me.

Nah, just kidding. Someone doesn't understand statistics.

These are people who would rather have drug resistant gonorrhea than allow science and evidence at the CDC. You are trying to explain statistics to them. Good luck.