ChrisWeigant.com

Boehner's Laughable Lawsuit

[ Posted Wednesday, July 16th, 2014 – 16:32 UTC ]

Speaker of the House John Boehner now seems pretty committed to his effort to bring a lawsuit against President Obama. This is ridiculous on a number of different levels, and a majority of the American people already see it as nothing more than a political stunt (which is good to hear, since that is exactly what it is). If Boehner keeps to the timetable he's set out, this sentiment may even grow right before the midterm election. The Republicans believe that suing Obama will excite and turn out their base voters, and they're betting that this benefit will be larger than any political blowback (which would excite and turn out Democrats and Independents to the polls to vote against Republicans). Whether they're right in this political calculation or not remains to be seen. But what is undeniable is that, so far, this lawsuit is nothing short of laughable.

To date, Boehner has only said that the House Republicans will be suing over President Obama's delay of the "business mandate" in Obamacare -- no other subjects have been admitted to publicly, at least (this could always change, though). A quick review of the facts is in order: Obama announced (a while back) that he would grant a one-year delay for the implementation of the Obamacare business mandate, mostly because he had been pressured to do so by the business lobbyists. They wanted another year to prepare for the new system (even though they had already had a number of years to do so). Obama granted this one-year delay, which meant that the businesses didn't have to comply last October (when the exchanges went into operation), but could instead wait until this year's open enrollment period (which will start in November). The business lobby was happy enough with this extension.

So the first question is: who was harmed by this decision? It's a very important question, because it determines "standing" in court. You can't sue unless you were in some way harmed by an action or event. But the business lobby is not suing (why would they, since they got what they wanted from Obama), nor are the employees of such businesses suing (people who would have the clearest legal standing of any group, because they were denied Obamacare-level insurance for another year). But how does the House of Representatives show standing? They were not harmed by Obama's decision, after all. So the most likely outcome of this whole political stunt is that Boehner's lawsuit will be thrown out of court before it even begins (what some might call "being laughed out of court," in fact).

There's a second question of standing to consider, as well. The courts have famously shied away from refereeing political struggles between the legislative and executive branches. The judge could just as easily dismiss such a lawsuit by noting that these questions are best resolved at the ballot box in the American system. The precedents all point to this outcome (although with today's Supreme Court, who knows what the ultimate ruling would be). If the courts are dragged in to every political question raised in Washington, then the government would get even more gridlocked, hard as that now may be to imagine. Judges know this, and will likely rely on prior rulings to immediately dismiss Boehner's case.

Even if through some miracle (in front of some staunch Republican appointee, perhaps) the House does manage to achieve legal standing to file such a lawsuit, the lawsuit's reasoning is beyond illogical. It actually crosses the line into farce. Consider, if you will, that Boehner and the Republicans were never against the concept of pushing Obamacare deadlines out -- they were in fact all for such an idea, which is easily proven by any number of votes they held on this very question. Republicans went on the record time and time again in an effort to not just push back the deadline for businesses, but to do so for everyone. They wanted to indefinitely delay all of Obamacare from ever becoming reality. In fact, they even shut down the government in an attempt to roll back Obamacare deadlines for a year. They did not succeed, but there are mountains of evidence showing the Republicans have always been on the side of "delay Obamacare, as long as possible, for everyone." So how are they going to claim -- in front of a judge, and with a straight face -- that they are now shocked and outraged that Obama delayed the business deadline? Republicans wanted businesses to not be affected by Obamacare. So how can they now complain of a one-year delay? It defies credulity, to put it mildly.

Even if, through some further miracle, they were able to convince a judge not only that they had standing and that their topsy-turvy stance on delaying Obamacare is somehow now heartfelt, the case is laughable because it will likely only be resolved after Obama leaves office. If they file the case at the end of the summer, there is absolutely no way it will be heard until (at the very earliest) after the midterms. No matter what the initial ruling may be, it wouldn't be expected to arrive until (again, under lightspeed conditions) early next year. Factor in appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court, and maybe (again, this is if it moves with blinding speed) by the middle of 2016 they could get a Supreme Court ruling. If there are any delays at all along the line (which would be almost guaranteed, in the federal court system), the case wouldn't be resolved until after the next president is sworn in.

