Nate Silver (10/23/2018): "GOP chances of retaining control of the House are down to 14 percent"

[Ted Frazier]

Wow. The Republicans' chances to retain the House majority continue to sink.
You guys are in an extremely ugly position.

I am a person who has a lot of empathy, Therefore I feel bad for you.

Silver explains that Trump's marginally improved approval ratings are very inconsequential.
Trump’s Approval Rating Is Up. Republican House Chances Are Down. Does That Make Any Sense?

 

[Claudette]

LMAO He must have used his crystal ball and had a séance.

 

[MarcATL]

Sounds about right.

 

[easyt65]

Wow. The Republicans' chances to retain the House majority continue to sink.
You guys are in an extremely ugly position.

I am a person who has a lot of empathy, Therefore I feel bad for you.

Silver explains that Trump's marginally improved approval ratings are very inconsequential.
Trump’s Approval Rating Is Up. Republican House Chances Are Down. Does That Make Any Sense?

L A N D S L I D E !

 

[jc456]

Wow. The Republicans' chances to retain the House majority continue to sink.
You guys are in an extremely ugly position.

I am a person who has a lot of empathy, Therefore I feel bad for you.

Silver explains that Trump's marginally improved approval ratings are very inconsequential.
Trump’s Approval Rating Is Up. Republican House Chances Are Down. Does That Make Any Sense?

just remember trump has no path to the white house. the stupid with the left is amazing. they fking crave stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fortunately for Republicans they don't believe in polls.

 

[jc456]

Sounds about right.

so did trump had no path to the white house, how'd that work out for you?

 

[jc456]

Fortunately for Republicans they don't believe in polls.

unfortunately for dems they do!!! no path to the white house for trump!!! let that sink in a little longer.

 

[easyt65]

The 7,000-criminal invasion force marching on our southern border, along with the criminal, unethical. despicable attacks on Kavanaugh and Hillary's public plea for MORE liberal violent intolerance / violence are almost as good as running a proven felon who compromised national security as your Presidential nominee and is quickly shifting the tide, polls show.

The Democrats may even LOSE seats in the Senate.

 

[well named]

I'd pay attention to the increasing differences between the "lite" (polls-only) and the other two models which incorporate other indicators like fundraising. The polls-only model has Democrats as 77% to win the house, vs. nearly 86% in the classic model. I think a lot of this is driven by truly unprecedented levels of fundraising, but it's not really clear how well this will actually translate into votes, and it's definitely one way the model could err, not having expected such a large swing in fundraising. Cf. this article. Or, it could really be predictive, it's just hard to know. I'm reminded of a lot of focus put on early voting results and absentee ballots in 2016, which tended to favor Democrats in a lot of states but which did not turn out to be very predictive of the results. I think there's at least some reason to be cautious about the unknowns and put more weight on the polls than on some other indicators.

 

[MarcATL]

Sounds about right.

so did trump had no path to the white house, how'd that work out for you?

What's your point?

Make it.

 

[jc456]

Sounds about right.

so did trump had no path to the white house, how'd that work out for you?

What's your point?

Make it.

the fact you don't know the point says it all.

 

[well named]

The Democrats may even LOSE seats in the Senate.

Right. The 538 senate model thinks the GOP is >80% to hold the Senate. The House and Senate are pretty divergent this year, for a variety of reasons. But the fact that Democrats are relatively unlikely to win the Senate is irrelevant to the accuracy of the House model.

 

[easyt65]

Democrats attempt to CONTROL the polls, to FABRICATE the results.

Broadcasting that 'the election is over - no need for opposing candidate supporters to even come out to vote' is a widely-known and historic tactic DEMOCRATS have attempted to use in the past to reduce the number of people going to the polls for the opposing candidate.

Usually that tactic only 'snares' complete and utter BOOBS / MORONS.

Case in point, the tactic in 2016 'snared' the biggest Liberal Moron of them all - HILLARY CLINTON.

Someone in the DNC forgot to tell Hillary that these results were not ACTUAL results but just one of their tactics being used in advance of election day.

So, instead, she believed it was the real thing...so much so that she became so overconfident that she did not even visit / campaign in entire states...which ended up costing her the election.

Bwuhahahaha......

 

[jc456]

Democrats attempt to CONTROL the polls, to FABRICATE the results.

Broadcasting that 'the election is over - no need for opposing candidate supporters to even come out to vote' is a widely-known and historic tactic DEMOCRATS have attempted to use in the past to reduce the number of people going to the polls for the opposing candidate.

Usually that tactic only 'snares' complete and utter BOOBS / MORONS.

Case in point, the tactic in 2016 'snared' the biggest Liberal Moron of them all - HILLARY CLINTON.

Someone in the DNC forgot to tell Hillary that these results were not ACTUAL results but just one of their tactics being used in advance of election day.

So, instead, she believed it was the real thing...so much so that she became so overconfident that she did not even visit / campaign in entire states...which ended up costing her the election.

Bwuhahahaha......

collusion and interference is what you're saying. I totally agree. it's why I will laugh when they are again handed a loss to their sorry asses. They are the stupidest people on earth, cause they never fking learn anything. stupid stupid people.

 

[Meathead]

Wow. The Republicans' chances to retain the House majority continue to sink.
You guys are in an extremely ugly position.

I am a person who has a lot of empathy, Therefore I feel bad for you.

Silver explains that Trump's marginally improved approval ratings are very inconsequential.
Trump’s Approval Rating Is Up. Republican House Chances Are Down. Does That Make Any Sense?

Well, Trump had a 1.6% chance of winning, but there you go:

 

[well named]

The main reason some of the 2016 prediction models failed so badly (the ones that gave Clinton a 95+% chance of winning; the 538 model gave her ~70% IIRC) is that they failed to account for the fact that polling errors tend to be correlated. That is, they had terms to account for polling error, but they assumed that the errors in various states would be random, so that if the overall polling average in (for example) Pennsylvania was 2% too favorable for Clinton, that implied nothing about the accuracy of polls in Wisconsin. In reality, polling errors across states are likely to be correlated, which is what we saw in the rust belt. Failing to account for that made them overestimate her chances of success. Note that this isn't a problem with individual polls, or even with aggregates of polls. It was a failure of the specific prediction models. Polls themselves were about as accurate in the aggregate as they usually are, i.e. within ~2% of the national popular vote. But in a close election where the electoral college and popular vote are split a 2% error in favor of Clinton, along with the correlation in errors across states, is enough to give the impression that the entire enterprise was flawed. But mostly it's just that people are bad at interpreting statistical models, and some of the models (the 95+% Clinton victory ones) were flawed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

This usually always happens in the midterms, 2006, 2010, 2014. This isn't surprising.

 

[Care4all]

me thinks he underestimates the power of gerrymandering, disenfranchising and cheating.

 

[well named]

me thinks he underestimates the power of gerrymandering, disenfranchising and cheating.

It's difficult for a model to take into account the impact of disenfranchisement efforts, but gerrymandering is definitely accounted for in the models. That happens automatically because the model is looking at polling for individual races and figuring out the expected seats won and lost, rather than merely measuring expected popular vote differences. It's part of the reason why the model thinks Democrats have to win the popular vote in House races by ~7% in order to gain any majority at all.