Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 203: We Met at Borders

(+) Yeah! (+)

LapisLazuli posted...

I am going to for the first time ever agree with Corrik. The phrase is very casually used all over the place and is not malicious, while at the same time has obvious implications when thought about and shouldn't be used anymore. One of those things where it's so commonly used by people that it would never even cross their mind it was racist until someone pointed it out.

Much like the song Jimmy Crack Corn.

For those unfamiliar the song has its origins in blackface minstrelry and is largely about a slave helping their owner get killed riding a horse.
---

Here's a fun fact

More people voted early in Texas this year than voted in total in the John Cornyn vs David Alameel US Senate election in 2014. We got about 4.8 million early voters this year compared to about 4.6 million total voters in 2014.

Fell about 400 thousand votes short of 2016 early voting numbers, though. Which is still pretty fucking good for a mid-term election in the worst turnout state in the nation.

I've never heard the term cotton-picking important in my life, but maybe it's a regional thing.
---

https://apnews.com/8740cd7cc98646fa883984e03cea178b
---

To play devil's advocate on the whole deal about fearmongering in regards to women, even *I* am kind of sick of some Hollywood actresses' attitudes towards feminist issues.

Like, we have Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Brie Larson all talking about how the prevalence of white men in the field of film criticism hurts female-led movies. I understand their point but then blame audiences for being stupid and not fully reading reviews. And plenty of female-led films have been successful in spite of bad reviews.

For that matter, I don't understand why so many people seriously attribute Ghostbusters 2016 and Wonder Woman getting good reviews to critics not wanting to pan female-led films. Then what the holy hell happened to Ghost in the Shell, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, Tomb Raider, and a number of crappy female-led comedies? Note that I do not like what I've seen of Ghostbusters 2016 so I'm not biased in its favour.

Then on Instagram Laura Dern was stressing the need for women to enter the movie industry to stem the tide of sexual harassment scandals. Again, I get the point and I do think that the industry being predominantly male is part of the problem there, but you shouldn't force women to come in just so the women already there can feel "safer". Never mind we know full well women are very much capable of inflicting sexual violence on men.

With stuff like this I can't fault people for feeling negatively about feminism. I still find it sick that that backlash is pretty much running the show though.
---

Brian Kemp is absolutely shameless in his attempts to abuse the powers of his current office in order to ensure that hes elected governor of Georgia:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/georgia-governor-candidate-brian-kemp-attempts-last-minute-banana-republic-style-voter-manipulation.html

tl;dr: Kemp is, in his official capacity as GAs Secretary of State, accusing the GA Democratic Party of hacking the GA voter database. What actually appears to have happened is that the Dems were pointing out security vulnerabilities in the database (which exist because Kemp is doing a horrendous job at securing that data).
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Brian Kemp is absolutely shameless in his attempts to abuse the powers of his current office in order to ensure that hes elected governor of Georgia:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/georgia-governor-candidate-brian-kemp-attempts-last-minute-banana-republic-style-voter-manipulation.html

tl;dr: Kemp is, in his official capacity as GAs Secretary of State, accusing the GA Democratic Party of hacking the GA voter database. What actually appears to have happened is that the Dems were pointing out security vulnerabilities in the database (which exist because Kemp is doing a horrendous job at securing that data).

If Kemp wins, I fully expect this investigation to be dropped on Wendesday.

If Abrams wins, the investigation will go on for the next four years.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

I am going to for the first time ever agree with Corrik. The phrase is very casually used all over the place and is not malicious, while at the same time has obvious implications when thought about and shouldn't be used anymore. One of those things where it's so commonly used by people that it would never even cross their mind it was racist until someone pointed it out.

Oh I get that there are casual usages of the term

My point was that its pretty egregious to use it during an election that has been in some part ABOUT slipping in things that could be seen as casually racist into conversation
---

Corrik posted...

Thats like saying Youre crazy,' he continued. What about people with mental health problems? So, if you say to someone youre crazy, youre offending every mental health patient in America. Right? But you dont think of that.

Also Larry King, people are starting to think of that
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

To play devil's advocate on the whole deal about fearmongering in regards to women, even *I* am kind of sick of some Hollywood actresses' attitudes towards feminist issues.

Like, we have Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Brie Larson all talking about how the prevalence of white men in the field of film criticism hurts female-led movies. I understand their point but then blame audiences for being stupid and not fully reading reviews. And plenty of female-led films have been successful in spite of bad reviews.

