Well Nate Silver is in with the bad news

[craigmatic]

G.O.P. Has 2-in-3 Chance of Taking House, Model Forecasts
By NATE SILVER
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.
www.fivethirtyeight.com
Still things can still change and we only need about 10 more seats than this model shows to keep the house.

[impik]

1. We will keep the House.

[craigmatic]

2. I hope so I didn't think they'd get more than 26 because Obama is still more popular than Clinton

was in 1994.

[FBaggins]

27. Obama is more popular... But the economy is far worse.

It isn't all about the president.

[napi21]

12. I sure HOPE you're right, but I can't shake the memory of when we all

believed so much in the forecast of "538" whhen Obama & all the Dems who are in office now were running. I HOPE the doubters now are not just doing wishful thinking.

[impik]

16. The campaign just started. We won't lose the House. But...

It would be nice to see Dems actually fights to get elected, and not just looking to the preisdent to save their ass.

[Upton]

41. Nate was right in '08

there's no reason to assume he's not right now. Don't bother trying to sift through the wishful thinking and the denial, it's not worth the trouble.

All is not lost yet though. Nate still has us holding on to the Senate, and you never know, as we get closer to election day things could change for the better with the House too.

[rocktivity]

3. We MAY lose more seats than we should,

and I don't even think that's going to happen. But eight weeks out, I just can't believe we'll won't lose the majority.

Also, keep in mind 538.com now has the New York Times for a landlord.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Greybnk48]

4. This is not 1994. We will not lose the House.

[napi21]

5. Anybody know how many of those Pubs are teabagger extremists?

I heard one of th show hosts (Matthews I think) last week saying that IF the Pubs take back the majority in both houses, Boner & McConnell are going to have a totally unmanagable group of nuts! We have to remember that these nuts are not really Pub supporters either. Yes, they are more Pub than Dem, but they don't like EITHER side! They want something completely diffeent than exists or has existed for a verylong time.

[applegrove]

55. one can only hope that they form their own party. Dems will be in power forever then.

[PeaceNikki]

6. Democrats, no matter how bitter, cannot sit this election out.

A right-leaning Democrat is still oodles better than a GOP majority.

Vote people.

Vote.

[AspenRose]

9. Indeed...turnout is the bottom line

[FBaggins]

29. +1

[mikekohr]

44. +2

[terrya]

30. I'll vote.

Alexi Giannoulias is a good man and will be a good Senator...unlike Mark "I frequently lie about practically everything in my personal life" Kirk.

And Pat Quinn, while not perfect, is scads better than the anti-abortion, anti-gay everything troglodyte Bill Brady Quinn is running against.

I'll be there at the polls this November. Thanks.

[PeaceNikki]

36. And I very happily will be casting a proud vote for Russ Feingold and another for Tom Barrett

:patriot:

Also... :hi: !!! :hug:

[terrya]

37. I can't believe Russ Feingold is in trouble right now.

Hell, if I could, *I* would come up there and vote for him. :-)

He's one of the finest people in Congress. Period.

:hi: and :hug:

[PeaceNikki]

40. He's not in as much trouble as they'd like to think.

But I am ok pushing that meme if it gets more Democrats to the polls.

[terrya]

43. I've read the polls.

At Daily Kos, TPM, etc. And Feingold's race, along with the US Senate races in Washington state, California, Illinois..is one of the "too close to call" races. I'm glad to hear that it isn't as dire up there as the polls seem to indicate.

But, as long as it gets people to the polls...

[DarthDem]

7. I've Said It Before and I'll Say It Again

I'm tired of Nate, and of Chris Bowers, whose latest migration has taken him over to the Kos site. Two years ago, Nate told us that McCain was a virtual lock to win. He revised his projections as September and October wore on, of course, but these current snapshots (and those provided by Bowers) are just stupid, simple as that. They're not making much, if any, of an attempt to adjust for the ridiculously obvious takeover of polling (which has no integrity at this time) by rightwing narrative-pushers, and as a result, their forecasts are garbage in, garbage out.

[Bill219]

20. +1

[Marsala]

21. Nate never said that McCain was a "lock to win"

During the Palin bump, his projections did give McCain slightly better than 50% odds to win, but that was just a reflection of the polls at the time. The same is true of his House projection.