I saved the biggest and funniest thing about Boehner's case for last, though. Let's just ignore the speed of the federal courts and enter Fantasyland for a moment. Say the House Republicans were granted standing, and did manage to convince a judge or jury that their upside-down political stance is now somehow valid. Pretend that they win the case, and win so big that the Obama administration doesn't even bother to appeal it. Picture this all happening before the midterms (hey, I said it was Fantasyland).

In this magical courtroom, just imagine a judge reading a ruling which gives the Republicans everything they want. But what, precisely, would that be? Say the case is decided (again: Fantasyland) by the end of this October. What injunctive relief can be given? What could the judge possibly rule should then happen to fix things? The judge has just agreed that President Obama shouldn't have pushed the business mandate deadline back, and was totally wrong to do so. So what, exactly, can he force President Obama to then do about it?

No judge can turn back time, or the calendar. To put this another way, no ruling is possible which returns us all to October, 2013. The facts on the ground are the facts on the ground, even if Republicans win their case. The only possible relief the judge could offer the House Republicans is to invalidate the delay in implementation, which would have the result of forcing all businesses to immediately comply with the Obamacare mandate, ahead of the pushed-back deadline.

But here's where it gets hilarious: the pushed-back deadline is actually mid-November. Even in Fantasyland, no sane judge is going to rule "the federal government must immediately implement something that is already going to take place within a few (days/weeks)." Even assuming the Obama administration wouldn't appeal (which is indeed laughable to assume), the deadline will be staring everyone in the face -- including the judge. And, outside of Fantasyland, there is no possible realistic chance that the case will be decided before the new deadline has already passed by. In fact, it's hard to imagine what injunctive relief the House Republicans even could ask for. What judicial ruling would make things right concerning a deadline that got moved in the past and will soon become reality anyway? Absent the ability to turn back time, there simply is no realistic answer to this question.

This is the final proof that this entire lawsuit is nothing more than a joke. It's a political ploy, plain and simple. The Republicans are suing over something they have not been harmed by, when the people who might have been harmed actually welcomed the change, and they expect the judge to do what, exactly?

Of course, there is a political case to be made. The political case, properly stated, might be: suing Obama over this matter will make him think twice about doing anything like it ever again. Sort of a pre-emptory lawsuit designed to raise the political cost for Obama to do anything the House Republicans don't approve of. This, as I mentioned, is entirely political (not legal) reasoning, and while farfetched at least has a certain logic to it: taking a shot across Obama's bow might soften him up for the next two years.

What's really laughable about the whole situation, though, is that House Republicans are the ones who can usually be found clutching the Constitution to their chests, professing undying love for the "original language and intent" all the while. Of course, if they bothered to actually read the document in their pocket, they would learn that even if one party controls one house of the legislature, suing the president is not seen as an option to solving the problem of presidential law-breaking. There are two measures explicitly laid out in the Constitution to solve such a constitutional crisis, though. The first is for Congress to exercise the "power of the purse" and just refuse to fund something they don't approve of. The second is for the House to impeach the president and the Senate to try him.

If John Boehner really does think President Obama was acting lawlessly, then he should draw up articles of impeachment. He is, in fact, duty-bound to do so (if that's really what he believes) by the oath of office he swore. Boehner, however, knows this is never going to work. He knows that the Senate will never vote to convict on such flimsy grounds, and he knows full well what happened to Republicans the last time they tried this (Bill Clinton's approval rating shot through the roof). Boehner is trying to appear less extremist by only suing the president, rather than impeaching him. Personally, I think he's miscalculating in two big ways. The first is that the political backlash might not be as big as what happened during Clinton's impeachment -- but it will likely be a lot bigger than the House Republicans expect or foresee. And the second is that by even bringing such a lawsuit, it is only going to increase the cries from House Republicans (Tea Partiers, especially) to just go ahead and impeach Obama. What this all means is that this lawsuit isn't going to satisfy much of anybody, no matter how it turns out.

