Nate Silver now gives GOP 74% chance of capturing Senate

[AquaAthena]

CNN gives 86% ftmtw!!!

Wont be drinking Miller Lite tomorrow night, that's for dang sure!!

WASH POST: 97% CHANCE
CNN 95%
NYT: 70%

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody in the entire nation would be surprised to see the GOP with 51-53 seats in the senate by the time the votes are counted.

There won't be any pundits with egg on their faces if that happens. I'm not sure why there has been a spate of threads on it in the last few days.....as if it is controversial.

Great thread!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz swears the Dems will hold the Senate. Others on this site have been predicting a Democrat victory for some time.

Shultz is the DNC chair. You are funny suggesting that she should predict a loss for her party. What is your problem? Can't you be honest for even a fucking minute?

Who has been predicting a Democrat victory here? Name them please.

Do you appreciate why you're losing the Senate? Is there something you think needs changing in your Party?

I don't have a party.

I know exactly why the Democrats are likely to lose the senate. I've outlined it a dozen times here. Check the archives.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are there enough incumbent democrats up for re-election that it could be possible the GOP could take 61 or even 67 seats? I would love that.

You don't know? Why not?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The GOP is the Unbama party. Whatever Obama wants to do, they are against it. They have no plans of their own.

It is very sad that is the only reason people are voting for the Unbama party.

The rubes have set the bar very, very low. They make no demands of courage or leadership or loyalty or honesty or even sanity. "If you are against whatever Obama does, we will vote for you." They have a vassal's fealty to their overlords.

It just does not get any sadder or more retarded than that.

Then get your minions out and counter it. It's not our fault your side which has the #'s to stop it is not inspired.

 

[Antares]

Nobody in the entire nation would be surprised to see the GOP with 51-53 seats in the senate by the time the votes are counted.

There won't be any pundits with egg on their faces if that happens. I'm not sure why there has been a spate of threads on it in the last few days.....as if it is controversial.

Great thread!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz swears the Dems will hold the Senate. Others on this site have been predicting a Democrat victory for some time.

Shultz is the DNC chair. You are funny suggesting that she should predict a loss for her party. What is your problem? Can't you be honest for even a fucking minute?

Who has been predicting a Democrat victory here? Name them please.

Do you appreciate why you're losing the Senate? Is there something you think needs changing in your Party?

I don't have a party.

I know exactly why the Democrats are likely to lose the senate. I've outlined it a dozen times here. Check the archives.

Obama is being rejected, it is no mystery.

 

[AquaAthena]

The GOP is the Unbama party. Whatever Obama wants to do, they are against it. They have no plans of their own.

It is very sad that is the only reason people are voting for the Unbama party.

The rubes have set the bar very, very low. They make no demands of courage or leadership or loyalty or honesty or even sanity. "If you are against whatever Obama does, we will vote for you." They have a vassal's fealty to their overlords.

It just does not get any sadder or more retarded than that.

The sadder truth is the HOUSE has sent 360 to 380 bills to the Senate and they are still under Prince Harry's desk. Obama doesn't want to have to go on record to veto them. Soon, he will HAVE to. And that becomes a loss for the Dems in `16 and goes to his legacy of the worst president America has ever had. I'm sure Carter feels the relief.
---------------

"352 bills. Why won’t Harry Reid act? These are good bills; bills that put the American people back to work, put more money in hardworking Americans pockets, help with education, and skills training. We call upon Harry Reid to get to work before he adjourns in August to pass some of these bills. The American people deserve better."

Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for do-nothing Senate PolitiFact

 

[Statistikhengst]

Nobody in the entire nation would be surprised to see the GOP with 51-53 seats in the senate by the time the votes are counted.

There won't be any pundits with egg on their faces if that happens. I'm not sure why there has been a spate of threads on it in the last few days.....as if it is controversial.

Great thread!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz swears the Dems will hold the Senate. Others on this site have been predicting a Democrat victory for some time.

Shultz is the DNC chair. You are funny suggesting that she should predict a loss for her party. What is your problem? Can't you be honest for even a fucking minute?

