2018 mid-term forecast

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

304-227 is an anomalous result? You don't say!

 

[repoman0]

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

I would, but I don't know what this has to do with anything. Is having an understanding of statistics elitist now? It's taught in high schools around the country.

The "stunning rebuke of elites" is so far a massive failure, since all it's managed to do is give elites more money. lol. It's also doing a great job ruining the credibility of the country in the eyes of our allies and attempting to cede the future of scientific research to other players (China, Europe) which will dim future economic prospects. But, doesn't matter to me, there are plenty of other perfectly good countries.

 

[woolfe9998]

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

They are just working with numbers and crunching data. If you want to argue with their methods, go ahead. It's based off correlating the results of special elections with subsequent mid terms, and also correlating the generic congressional polling with midterms. They've used these exact same data points to accurately predict republican waves in 2010 and 2014. Somehow I doubt you would have found them not to be credible then.

You've got this exactly reversed. You have no basis to attack their credibility, and haven't bothered to offer any. You just don't like what they're predicting.

 

[soundforbjt]

304-227 is an anomalous result? You don't say!

Less than 80,000 votes across three states, yep.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

If you like living in a feel-good bubble...then this is the kind of horseshit is right up your alley.

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

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Less than 80,000 votes across three states, yep.

Cherry picker! lol

 

[repoman0]

304-227 is an anomalous result? You don't say!

80k votes, or under 0.03% of the country, but great job misinterpreting his point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They are just working with numbers and crunching data. If you want to argue with their methods, go ahead. It's based off correlating the results of special elections with subsequent mid terms, and also correlating the generic congressional polling with midterms. They've used these exact same data points to accurately predict republican waves in 2010 and 2014. Somehow I doubt you would have found them not to be credible then.

You've got this exactly reversed. You have no basis to attack their credibility, and haven't bothered to offer any. You just don't like what they're predicting.

Perhaps I'm not being clear here...I don't care what they're predicting this far out in advance of the 2018 election....REGARDLESS of whether I like their predictions or not.

 

[fskimospy]

If you like living in a feel-good bubble...then this is the kind of horseshit is right up your alley.

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

Their argument is that there has been a large net swing in special elections so far, which I think even you would not deny. It is also true that in the past those swings in special elections have been predictive of the electoral result in the following year, with an average absolute value error of 3 points. Since the swings have been large in favor of the Democrats by very large amounts, that means the swing in the vote is likely to be large in 2018. This is backed up by the empirical evidence presented.

Can you tell me which part of this you believe is 'horseshit' and why? Be as specific as you can.

 

[bshole]

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.

I would expect the market and economy to be doing exceptionally well in a year with the Republican tax plan. This short term gain for long term harm may work out well for the Republicans in the next cycle. It should be apparent to anybody what the majority of American people want.

Since the election, Sanders' popularity has surged. Earlier this year, he was named the the country's most popular politician in a Fox News poll, well ahead of his colleagues. He's also beating Trump handily in early 2020 polling. The party itself, however, hit its lowest favorability mark in 25 years last month (though it's still more well regarded than the GOP).
:
There's no denying that many Americans are unhappy with the Democratic Party, with party leadership and with establishment politics as a whole. It's an increasingly common opinion that all three serve the interests of the wealthy few rather than the middle-class majority.

It's been said before — and should continue to be said until an aggressive and suitable agenda is laid out — voters not only need, but deserve, a party that provides them with something to vote for as opposed to a party that merely points its finger at Trump and Republicans and says, "Well, at least we're not that."

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/03/bernie-sanders-2020-election/

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

80k votes, or under 0.03% of the country, but great job misinterpreting his point.

I understand the point perfectly. Three States representing 30 electoral votes...which is STILL NOT ENOUGH FOR HILLARY TO WIN THE ELECTION. But by all means accuse me of misrepresenting the point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Their argument is that there has been a large net swing in special elections so far, which I think even you would not deny. It is also true that in the past those swings in special elections have been predictive of the electoral result in the following year, with an average absolute value error of 3 points. Since the swings have been large in favor of the Democrats by very large amounts, that means the swing in the vote is likely to be large in 2018. This is backed up by the empirical evidence presented.

Can you tell me which part of this you believe is 'horseshit' and why? Be as specific as you can.