Except, perhaps, late-night comics. They're going to have a field day over all the laughable aspects of the case they can point out. That is pretty much guaranteed.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

36 Comments on “Boehner's Laughable Lawsuit”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I've heard that Republicans aren't following the rules in Mississippi. McDaniel's Fox "News" audition/lawsuit is funnier than the Orangeman's.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    JFC -

    Do tell! Please post a link!

    :-)

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    So the first question is: who was harmed by this decision?

    That is actually the easiest question to answer...

    If John Boehner really does think President Obama was acting lawlessly, then he should draw up articles of impeachment. He is, in fact, duty-bound to do so (if that's really what he believes) by the oath of office he swore. Boehner, however, knows this is never going to work. He knows that the Senate will never vote to convict on such flimsy grounds, and he knows full well what happened to Republicans the last time they tried this (Bill Clinton's approval rating shot through the roof).

    AHA!!!! NOW I can post that comment and it will actually be relevant!!!! :D

    Gimme a sec... :D

    Found it!!

    You seem to be stuck in the mode that, because the Republicans got their wee-wees slapped when they impeached Clinton, that the same thing is possible to happen when they impeach Obama.. IF they impeach Obama...

    There is a big difference between impeaching Bill Clinton then and impeaching Barack Obama now...

    First and foremost, the country was doing pretty well under Clinton.. Clinton was popular BEFORE the impeachment, so he had the advantage of looking "picked on" by the mean old Republicans..

    In there here and now, the economy is in the crapper.. Our prestige across the planet is at it's lowest point in this country's history..

    And Obama's approval AND likability AND integrity AND trustworthy numbers are low and sinking fast.. There is not ONE SINGLE positive in ALL of Obama's poll numbers. Every factor that CAN be polled about Obama is underwater...

    To put it in context, Clinton's approval numbers were in the low 60s at the beginning of the impeachment process..

    Obama hasn't seen the plus side of 45 in years.... The American People have, for all intents and purposes, issued a vote of NO CONFIDENCE for this POTUS..

    Hell, the polls show that Obama is the WORST POTUS since WWII and further show that a plurality think that, in hindsight, ROMNEY would have been the better choice for POTUS...

    Further, Clinton's impeachment was because of perjury and obstruction of justice.. Crimes that really didn't affect Joe and Jane SixPack..

    Obama's crimes are affecting a wide swath of Joes and Janes across the country...

    In other words, when the GOP impeached Clinton, the American people were, like, "Eh?? So he lied about boffin' some bimbo.. Who wouldn't???

    But Obama's transgressions are really screwing over the American people.. They are affecting, in a very VERY bad way, millions and millions of Americans..

    The facts (if you can call "polls" facts) clearly show that the it's entirely likely that Americans would support an Obama impeachment..

    Now, how would this impeachment play out, you ask....

    I am glad you asked...

    The way I see it, two things will have to happen for a successful impeachment of the POTUS.

    1. The GOP will have to take the Senate...

    2. Obama's poll numbers will have to sink below 40% and stay there for a while...

    As to #1, this is all but a forgone conclusion. The GOP will control Congress after the midterms..

    #2 is also extremely likely as there are so many hits going against Obama right now and the possibility that there is more bad news coming is a very real and distinct threat..

    Look at the IRS scandal.. Lerner's two years of emails were obviously disappeared for a reason. Does anyone here honestly believe that, if there was no smoking gun, that those emails would have been lost forever?? It's a forgone conclusion that those emails contain very incriminating information. And, since there is a very real possibility that these "lost" emails are going to be found and are going to start to trickle out from the IRS scandal will create a "death from a thousand cuts" syndrome for the Obama Administration.

    Another area that is pounding at the Administration is the southern border situation. The Administration tried to float the BS story that it was violence in the countries that prompted the mass migration. But that lie was immediately shot down by reports from the border that overwhelmingly confirmed that it was Obama's DACA pronouncement that brought the refugees to the border.. So, the attempt by the Administration to shirk responsibility was DOA... As it continues to worsen, as US resources are stretched WAY past the breaking point, the Obama Administration will bear full ownership of the debacle...

