Oh yea...

There is no Obama bias in the media... None at all..

{/sarcasm}

:^/

Michale

http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/23/as-midterms-near-gop-leads-on-key-issues-democrats-have-a-more-positive-image/

This is why Voter Photo ID is needed...

Because those who vote criminally will always vote for the Party Of Free Stuff... The Free Ride Party...

Michale

Michale

One of the useful things about running Monte Carlo simulations is that with 36 races going on, you get a sense that one or two "rare" events are fairly common in any given run. For example, assuming 26 "safe" states (p=.99 for the favorite)and complete independence among states, at least 1 bastion goes down about 20% of the time. You don't get this sense by just looking at tabulated columns.

Unless I run WAPO landscapes, which basically make all states pretty safe, the 52-48 split isn't mind bogglingly unexpected. Silver's 538 is putting the odds of Dems retaining senate control a 38%, but he rates the chance of getting 52 OR MORE states at about 14%. Events that occur with that frequency aren't commonly thought of as rare. Dems retaining what they have, yeah, that would be pretty close to zero...but less close to zero if state behaviors are highly correlated.

It's a complicated game, which is why it's so entertaining.

"But the probabilities are based on the POLLS."

In the same sense that beer is based on water. There are a lot of ingredients, and some craftsmanship.

Raw polls don't predict elections very well. How do we know this? History. Truman:Dewey etc. All polls lack complete precision and all polls are biased. Polling flaws are measured and corrected (to some extent) by comparing raw poll data to actual voting patterns.

You can make some very good predictions without using any polls. Mississippi: the democrat is going to lose. Historical trends work very well in the majority of locales. There are lots of other fundamentals that work well...name recognition, fundraising, incombency, organization, it's a long list. Put them together and you get a model. The model may live on paper, in a computer, or in somebody's head, it's still just a model.

History isn't an experiment. You can't re-run Obama vs Romney 1000 times to see how accurate Nate Silver's probability was. Nate's stated probability is just a measure of his faith in his call. Track record gives you some clue about how good a forecaster is, but it's nothing close to controlled experiment.

But the probabilities are based on the POLLS..

The polls are the data and the probability is based on the data..

Michale

"Really!!??? That's great!! And, of course, you can PROVE that, right?? Oh yea, that's right. I forgot. You were absent the day the taught LAW at Law School.."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

:D

Michale

Ya gotta give it to Chuck... He doesn't pull any punches when laying out the reality. :D

Michale

Fear mongering by way of false accusations of racism.....

Michale

Running Scared: Maryland Democrats Play The Race Card
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/23/maryland-democrats-play-the-race-card-in-latest-mailer/

I saids it befores and it's still a fact..

If Democrats didn't have the race card, they couldn't play the game...

Michale

The one thing I liked about JUDGE DREDD was that Dredd was larger than life. He was THE bad-ass of the Judges and everyone knew it. He was special..

In DREDD, he was just a run of the mill every-day cop.. Put another way.. If you were to pull the name DREDD and change the uniforms, it would have been a simple kick-ass cop movie...

Urban's Dredd wasn't anything special...

Michale

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

They are really taking a hit...

Who knows??

I might pull off a two-fer..

GOP sweeps the Senate AND Obama's numbers go below 40% into Bush territory... :D

JL, you got that T-shirt ready?? :D

Remember, you can't tell anyone why you are wearing it until the day after.. :D

Michale

As I mentioned before, Dems have cried wolf on so many occasions regarding the "recovery" that they would likely be laughed at if they tried it now..

Even if, in some ways, it happens to be true...

Michale

You raise a valid point, but I have two gut reactions:

(1) All's fair in love, war, and election season. Whatever the public can be convinced to believe, they will believe in the voting booth.

(2) Obama's already taken a political hit (see: 2012 election) for high gas prices, so he might as well take some credit when the price eventually does go down.

Both of those are pretty cynical positions, I realize, but then hey, it's an election year.

I am actually a firm believer that presidents and politics are largely (not totally, but largely) independent of the buisiness cycle. Politicians can pass things to hinder or help the economy, but it's mostly tinkering around the edges, and it's mostly reactionary.