I understand the argument....I just don't buy into it having any real meaning this early in the election cycle.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand the point perfectly. Three States representing 30 electoral votes...which is STILL NOT ENOUGH FOR HILLARY TO WIN THE ELECTION. But by all means accuse me of misrepresenting the point.

It would appear you do not understand the point perfectly as the 80k vote margin was in three states representing 46 electoral votes, which was most certainly enough for Hillary to win the election. (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan)

 

[repoman0]

I understand the point perfectly. Three States representing 30 electoral votes...which is STILL NOT ENOUGH FOR HILLARY TO WIN THE ELECTION. But by all means accuse me of misrepresenting the point.

LOL!!!

 

[repoman0]

It would appear you do not understand the point perfectly as the 80k vote margin was in three states representing 46 electoral votes, which was most certainly enough for Hillary to win the election. (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan)

You must have infinite patience to continue to spell these things out

 

[brycejones]

I understand the point perfectly. Three States representing 30 electoral votes...which is STILL NOT ENOUGH FOR HILLARY TO WIN THE ELECTION. But by all means accuse me of misrepresenting the point.

You suck at checking your facts PA, MI, and WI are 46 electoral votes. More than enough to swing the election to Hillary.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand the argument....I just don't buy into it having any real meaning this early in the election cycle.

It was predictive of the final result for every midterm for the last quarter century. That doesn't mean it MUST be predictive here, but a rational evaluation of the available evidence says that's the most likely outcome, which was of course the point of the 538 piece. That they are careful to spell out significant uncertainty still exists is yet another reason they are such a smart and credible source.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It would appear you do not understand the point perfectly as the 80k vote margin was in three states representing 46 electoral votes, which was most certainly enough for Hillary to win the election. (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan)

The 3 closest races by percent were Michigan at .3% (16), New Hampshire at .4% (4) and Wisconsin at 1.0% (10).

 

[theeedude]

I would expect the market and economy to be doing exceptionally well in a year with the Republican tax plan. This short term gain for long term harm may work out well for the Republicans in the next cycle. It should be apparent to anybody what the majority of American people want.
https://www.salon.com/2017/12/03/bernie-sanders-2020-election/

I wouldn't be so sure economy is going to do well outside of stock market, which Americans now largely see as something mainly benefiting the rich and don't like.

 

[soundforbjt]

The 3 closest races by percent were Michigan at .3% (16), New Hampshire at .4% (4) and Wisconsin at 1.0% (10).

Talk about cherry picking!

 

[fskimospy]

The 3 closest races by percent were Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4) and Wisconsin (10).

No one said anything about the three closest races, they said ~80k votes would have swung the election and that is correct. What you are saying also makes no sense considering Clinton won New Hampshire so no number of votes swinging to her would have altered the outcome.

So again, it is clear you did not understand the argument.

 

[repoman0]

The 3 closest races by percent were Michigan at .3% (16), New Hampshire at .4% (4) and Wisconsin at 1.0% (10).

So what? Nobody is talking about that, as the 80k votes should have made clear.

 

[fskimospy]

So what? Nobody is talking about that, as the 80k votes should have made clear.

He appears not to have noticed that PA, WI and MI were the three closest states that Donald Trump won. For some reason he decided to include a state Clinton won.

 

[bshole]

I wouldn't be so sure economy is going to do well outside of stock market, which Americans now largely see as something mainly benefiting the rich and don't like.

Perception is sometimes reality

• The CNBC All-America Economic Survey polled 800 adults across the nation.
• For the first time in at least 11 years, more than half of the respondents to the survey rated the economy as good or excellent.
• Forty-one percent expect the economy to improve in the next year, near a record.
• Forty-two percent of the job Trump is doing as president, up 4 points from the September survey, while 49 percent disapprove, down 3 points.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/18/economic-optimism-soaring-helping-trump-cnbc-survey.html

 

[fskimospy]

Perception is sometimes reality
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/18/economic-optimism-soaring-helping-trump-cnbc-survey.html

If this is similar to other surveys I've seen it doesn't mean that much as the vast majority of the change has been from Republicans saying the economy was terrible before the election to saying it was good after it despite almost nothing changing. While Democrats also saw a change down it wasn't nearly as large as the Republican swing upwards. Shocking, I know.