    And, of course, there are still the VA scandals (a Veteran got a letter saying that the VA approved his move to another VA facility.... TWO YEARS AFTER THE VET DIED!!!), Bengahzi is on simmer and the Obama Administration is STILL getting hits from the Fast/Furious scandal...

    Now, you rub all these facts (and they ARE facts, regardless of what Obamabot fanatics will tell you) together and they all point to the VERY REAL threat that Obama will not only be impeached, but that it actually might pass the Senate and Obama will become the very first sitting POTUS to be removed from office...

    All it will take is the GOP to take the Senate (all but assured) and Obama's poll numbers taking a dive, which is what is happening right now...

    Of course, having said all of the afore, one thing might derail the impeachment process and could possibly dissuade Republicans from following this course of action.

    President Joe Biden....

    :D

    Now, personally, *I* don't have a problem with this. Biden, despite his gaffs and chronic foot-in-mouth condition, has proven to be a (somewhat) honorable man. For a Democrat politician anyways... :D

    And, it's forgone conclusion that Biden could not do worse than Obama, even if he tried... NO ONE could be THAT bad..

    And, finally, even if a President Biden tried to be Obama's mini-me, there would be a limit to the damage he could do. POTUS Biden would be way too busy picking up the pieces of a demolished Democratic Party to do TOO much damage to the country...

    So, it's a crap shoot as to whether or not President Biden would be enough of a deterrent for Republicans pursuing impeachment..

    The prevailing thought governing the impeachment action would possibly (likely??) be that ANYONE is better than Obama...

    Do you want to know why I believe that Americans would likely support an Obama impeachment??

    OBAMA SUPPORT DROP
    2 points among men (44% to 42%)

    4 points among women (49% to 45%)

    5 points among 30-49 year olds (51%-46%)

    4 points among Democrats (81% to 77%)

    7 points among Independents (39% to 32%)

    7 points among Liberals (83% to 76%)

    6 points among Hispanics (73% to 67%)

    10 POINTS among African Americans (86% to 76%)

    5 points among voters in union households (65% to 60%)

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/john-zogby-is-it-all-over-for-obama/article/2550415

    These numbers CAN'T be spin'ed away...

    There can simply be NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION save that Americans across the board, are abandoning Obama...

    If Bohner does sue, the American people will likely be on his side...

    If the GOP does impeach??

    The American people will likely be on their side...

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all can laugh it up about Boehner's lawsuit..

    But the American people are sick and tired of Obama's antics and incompetence..

    As far as the American people are concerned, it's about time someone held him accountable..

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all can laugh it up about Boehner's lawsuit..

    "Laugh it up, fuzzball.."
    -Han Solo, STAR WARS IV, A New Hope

    :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've heard that Republicans aren't following the rules in Mississippi. McDaniel's Fox "News" audition/lawsuit is funnier than the Orangeman's.

    Yea, well Odumbo never met a Foreign Policy issue that he could actually do some good with..

    You see how silly and childish it is to call people names??

    Let's try and keep the intelligence level of the discussion at LEAST above the 2nd grade level, eh??

    I'm just sayin'.....

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I don't provide links to RW fleece-the-rubes sites (although they are amusing to read on this subject).

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/16/chris_mcdaniel_s_lawyer_explains_why_thad_cochran_s_black_voter_outreach.html

    It will be entertaining to see them actually file suit to overturn a *party nomination contest* based on no evidence. Every one of those "real" vote diluting black people who they claim voted in the (D) primary and the runoff may have voted for McD. He'll need to have Sarah Palin as the judge for an idea as stupid as this one to succeed. Liberty!

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting link..

    So, what you seem to be saying is that it's a good thing that Cochran won the primary because McDaniel is a moron...

    Well, whaddyaknow!???

    We agree again!!! :D At least about Cochran winning being a good thing. I am not comfortable with bigotry so I don't agree with you about the intelligence level of McDaniel...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think ya'all are going to find that Boehner's lawsuit (if it actually comes to pass) is only going to help the GOP in the upcoming mid-terms, if it has any effect at all..