To put this another way: there simply is no big red lever in the Oval Office labelled "Jobs" where if you just give it a yank, the economy does better.

But this is the home stretch of an election, and gas prices are one of those things which affects almost EVERYbody. It's a direct pocketbook issue, and if people have more money to spend because they're spending less on gas, then Democrats should point it out: things are getting better!

But I realize it's political opportunism. Then again, if Democrats are so timid they won't point out any economic good news, then maybe they deserve to lose.

-CW

And yet, they blamed Bush for gas price spike when he was POTUS...

In fact, the price went up about 35 cents a gallon here on Tuesday. Now, that was McConnell's fault.

Of course, it was...

Thank you for proving my point.. :D

Michale

If you liked Dredd, you would probably like ALMOST HUMAN with Karl Urban.. It lasted only a season, but it was pretty good.. You will see a lot of DREDD in Detective Kennex...

It's a good old fashioned kick ass cop show with androids.. :D

Michale

Chris, you're kidding, right? They should get up and brag about something that they really aren't responsible for? They'd look like Michele Bachmann and they'd risk that the price-fixing oil companies would jack the price right up out of spite.

In fact, the price went up about 35 cents a gallon here on Tuesday. Now, that was McConnell's fault.

Angel. Mean Machine Angel, part of the Angel Gang. Had to look it up...

-CW

Man, you got me, there. I was flexing the fingers to blast your taste in movies, then found you were pulling my leg!

Yeah, the new one is TONS better. Reasons why:

* Actor never takes off helmet
* Cityblock much more realistic
* Dredd is total hardass, all the time
* Dredd is not played by Sly Stallone
* Dredd never takes off his helmet (wait, did I say that already?)

Heh. Actually, I had one minor complaint with the cityscape scenes -- the interiors of the cityblock were good, but the exteriors were wrong. There should be one of those skyscrapers on EVERY block! Not some wasted landscape with a tower here and a tower there. But like I said, that's a pretty minor complaint.

The Stallone movie tried something pretty ambitious, which I hope the new franchise will get to eventually, which was to take two actual comicbook storylines and make them the basis for the movie. Dredd heading out to the Cursed Earth and running into Mean Machine and Pa and the rest of the warped family (forgot their last name) is a great story arc (where most of the family gets killed at the end, but Mean Machine -- the guy with the dial on his forehead -- came back as a recurring villain because everyone thought he was pretty cool). Like I said, hopefully future Dredd movies will go back and do it again.

-CW

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/10/17/realtors-say-mcconnells-for-sale/17461287/

If you look closely at the photo, you can see a thin black line under the words For Sale. That's because it had a flap. If you lifted it up, it said "Sold". Truth in advertising.

He's going to "fight to maintain the home mortgage interest tax deduction". ALG probably wants to take that away from hard working Americans to finance Obama's War on Coal.

It's not too hard a question.

Since mail in voting makes it ton easier to cheat, Mail In Voting will help Democrats.. :D

If I was going with "wild-eyed optimism" (Michale, this is for you, too), I would call the races in IA, CO, and AK for Dems, just because that is what my gut tells me. I would also say that GA will not have a runoff, but that LA will, giving Landrieu a second chance (a slim one).

In a two-person match-up Landru is on the short end of a 60-40 split...

See, Michale? THAT is what unreasoning optimism looks like!

Agreed... :D

By the by, I watched the new DREDD yesterday... It comes close, but it's still not as good as Stallone's DREDD...

Michale runs and hides :D

Just kidding.. It was definitely better than JUDGE DREDD.. More gritty, much MUCH less comedy.... I like Karl Urban...

Not so much for his McCoy, although that is pretty good. But as a gritty Dredd-like cop in ALMOST HUMAN, he was awesome...

Michale

My point exactly. What you're quoting aren't "polls" they are "probability predictions." So, to state it properly, "none of the sites gives Dems over a 40% probability of winning."

