Current Events > Silver predicts 86% chance dems take the House

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

We'll see.

Most analysts are in that range, yeah. It's good, regardless of who is president to not have a one party government. Don't need a bunch of mindless rubber stampers like we have now. Make Trump actually reach across the aisle.
---

Preparing my Donald Duck memes.
---

It's been a great many years, but the time had to come eventually.

Too bad Ryan was not the Speaker I hoped for, and didn't really get the Republicans United in Congress. God knows Mr. Turtle couldn't.
---

Oh good so the dems won't show up because it's such a lock that they'll win

Where have we seen that go wrong before
---

I remember everyone slamming Silver in 2016 for saying Trump had a 30-ish percent chance of winning when everyone else gave him 5% or less.

Wired wrote a whole article about how Sam Wong was the new Nate Silver, because Sam's model showed a 99.9% Hillary win rate, which Wired thought was much more reasonable.

Turns out Silver was right, as always.
---

And then it'll go republican again in two years... And then democrats... And then republican.... And on and on like it always has

Why even care?
---

Colorahdo posted...

And then it'll go republican again in two years... And then democrats... And then republican.... And on and on like it always has

Why even care?

Buddy, I've been feeling that way for ages. It's why I only vote independent.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

Oh good so the dems won't show up because it's such a lock that they'll win

Where have we seen that go wrong before

I don't think enthusiasm will be an issue for Dems this time around lol
---

Those are only slightly better odds than you'd have in a given round of Russian Roulette.
---

Colorahdo posted...

And then it'll go republican again in two years... And then democrats... And then republican.... And on and on like it always has

Why even care?

Because Trump with a Dem house is far, far, far better for America than Trump with a Republican House that will just rubber stamp whatever he wants.
---

Antifar posted...

Those are only slightly better odds than you'd have in a given round of Russian Roulette.

Good point

Unimpressed posted...

Colorahdo posted...

And then it'll go republican again in two years... And then democrats... And then republican.... And on and on like it always has

Why even care?

Because Trump with a Dem house is far, far, far better for America than Trump with a Republican House that will just rubber stamp whatever he wants.

Clinton + GOP House was the best IMO
---

Unimpressed posted...

Colorahdo posted...

And then it'll go republican again in two years... And then democrats... And then republican.... And on and on like it always has

Why even care?

Because Trump with a Dem house is far, far, far better for America than Trump with a Republican House that will just rubber stamp whatever he wants.

It's so eerie when I get answers like this, can you not look past your own politics and see what I'm getting at? I'm saying it's all just a show that doesn't affect us, no one ever really wins the house or presidency, it just keeps changing hands and always has and always will
---

He always lowballs. Its more like 96%
---

I think its pretty obvious that the Democrats will take the House. Thats been the consensus for a while and history shows that the midterms are not favorable to the party of the sitting president.
---

Colorahdo posted...

Unimpressed posted...

Colorahdo posted...

And then it'll go republican again in two years... And then democrats... And then republican.... And on and on like it always has

Why even care?

Because Trump with a Dem house is far, far, far better for America than Trump with a Republican House that will just rubber stamp whatever he wants.

It's so eerie when I get answers like this, can you not look past your own politics and see what I'm getting at? I'm saying it's all just a show that doesn't affect us, no one ever really wins the house or presidency, it just keeps changing hands and always has and always will

tell that to the steel workers out of jobs thanks to trumps trade war
---

uhhh didnt trump have a 99% chance of losing?
---

refmon posted...

uhhh didnt trump have a 99% chance of losing?

Off a really poorly designed model that gets constantly harped on to prove a point, yeah
---

Colorahdo posted...

It's so eerie when I get answers like this, can you not look past your own politics and see what I'm getting at? I'm saying it's all just a show that doesn't affect us, no one ever really wins the house or presidency, it just keeps changing hands and always has and always will

We no longer have slave-owners in Congress.