    The way the current political winds are blowing, immigration is going to be issue numero uno in the coming election..

    The issue by itself is already hurting Dems and causing fractures within the Democrat Party with Obama's debacle on the Southern Border..

    A recent LEO intelligence report totally negated the Administration's BS claim that it was violence in the home countries that was the cause of the mass invasion... It was Obama's policies that were the catalyst...

    Further, when one considers the ticking time bomb that is the upcoming school year right before the election??

    A GOP SuperMajority in the Senate, if numerically feasible, is not outside the realm of possibility...

    Remember, you heard it here first.. :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Michael -

    'bout a week ago you asked me to evaluate Democratic chances in the 2014 midterm elections. My gut reaction was "advantage Republicans."

    After running a model on recent polling data I've upgraded the prospects of Democrats retaining outright Senate control at about 55% to 60%. Advantage Democrats?!!! Quite surprising, given the gloomy headlines.

    Now, it's still early, and there aren't a lot of useful data yet, and I'm assuming high correlation between state voting behaviors. Haven't had a chance to run a non-correlated model yet, but the 100% correlation model is simple and fits recent historical patterns better. Intermediate models might work even better, but devising and populating one with raw data is a task suitable for a Ph.D. dissertation.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    After running a model on recent polling data I've upgraded the prospects of Democrats retaining outright Senate control at about 55% to 60%. Advantage Democrats?!!! Quite surprising, given the gloomy headlines.

    I'de be VERY interested in your methodology...

    The best tracking that I have been following for quite a while is over at WaPo...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014

    As of today, the chance of the GOP taking the Senate is 87%...

    7 seats are expected to flip from DEM to GOP. ZERO seats are expected to flip from GOP to DEM..

    It simply doesn't look good for the home team unless there is a BOOB that favors the Dems between now and Nov....

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Now that Republicans have a thoroughly biased Supreme Court majority installed they're pushing the notion that SCOTUS is the constitution, and runs the federal government, with both the President and Congress subservient to SCOTUS, pretty hard. Instead of "activist judges" we now have "the constitution says whatever SCOTUS says it does."

    Americans are already recognizing the illegitimacy of SCOTUS rulings, their bias, partisanship, unconstitutionally, and unfairness. The betrayal of the constitution and their oaths of office by Justices. What's needed is enough public outrage at the lack of objectivity, fairness, and constitutionality in SCOTUS opinions to convince polititians the public would support the constitutional option. Polititians' feeling institutionally threatened by SCOTUS' grab for unlimited power certainly wouldn't hurt either.

    The real lesson of the Clinton impeachment, and one that, like so many other lessons, Republicans just refuse to learn, is that you can overplay your hand. This lawsuit is just the latest example of Republicans determined to do just that.

    Whatever happens in November Republicans are intently marginalizing themselves. They are losing entire generations, entire races. They may even lose an entire gender! They're certainly working hard enough at it.

    While Republicans are indeed exploiting their current advantages, and feeding red meat to their base, that base is dwindling. Their general public support is eroding. They are vastly overplaying their hand.

    Nothing could be better for progressives, and for America for that matter, than for Republicans to convince the general public that these mid-term elections really matter! Because if they ever decide they're important enough to actually start actively participating, Republicans may find themselves marginalized and out of power for decades, perhaps even permanently. Instead of Republicans gloating over the prospect of capturing control of Congress, they should be terrified about it, and worrying about what Republicans would do if they do. While disingenuous theatre and unrestrained extremism may excite the base it turns off the rest of the population. Its not just a question of how much of a backlash they'll face in November, but also how much backlash they'll face in 2016. And maybe even 2018, and beyond.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    we now have "the constitution says whatever SCOTUS says it does."

    Uh yup... That's their function. The arbiter of the Constitution...

    Americans are already recognizing the illegitimacy of SCOTUS rulings, their bias, partisanship, unconstitutionally, and unfairness.

    ONLY when the SCOTUS doesn't rule their way.. When the SCOTUS rules the way they want, everyone is just fine with the SCOTUS... :D

    Funny how that is, iddn't it.. :D

    This lawsuit is just the latest example of Republicans determined to do just that.

