Nate Silver: G.O.P. Has 2-in-3 Chance of Taking House, Model Forecasts (225R v 210D)

[tritsofme]

Republicans have a two-in-three chance of claiming a majority of House seats in November, the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model estimates. And their gains could potentially rival or exceed those made in 1994, when they took a net of 54 seats from the Democrats.

In one sense, a strong performance by the Republicans on Nov. 2 is to be expected. The opposition party typically gains seats – on average, about 20 in midterm elections since 1994 – after the other party wins the White House, as the Democrats did in 2008. Nevertheless, both the magnitude of the Republicans’ potential gains, and the rapidity with which the political balance is poised to shift back to them after two cycles in which Democrats won nearly every competitive election, is unusual by recent standards. According to the model, Republicans have about a one-in-three chance of winning at least 54 seats, their total in 1994, and nearly a one-in-four chance of gaining at least 60.

Were the Republicans to achieve an outcome like that, one might need to look to the first half of the previous century for precedent; in 1948, for example, the Democrats added a net of 75 seats in the House, just two years after losing 54.

However, the headlines for this election have not yet been written, and there is considerable uncertainty in the outcome.

<SNIP>

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/g-o-p-has-2-in-3-chance-of-taking-house-model-forecasts/

Silver's accuracy in predicting the 2008 election makes his case compelling. There still may be time to turn thing around and mitigate losses, but things don't look very good. The 9.6% unemployment rate is toxic.

[Bill219]

1. Correct me if I am wrong

But he doesn't do any of his own polling right?

He just relies on the very dubious polling of other polling companies.

Right now I do not trust any of these polling companies. Too easy to mess with the polling questions to get the results that the corporate controlled media and their GOP watchdogs want to brainwash the public with.

The only poll results that count are on election day

[BzaDem]

2. Don't we usually criticize Republicans for ignoring all actual evidence and instead coming up with

predictions that suit their fancy? Such as the idea that global warming doesn't exist, or if it does it isn't caused by humans, or if it is, it won't cause any problems? They come up with the answer they want to hear, and discard all actual evidence to the contrary.

Tons of polling firms have extremely good track records at predicting actual past elections. It is hard to objectively claim that they are just corporate media lapdogs when they actually get the right answer over and over again, decade after decade.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. +1

[DrSteveB]

4. According to your reasoning, you wouldn't trust him even if he conducted his own polls

You say you don't trust polling companies. So why do you even bother noting that he does not do his own polling?

One more thing: Why has Silver been very accurate in the past?