We have women in Congress.

We have people of color in Congress.

Things change. They evolve. We grow better. Ever so gradually. We just have to continue to make sure we put the right people there.

No, it's not about sides. It's about getting a little better every time.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Preparing my Donald Duck memes.

i'm going to love the part where trump throws a couple of his friends under the bus for losing the house.
that's going to be hilarious.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

i'm going to love the part where trump throws a couple of his friends under the bus for losing the house.

He's already preparing to toss Ryan and McConnell under the bus apparently.

I'm looking forward to that lol
---

he had Trump at 11% chance of winning, yea, his forecasts have lost a lot of credibility.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

I remember everyone slamming Silver in 2016 for saying Trump had a 30-ish percent chance of winning when everyone else gave him 5% or less.

Wired wrote a whole article about how Sam Wong was the new Nate Silver, because Sam's model showed a 99.9% Hillary win rate, which Wired thought was much more reasonable.

Turns out Silver was right, as always.

I remember that too. And immediately after Trump was declared the winner, people gave Nate shit for 30% being too low. I mean, I've always felt that prob / stats is counter-intuitive and I knew that a majority of the world's population is innumerate... but what I didn't fully appreciate until 2016, is that there are a lot of otherwise highly educated, intelligent people who legitimately don't understand what 1-in-3 odds means. Worse, they're extremely overconfident in their own misconceptions.
---

Same people said Hillary had a 92% chance of winning. The left is in the position of having to convince the public that economic prosperity is, in fact, bad if they want to win. The "free stuff" platform doesn't work so well when the economy is doing so well and unemployment is so low.
---

Polycosm posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

I remember everyone slamming Silver in 2016 for saying Trump had a 30-ish percent chance of winning when everyone else gave him 5% or less.

Wired wrote a whole article about how Sam Wong was the new Nate Silver, because Sam's model showed a 99.9% Hillary win rate, which Wired thought was much more reasonable.

Turns out Silver was right, as always.

I remember that too. And immediately after Trump was declared the winner, people gave Nate shit for 30% being too low. I mean, I've always felt that prob / stats is counter-intuitive and I knew that a majority of the world's population is innumerate... but what I didn't fully appreciate until 2016, is that there are a lot of otherwise highly educated, intelligent people who legitimately don't understand what 1-in-3 odds means. Worse, they're extremely overconfident in their own misconceptions.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_581e1c33e4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

I cringe every time I think about this article

Especially since the very same author stated Hillary had a 99.2% chance of winning, ending with "don't worry, she's got this"
---

BillyKidd posted...

he had Trump at 11% chance of winning, yea, his forecasts have lost a lot of credibility.

So he predicted that Trump had a chance to win. 2 years and people still don't understand how chances work.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

So he predicted that Trump had a chance to win. 2 years and people still don't understand how chances work.

It was actually much higher

In the low-mid thirties IIRC, meaning Trump had basically a 1 in 3 chance of winning.

And also Silver laid out what would need to happen for Trump to win and lo and behold that's exactly what happened.

@BillyKidd doesn't seem interested in facts tho
---

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

538 (which basically is Nate Silver) gave Trump a 28.6 percent chance on the eve of the election. So lets not inflate those numbers. Hes mainly famous for getting every state right in the 2012 presidential election.

Iirc the numbers changed a ton in the days right before the election though. Which is why pointing to stats weeks in advance like this isnt that productive.
---

BillyKidd posted...

he had Trump at 11% chance of winning, yea, his forecasts have lost a lot of credibility.

Are you capable of understanding chances?
---

Idk, something that has a chance of occurring 3/10 times is pretty high still. It's crazy how Trump flipped a few of the states though. I remember going through my head the only path for Trump, and it did not include him flipping Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania!
---

PiOverlord posted...

Idk, something that has a chance of occurring 3/10 times is pretty high still.