    And yet, the American people indicate that Obama is out of control...

    Whatever happens in November Republicans are intently marginalizing themselves. They are losing entire generations, entire races. They may even lose an entire gender!

    Then ya'all have absolutely NOTHING to worry about, right?? :D

    Then why so hysterical?? :D

    While Republicans are indeed exploiting their current advantages, and feeding red meat to their base, that base is dwindling. Their general public support is eroding. They are vastly overplaying their hand

    Keep telling yerself that. Whatever it takes for you to be able to sleep at night.. :D

    Instead of Republicans gloating over the prospect of capturing control of Congress, they should be terrified about it, and worrying about what Republicans would do if they do. While disingenuous theatre and unrestrained extremism may excite the base it turns off the rest of the population. Its not just a question of how much of a backlash they'll face in November, but also how much backlash they'll face in 2016. And maybe even 2018, and beyond.

    Time will tell..

    I am more than willing to concede that you MIGHT be right..

    But it is impossible for you to concede that you MIGHT be wrong...

    Shall we hook up in 2018 and compare notes?? :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, the American people indicate that Obama is out of control...

    'It looks like it may be a terrible tragedy': Obama sparks anger with 40-second mention of Malaysian plane crash that killed 23 Americans before giving transportation speech
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696366/It-looks-like-terrible-tragedy-Obama-briefly-addresses-Malaysian-plane-crash-emerges-23-U-S-passengers-board.html

    More American eye rolling with our bungler in chief...

    I tell ya, the American people will welcome a lawsuit against Obama..

    SOMETHING has got to shake this clown back to reality...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Fact: The Orangeman's lawsuit looks even sillier now that The Socialist Tyrant has shot down that Malaysian airliner to take CNN's attention away from the Invasion of the Little Kids. Even if I set the bar really low, that one seems like a misdemeanor. Impeach!

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fact: The Orangeman's lawsuit looks even sillier now that The Socialist Tyrant has shot down that Malaysian airliner to take CNN's attention away from the Invasion of the Little Kids. Even if I set the bar really low, that one seems like a misdemeanor. Impeach!

    {{{ssiiiigggghhhhh}}}

    Such high hopes....

    Another HuffPoop wanna-be....

    {{ssiiigggghhhhh}}

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fact: The Orangeman's lawsuit looks even sillier now that The Socialist Tyrant has shot down that Malaysian airliner to take CNN's attention away from the Invasion of the Little Kids. Even if I set the bar really low, that one seems like a misdemeanor. Impeach!

    Not a fact to be found.... :(

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Michael

    "I'de be VERY interested in your methodology..."

    The model I use is based on discussions in early editions of the 538 Blog about how to partition random variance in senate and presidential races. The detailed math, implementation and validation are entirely mine.

    Do states act independently; 50 races, 50 different random variables, or does one random variable predict the outcomes of all 50 states? Or something in between? Playing around with this, I found one national variable works quite well: states have a strong herd effect. This makes computing the overall outcome of multiple state elections very simple.

    Here's the model, suitable for two party races. On election day, Blue has some probability of winning any given state, based on a single random uniform number in the range 0 to 1 applied globally to all the states. If the global random number is equal or less than the probability assigned to a particular state, Blue wins that state, if not Red wins. As Blue "rolls" lower and lower random numbers, more more and more states pile into the Blue victory column, strongest Blue states first (p near 1), strongest Red states last (p near 0). Red and Blue are mirror images of each other.

    Here's how to apply the above: Rank order the states in descending order of Blue cumulative probability. Go down the list to 16th state, and cross tabulate the probability. That's the estimated likelihood of obtaining the minimum victory condition (52 Blue to 48 Red).

    Probabilities of winning a state can be estimated from polling data, but beware the common "% of vote +- some margin of error" is not the same thing! Probabilities of winning a state can be based purely on intuition. Either way, with state by state probability estimates, you can compute the logical grand national outcome given the underlying assumption that most random variance reflects national, not local variance acting on local preference.

