Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Algernon Moncrieff
Algernon Moncrieff's Journal
Algernon Moncrieff's Journal
November 7, 2018
Have we heard from Skinner this morning? (Nt)
November 5, 2018
John Kasich on The View just now
Won't commit to running or not running in 2020, but (paraphrasing, but only slightly) says "Maybe America is ready for a third party?"
So, to me, that sounds like a) he's running and b) he's either running independent or he is going to try to organize a 3rd party.
Hypothetically, wondering if this hurts or helps the Dems?
November 3, 2018
Republicans Need A Systematic Polling Error To Win The House
538As I wrote earlier this week, Democrats almost certainly need a systematic polling error to win the Senate. By that I mean: They need for the polls to be off everywhere, or at least in certain key clusters of states, to win the Senate. A polling error in just one or two races (say, Beto ORourke wins in Texas) probably wouldnt be enough: Democrats are defending too much territory and have too many problems elsewhere on the map just to get lucky.
That conclusion about the Senate ought to be fairly intuitive, I think. Even if you credit Democrats with wins in all the toss-up races, that wouldnt be enough it would only get them to 50 seats. What might be more surprising is that the same conclusion holds for Republicans in the House. They need for there to be a systematic polling error too. If the polls are about right overall but Republicans are hoping to getting lucky in the swing districts, it probably wont happen the odds are stacked heavily against them.
The reason its counterintuitive is because you cant really identify 23 districts that are safe bets to flip to Democrats (thats the number they need to take the House). In the Deluxe version of our model (the one Ill be focusing on here), only 193 seats are considered to be solid Democratic (at least a 95 percent chance of a Democratic victory). If Democrats won only those seats and no others, theyd actually lose two seats from the 195 they control now. Another 15 seats are likely Democratic, where Democrats have at least a 75 chance of winning. Win those as well, and Democrats are still up to a net gain of only 13 seats.
The model then has 34 seats in its three most competitive categories: lean Democratic (eight seats), toss-up (16 seats) and lean Republican (10 seats). If Republicans win 24 of those 34 seats assuming everything else goes to form theyll keep the House.
That conclusion about the Senate ought to be fairly intuitive, I think. Even if you credit Democrats with wins in all the toss-up races, that wouldnt be enough it would only get them to 50 seats. What might be more surprising is that the same conclusion holds for Republicans in the House. They need for there to be a systematic polling error too. If the polls are about right overall but Republicans are hoping to getting lucky in the swing districts, it probably wont happen the odds are stacked heavily against them.
The reason its counterintuitive is because you cant really identify 23 districts that are safe bets to flip to Democrats (thats the number they need to take the House). In the Deluxe version of our model (the one Ill be focusing on here), only 193 seats are considered to be solid Democratic (at least a 95 percent chance of a Democratic victory). If Democrats won only those seats and no others, theyd actually lose two seats from the 195 they control now. Another 15 seats are likely Democratic, where Democrats have at least a 75 chance of winning. Win those as well, and Democrats are still up to a net gain of only 13 seats.
The model then has 34 seats in its three most competitive categories: lean Democratic (eight seats), toss-up (16 seats) and lean Republican (10 seats). If Republicans win 24 of those 34 seats assuming everything else goes to form theyll keep the House.
November 3, 2018
I know its been said before - seeing Republican ads on DU sucks
There is that brief moment before signing in.
Can't Google get us something else? Omaha Steaks? Eric Estrada selling land in Arkansas? Adam & Eve?
So my PSA - become a star member and stop seeing ads for MAGA hats on DU!
(counter argument - don't they get charged every time we click on those ads?)
November 2, 2018
Election Update: Democrats Need A Systematic Polling Error To Win The Senate
538The divide between the House outlook and the Senate outlook continues to widen. Democrats chances of winning a majority remain at or near their all-time highs in our House forecast ranging between 78 percent (7 in 9) and 85 percent (6 in 7) in the various versions of our model. But theyre at their lowest point yet in the Senate. All three versions of our forecast give them only about 1 in 7 shot (about 15 percent) of taking over the Senate from Republicans.
This is normally the point at which you might expect us to give you a throat-clearing well, actually about how 1 in 7 chances happen all the time. Indeed, they do. One in seven days of the week is a Thursday. None of us woke up this morning screaming Oh my gosh, I just cant believe its a Thursday! And nobody should really be that surprised if Democrats win the Senate next week, or if Republicans keep the House.
At the same time, Republicans have a fairly clear advantage in the Senate (as Democrats do in the House) clearer than the edge Hillary Clinton had before the 2016 election, when President Trump had roughly a 3 in 10 chance to win the Electoral College. In 2016, a normal-sized polling error (if it worked in Trumps favor) was probably going to be enough to give him a victory in the Electoral College. And thats exactly what happened: The polls werent great in 2016, but they were about as accurate as they have been on average since 1972. Because the race was close and because Clinton was underperforming in the Electoral College, a small and routine but systematic polling error was enough to give Trump the win.
The difference this year is that a normal-sized polling error in Democrats direction would merely make the race for the Senate close. (Likewise, a normal-sized polling error in the GOP direction would make the House close, but Republicans would still have to fight it out on a district-by-district basis.) A sports analogy, for those so inclined: In 2016, Trump was doing the equivalent of driving for the game-winning touchdown with the odds somewhat but not overwhelmingly against him. If enough undecided voters in the Midwest broke toward him, he was going to win the Electoral College. In the Senate this year, by contrast, its more like Democrats are driving for the game-tying touchdown; they still have to win in overtime even if they score.
This is normally the point at which you might expect us to give you a throat-clearing well, actually about how 1 in 7 chances happen all the time. Indeed, they do. One in seven days of the week is a Thursday. None of us woke up this morning screaming Oh my gosh, I just cant believe its a Thursday! And nobody should really be that surprised if Democrats win the Senate next week, or if Republicans keep the House.
At the same time, Republicans have a fairly clear advantage in the Senate (as Democrats do in the House) clearer than the edge Hillary Clinton had before the 2016 election, when President Trump had roughly a 3 in 10 chance to win the Electoral College. In 2016, a normal-sized polling error (if it worked in Trumps favor) was probably going to be enough to give him a victory in the Electoral College. And thats exactly what happened: The polls werent great in 2016, but they were about as accurate as they have been on average since 1972. Because the race was close and because Clinton was underperforming in the Electoral College, a small and routine but systematic polling error was enough to give Trump the win.
The difference this year is that a normal-sized polling error in Democrats direction would merely make the race for the Senate close. (Likewise, a normal-sized polling error in the GOP direction would make the House close, but Republicans would still have to fight it out on a district-by-district basis.) A sports analogy, for those so inclined: In 2016, Trump was doing the equivalent of driving for the game-winning touchdown with the odds somewhat but not overwhelmingly against him. If enough undecided voters in the Midwest broke toward him, he was going to win the Electoral College. In the Senate this year, by contrast, its more like Democrats are driving for the game-tying touchdown; they still have to win in overtime even if they score.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:49 AMNumber of posts: 5,790