CDZ 2014 Mid-Term Election returns thread

[Statistikhengst]

Word has it that the votes from the outer colonies on Alpha and Beta Centauri will come in tomorrow and completely flip the election for the DEMS!!

Ok, yes, that was a joke.....

The votes come on Friday, not tomorrow.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Quick note.....in Virginia the polls were off by over 9 points. NC off almost 3 points. Kansas was off about 7 points. Iowa was off over 5 points....Colorado off over 4 points.

I could go on but you get the idea. The polls were mostly crap.....and heavily biased against the GOP.

The post election analysis should be interesting.

 

[Statistikhengst]

CNN goes through the demographics of the mid-term;

2014 Men 49 / Women 51
2012 Men 47 / Women 53

2014 White 75%
2012 White 72%

Overall, a smaller portion of younger voters, a larger portion of older voters.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Quick note.....in Virginia the polls were off by over 9 points. NC off almost 3 points. Kansas was off about 7 points. Iowa was off over 5 points....Colorado off over 4 points.

I could go on but you get the idea. The polls were mostly crap....and heavily biased against the GOP.

The post election analysis should be interesting.

Wait, I encourage you to not make any comparisons until the final canvasses are out, because the margins are guaranteed to change again.

In 2008, at the end of election night, it was Obama +6.1
Rasmussen then trumpeted all over the place that it was the best pollster, because it predicted Obama +6.

But when the final canvasses came in, it ended up being Obama +7.3 and all of a sudden there were six other pollsters who were more accurate than Rasmussen.

Wait until the final votes have been tallied, is my advice to you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Even the conservative commentators on CNN are warning to not conflagrate the results of 2014 with what may happen in 2016. They are well aware that an entirely different "clientele" shows up for presidential elections. I think it is interesting that the conservative commentators themselves brought this up.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Quick note.....in Virginia the polls were off by over 9 points. NC off almost 3 points. Kansas was off about 7 points. Iowa was off over 5 points....Colorado off over 4 points.

I could go on but you get the idea. The polls were mostly shit....and heavily biased against the GOP.

The post election analysis should be interesting.

Wait, I encourage you to not make any comparisons until the final canvasses are out, because the margins are guaranteed to change again.

In 2008, at the end of election night, it was Obama +6.1
Rasmussen then trumpeted all over the place that it was the best pollster, because it predicted Obama +6.

But when the final canvasses came in, it ended up being Obama +7.3 and all of a sudden there were six other pollsters who were more accurate than Rasmussen.

Wait until the final votes have been tallied, is my advice to you.

Sorry, but the polls were crap. In Virginia the RCP final average had Warner winning by 9.7 points. Ooops!!!

The same though not as extreme examples go on State by State. Many were way, way off....and most were heavily biased against the GOP.

The 1 point swing example you gave in the Obama election will not make up for huge polling errors that were made. Again...the polls were crap in far too many crucial races. And almost all tilted against the GOP in those key races.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Even the conservative commentators on CNN are warning to not conflagrate the results of 2014 with what may happen in 2016. They are well aware that an entirely different "clientele" shows up for presidential elections. I think it is interesting that the conservative commentators themselves brought this up.

False meme. No doubt this will be beaten to death over the next two years by liberals but it is completely false.

A black man running for President is what changed the electorate....not the Democrat Party and not any particular issues. When Obama is not on the ticket things change dramatically.

If the Dems expect the same turnout patterns in the next Presidential election with out Obama heading the ticket they will be sadly mistaken. The last two mid terms clearly indicate that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

NBC has called the Virginia senatorial for Mark Warner (D).

 

[Statistikhengst]

Quick note.....in Virginia the polls were off by over 9 points. NC off almost 3 points. Kansas was off about 7 points. Iowa was off over 5 points....Colorado off over 4 points.

I could go on but you get the idea. The polls were mostly shit....and heavily biased against the GOP.

The post election analysis should be interesting.

Wait, I encourage you to not make any comparisons until the final canvasses are out, because the margins are guaranteed to change again.

In 2008, at the end of election night, it was Obama +6.1
Rasmussen then trumpeted all over the place that it was the best pollster, because it predicted Obama +6.

But when the final canvasses came in, it ended up being Obama +7.3 and all of a sudden there were six other pollsters who were more accurate than Rasmussen.

Wait until the final votes have been tallied, is my advice to you.

Sorry, but the polls were crap. In Virginia the RCP final average had Warner winning by 9.7 points. Ooops!!!

The same though not as extreme examples go on State by State. Many were way, way off....and most were heavily biased against the GOP.

The 1 point swing example you gave in the Obama election will not make up for huge polling errors that were made. Again...the polls were crap in far too many crucial races. And almost all tilted against the GOP in those key races.

And as I already said to you, when the final canvasses are out, I will analyse the results vs. the poll just as I did in February 2013 following the 2012 elections. Many polls were indeed crap, but most of the aggregates were closer than you realize.

