Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When have the "experts" been wrong?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
pstokely Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 03:58 PM
Original message
When have the "experts" been wrong?
Edited on Fri Oct-29-10 04:17 PM by pstokely
Weren't they wrong in 94 and 98? Can GOTV beat math?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. They were right in 94, but not in 98.
98 they had no conception of the amount of anger being levelled against the gop for their impeachment stunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pstokely Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Who was wrong in 98?
What makes people think they're wrong now? Even some now admit they might be wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. The media consensus.
They expected GOP pickups.. and they were surprised that the democrats held their own.

They THOUGHT that having a president impeached wouldn't bode well for that party.. however, the reaction was the opposite as the vast majority of people felt that the GOP was on a wild witch hunt and should have been focused ont he country's business instead of chasing their boogieman. People went out and voted AGAINST the GOP because they were seen as abusing the power they were given.

The problem is right now it is democrats who are on the unhappy side of disappointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. That's actually backwards.
There was hardly anyone in 1994 that even came close to predicting the carnage that resulted.

1998 wasn't nearly as far off. Charlie Cook, for instance, was off by about 6-7 House seats. He had essentially a "no significant change" prediction all through 1998.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/sites/default/files/dec211...

In 1994, I think he was looking for a 15-20 seat republican gain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Guess you were listening to different people.
The people I listened to and read at the time all predicted huge republican gains in 1994. It was actually expeced to be bigger.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Yeah, that's what I remember too.
The MSM was right that time, but not as right as they wanted to be.

The problem was that Newt and his minions paid not the slightest attention to their promises once they got power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Lots Os Tsunami Talk In 94
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. Can you provide a single example?
I remember reading the Washington Post on the morning of November 8th, 1994. They had a chart with predictions from at least a couple dozen analysts. Nobody predicted gains as large as what we actually saw. I only remember two who even thought that one house would fall.

Yes, almost all expected republican gains, but nothing of the magnitude of what we saw. If "it was actually expected to be bigger" then you should be able to provide an example (as I have).

1998, OTOH, wasn't a shocker because the analysts had it wrong... many were pretty close. It was a shocker because the opposition party is supposed to pick up seats in an off-year election and republicans lost a handful. But that's not an analyst prediction... that's just historical expectation. As I pointed out, Charlie Cook had the race essentially tied all year long and his final chart was about 6-7 seats off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pstokely Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. So they could be overestimating or underestimating Repuke gains this year?
I think they're all overestimating gains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Don't care to.
It would take a lot of time and energy to prove somethng that doesn't mean diddly.

You remember what you remember, I remember what I remember. My opinion will not change based on a single reference of yours and yours will not change based on a single reference of mine.

None of it changes what will happen on Tuesday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. You mean "can't"
Because you aren't capable of performing the impossible.

There were no analyst predictions from 1994 that expected worse results than what we saw. I can't even remember a partisan republican position that came anywhere close.

and yours will not change based on a single reference of mine.

Since I'm saying that there weren't any at all... my opinion would have to change if you provide a single example.

None of it changes what will happen on Tuesday.

That's true enough. I wish there was something that we could do to change it at this point... but I'm out of ideas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. No, I mean, don't care to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. They were wrong about WMDs/Chimp's lies to get us into VietnIraqAstan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. It would be a shorter list to quote the few times they are right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pstokely Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. This guy has been right since 78
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Random variation will lead to a few "predicters" having long strings of good predictions.
That is what the various kinds of psychic predicters rely on, being right enough to have some credibility. So the fact that one guy has been right since 1978, even if true, means squat. It is also worth considering what "being right" means. What exactly was he right about? The fuzzier the description of "being right" the less it means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. They were wrong to not question the SCOTUS decision that
the vote Counting should stop in Florida....

and they were wrong that the "Tea Party" reflected the will of America,
back during the Health Care propaganda that they generated.


They have been telling us for the past 16 months that Republicans were going to win,
and I guess what they say "goes".