For that matter, I don't understand why so many people seriously attribute Ghostbusters 2016 and Wonder Woman getting good reviews to critics not wanting to pan female-led films. Then what the holy hell happened to Ghost in the Shell, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, Tomb Raider, and a number of crappy female-led comedies? Note that I do not like what I've seen of Ghostbusters 2016 so I'm not biased in its favour.

Then on Instagram Laura Dern was stressing the need for women to enter the movie industry to stem the tide of sexual harassment scandals. Again, I get the point and I do think that the industry being predominantly male is part of the problem there, but you shouldn't force women to come in just so the women already there can feel "safer". Never mind we know full well women are very much capable of inflicting sexual violence on men.

With stuff like this I can't fault people for feeling negatively about feminism. I still find it sick that that backlash is pretty much running the show though.

Let me be as clear about this as possible - literally no one wants to discuss any of this.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Thats like saying Youre crazy,' he continued. What about people with mental health problems? So, if you say to someone youre crazy, youre offending every mental health patient in America. Right? But you dont think of that.

Also Larry King, people are starting to think of that

I mean, it's really slow catching on right now.

Pretty much everyone you might think of as a left-wing icon (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jon Stewart) casually throws out "crazy" and "insane" when talking about various political topics that they want to criticize.

Like yeah, I do know people on twitter who have agreed to stop using "crazy" and "insane" that way after being asked by disability rights activists, and I've been slowly cutting back cause why not? But it's still very much not mainstream yet.
---

https://twitter.com/dataandpolitics/status/1059267562041561088

More 18-29 year old early vote data. Compared to 2014 early voting (as of 11/4 but not including it)

AZ: +186%
FL: +112%
GA: +362%
MI: +155%
NC: +170%
ND: +2475%
NV: +409%
OH: +135%
TN: +666%
TX: +447%
WI: +758%

what in the literal **** is that ND number
---

...did only like 2-3% of ND 18-29 year olds vote in 2014 or something??
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

...did only like 2-3% of ND 18-29 year olds vote in 2014 or something??

i am forced to assume this as well

The thread notes that there's a 17% drop in % of voters from 2014 with no age data so maybe? (To be quite honest, maybe I'm not seeing it, but I can't quite tell what the thread creator is saying by this)
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

...did only like 2-3% of ND 18-29 year olds vote in 2014 or something??

More and more people are early voting as it is brought out more and made easier in more areas. Every year these numbers should increase until they hit a saturation point.

For example, I am pretty sure in my state they do not even have early voting. And I think in 15 others. So, as it becomes more accessible and refined, the numbers will continue to jump up.

+3000% or whatever doesn't mean much. And anyone looking to early voting percentages as indicators of voting doesn't mean much either. It is something that should increase.
---

538 has lowest likelihood of Dems taking the senate they've ever had after some bad polls for Dems released really early this morning (nothing like some sweet 1 AM election prognosticating, I suppose). Tester down in MT, McCaskill down in MO, Sinema down in AZ. Obviously these are all just one poll, and all of them were close.

On the flip side, we had polls this morning showing Dems leading the governor race in SD and tied in NH.

Dems somehow going to lose five senate seats and gain 12 governorships >_>
---

Ive decided Im done checking in on the polls.

At this point the ranges have been established and all thats really left is for people to vote
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

538 has lowest likelihood of Dems taking the senate they've ever had after some bad polls for Dems released really early this morning (nothing like some sweet 1 AM election prognosticating, I suppose). Tester down in MT, McCaskill down in MO, Sinema down in AZ. Obviously these are all just one poll, and all of them were close.

On the flip side, we had polls this morning showing Dems leading the governor race in SD and tied in NH.

Dems somehow going to lose five senate seats and gain 12 governorships >_>

I know one thing. If Repubs add like 3 seats in the Senate, Nate silver has a lot of explaining to do with how he skews his polls. Almost 90% of all polls he has he skews them 1 or 2 points (some even more!) towards the democrats. So, unless this is backed up in results, he has a flawed model.
---

Lmao I'm not going to try to explain math to corrik for the umpteenth time

But to the onlookers

It's about probabilities, not predictions
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Lmao I'm not going to try to explain math to corrik for the umpteenth time

But to the onlookers

It's about probabilities, not predictions

He is skewing his polls to the left to make his.probabilities. if 6 of 7 polls have the GOP candidate up and he skews them all to be 7 out of 7 democratic candidates up to get a 66% to 33% chance of a D win then the actual result comes out where the polls were before skewed, then he has a problem with his approach.

