A Ray of a Hope For Democrats for the Senate?

[tgards79]

New polls in Alaska brighten the picture:
Born To Run The Numbers Election 2014 Election 2014 Dashboard One Week to Go And Some Hope for the Dems in the Senate

 

[TemplarKormac]

That ray of hope? Not so much. That article is written by a liberal pollster, and a very bad one at that.

Dan Sullivan has been leading for the better part two months now. It may appear to be a toss up to you and your liberal friends, but Democrats always vote early; your "Born To Run The Numbers" guy doesn't calculate for the Republican electorate, who always shows up in droves on election day. I also can't help but notice how this guy refers to Iowa Republican Senate Candidate Jodie Ernst as a "borderline nutcase." That statement causes the entire assessment to lose its credibility, and yours along with it. From your link:

That leaves Iowa, where Bruce Braley cannot break through against borderline nutcase Joanie Ernst … All uphill battles but not out of reach..... best bet is Iowa.

Nice try, but dump that garbage on someone else. I find your lack of objectivity disturbing.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no ray of hope for democrats. Blacks are gone as are women and the youth vote.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no ray of hope for democrats. Blacks are gone as are women and the youth vote.

Well, aside from that, the OP is a hack. A hack who had no intention of posting an objective political analysis of any election, much less Alaska's. When you (not you personally) call anyone a 'borderline nutcase,' that shows you are pulling for one candidate over another and are not concerned with objectivity.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no ray of hope for democrats. Blacks are gone as are women and the youth vote.

Ebola????

 

[Moonglow]

I would prefer a working Congress better than a turf war......

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Does anyone here actually trust polls anymore? I think they're all for sale. Every one of them is ideologically locked into a political agenda they want to promote. It's illegal for American bookies to give odds on US elections and to take betting money on the outcome of US elections. It isn't illegal for British bookies to give odds on American elections, and to take betting money on the outcomes.

I've watched them for 14 years. They're pretty accurate, way more accurate than American pollsters, and their only motivation in giving betting odds on American elections is the profit motive. Last time I checked, the odds were 7/2 in favor of the Republicans taking the senate. I think those odds are pretty conservative myself.

 

[tgards79]

There is no ray of hope for democrats. Blacks are gone as are women and the youth vote.

Well, aside from that, the OP is a hack. A hack who had no intention of posting an objective political analysis of any election, much less Alaska's. When you (not you personally) call anyone a 'borderline nutcase,' that shows you are pulling for one candidate over another and are not concerned with objectivity.

You can check my track record at the site. Virtually identical to Nate Silver. I'm a Democrat, of course, in my opinions, but deadly objective with the numbers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no ray of hope for democrats. Blacks are gone as are women and the youth vote.

Well, aside from that, the OP is a hack. A hack who had no intention of posting an objective political analysis of any election, much less Alaska's. When you (not you personally) call anyone a 'borderline nutcase,' that shows you are pulling for one candidate over another and are not concerned with objectivity.

You can check my track record at the site. Virtually identical to Nate Silver. I'm a Democrat, of course, in my opinions, but deadly objective with the numbers.

Forgive me if I call bullshit on this one. Anyone who fashions an analysis that refers to any candidate as a "borderline nutcase" isn't interested in objectivity. The only dissimilarities between you and Nate Silver is that Nate Silver knows what he is doing, and he doesn't resort to name calling either.

And being a Democrat as you are only proves my point. You can't set aside your hatred of a given candidate long enough to perform an objective analysis. Right now you are nothing but an armchair pollster. Good day to you, sir.

 

[tgards79]

There is no ray of hope for democrats. Blacks are gone as are women and the youth vote.

Well, aside from that, the OP is a hack. A hack who had no intention of posting an objective political analysis of any election, much less Alaska's. When you (not you personally) call anyone a 'borderline nutcase,' that shows you are pulling for one candidate over another and are not concerned with objectivity.

You can check my track record at the site. Virtually identical to Nate Silver. I'm a Democrat, of course, in my opinions, but deadly objective with the numbers.

Forgive me if I call bullshit on this one. Anyone who fashions an analysis that refers to any candidate as a "borderline nutcase" isn't interested in objectivity. The only dissimilarities between you and Nate Silver is that Nate Silver knows what he is doing, and he doesn't resort to name calling either.

And being a Democrat as you are only prove my point. You can't set aside your hatred of a given candidate long enough to perform an objective analysis. Right now you are nothing but an armchair pollster.

I'm happy to deal in facts. Nate Silver is not a "pollster," and neither am I. Our track records are as close to identical as possible, save Florida in 2012. We use similar methods and get similar results. The fact that I call Joanie Ernst a "borderline nutcase" and Nate refers to her as the "Republican Senate candidate from Iowa" means nothing. Except that it apparently offends you. The numbers themselves are, by definition, devoid of subjectivity. I use the same algorithm for each race and let the numbers fall where they may.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Begich is finished

 

[TemplarKormac]

My good man, you don't get to compare yourself to anyone when you can't even refrain from simple name calling. I don't care if you are the freaking Oracle at Delphi, if you're calling names; your objectivity goes out the window.

Do we understand one another?

 

[tgards79]

My good man, you don't get to compare yourself to anyone when you can't even refrain from simple name calling. I don't care if you are the freaking Oracle at Delphi, if you're calling names; your objectivity goes out the window.

Do we understand one another?

My good man, no we do not understand each other. Let's just live with that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's quite apparent we don't. All objectivity is lost when you show biases to one candidate or another when attempting to formulate an objective empirical analysis of an election.

 

[tgards79]

If that is so, then why am I forecasting that the GOP will take control of the Senate, gain a few seats in the House, and maintain the majority of state houses? Because that is what the numbers say, objectively. Meaning, all I am doing is math, applied in the same manner to the polls in each race. The integrity of the numbers is all-important. My opinions on who I want to win or lose does not affect that analysis. If you choose to believe the two are intertwined, you are entitled to that view, of course. But my track record, on the one hand, and the actual outcomes I am forecasting (which all favor the GOP) also bely that conclusion. You are stuck in some equation in your mind that cannot accommodate these two thoughts simultaneously...that I have objective analysis and Democratic opinions.