Who has been predicting a Democrat victory here? Name them please.

Do you appreciate why you're losing the Senate? Is there something you think needs changing in your Party?

The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history.
And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice. And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire.

You need to learn some about history and statistics before you preach and spout off at the mouth, gumball.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No. Electoral history, all the way back to 1946 predicts a low-turnout for voters. 40% is indeed a low turnout.

I personally would rejoice were we to have 90% turnout or more for every single election.

So, care to try again, or are generalizations all that you have to offer?

Ironic post is moronic.

Only in your twisted, perverted thoughts, lacking in depth of thought and any semblance of usable logic.
Off = the direction in which you can and should fuck.

LOL. Poor little fellow. Complete meltdown in the face of superior Jewish logic.

How do you think you'd do in a poll versus Stat if the question was about depth of knowledge regarding elections and every person polled was honest?

Why would I even care? Statistheilhitler is another poseur on this site.

Only in your perverse wet-dreams, oh fake Rabbi. You wouldn't know a cogent argument even if it hit you in the face of the ass. Oh, wait, with you, they are one and the same bodily-part...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Nate Silver at this hour now has it Republicans with a 75.5% chance of winning a majority.

FiveThirtyEight 8217 s Senate Forecast FiveThirtyEight

 

[TemplarKormac]

The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history.
And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice. And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire.

You need to learn some about history and statistics before you preach and spout off at the mouth, gumball.

You're one to talk. From all the polls I've seen, all the undecideds are making up their minds. Polling trends indicate many of them breaking for the Republicans. By the way, I bet Nate Silver is a better statistician than you.

"The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history."

No, they are losing the Senate because Americans, as a whole electorate have decided to shift back to the center.

"And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice."

So?

"And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire."

Quite a bit presumptuous, aren't we? I thought statisticians didn't make presumptions?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ironic post is moronic.

Only in your twisted, perverted thoughts, lacking in depth of thought and any semblance of usable logic.
Off = the direction in which you can and should fuck.

LOL. Poor little fellow. Complete meltdown in the face of superior Jewish logic.

How do you think you'd do in a poll versus Stat if the question was about depth of knowledge regarding elections and every person polled was honest?

Why would I even care? Statistheilhitler is another poseur on this site.

Only in your perverse wet-dreams, oh fake Rabbi. You wouldn't know a cogent argument even if it hit you in the face of the ass. Oh, wait, with you, they are one and the same bodily-part...

So, calling someone names is a 'cogent argument?' Right. Moving on.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history.
And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice. And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire.

You need to learn some about history and statistics before you preach and spout off at the mouth, gumball.

You're one to talk. From all the polls I've seen, all the undecideds are making up their minds. Polling trends indicate many of them breaking for the Republicans. By the way, I bet Nate Silver is a better statistician than you.

"The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history."

No, they are losing the Senate because Americans, as a whole electorate have decided to shift back to the center.

"And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice."

So?

"And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire."

Quite a bit presumptuous, aren't we? I thought statisticians didn't make presumptions?

Well, you need to learn some about electoral history as well, I see.
And do allow me to take a moment to thank you for showing your ass, so I can now tell you to go fuck off.

Thanks, gumball.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Only in your twisted, perverted thoughts, lacking in depth of thought and any semblance of usable logic.
Off = the direction in which you can and should fuck.

LOL. Poor little fellow. Complete meltdown in the face of superior Jewish logic.

How do you think you'd do in a poll versus Stat if the question was about depth of knowledge regarding elections and every person polled was honest?

Why would I even care? Statistheilhitler is another poseur on this site.

Only in your perverse wet-dreams, oh fake Rabbi. You wouldn't know a cogent argument even if it hit you in the face of the ass. Oh, wait, with you, they are one and the same bodily-part...

So, calling someone names is a 'cogent argument?' Right. Moving on.

Oh, no, you won't move on. Whilst sucking down potato chips on Grammy's couch and doing lip exercises, you will have a meltdown and then write a thread about you wanting to leave USMB. And then you will apologize for being a total dick.. rinse, wash, repeat.