You can say well it was just a probability and was within margin of error. But at some point someone has to look at that and just be like... Well maybe if you weren't skewing all your polls to the left you would have seen that result coming easier.
---

Ok, ulti
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Ok, ulti

Not like he doesn't outright show the adjustments.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Eddv posted...

Ive decided Im done checking in on the polls.

At this point the ranges have been established and all thats really left is for people to vote

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1059426825942822913?s=21

Nate Silver is backing off from his 85% idiocy because he knows hes about to look like a major idiot.

He has the actual metrics and refuses to show them, because he is a fraud.

Well, generic ballot is generic across the country. Not Florida. Which is why I said basing on the generic ballot and not local races is bad.

You could have uneven polarization in alrdy polarized areas to create that generic difference.

I did notice the % went up but his prediction went down to 38 average seat gain from 40.

With CNN and others more in the 32-33 range, it makes sense for him to go lower.

With a 205-200 relatively safe split and 30 toss ups. Silver had Dems basically sweeping all the toss ups. Which wasn't realistic.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Lmao I'm not going to try to explain math to corrik for the umpteenth time

But to the onlookers

It's about probabilities, not predictions

That's an incomplete answer, but mostly because Corrik is conflating some things about Silver's model.

Silver's model does deal with probability (and R+3 in the Senate is at 10%. Indeed, with R+4 at 6%, Silver's model gives a greater chance of Rs picking up 3 or 4 seats (and ONLY 3 or 4 seats) than Democrats gaining control of the Senate period (14.4%.) Which means by Corrik's apparent logic, Silver would have even more to explain if the Democrats gained control of the Senate. Furthermore, R+3 is entirely within the 80% confidence interval so it wouldn't even be considered an outlier.

Corrik's problem here is 538's adjustments. Except I'm not entirely sure he understands how they're done or why. (In fact, since he's saying Silver would have to explain how, he almost assuredly doesn't)

Silver is upfront about how/why he does it - it's based on the polling firm who conducts the poll. All Harris Interactive polls are being adjusted 2.1 points in favor of the Democrats. CNN/SSRS polls are being adjusted 0.8 points towards Republicans.

You can check the pollster ratings to get an idea of how the adjustments are done. 538 looks at how a pollster has historically tended to overrate one side or the other. There certainly is a little more to this (or 538 has been lax on updating the page. Last updated May 30) Or some of the explanation went over my head or something or is detailed somewhere I didn't see. For instance, on the pollster rating page Harris is shown as biased towards Rs by 1.5 historically. CNN has a D+0.1 bias and SSRS has an R+0.1 bias so maybe it has something to do with how it was conducted since CNN/SSRS polls have an adjustment towards Republicans by 0.8.

If polls in a particular race (as Corrik seems to be referring to) are being mostly adjusted one way, that speaks to who is polling there.
---

xp1337 posted...

All Harris Interactive polls are being adjusted 2.1 points in favor of the Democrats.

This is not true. You can look at back to back polls from the same person adjusted very differently. I assume it is polling sample, but almost every single besides a couple of polls skew left. And the ones that skew left always drastically skew left more than any that skew right.

Look at Nelson / Scott.

Harris skewed 2.4 left. Makes a +2 poll go +.4 the other way.

Harris skewed 1.5 left. Makes a +2 poll go just +.5 right.

Harris skewed 2.1 left. Makes a +5 poll go to only +2.9 right

Harris skewed 1.9 left. Makes a +3 go to only +1.1 right.

So, it is not a flat skew. It varies from poll to poll.

In fact one of the biggest outlier polls in the entire Florida polling is saint Leo university. D+9. It is skewed a further 2.4 left to 11.4.

McCaskill hasn't had a lead in a single poll since Sept 27th from CNN besides the Harris polls. Which again are being skewed even further left. McCaskill based on the skew has won basically every poll. Despite the aforementioned.
---

Corrik posted...

This is not true. You can look at back to back polls from the same person adjusted very differently.

Mind citing an example then? I've taken a look at AZ and NV Senate and am not seeing a case so far.

Edit: Found one in AZ but not the way I meant. OH Predictive Insights has two "back-to-back" polls, one from Nov 9 of last year and one from April 10-11, but the House Effect is the same. The difference is in "timeline" which is based on the GCB since the poll was conducted. The Nov 9 poll is shifted 0.8 to the Republicans because the GCB must have been stronger for Dems then than now. The April one is 0.7 to Dems because the GCB in April must have been better for Republicans then than now. Although being super old polls (2 of the first 3!) they have like no weight in the model.

I'm talking about House Effect adjustments here.
---

Corrik posted...

Look at Nelson / Scott.

Harris skewed 2.4 left. Makes a +2 poll go +.4 the other way.

Harris skewed 1.5 left. Makes a +2 poll go just +.5 right.

Harris skewed 2.1 left. Makes a +5 poll go to only +2.9 right

Harris skewed 1.9 left. Makes a +3 go to only +1.1 right.

So, it is not a flat skew. It varies from poll to poll.

You mean the 4 most recent Harris polls?

Nov 1-3: R+1.7 -> D+0.4: Shift D+2.1
Oct 31-Nov 2: R+2.6 -> R+0.5: Shift D+2.1
Oct 30-Nov 1: R+5.0 -> R+2.9: Shift D+2.1
Oct 29-31: R+3.2 -> R+1.1: Shift D+2.1

All 4 are shifted D+2.1. Harris has a House Effect of D+2.1. There are timeline shifts there that actually flip from R to D, but all are <0.1 effect according to the adjustments and as shown above don't impact when rounded to the tenth.

Your problem is you're looking at the rounded toplines and not the actual poll data. If you actually follow the link to the Harris poll they call the first one (Nov 1-3) - what you call R+2, presumably because you didn't look past the rounded 45-47 - is listed in both the Harris Poll Data and 538's "Margin" column as R+1.7.

Specifically, Harris's poll has:
Scott - 47.1%
Nelson - 45.4%

Rounded to the nearest whole number that's 47-45, but literally Harris calls it Scott (R) + 1.7 because... well, that's literally a 1.7% difference.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

Look at Nelson / Scott.

Harris skewed 2.4 left. Makes a +2 poll go +.4 the other way.

Harris skewed 1.5 left. Makes a +2 poll go just +.5 right.

Harris skewed 2.1 left. Makes a +5 poll go to only +2.9 right

Harris skewed 1.9 left. Makes a +3 go to only +1.1 right.

So, it is not a flat skew. It varies from poll to poll.

You mean the 4 most recent Harris polls?

Nov 1-3: R+1.7 -> D+0.4: Shift D+2.1
Oct 31-Nov 2: R+2.6 -> R+0.5: Shift D+2.1
Oct 30-Nov 1: R+5.0 -> R+2.9: Shift D+2.1
Oct 29-31: R+3.2 -> R+1.1: Shift D+2.1

All 4 are shifted D+2.1. Harris has a House Effect of D+2.1. There are timeline shifts there that actually flip from R to D, but all are <0.1 effect according to the adjustments and as shown above don't impact when rounded to the tenth.

Your problem is you're looking at the rounded toplines and not the actual poll data. If you actually follow the link to the Harris poll they call the first one (Nov 1-3) - what you call R+2, presumably because you didn't look past the rounded 45-47 - is listed in both the Harris Poll Data and 538's "Margin" column as R+1.7.

Specifically, Harris's poll has:
Scott - 47.1%
Nelson - 45.4%

Rounded to the nearest whole number that's 47-45, but literally Harris calls it Scott (R) + 1.7 because... well, that's literally a 1.7% difference.

Oh. Hmmm. I thought I saw some others with a wide variance. But, I also think that skew is dangerous.
---

Link me to the page with all the skews.
---

The pollster rating page?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings

You can expand the table to get all of them. The adjustment is represented by the last column "Mean-Reverted Bias." Though as I noted, there's something more going on there, since, for example Harris is listed as biased R+1.5 while the House Effect shift being used for it is D+2.1. (With the CNN/SSRS example going the other way.)

House Effect, to my knowledge, is the same across different races and times (so Harris is shifted D+2.1 in AZ or FL, regardless if the poll was yesterday or 6 months ago) but I admit I haven't yet figured out where the 1.5 in the Pollster Rating got to the 2.1 in the forecast so far.
---

Wait! I've had a breakthrough. Found an article with Nate explaining the difference between the Bias on the Pollster Rating page and the House Effect thing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeight-calculates-pollster-ratings/

tl;dr: the Bias thing is based on how the pollster has done versus the actual results historically. The House Effect refers to how the pollster compares to other polls.