It'd be a pretty good batting average for a baseball player.
---

ok just b/c all the polls were wrong about trump doesn't mean they are suddenly wrong about every other poll...

you do realize we've used polling analytics for decades?...
---

masticatingman posted...

lets not inflate those numbers.

It was hovering around 35% over the weekend before the election, and that's the figure that all of Silver's critics quoted when they lambasted him in the final days of the election. Anyway, it's not really important whether it rounded to 1-in-3 or 1-in-4... that's beside the point.
---

spudger posted...

ok just b/c all the polls were wrong about trump doesn't mean they are suddenly wrong about every other poll...

you do realize we've used polling analytics for decades?...

Sorry to nitpick your wording, but... the polls weren't wrong-- they were within the margin of error. And when you look at how much the polls have been "off" by (within their margin) over the decades, 2016 was on the high end but it's not the highest.

What's unique about 2016 is that everybody wanted to play Forecaster and most of them had no business doing so. The polls were right, the models were wrong (most of them).
---

Polycosm posted...

t everybody wanted to play Forecaster and most of them had no business doing so. The polls were right, the models were wrong (most of them).

agreed. on both points.
---

Polycosm posted...

And when you look at how much the polls have been "off" by (within their margin) over the decades, 2016 was on the high end but it's not the highest.

D E W E Y D E F E A T S T R U M A N
---

FWIW, he has them at like 20 percent to take the Senate
---

Antifar posted...

FWIW, he has them at like 20 percent to take the Senate

Senate was always a crapshoot for Dems this year. The map was so badly against them from the beginning that no one really ever gave them good odds. IIRC, they were at 1/8 before Jones beat Moore which moved the odds to like 1/5 or 6 at the time.
---

Unimpressed posted...

Senate was always a crapshoot for Dems this year. The map was so badly against them from the beginning that no one really ever gave them good odds. IIRC, they were at 1/8 before Jones beat Moore which moved the odds to like 1/5 or 6 at the time.

One of the 538 folks on the podcast said something like "It's the most unfavorable map for either party since the direct election of senators began"
---

Doom_Art posted...

Unimpressed posted...

Senate was always a crapshoot for Dems this year. The map was so badly against them from the beginning that no one really ever gave them good odds. IIRC, they were at 1/8 before Jones beat Moore which moved the odds to like 1/5 or 6 at the time.

One of the 538 folks on the podcast said something like "It's the most unfavorable map for either party since the direct election of senators began"

Sounds about right, looking at the honeycomb chart.

What do you want to bet that the Trump apologists call it a red wave though when the Senate stays 51-49 or goes 52-48? They'll claim victory even if the House flips.
---

Unimpressed posted...

What do you want to bet that the Trump apologists call it a red wave though when the Senate stays 51-49 or goes 52-48? They'll claim victory even if the House flips.

Tbh I'm thinking it'll stay 51-49 rn. North Dakota is a wash, but Dems will likely take either AZ or NV and I just don't see FL, MO, IN, MT, or WV flipping, particularly with how polling/Dem enthusiasm has been going the last few weeks in those places.

Which'll make it even funnier when the Trumpers get into it lol

*After losing the House and a good chunk of governor mansions to Democrats and gaining no Senate seats* "T H E R E D W A V E"
---

To put a 28% chance into perspective for some, you have a 25% chance of getting two heads in a row if you flip a coin twice. It's really not all that unlikely.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

To put a 28% chance into perspective for some, you have a 25% chance of getting two heads in a row if you flip a coin twice. It's really not all that unlikely.

If someone told me I had a 28% chance of dying in a car accident on my way to the gym tomorrow I'm not gonna be getting into my car lol
---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-back-from-the-future-which-of-these-wildly-different-midterm-outcomes-would-you-believe/
This is a silly post, but the likelihood of both scenarios is ~10%

Hmmm, this die only has 16.7% chance of landing on 1. Clearly, that means there's no chance it could land on 1! - some posters in here
---