Now, go fuck yourself, gumball.

And with that, back to the OP:
Nate Silver now gives GOP 74% chance of capturing Senate

I would say the odds are more like 90% that the GOP, when all is said and done, gets to 51 seats without an Independent caucusing with them. I've been saying it actually for quite a while now.

Oh, and did I already tell you to go fuck yourself?

Why, yes, I did.

Carry on.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Why is your side so dispirited ?

 

[The Rabbi]

The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history.
And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice. And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire.

You need to learn some about history and statistics before you preach and spout off at the mouth, gumball.

You're one to talk. From all the polls I've seen, all the undecideds are making up their minds. Polling trends indicate many of them breaking for the Republicans. By the way, I bet Nate Silver is a better statistician than you.

"The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history."

No, they are losing the Senate because Americans, as a whole electorate have decided to shift back to the center.

"And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice."

So?

"And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire."

Quite a bit presumptuous, aren't we? I thought statisticians didn't make presumptions?

Well, you need to learn some about electoral history as well, I see.
And do allow me to take a moment to thank you for showing your ass, so I can now tell you to go fuck off.

Thanks, gumball.

Blah blah blah.
I rate your post only one Kalashnikov.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL. Poor little fellow. Complete meltdown in the face of superior Jewish logic.

How do you think you'd do in a poll versus Stat if the question was about depth of knowledge regarding elections and every person polled was honest?

Why would I even care? Statistheilhitler is another poseur on this site.

Only in your perverse wet-dreams, oh fake Rabbi. You wouldn't know a cogent argument even if it hit you in the face of the ass. Oh, wait, with you, they are one and the same bodily-part...

So, calling someone names is a 'cogent argument?' Right. Moving on.

Oh, no, you won't move on. Whilst sucking down potato chips on Grammy's couch and doing lip exercises, you will have a meltdown and then write a thread about you wanting to leave USMB. And then you will apologize for being a total dick.. rinse, wash, repeat.

Now, go fuck yourself, gumball.

And with that, back to the OP:
Nate Silver now gives GOP 74% chance of capturing Senate

I would say the odds are more like 90% that the GOP, when all is said and done, gets to 51 seats without an Independent caucusing with them. I've been saying it actually for quite a while now.

Oh, and did I already tell you to go fuck yourself?

Why, yes, I did.

Carry on.

Poor impotent little boy.

 

[Freewill]

Browner, and gayer. Great outlook.

Because brown gay people are always Democrats.
It's the Democrat racism coming through.

The Democrat party is inclusive and protective of minorities. They fight for marriage equality. They fight for voting protections. They fight for social programs that are there for the most vulnerable in society. Why would brown or gay people vote for policians who want to take those rights and protections away? How is that racist?

no one would vote for such a person, but that does not mean there are those kind of people.

The democrats had no problem disfranchising the military vote. They support fraud in election cloaked in a veil of looking out for the little guy. Liberals love telling the little guys what is wrong with them and how the liberals will take care of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Browner, and gayer. Great outlook.

Because brown gay people are always Democrats.
It's the Democrat racism coming through.

The Democrat party is inclusive and protective of minorities. They fight for marriage equality. They fight for voting protections. They fight for social programs that are there for the most vulnerable in society. Why would brown or gay people vote for policians who want to take those rights and protections away? How is that racist?

no one would vote for such a person, but that does not mean there are those kind of people.

The democrats had no problem disfranchising the military vote. They support fraud in election cloaked in a veil of looking out for the little guy. Liberals love telling the little guys what is wrong with them and how the liberals will take care of them.

Facts make Coloradoweenie turn tail and run.

 

[Eric Cartman]

It is sad but true, the Republicans will probably win the day tomorrow... most liberals accept this because they aren't science deniers. I did kind of feel sorry for some of my conservative friends in 2012 when they were just positive that Obama was going to lose, just like Fox News and talk radio keep saying.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You have the Senate, it's yours to lose. If you do you have no one to blame.