The example they give is if a hypothetical pollster showed D+5 where all other polls showed it even, it'd be a House Effect of D+5 (My own adding here: And thus would be shifted R+5 if it were inserted into one of the forecasts I believe) but if that race actually ended up with the Democrat winning by 10, it would be scored as having a bias of R+5 because it missed the actual result by 5 in favor of the Republican.

It notes that in small sample sizes such a House Effect could be influenced by noise, but over the course of dozens and hundreds of polls it's a concern worth noting.

What this also means is that I was wrong in thinking the bias ratings on the Pollster Rating page are connected to the House Effect adjustments shown in the forecasts. To use Harris as our example again. The R+1.5 bias on the Pollster rating means that in past elections, they've overrated the Republican by 1.5 points. The House effect of 2.1 means that compared to other polls they've overrated Republicans by 2.1 points.

A more clear example would be SurveyMonkey, I think. The pollster rating page shows them as having a historical bias of D+4.9 (the worst of all of them!) but their current House Effect leads their polls to be adjusted 0.8 points towards Democrats. Which, if I've understood all this correctly, means that in the past they've wildly overestimated Democrats but at current, their results are showing as more Republican than other polls in the races they've polled. Whether they're overcompensating for being so bad in the past, or if everyone else is, or if they're right, or hell if they're still overestimating Democrats is something that can only be determined when the actual results come in... just for whatever reason they're giving more Republican-friendly results than the other polls on average right now.
---

Huge batch of new polls.

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonNBC News/MaristNelson 50, Scott 46Nelson +4

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonQuinnipiacNelson 51, Scott 44Nelson +7

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillNBC News/MaristHawley 47, McCaskill 50McCaskill +3

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonSt. Pete PollsNelson 50, Scott 46Nelson +4

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonEmersonNelson 50, Scott 45Nelson +5

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillTrafalgar Group (R)Hawley 48, McCaskill 44Hawley +4

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillEmersonHawley 49, McCaskill 46Hawley +3

Arizona Senate - McSally vs. SinemaABC 15/OH Predictive Insights*Sinema 48, McSally 49McSally +1

Arizona Senate - McSally vs. SinemaEmerson*Sinema 49, McSally 48Sinema +1

Nevada Senate - Heller vs. RosenEmersonRosen 49, Heller 45Rosen +4
---

https://www.newstatesman.com/2015/11/guy-fawkes-wasnt-freedom-fighter-he-was-religious-terrorist-and-not-even-one-good-ones
---

Corrik posted...

Huge batch of new polls.

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonNBC News/MaristNelson 50, Scott 46Nelson +4

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonQuinnipiacNelson 51, Scott 44Nelson +7

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillNBC News/MaristHawley 47, McCaskill 50McCaskill +3

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonSt. Pete PollsNelson 50, Scott 46Nelson +4

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonEmersonNelson 50, Scott 45Nelson +5

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillTrafalgar Group (R)Hawley 48, McCaskill 44Hawley +4

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillEmersonHawley 49, McCaskill 46Hawley +3

Arizona Senate - McSally vs. SinemaABC 15/OH Predictive Insights*Sinema 48, McSally 49McSally +1

Arizona Senate - McSally vs. SinemaEmerson*Sinema 49, McSally 48Sinema +1

Nevada Senate - Heller vs. RosenEmersonRosen 49, Heller 45Rosen +4

Nelson has had a huge swath of good polling lately.

Rosen has actually lead in a couple of polls, which she hasnt done at all really. Heller is still the favorite for sure though but Rosen at least has some reason for optimism. Missouri is going the opposite directly and you barely see polls McCaskill leads in now.

And Arizona continues to be just a RNG spitting out numbers.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Huge batch of new polls.

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonNBC News/MaristNelson 50, Scott 46Nelson +4

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonQuinnipiacNelson 51, Scott 44Nelson +7

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillNBC News/MaristHawley 47, McCaskill 50McCaskill +3

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonSt. Pete PollsNelson 50, Scott 46Nelson +4

Florida Senate - Scott vs. NelsonEmersonNelson 50, Scott 45Nelson +5

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillTrafalgar Group (R)Hawley 48, McCaskill 44Hawley +4

Missouri Senate - Hawley vs. McCaskillEmersonHawley 49, McCaskill 46Hawley +3

Arizona Senate - McSally vs. SinemaABC 15/OH Predictive Insights*Sinema 48, McSally 49McSally +1

Arizona Senate - McSally vs. SinemaEmerson*Sinema 49, McSally 48Sinema +1

Nevada Senate - Heller vs. RosenEmersonRosen 49, Heller 45Rosen +4

Nelson has had a huge swath of good polling lately.