[ProSense]

8. That sure is a CYA last paragraph

On average, the model predicts a net gain of 45 to 50 seats for Republicans, which if achieved would put the G.O.P in the majority. But there are 90 districts, the model finds, in which either party still has at least a 10 percent chance of prevailing, and it is on a district-by-district basis that each party will learn of their fate on Nov. 2.

A "2-in-3 Chance" that they'll take the House, but 90 seats could go either way?

[PeaceNikki]

11. It's called "statistics"

Read the analysis and look at the detail behind the summary to see what that means.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. There's a small but significant minority at DU...

who hate math and everything it stands for.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. I Thought We Were The Party Of Reason

~

[ProSense]

15. I know what statistics are,

and they can be wrong. Still, I read it, and this is what I took away:

A "2-in-3 Chance" that they'll take the House, but 90 seats could go either way?

Ninety seats is a lot. In fact, Democrats now have a 78 seats advantage. Predicting a 14 seat Republican majority when 90 seats could go either way is a model, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it, especially with a 2/3 chance.

[PeaceNikki]

17. Of COURSE analysis can be wrong.

Unless one can predict the future that will remain the case.

Nate analyzes a great deal of data and if you can't wrap your brain around the statement that he made and you repeated, then you should look to more simplified sources or, better yet, none at all. It's really not that complicated.

[VMI Dem]

19. ...

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

22. You're right, Nate is great at analyzing data

Is it okay for me to think that he's off in his predictions and that it's too early to make such a definitive call?

In essence, then, the model takes a “kitchen sink” approach, applying as much data to the problem as possible. Its reason for doing so is utilitarian: such a blend would have performed more reliably in forecasting the outcome of past House elections than any one or two indicators would have on their own. The model, therefore, represents a compromise of sorts between the district-by-district analysis provided by experts like Cook, and the macro-level models sometimes published by political scientists.

Do you think he'll revise his estimates if the situation changes?

[PeaceNikki]

24. Again... of COURSE. That's what he does, constant revisions based on information that changes daily.

Some people very ignorantly criticize him for that... but that's his job. His data changes and his analysis changes with it.

[ProSense]

25. What's with the caps?

"Some people very ignorantly criticize him for that... but that's his job. "

Who is criticizing him for doing his job? He put out a projection, and I disagreed with it.

I don't believe Republicans are going to take the House, regardless of Nate's model.

[PeaceNikki]

26. Others in this thread are.

I hope you're right and that his predictions change or that he is proven very wrong. But he works with the data that's given.

[ProSense]

31. OK, and

I agree with you about turnout. That is one of the reasons I don't believe there will be a significant swing. The other thing is, Nate predicts that Dems will keep the Senate. I think Dems should be go all out slamming the crap out of Republicans ideas. There is still a full month and a half to do so.

[PeaceNikki]

33. Indeed.

And, truth is. predictions like this ought to work in our favor. I hope it lights a fire under the asses of any and all Democrats to be sure to not sit it out. We can't even sit out districts with DINO's we don't like. Like I said, a DINO is still better than a GOP majority. It may feel the same to have a DINO as a Republican, but it's not.

[DrSteveB]

59. You predict a not-so-significant swing. Approximately how many seats?

35? 30? 25? Roughly.

[DrSteveB]

57. self-delete

sorry.

[PeaceNikki]

28. The caps are for emphasis. If you were standing in front of me, I would have likely said the word

"course" slightly louder than the other words surrounding it.

[Mass]

65. Stats are not wrong. What you do with them may be wrong.

For example, saying that Nate Silver tells us the Democrats' chances are not the best would be true.

Saying, like the media say, that the election is already lost and that Boehner will be the speaker is wrong. Things can change.

[FBaggins]

32. The 90 seats are not split evenly between the parties.

Just as importantly... "could go either way" implies closer to a 50/50 chance than the 90/10 he's talking about.