OK, fine. But that's not the same as state-by-state polling. Check out RealClearPolitics and click on "Senate no toss ups". Today, they put it at 51R, 48D, and 1Ind(KS). Which means that if Dems manage to rally and win in ANY ONE of: AK, CO, IA, AR, LA, KY then they will retain control.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

Electoral-vote.com shows a similar picture:

http://electoral-vote.com/

Today's stats: 48D, 50R, 2 ties (KS, IA). If the independent wins in KS and Braley wins in IA, Dems control the Senate.

I'm not saying the odds aren't with Republicans -- they are. What I'm saying is that I don't deal in odds at all. I use a different lens, and the way I see it, this is no slam-dunk for Republicans. It's still very close, and there has been movement towards Dems.

Will Rs take control? Maybe. Maybe even "probably" -- but, again, I don't deal in probabilities.

The one thing that is for sure, this is not the "wave" election some Rs were predicting. At one point, Republicans thought they were going to take Oregon and Michigan. Now no sane R thinks that's possible. Now, they're about to lose Georgia and possibly Kansas and South Dakota. That is a big turnaround, no matter who else sees it. Reality-based, my friend, reality-based....

:-)

Michale [6] -

You might have a point about GOTV, so let me ask you something I haven't heard anyone else talk about: because of the all-mail voting in CO, which party do you think it will help? Again, I don't really have an answer to that (nobody else does, either, I think). But it's an interesting question to ponder.

Michale [7] -

I think it'll depend on how big their majority is, if it comes to pass. If they've only got 51, McConnell may be more cautious. But no matter how big their majority is, they will not be shy about claiming a "mandate" (something the Dems never seem to do, which I consider a tactical mistake). And I wrote earlier, I think for the first 100 days McConnell and Boehner will allow the Tea Party free rein, and that a whole bunch of extreme bills will pass, only to be vetoed. I think the real battles will be waged later in the year, though, after the grandstanding ebbs. That's my take on it, at any rate, but the GOP could always surprise me (they've done so before).

Michale [8] -

Good point, one I've wondered about too. Another tactical mistake by Dems, I have to admit.

TheStig -

Amazing what a difference the Georgia race makes, isn't it? The biggest flaw in my analysis could be that we're overstating Nunn's climb in the polls there, and that Dems won't turn out and actually vote. But if you put GA in the Dem column (another poll just confirmed Nunn's lead), then the rest of the map starts looking decidedly better for Dems.

If I was going with "wild-eyed optimism" (Michale, this is for you, too), I would call the races in IA, CO, and AK for Dems, just because that is what my gut tells me. I would also say that GA will not have a runoff, but that LA will, giving Landrieu a second chance (a slim one).

My gut, I have to say, is much more optimistic at times than my brain. If my gut was right about the three, but Landrieu still lost, the count would be: D51, R48, 1Ind(KS), and Orman would then caucus with Dems. 52-48 split outcome.

See, Michale? THAT is what unreasoning optimism looks like!

Heh.

-CW

And, by the admission of Weigantians, Democrats CAN'T "effectively" lead...

So, give me a reluctant leader over an incompetent leader any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

Michale

It's still optimism, not reality...

Republicans don't want to lead.

Assumes facts not in evidence..

The senate winds will shift in 2016. Romney will be the Presidential nominee again, and he will lose.

Now THAT is cockeyed optimism... :D

Michale

Coding Georgia....carry the one....rank order the scores... hoyven, count down 16 rows, the 16th score is zero = too close to call. Control of the Senate is Too Close too Call.

CWs state by state landscape is just a wee bit better for the Dems this week. Still 11 states genuinely in play (a lot compared to the big 4 number shops), but the Dems pick up a leaner from the Reps. The Dems have to run five of the 11 competitive states, Reps need to run 7. That slight asymmetry suggests to me the CW picks imply a slightly better than even chance of the Dems retaining control. I'm not sure CW would go that far out on the limb.

M - What "Not one single poll gives Democrats any better than a 40% chance" are you talking about? There is no national race to poll, just 36 individual state wide contests.

