Why the 2014 Mid-Terms were so unimportant - Nate Silver

[mudwhistle]

The 2014 Election Is the Least Important in Years FiveThirtyEight

Yes, the Republicans worst nightmare is back. Nate Silverman calls them the way he sees them. He is a impartial political scientist and leaves partisanship at the door. He predictions are hardly ever wrong. This is a great read!

The 2014 elections turned out as expected. The turnout was historically low. In 2016, with a woman for the first time at the top of a political ticket, you can expect a record turnout. Not so good for the GOP.......

 

[JoshuaZ]

The 2014 Election Is the Least Important in Years FiveThirtyEight

Yes, the Republicans worst nightmare is back. Nate Silverman calls them the way he sees them. He is a impartial political scientist and leaves partisanship at the door. He predictions are hardly ever wrong. This is a great read!

The 2014 elections turned out as expected. The turnout was historically low. In 2016, with a woman for the first time at the top of a political ticket, you can expect a record turnout. Not so good for the GOP.......

Nate Silverman widely missed the mark in the UK general election, so he is hardly infallible.

The 2014 US election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, and the GOP always does well in low voter turnout elections. Thus, they do their best to suppress turnout.

As for 2016, there is no way it will have a record turnout. It will have a higher turnout than 2014, only because it is a presidential election. But it will probably have the lowest turnout in a presidential year since WWII.

America is sick of both parties. Barely a third of voters voted last time, and I would be very surprised if half vote in 2016. We will have a choice of an utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton or a Republican with his head up his ass.

Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.

How can you honestly say 2016 will have the "lowest turnout in a presidential election since WWII?" With a woman at the top of the ticket for the first time in US History, the female vote will be huge and the RW loons will be drooling all the way to the polls. As for the UK, everyone drastically miscalculated that election. But Silver know US politics.

I say it because the woman at the top of the ticket will be Hillary Clinton.

Lowest turnout in a presidential election since WWII. Book it.

That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.

Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?

No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women

One more then I'm curious about. If someone offered to make a bet where you got paid $10 if the Democratic nominee was not Hillary and you paid $20 if it is Hillary, would you take it?

That and your rewards/risk ratio is lopsided,a fools bet.

Really? It is consistent with the probabilities you claimed. If you really think there's almost no chance of Hillary winning the nomination, that's a great ratio. But if you wanted, I would be sincerely interested in a purely 20-20 bet on the matter. Are you even confident enough to take that or are your claimed probabilities simply a way for you to shout boo! at candidates you don't like?

So how are you going to pay up when you lose? I stand by 80/20

Generally, I use paypal to pay resolved bets. It is fast and transparent. I take it that means you accept that bet? A $20 wager on whether Hillary will be the Democratic nominee?

 

[JoshuaZ]

Nate Silverman widely missed the mark in the UK general election, so he is hardly infallible.

The 2014 US election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, and the GOP always does well in low voter turnout elections. Thus, they do their best to suppress turnout.

As for 2016, there is no way it will have a record turnout. It will have a higher turnout than 2014, only because it is a presidential election. But it will probably have the lowest turnout in a presidential year since WWII.

America is sick of both parties. Barely a third of voters voted last time, and I would be very surprised if half vote in 2016. We will have a choice of an utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton or a Republican with his head up his ass.

Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.

Point about the UK general seems accurate. Most of the rest seems off.

I'm curious, 1996 had a voter turnout of 49%. If someone offered to bet you $20 that voter turnout percentage for this election will be at least 49%, would you take it?

Yes, I would take that bet.

Who was on the ticket in 1996?

Another Clinton. You have to go all the way back to 1924 to find a lower turnout.

Ok. Offering that bet then. Still interested?

 

[g5000]

Nate Silverman widely missed the mark in the UK general election, so he is hardly infallible.

The 2014 US election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, and the GOP always does well in low voter turnout elections. Thus, they do their best to suppress turnout.

As for 2016, there is no way it will have a record turnout. It will have a higher turnout than 2014, only because it is a presidential election. But it will probably have the lowest turnout in a presidential year since WWII.

America is sick of both parties. Barely a third of voters voted last time, and I would be very surprised if half vote in 2016. We will have a choice of an utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton or a Republican with his head up his ass.

Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.

Point about the UK general seems accurate. Most of the rest seems off.

I'm curious, 1996 had a voter turnout of 49%. If someone offered to bet you $20 that voter turnout percentage for this election will be at least 49%, would you take it?

Yes, I would take that bet.

Who was on the ticket in 1996?

Another Clinton. You have to go all the way back to 1924 to find a lower turnout.

Ok. Offering that bet then. Still interested?

I am. I honestly believe the turnout will be less than 49%, barring some catastrophic event like another economic crash or terrorist attack (a 9/11, not a Benghazi).

As we get closer to the election, you can recall this post and hold me to it.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Nate Silverman widely missed the mark in the UK general election, so he is hardly infallible.

The 2014 US election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, and the GOP always does well in low voter turnout elections. Thus, they do their best to suppress turnout.

As for 2016, there is no way it will have a record turnout. It will have a higher turnout than 2014, only because it is a presidential election. But it will probably have the lowest turnout in a presidential year since WWII.

America is sick of both parties. Barely a third of voters voted last time, and I would be very surprised if half vote in 2016. We will have a choice of an utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton or a Republican with his head up his ass.

Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.

Point about the UK general seems accurate. Most of the rest seems off.

I'm curious, 1996 had a voter turnout of 49%. If someone offered to bet you $20 that voter turnout percentage for this election will be at least 49%, would you take it?

Yes, I would take that bet.

Who was on the ticket in 1996?

Another Clinton. You have to go all the way back to 1924 to find a lower turnout.

Ok. Offering that bet then. Still interested?

I am. I honestly believe the turnout will be less than 49%, barring some catastrophic event like another economic crash or terrorist attack.

Great. I've set up a note on Prediction Book as a reminder (PredictionBook Voter turnout for the US Presidential election to be less than 49 of registered voters). You may want to set up a reminder there or use another service in case Prediction Book goes down.

 

[JimH52]

The 2014 Election Is the Least Important in Years FiveThirtyEight

Yes, the Republicans worst nightmare is back. Nate Silverman calls them the way he sees them. He is a impartial political scientist and leaves partisanship at the door. He predictions are hardly ever wrong. This is a great read!

The 2014 elections turned out as expected. The turnout was historically low. In 2016, with a woman for the first time at the top of a political ticket, you can expect a record turnout. Not so good for the GOP.......

Nate Silverman widely missed the mark in the UK general election, so he is hardly infallible.

The 2014 US election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, and the GOP always does well in low voter turnout elections. Thus, they do their best to suppress turnout.

As for 2016, there is no way it will have a record turnout. It will have a higher turnout than 2014, only because it is a presidential election. But it will probably have the lowest turnout in a presidential year since WWII.

America is sick of both parties. Barely a third of voters voted last time, and I would be very surprised if half vote in 2016. We will have a choice of an utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton or a Republican with his head up his ass.

Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.

How can you honestly say 2016 will have the "lowest turnout in a presidential election since WWII?" With a woman at the top of the ticket for the first time in US History, the female vote will be huge and the RW loons will be drooling all the way to the polls. As for the UK, everyone drastically miscalculated that election. But Silver know US politics.

I say it because the woman at the top of the ticket will be Hillary Clinton.

Lowest turnout in a presidential election since WWII. Book it.

I sure will!