    The data I used came mostly from a recent post on the new 538 blog, supplemented by some other polling sources when 538 declined to make a call due to limited polling data. The other sources used qualitative probabilities like "safe," "likely", "leans" and "tossup" which I translated into 538 numeric values using direct comparisons between the sites. I was very conservative, using the lowest numbers in the category range as Blue surrogate data. I was very liberal for Red.

    I have no idea what variance model WaPo uses, but their prior probabilities are much more bimodal than those of The 538. It's possible that WaPo assumes states approximately independently of each other. I'll look into that...

    It's still very early in the game. I consider 538 very credible (at least in US politics), but you are only as good as your last prognostication. I'm looking forward to getting more data from more sources in the coming weeks.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Very interesting...

    No one can accuse you of NOT being thorough.. :D

    My only caveat is your choice of source material..

    538?? :D

    Time will tell if yer right or not....

    I'm looking forward to getting more data from more sources in the coming weeks.

    I for one, would be very interested in how your model progresses..

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's a disgrace that The Weak Feckless Tyrant didn't spend hours talking about the untold number of Amurikkkans who didn't die in that warzone airplane tragedy that doesn't have anything to do with Amurikkka. Somebody needs to be bombed. Some thing must be done. Something!

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    in that warzone airplane tragedy that doesn't have anything to do with Amurikkka.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/10976498/Flight-MH17-and-the-new-world-disorder.html

    Isolationists are so predictably boring....

    There calling is "run away.... run away..."

    Their mantra; "Lead From Behind" AKA Coward Of The Country...

    {{yaaawwwwnnnnnn}}

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Michael, RE 11,18

    I ran my model with the WAPO data and obtained the following results:

    Probability of Democratic Senate majority = .35

    Probability of Republican Senate majority = .33

    Probability of Tie = .32

    How you model what the individual state probabilities really mean makes a big difference. Silver gives a lot of details, most other big media prognosticators don't.

    I strongly suspect the WAPO model is not tightly correlating state random variances, although the small number of viable pick up states being so small (just 4!) is also an important factor.

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    One quick comment -- you state:

    "Not a fact to be found"

    and yet you keep stating "the economy is in the crapper."

    I challenge you to back that up with some facts. Not opinions, not "a few guys said this" type anecdotes, but actual facts. You know, some numbers. From economists. Because from where I sit, all the numbers are steadily improving and are actually wildly better than when Obama took office.

    So: put up or shut up.

    More later... sorry, Craig Ferguson's about to come on...

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    So: put up or shut up.

    Three words..

    G.... D.... P..... :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because from where I sit, all the numbers are steadily improving and are actually wildly better than when Obama took office.

    There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics
    -Mark Twain

    :D

    Sure, you can find an economic stat here or an economic stat there that "proves" that the economy is getting better...

    But if you ask Joe or Jane Sixpack if their lives are any better??

    Guess what you'll hear??

    I am a small business person.. I KNOW the economy is not getting any better based on the parameters that REALLY count...

    And the majority of middle class Americans feel EXACTLY as I do...

    Don't make me pull out the RCP polls.. :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Silver gives a lot of details, most other big media prognosticators don't.

    Silver is a Left Wing ideologue..

    Karl Rove had all sorts of stats and details in the 2012 Elections...

    Guess what?? :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Here a nice model from the NYT!

    http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/

    It partitions the variance into national and state components, but I don't know the relative loadings. Very clever animated presentation illustrating the range of Expected outcomes. Advantage to Republicans: 57% chance of control. 18% chance of a tie.

    CW- hope you're looking in at this. Remember the discussion we had in the spring of 2012 about an animated map? The NYT approach is much better!

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, I think I mentioned that NYT "game" a while ago.. It's a pretty fun toy....

    I am really pumped for the upcoming Mid-Terms.. I have a feeling that this year's Weigantia Fund Drive is going to be the best one ever!!! :D

    We need to get some wagers in place soon!!! :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Ran the latest NYT probability data through my model and obtained the following:

    Probability of Dem majority =.47
    Probability of tie .03
    Probability of Rep majority =.50

    The equivalent NYT predictions are:

    Probability of Dem majority =.25
    Probability of tie .18
    Probability of Rep majority =.57

    Partitioning model variance into local and global fractions is a devilish problem. In 2012 I found setting the local component near zero worked well when compared to Silver's model and prediction future pricing (Irish bookies in common parlance). That was then, this now. Maybe I'm seriously underestimating the local component, time will tell.