 

[Statistikhengst]

 

[WelfareQueen]

Quick note.....in Virginia the polls were off by over 9 points. NC off almost 3 points. Kansas was off about 7 points. Iowa was off over 5 points....Colorado off over 4 points.

I could go on but you get the idea. The polls were mostly shit....and heavily biased against the GOP.

The post election analysis should be interesting.

Wait, I encourage you to not make any comparisons until the final canvasses are out, because the margins are guaranteed to change again.

In 2008, at the end of election night, it was Obama +6.1
Rasmussen then trumpeted all over the place that it was the best pollster, because it predicted Obama +6.

But when the final canvasses came in, it ended up being Obama +7.3 and all of a sudden there were six other pollsters who were more accurate than Rasmussen.

Wait until the final votes have been tallied, is my advice to you.

Sorry, but the polls were crap. In Virginia the RCP final average had Warner winning by 9.7 points. Ooops!!!

The same though not as extreme examples go on State by State. Many were way, way off....and most were heavily biased against the GOP.

The 1 point swing example you gave in the Obama election will not make up for huge polling errors that were made. Again...the polls were crap in far too many crucial races. And almost all tilted against the GOP in those key races.

And as I already said to you, when the final canvasses are out, I will analyse the results vs. the poll just as I did in February 2013 following the 2012 elections. Many polls were indeed crap, but most of the aggregates were closer than you realize.

No Stat....they were not. 1 or 2 points maybe. Being off 4-9 points is a very poor performance.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, it's 9 AM here in Germany and I have been up most all the night. Good night.

 

[Papageorgio]

Republicans will pick up about 10 seats in the house according to Fox. That hasn't been done since 1946 (need12 seats to match that record)

Unlikely, but wait and see.

It was called hours ago and it has come to pass, "unlikely" or not.

This puts Democrats in a bad spot, particularly Hilary, everywhere she and Bill went, the .dems lost.

 

[Papageorgio]

Quick note.....in Virginia the polls were off by over 9 points. NC off almost 3 points. Kansas was off about 7 points. Iowa was off over 5 points....Colorado off over 4 points.

I could go on but you get the idea. The polls were mostly crap.....and heavily biased against the GOP.

The post election analysis should be interesting.

This seems to be a trend over the last few years.

 

[Judicial review]

Even the conservative commentators on CNN are warning to not conflagrate the results of 2014 with what may happen in 2016. They are well aware that an entirely different "clientele" shows up for presidential elections. I think it is interesting that the conservative commentators themselves brought this up.

What changed is that if the gop wants to win in 2016 its now dependent on them and what they do the next 2 years. Its no longer in democrts hands or obamas. Stats are your thing, but politics is mine.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Even the conservative commentators on CNN are warning to not conflagrate the results of 2014 with what may happen in 2016. They are well aware that an entirely different "clientele" shows up for presidential elections. I think it is interesting that the conservative commentators themselves brought this up.

What changed is that if the gop wants to win in 2016 its now dependent on them and what they do the next 2 years. Its no longer in democrts hands or obamas. Stats are your thing, but politics is mine.

Yeah! I'm going to turn to you for my political info. You rock.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Thanks for making this thread Stat, I know it was a huge commitment and a lot of work for just one person but you really pulled it off!

 

[Care4all]

I am batting 100% so far. I said New Hampshire would stay Dem and Colorado would see Marc Uterus lose. If Virginia or NC flip the night is over.

Who is Mark "Uterus"?

Please re-read the OP and remember that we are only recording the results. No partisan sniping on either side. I have been calling it out all over the place.

What the fuck is wrong with people these days? Can they not read an OP for content, or what?

Geez.

Who elected you the Church Lady?

Mark Uterus is Mark Udall, as anyone who has paid attention to the campaign in CO would know.

I am thoroughly enjoying seeing the Fake War on Women CRAP backfire on the Dems.

BUT I thought I heard that the Republican just took Democratic stances upfront, to get the women's vote issues off the table, and/or- issues neutralized?

i.e., abortion ok

hmmm, maybe karl Rove was talking about someone else?

I think that is nonsense.

Most women are not One Issue Voters. No serious candidates are running on Ban Abortion as their platform. The biggest "women's issue", imo, is ObamaCare. Women with families are very likely to be negatively impacted by ObamaCare...and are voting against it.

I would like to think women are smarter than than that and not so shallow. They do care about more than their uterus and birth control and recognize that foreign affairs and the economy is far more important than their personal issues. The country needs statesmen who make decisions on an array of issues. Women should consider the same. Women should not be any different than men when it comes to voting.

I was just repeating WHAT KARL ROVE SAID on FOX about the Republican and the race....and why in his opinion, women;s issues were neutralized by the Republican candidate.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I want to make a mathematical point.

I have written many times over that when it comes to the numbers, I am brutally neutral, and I would suspect that most people would notice this by now.