Rosen has actually lead in a couple of polls, which she hasnt done at all really. Heller is still the favorite for sure though but Rosen at least has some reason for optimism. Missouri is going the opposite directly and you barely see polls McCaskill leads in now.

And Arizona continues to be just a RNG spitting out numbers.

Makes me think Independents broke for Nelson.
---

In the Nelson +7 poll you see a breakdown like this.

PARTY IDENTIFICATION
Republican 32%
Democrat 37
Independent 25
Other/DK/NA 6

Now the question is. Is that actually the breakdown of voters Florida is to expect.
---

I saw an interesting news segment on local news.

In the areas hit by Hurricane Michael, there are 9 polling stations down from 44, in an area that leans Republican (lots of old timers and military).

So maybe if voter turnout in this area is massively depressed, causing a Democratic blowout in the state, the now in power State Dems will put forth some legislation making it easier to vote, and the GOP probably wont fight it because now they see its effects?

Am I being too hopeful here?
---

By my count. 35% of Florida is registered Republicans. 37% of Florida is registered democrats.

So, possibility of an error if electorate turns out 100% which it won't.
---

Wait

6% of Floridians are Donkey Kong?!
---

Espeon posted...

Wait

6% of Floridians are Donkey Kong?!

Don't Know.
---

Espeon posted...

Wait

6% of Floridians are Donkey Kong?!

they're diskualified

Florida uses Ks in place of Cs or Qs like a Mortal Kombat game
---

Rosen now has a lead at 538 and RCP which is the first time I remember that happening this entire cycle.

McCaskill is down in both by an extremely small number.

Tomorrow should be fun. And quite possibly terrible. But still fun!

And that +7 poll is probably a bit of an outlier. You almost never see Nelson that high up. Almost everything has been in the 1 to 4 range for quite a while now. It is weird how stable that race has been with the chaos of some of the other races.
---

Corrik posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Eddv posted...

Ive decided Im done checking in on the polls.

At this point the ranges have been established and all thats really left is for people to vote

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1059426825942822913?s=21

Nate Silver is backing off from his 85% idiocy because he knows hes about to look like a major idiot.

He has the actual metrics and refuses to show them, because he is a fraud.

Well, generic ballot is generic across the country. Not Florida. Which is why I said basing on the generic ballot and not local races is bad.

You could have uneven polarization in alrdy polarized areas to create that generic difference.

I did notice the % went up but his prediction went down to 38 average seat gain from 40.

With CNN and others more in the 32-33 range, it makes sense for him to go lower.

With a 205-200 relatively safe split and 30 toss ups. Silver had Dems basically sweeping all the toss ups. Which wasn't realistic.

You misunderstand pretty hard. Look at the number of safe R to safe D. It's a 50 seat differenece. Every solid and likely D will not go D and every solid and likely R will not go R. Even if Toss ups split 50/50 Republicans will be way down on the basis of lost likely and solid R seats because they have so many less Safe R seats than there are Safe D seats.

By just looking at toss up seats you're ignoring a 50 seat disadvantage for Republicans.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Corrik posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Eddv posted...

Ive decided Im done checking in on the polls.

At this point the ranges have been established and all thats really left is for people to vote

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1059426825942822913?s=21

Nate Silver is backing off from his 85% idiocy because he knows hes about to look like a major idiot.

He has the actual metrics and refuses to show them, because he is a fraud.

Well, generic ballot is generic across the country. Not Florida. Which is why I said basing on the generic ballot and not local races is bad.

You could have uneven polarization in alrdy polarized areas to create that generic difference.

I did notice the % went up but his prediction went down to 38 average seat gain from 40.

With CNN and others more in the 32-33 range, it makes sense for him to go lower.

With a 205-200 relatively safe split and 30 toss ups. Silver had Dems basically sweeping all the toss ups. Which wasn't realistic.