[JoePhilly]

10. Guess I'll stay home then ...

:sarcasm:

[KingFlorez]

13. His odds for HI-01 and LA-02 are far too low

These are both heavily Democratic districts. Cao barely beat corrupt Jefferson and Djou won because there were two Democrats splitting the Democratic vote which totaled over 60%, those circumstances mean that both these should be higher on the takeover threshold.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I don't agree with him

In fact, the fact that he or anyone thinks that such late summer polling means anything tells me they are not trustworthy on a basic level. Asking voters in late August who they will vote for in November is like asking a 4 year old what he wants for his 6th birthday. Chances are, he's going to change his mind.

[opihimoimoi]

23. A GOPer Bhagdad BOB..yaki yaki yaki

[FBaggins]

34. Lol! Now Silver is a GOPer?

The desperation would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. When Did Nate Become GOP

He was the progressives' yoda during election 2006 and 2008.

[FBaggins]

62. As soon as he refused to stick his head in the sand. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

35. Still the 2nd or 3rd inning

Long way to go.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

38. I'll be more interested in Nate's analysis as election day draws closer.

It's too early to read much into the polling data. The real campaign is just gearing-up. The Republicans have already peaked, and even overshot reality with the outlier poll showing a 10% advantage. The bar is now set very high with the media narrative proclaiming the GOP will take control of both chambers. As the Democratic campaigns spin-up the races will tighten. I see a new narrative emerging in the weeks ahead as the current Republican polling lead evaporates. The effect will be to take the air out of the GOP's balloon.

[msongs]

39. nate silver now works for the New York Times and his job is to help sell newspapers nt

[Dawson Leery]

42. He is including the late August Gallup poll

which was an outlier.
The campaign is underway.

[FBaggins]

47. It also included the one from a week ago.

Which was an outlier in the other direction.

Silver accounts for all of the relevant (reasonably recent) polls and weights them by the value of each firm's work (with adjustments for sample and LV screening).

His current weighted generic poll is R+8 among likely voters. That's consistent with the average of the last nine polls (the current RCP average) which does not include the Gallup R+10, but does include Gallup's dead even (among RV) results as well as the D+2 from the National Journal.

[DrSteveB]

45. Under the bus goes Nate

Here are a few of the things I've read about Nate Silver today in the wake of his prediction.

-He now works for the NY Times, therefore he's lying because he wants to sell newspapers.

-He's a GOP'er

-I am tired of Nate Silver.

-Two years ago Silver said McCain was a lock to win (no evidence provided that he said that).

[Upton]

49. Crazy isn't it?

There's another one that claims Nate isn't trustworthy because he believes polling this far out from election day is important. LOL..I just don't know what to say..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. He Made His Bones As A Baseball Statistician

Everybody loved him in 06 and 08.

[RBInMaine]

46. With a strong ground game and by bashing the shit out the TeaRadical RePUKES, we'll be ok.

[MadMaddie]

48. No matter how many polls they take and special formulas

they come up with it comes to one thing - VOTER TURNOUT!

VOTE in November!


Believe it or not every vote will count in November.

[elehhhhna]

50. take it. we ain't using it, anyway.

[FBaggins]

51. Ouch.

That's harsh.

[depakid]

52. Howard Dean's words may indeed come back to haunt

And they were said when people ridiculed the prospect:

"Parties that don't use their majorities lose their majorities."

[newspeak]

53. after literally eight years of hell

lying, corruption, no bid contracts, more tax for the wealthy--and the people want to vote in those who have caused this economic meltdown? I don't get it. It seems the repugs can create a humongous problem and then tell the plebes they got the solution.

We need sweeping economic reforms-especially on mainstreet. This country is so fekked. I'm sorry Studs, I did have faith in the american people, but it slowly died.

[GSLevel9]

54. Sun to set at dusk tomorrow... NEWS at 11! nt

[Phx_Dem]

56. Keep it up, Nate. Scare of the shit out of everyone so they vote.

Because this is exactly what will happen if Dems don't get energized.

[FBaggins]

61. It has been my suspicion that this is PPP's intent.

A number of their polls recently have been less attractive than even the Rasmussen numbers (with some exceptions of course). Then I note that they've polled a couple races that shouldn't even be on the radar screen (even in this environment) yet the races were dismayingly competitive (not seriously threatened, but theoretically competitive when they shouldn't be).

It could be an attempt at a wake up call.

[Mass]

64. This is the situation now. There is no way to know what it will be in 6 weeks (worse or better).