Numbers can be and are sometimes wrong, but the aggregates are usually on target, even if the margins are sometimes whacky. But I go where the numbers take me and simply report them.

Here were the the end-aggregates, as provided by RCP, for the 10 marquee Senate races of 2014:

KY: McConnell (R-inc) +7.2
AR: Cotton (R) +7.0
CO: Gardner (R) +2.5
AK: Sullivan (R) +2.4
GA: Perdue (R) +2.8
IA: Ernst (R) +2.3

KS: Orman (I) +0.8


LA: Landrieu (D-inc) +5.7
NC: Hagan (D-inc) +1.2
NH: Shaheen (D-inc) +0.8


Of the six races where the aggregate showed a Republican winning, all six GOP candidates won. Caveat: I have not seen the end call for Alaska yet, but I assume that Sullivan will prevail, bringing the GOP to 53 seats.

The one aggregate showing an Independent winning was wrong: the Republican won, and pretty big, too.

Of the three aggregates showing a Democrat winning, the Democrats won in 2 of 3. Hagan lost. Landrieu indeed ended ahead of Cassidy, but probably to little avail: she is likely to be defeated in the runoff. And of course, Shaheen won.

So, 8 of 10 aggregates were correct, and they were from RCP, to note.

That being said, we also see a pattern of how far off the aggregates were, but only in general terms, for now:

in 3 of the 4 hotly contested Southern states, the aggregates were the most off in terms of a D vs. R race: Kentucky, Arkansas and Georgia. However, it should be noted that the Georgia race is now less than an 8 point spread for Perdue, it is likely to land between +7.2 and +7.5 when the final canvasses are in, which would be right around Mitt Romney's margin in 2012. Still, that would mean that the aggregate would be off by 5, which is, of course, still too much. The aggregate was also off by about 6 points to the Left in Iowa, at least according to the preliminary statistics. That is too much. Note that three of those four states are on the Mason-Dixon line.

The aggregates in both Colorado and Alaska were however, within bounds. Also in North Carolina, although the call was false. The AK aggregate was Sullivan +2.4 and right now, he is winning by +3.4. A variance of +/-1 is well within bounds. In Colorado, the aggregate showed Gardner +2.5, the current winning statistic is +3.8 (with 93.3% of precincts in). A variance of 1.3 points is also well within bounds. The surprise this time is that the polls were off to the LEFT, where in the past, the polls had been off to the RIGHT in CO, NM, AZ and NV. In North Carolina, the aggregate showed Hagan +1.2, currently, Tillis has won by +1.5. That is a 2.8 variance, a bit much for my taste, but within the MoE. However, I tend to criticize anything outside of +/-2.5 points. Technically, it's acceptable. For my personal taste, it is not.

The aggregate in NH was off to the RIGHT: it showed Shaheen +0.8, she has won with +3.6 (current statistics), a variance of 2.8, the same variance as in North Carolina, at least with current figures. NH was the only aggregate with a bias to the Right. All others (for the 10 marquee Senate races, I mean), had a mathematical bias to the LEFT.

When the time is right, I will analyse this to great detail, but I always wait until the final canvasses are in, because those margins that we are seeing right now are just preliminary, they are bound to change some, with last-minute absentee ballots, ballot challenges, etc. The Obama margin in Virginia in 2012 grew from +2.2 on election night (around 4 am) to +3.9 when all was said and done.

Speaking of Virginia, it wasn't even on my radar screen. I bet it was on practically no ones' radar screens, but quite obviously ALL polling was way off. That will be one for the record books, to say the least.

To see exactly how in-depth I go when I compare end-polling, take a gander here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond The moment of truth how did the pollsters do

Please note the creation date of that report: Feb 4, 2013, 3 full months after the 2012 election. Most end-canvasses are done by December 16th of an election year (three gold stars for the person who knows why....), but then there are challenges usually in most every state and so I wait another month and sure enough, I usually see margins changed again. In the summer of 2005, the Alabama Bush raw vote from the 2004 presidential race was adusted by -10,000, because of a clerical error that no one caught until the summer of 2005. Similarly, the Romney raw vote count in Minnesota was adjusted downward by 3,000 votes 4 months after the 2012 election, for the same reason: simple clerical error.

In order for an aggregate to be so wrong, it can only mean that some polls were closer to reality and some were just unbelievably off. Even Rasmussen was off to the left: in the KS gubernatorial, it's final poll showed Davis +7, and yet, Brownback won, apparently, by +2. So, when the time is ripe, I will be scathingly harsh with ALL pollsters who were really off and believe me, if a pattern is to be discovered, I will discover it.

It's just as bad when polls are systemically off to the LEFT as when they are systemically off to the RIGHT. Neither is acceptable.

Still, it was fun to watch this election unfold and I congratulate the GOP on it's impressive win.

-Stat

 

[Statistikhengst]

Thanks for making this thread Stat, I know it was a huge commitment and a lot of work for just one person but you really pulled it off!

Thanks, MS!