You misunderstand pretty hard. Look at the number of safe R to safe D. It's a 50 seat differenece. Every solid and likely D will not go D and every solid and likely R will not go R. Even if Toss ups split 50/50 Republicans will be way down on the basis of lost likely and solid R seats because they have so many less Safe R seats than there are Safe D seats.

By just looking at toss up seats you're ignoring a 50 seat disadvantage for Republicans.

I don't even see where you are coming from here. You can't assume those flips. Nor bank on them. Or account for any of them. You can be assured in however many leans and likelies a few might flip, but the majority here relies on the toss ups.
---

Clearly because you fundamentally misunderstand probability.

A solid seat is a 95% chance of winning or higher. A party will lose let's say 1 in 20 of these.

A likely seat is a 75% chance. A party will lose about 1 in 4 or 5 of these.

A leaning seat will be lost about 2 in 5 times.

Republicans by 538s count has 135 solid seats, 49 likely seats, and 13 leaning seats. They will win an average of 128, 37, and 8 if these if I'm being generous.

You are treating these 197 seats as 197 seats won. In reality they are closer to 173 seats won.

Take the toss ups and split them in half and you get 182 seats for Republicans not 200 something.

Do the same for Democrats now. 193 (!!!) solid seats, 17 likely seats, 10 leaning seats. Translates to 10+4+4=18 pick ups for a total of 200 seats AFTER toss ups are calculated. Not before.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how many safe or safe leaning seats will be lost.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Clearly because you fundamentally misunderstand probability.

A solid seat is a 95% chance of winning or higher. A party will lose let's say 1 in 20 of these.

A likely seat is a 75% chance. A party will lose about 1 in 4 or 5 of these.

A leaning seat will be lost about 2 in 5 times.

Republicans by 538s count has 135 solid seats, 49 likely seats, and 13 leaning seats. They will win an average of 128, 37, and 8 if these if I'm being generous.

You are treating these 197 seats as 197 seats won. In reality they are closer to 173 seats won.

Take the toss ups and split them in half and you get 182 seats for Republicans not 200 something.

Do the same for Democrats now. 193 (!!!) solid seats, 17 likely seats, 10 leaning seats. Translates to 10+4+4=18 pick ups for a total of 200 seats AFTER toss ups are calculated. Not before.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how many safe or safe leaning seats will be lost.

You are assuming probabilities are clear cut answers.

Go back to the 2014 midterms. How many solids and likelies and such actually flipped.
---

https://apnews.com/b4a752ff50c9404c977e38bc6fe79b42

The court on Monday rejected appeals from the telecommunications industry seeking to throw out a lower court ruling in favor of the net neutrality rules. The Federal Communications Commission under President Donald Trump has rolled back the rules, but the industry also wanted to wipe the court ruling off the books.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have granted the industrys request. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh took no part in the case without offering a reason.

https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-appeal-of-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules/

the Trump administration pushed the Supreme Court to hear the appeal that would have wiped the ruling from the books so that the parts of the decision upholding the FCC's authority could not be used as precedent in subsequent cases.

Fairly big ruling as this wouldve gutted the FCC if they won. The new swing justices will likely be Kavanaugh and Roberts with Roberts being the most important. This is the second semi-important ruling that those two have broke from the conservative wing in recent weeks.

Abortion is still the big issue were waiting on a ruling from in some fashion. I dont know how Kavanaugh will side there. I have hope Roberts wont want to alter precedent too much.
---

Corrik posted...

Crossfiyah posted...

Clearly because you fundamentally misunderstand probability.

A solid seat is a 95% chance of winning or higher. A party will lose let's say 1 in 20 of these.

A likely seat is a 75% chance. A party will lose about 1 in 4 or 5 of these.

A leaning seat will be lost about 2 in 5 times.

Republicans by 538s count has 135 solid seats, 49 likely seats, and 13 leaning seats. They will win an average of 128, 37, and 8 if these if I'm being generous.

You are treating these 197 seats as 197 seats won. In reality they are closer to 173 seats won.

Take the toss ups and split them in half and you get 182 seats for Republicans not 200 something.

Do the same for Democrats now. 193 (!!!) solid seats, 17 likely seats, 10 leaning seats. Translates to 10+4+4=18 pick ups for a total of 200 seats AFTER toss ups are calculated. Not before.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how many safe or safe leaning seats will be lost.

You are assuming probabilities are clear cut answers.

Go back to the 2014 midterms. How many solids and likelies and such actually flipped.

Okay bud.
---