    Somewhere on my hard drive there is a model that partitions the variances and spins all the dials like the NYT version, which is basically Silver's 2012 538 model. By playing around with my weighting factor I could get a good idea of what the NYT is using....but it's tedious, due to my quick and dirty XL spreadsheet programming!

  30. [30] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I found my 2012 partitioned variance model. Equally important, all the documentation for it (absolutely vital for any moderately big EXCEL model)!

    I get very similar result to the NYT sim when I set the national variance component low, 75.

    I conclude the NYT is using a small national component in their simulation code. This is consistent with how the NYT says they roll their dice..."We let the states move together to some extent."

    That didn't seem to work well in 2012, when the states seemed to move together, but we'll see in November.

  31. [31] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The comments don't like less than or more than symbols. So, 30 should read:

    I found my 2012 partitioned variance model. Equally important, all the documentation for it (absolutely vital for any moderately big EXCEL model)!

    I get very similar result to the NYT sim when I set the national variance component low, less than 25%. I get very similar results to my rank ordered model when I set the national component high, roughly 75% or more.

    I conclude the NYT is using a small national component in their simulation code. This is consistent with how the NYT says they roll their dice..."We let the states move together to some extent."

    That didn't seem to work well in 2012, when the states seemed to move in clumps, but we'll see in November.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The comments don't like less than or more than symbols. So, 30 should read:

    Yea, the LESS THAN/MORE THAN symbols are used for attributes.. IE Italics and Bold etc etc...

    As far as your computing goes...

    I find it fascinating, albeit WAY over my head.. :D

    But it sounds logical... :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-

    My main take-away from all this analysis is that National US Politics is most binary - probabilities near 1 or zero in most states. Victory or defeat hinges on running the table in the few genuinely competitive states. That's obvious, but what's not so obvious is that the ease by which you can run the table depends on how independently states behave. That topic is pretty much ignored in the popular press. But, it's vital IMHO.

    Herd behavior was Romney's best hope in '12. Without it, Obama was close to a 10:1 favorite (by my reckoning). With tight herds, Obama was (also by my reckoning) something in the range of a 2 to 3 to one favorite.

    In '14, the Dems are basically in Romney's position, but with a fundamentally better set of odds, closer to 1 to 1.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    In '14, the Dems are basically in Romney's position, but with a fundamentally better set of odds, closer to 1 to 1.

    Given the reality of the here and now, I can't see how this is possible..

    Democrats have so many strikes against them, both historically and given the many scandals and issues plaguing the Obama Administration..

    My gut tells me that 2014 is going to make The Great Shellacking Of 2010 like a fun day at the beach by comparison...

    We'll know for sure in a little over 3 months.. :D

    One thing I know for sure.. The dynamic here in Weigantia is going to change a LOT... :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The Great Shellacking of 2010 was accurately predicted by most pollsters. It was accurately predicted by historical precedents - off year elections are unkind to the incumbent party.

    Most reputable polls say the fate of the Senate hangs almost entirely on just 8 competitive states. Dems need to win 3 of them to retain control of the senate. Two of them, NH and MI are likely pickups for them. Dems have to catch just one more among five tossups to get three wins. Most polling data say the odds of doing that aren't all that long.

    What you are betting is that the polling models will break down in this election cycle. If they do, it's probably going to be hard to tell, because main stream prognostication says win lose and tie are all fairly likely. Even a clean sweep of the competitive 8 won't be convincing evidence of a polling breakdown, if states herd strongly, there is about a 50:50 likelihood this can occur, depending on the polling outfit. If a few safe states in the wrong direction, that will be good evidence the polls have broken down. It's possible, but, I'm not expecting to see that.

    This is one of those elections where it's going to be easy to look right for the wrong reasons.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    We'll see :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.