CW is more optimistic than most, but it's not cockeyed optimism. Senate polling is sparse compared to presidential polling, and its decidedly unreliable in some states, especially Alaska. Changes in personal communications are making it more and more difficult to construct unbiased samples. Getting out the vote may be the deciding factor, Dems may still hold an advantage here..or not. Pulling ad money may make sense if the TV market is already saturated. Candidates still have a chance to make a major blunder (dead girl, live boy or the Weinergram).

I'm still sticking with about a 40% chance of the Dems pulling off an upset. That's much better odds than I gave Romney on the eve before the presidential election. I think the numbers are still pretty fluid.

Gas is down to $2.80 in my area - $2.40 with discounts at my local grocery. I put a months worth in my tank yesterday.

Regardless of the outcome, the Congress will remain obstructionist. Republicans don't want to lead. It doesn't make political sense for them to lead. Their base won't let them lead. They will play Charlie Brown football with Obama a few times...and he'll fall for it a few times. This is likely to play out as Republicans trying to "improve Obama Care to Death." The veto is still powerful. The senate winds will shift in 2016. Romney will be the Presidential nominee again, and he will lose.

In my area, gas has hit below $3 a gallon. We haven't seen prices that low in so long I have forgotten when....

Wonder why Dems aren't trumpeting that to the high heavens..

Michale

The immature and childish side of me wants the GOP to stick it to the Democrats and stick it hard.. Make it hurt in any and every way imaginable.. Cause severe pain for Democrats as Democrats have caused severe pain for this country...

But the mature side of me realizes that THAT won't be good for the country as a whole.. The mature side wants the GOP to get things done. On the plus side of this option, there IS some red meat for the immature half in this...

Be the bigger man and show Democrats how an "effective" Senate is run... Shame Democrats by taking the moral and ethical high ground... Show Democrats that a Party doesn't need a SuperMajority to get things done...

Well, I have a week and half to reconcile the two sides of me.. :D

Michale

The problem with GOTV strategies is that they serve BOTH parties...

If Dems push a GOTV message, it might backfire on them and energize the GOP voters...

Of course, the converse is true as well..

Michale

If all the reported voter fraud and machines that take a vote for GOP and turn it into a vote for a Dem pans out, Demcorats just might win it..

That's the motto of the Democrat Party...

By Hook Or By Crook....

Michale

Hope Springs Eternal :D

I mean, come on.. Not one single poll gives Democrats any better than a 40% chance...

If the polls were reversed and Democrats had the advantage that the GOP has, Dems would be already handing out committee assignments.. :D

But I won't begrudge ya'all yer positive thinking.. Gods know I have been there and done that.. :D

Michale

I've only put the Senate under the microscope in two past midterms, 2006 and 2010. Here are the columns:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2006/11/06/here-are-my-election-picks-what-are-yours/

and:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/11/01/my-final-midterm-election-picks/

I've got to go back and check the results, state by state and see where I got it wrong. I thought I had done this before, but it turns out I only did it for presidential years (where my record is pretty good).

I promise, I'll dig out all my stats for next time around.

-CW

All the top dog modelers are using pretty much the same polling data....yet the range of predictions spans roughly 95% - 60% Rep takeover on any recent day. Simply change assumptions about how independently states behave and you can move the percentages about 5%. WAPO's near certainty apparently reflects their assumption that aggregated polls almost always predict Election Day outcomes this late in the game. We'll see. Stated probabilities are just a quantification of belief at any given outfit. CW.com's p = too close to call is pretty close to The Wonk Central Tendency and that grand call is mathematically consistent with CW's underlying state by state calls, at least according to the Stig model, which is in turn consistent with the big 4 state by state calls. The Stig sez states veer blue to red in packs, NYT sez no, they, don't.

It's all going to come down to who's gut is right. May the best gut win. In the public arena, you are only as good as your last prognosis. Tough crowd.

Ugh. How many ads do these people think we need to see? It seems like there has to be a point at which more ads is just a waste of money. There is no shortage of TV ads. They need to focus on GOTV. That's what will win it. There are about half a million more registered Dems in KY than Republicans.

I got a large glossy mailer from Worker's Voice today. It says "Stop Mitch McConnell", but makes no mention of ALG at all. I'm not sure what I think about that strategy, but at least it does a good job of highlighting how evil he is.