We, as Americans, are a weak people.....who does whatever we are told to do
by the media.........and this time may be no exceptions, cause we are suckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. One wild card that gets wilder every election: lack of cell phone polling.
We didn't have that so much in the 90s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
11. In the last Australian election, Labor was predicted to hold on to government by a few seats
Edited on Fri Oct-29-10 07:35 PM by depakid
and also win the two party preferred by a comfortable margin.

Unfortunately, Labor- like the Democrats, spent six months pandering to the right and annoying key constituencies.

The result was a Greenslide and a hung Parliament, with Labor's future to be determined by its ability to work with the Greens on key legislation. Without Green support, nothing gets through the Senate OR the lower house.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RFKHumphreyObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
35. Not quite with the new Parliament...
Edited on Sat Oct-30-10 11:26 AM by RFKHumphreyObama
The Greens only have one MP in the House of Representatives. Labor has 72 seats and it needed 76 seats to form a government. Labor is in government now not because of the Greens but because of the three non-aligned Independents who decided to vote with Labor to give it a parliamentary majority. If the three Independents were to side with the Coalition, Labor could have the support of the Green'MP and it still wouldn't have the numbers to form a government. So, while they do have to work with the Greens in the House of Representatives, they also have to work with the Independents if they want to get the legislation through. Indeed, there have already been votes in the new Parliament where the Greens have voted with Labor and they have still not had the numbers to get parliamentary motions through

In the Senate, from next July, you're right -they will have to work with the Greens as they hold the balance of power

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. New Hampshire, 2008
Edited on Fri Oct-29-10 08:43 PM by alcibiades_mystery
Just sayin'...

Glad to see you're still spamming the board with doom and gloom after you're despicable "Would it really be that bad if GOP took over the house" crap got locked, though.

Which side are you on, son?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Seems like a pretty reasonable topic to me
Edited on Fri Oct-29-10 09:03 PM by depakid
and hardly spam (although there have been a whole lot of head in the sand posts that would probably qualify).

and btw: It's not "you're despicable" but "your despicable." Depending of course on what you're trying to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Not surprised
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. We will be if the pollsters are off as far as they were in New Hampshire
As Nate Silver noted in his analysis, there's a lot of uncertainty in the model(s) this go around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. It's been obvious for quite a while
that you deeply desire a big Dem loss in order to "prove" whatever point you think you have.

I have no particular interest in dealing with such people. So good luck to you, but I don't have any need to interact with you past this.

Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. There's a big difference
between noting that certain courses of action or strategies will lead to election losses- as they have in the past, based on astute observation, and experience - and "wanting" them to occur to "prove some point."

Most people who predict poor results from one policy or strategy or another hope that they're wrong. Krugman (and a whole lot of us) surely did re: the poorly targeted, half measure stimulus. Unfortunately, the results speak for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. That Wasn't Stokely .That Was Another Guy
It's a violation of DU rules to name him.

Stokely's M O is just to ask questions and make random observations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Whatevs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. I'm Sorry. You Are Correct
But in Stokley's defense he's been posting random observations and questions since he's been here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. depends on whether they fix the voting machines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
21. EXPERTS ARE NEVER WRONG
THEY'RE NOT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
23. There ar very few "experts", but a huge # of pundits that swear they
have some expertise in political matters.

Take "polls", hundreds of them almost every day...people are "polled out"; (just for the hell of it, I once did a mini-"study" on "polling" and after asking over 350 people if they had ever been "polled", two admitted to it...where they hell do they get these #'s?).

The GOP/Teabaggers are using nothing but fear, they have nothing else. Almost everyone I've met in this country is a hard working individual that generally don't like thir jobs, but work to help their families. Bad thing is, fear works far too often... :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
25. The expert "history" is never wrong. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Valienteman Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
33. I don't think Larry Sabato has ever been wrong
He's always been very accurate as far as i know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Golden Raisin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
34. "Dewey Defeats Truman" [Nov. 3, 1948]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC