2014 Midterm Discussion

Races are gearing up and getting hot and heavy now. RCP polling averages have people really upset with Democrats and really upset with Republicans which can only mean one thing…

TIME TO ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!

Let’s make this a place to discuss the 2014 races as Republicans look to take control of the Senate. I think the mood is very unfavorable for Democrats. The Republican brand is still in bad shape, but the President is polling as low as he had. I don’t think we’ll see a 2006 type wafflecrush, but I do expect the Republicans to do very well. Nate Silver has them as slight favorites to take control of the Senate.

RCP has the generic congressional vote as tied at 39 for Democrats and 30 for Republicans, but many of the races seem to favor Republicans. What says everyone else?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate/

Iowa looks like an early one to watch, especially with Braley’s recent comments.

In the information age and with every cell phone a recording device politicians better be constantly on guard!

H:

Both the Mid-Terms and the 2016 Presidential Election are the GOP’s to lose…

Almost…

The Midterms will be as strongly in the GOP’s favor as the last. I don’t think any credible analysis doubts that.

The Presidential election is going to be more based on 1) whether Hillary makes the decision to run 2) who the GOP chooses to run and 3) how much the GOP beats each other up in their Primaries. (The last point is one that I think the GOP has worked VERY hard to rectify by decreasing both the length and number of the debates and changing the time of their Convention).

Control of the Senate is a bit more tricky.

IF Republicans choose to play the “true Conservative” game and run loons and wackos against more moderate (but still Conservative) Republicans; they may as well concede the Senate again to the Dems. Senate seats are decided by a larger, much more diverse, and less partisan group of voters than House Seat Districts. IF Conservatives learn this lesson, then the Senate is theirs. If not, they lose.

These are the discussion I really like.

Carry on!

Mufasa

2016 is a whole different ballgame that I’d rather not talk about a ton in here. Too much time between then and now. If Obama approaches Bush levels of unpopularity the GOP will win no matter how well Hilary polls.

The anti-incumbent mood still seems to be strong and kick the bums out always plays well, especially when the mood is unfavorable. We always have a habit of electing the same people though so we will see.

What are the races to watch right now and why?

[quote]H factor wrote:

What are the races to watch right now and why? [/quote]

I just have not done my due diligence on the midterms to be honest, so I’ll keep my comments general.

I’m not 100% on board with Silver. (I said he was wrong in 2012, because I thought his methods were bunk, so to be consistent I have to kinda, at least to a degree, continue until the trend of him nailing it is longer, lol)

I guess my issue is I was surprised at the 2012 national results enough to know that I keep myself in a relative bubble as far as information, media, and the like. I really underestimated how leftist the nation has gone. (Not necessarily “liberal” or “democrat”, but leftist.) And my assumptions about turnout were 180 degrees wrong in 2012 too…

The small pockets of Contemporary American Conservative (closer to classic liberal) don’t seem to have much national presence in the face of the Contemporary American Liberal (Closer to a leftist, total government control, type). So it is hard for me to assume Senate seats will fall, because it is a wider population of voter than a House seat…

IDK, maybe I’m wrong.

But to be honest, I wouldn’t be mad if the Senate stayed blue, but a couple of the RINO’s and main stay Dems lost to fresh blood, but like you said, that won’t happen.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not 100% on board with Silver. (I said he was wrong in 2012, because I thought his methods were bunk, so to be consistent I have to kinda, at least to a degree, continue until the trend of him nailing it is longer, lol)
[/quote]

That fucker seems pretty good with numbers. He isn’t going to have to nail it too many more times to make me a believer.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not 100% on board with Silver. (I said he was wrong in 2012, because I thought his methods were bunk, so to be consistent I have to kinda, at least to a degree, continue until the trend of him nailing it is longer, lol)
[/quote]

That fucker seems pretty good with numbers. He isn’t going to have to nail it too many more times to make me a believer. [/quote]

Agreed. But I can’t just swap out and be like “yeah! he is 100% right” after all the shit talking I did, lol.

He was much more correct about 2012 than I ever imagined he would be… IF it continues, evidence will change my opinion. But until then, I’m making the same emotional mistake I did last time.

I think the GOP does well, due to a big turnout and plenty of motivation.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not 100% on board with Silver. (I said he was wrong in 2012, because I thought his methods were bunk, so to be consistent I have to kinda, at least to a degree, continue until the trend of him nailing it is longer, lol)
[/quote]

That fucker seems pretty good with numbers. He isn’t going to have to nail it too many more times to make me a believer. [/quote]

Agreed. But I can’t just swap out and be like “yeah! he is 100% right” after all the shit talking I did, lol.

He was much more correct about 2012 than I ever imagined he would be… IF it continues, evidence will change my opinion. But until then, I’m making the same emotional mistake I did last time. [/quote]

I’m also wondering whether both parties aren’t going to take him more seriously now and target weaknesses based on his numbers. This could skew his predictive ability if both sides are actively trying to defeat his predictions. It is an interesting study on how observation changes/doesn’t change the thing being observed.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not 100% on board with Silver. (I said he was wrong in 2012, because I thought his methods were bunk, so to be consistent I have to kinda, at least to a degree, continue until the trend of him nailing it is longer, lol)
[/quote]

That fucker seems pretty good with numbers. He isn’t going to have to nail it too many more times to make me a believer. [/quote]

Agreed. But I can’t just swap out and be like “yeah! he is 100% right” after all the shit talking I did, lol.

He was much more correct about 2012 than I ever imagined he would be… IF it continues, evidence will change my opinion. But until then, I’m making the same emotional mistake I did last time. [/quote]

I’m also wondering whether both parties aren’t going to take him more seriously now and target weaknesses based on his numbers. This could skew his predictive ability if both sides are actively trying to defeat his predictions. It is an interesting study on how observation changes/doesn’t change the thing being observed.

[/quote]

I “heard” rumors he was getting inside polling data from the Obama camp in order to bolster the “self fulfilling prophecy”. As people like to go out and support a winner. And I don’t think it is any secret that the Bam camp has a superior tech/polling/groundgame/outreach program to just about any politician that has come before (or likely after) him. He was a community organizer after all, and apparently pretty damn good at it.

Something about him makes me feel like he will “outnerd” the politicos though and be able to factor in their playing/planning around his numbers.

Nate Silver is only “smart” because of numbers. He analyzes the data, nothing more, nothing less. He has a model. He is BRILLIANT at statistical analysis and making predictions based on it. BRILLIANT may be an understatement.

Look I “know” Nate back from his poker days on 2p2. He was a genius with numbers then, he is a genius with numbers now. He understands data and how to use data to make predictions about results. He is not nor does he claim to be God. He says “this is what the numbers suggest and here is the percentage chances of what we think will happen based on those numbers.”

You look at his work with poker or with ESPN or politics and we tend to think he is some sort of Nostradamus. He isn’t. He’s a guy who looks at numbers and makes predictions based off the data from those numbers. If he is “wrong” in 2014 then that doesn’t mean he was off in his predictions. The numbers just didn’t line up the way they “should” have based on the data.

If the Yankees have a 52% chance of beating the Royals and you place money on the Yankees and lose that simply means the 48% chance won that time.

Conservatives didn’t want to believe Nate and what the poll numbers were saying. They were convinced Obama couldn’t be re-elected and that all this liberal bias was out there in all these polls. Nate said, the polls are telling me this and based on them here is the likelihood. He happened to be spot on. His model will change as the polling changes.

Everyone wants to talk about not trusting certain things. He is saying trust numbers. If he is wrong then the numbers were either wrong or the lower chance happened. Nothing more or less.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not 100% on board with Silver. (I said he was wrong in 2012, because I thought his methods were bunk, so to be consistent I have to kinda, at least to a degree, continue until the trend of him nailing it is longer, lol)
[/quote]

That fucker seems pretty good with numbers. He isn’t going to have to nail it too many more times to make me a believer. [/quote]

Agreed. But I can’t just swap out and be like “yeah! he is 100% right” after all the shit talking I did, lol.

He was much more correct about 2012 than I ever imagined he would be… IF it continues, evidence will change my opinion. But until then, I’m making the same emotional mistake I did last time. [/quote]

Beans-

I expect that you would learn from your mistake (doubting Silver).

Silver also nailed the 2010 elections. He plays the long game and looks at the big numbers- emotions have very little role in his decision making.

Suggesting that he had special inside data from the Obama camp is insulting. He nailed the 2010 elections as well.

The guy gets the numbers game and is very smart about making his predictions.

jnd

[quote]jnd wrote:

I expect that you would learn from your mistake (doubting Silver).[/quote]

Lol, I have. I just don’t think I’m being consistent if I make the swap over to the “yeah he is pretty damn good” camp after my showing in 2012. Give me one more “wow he nailed that one” and I’ll feel less like a flopflopper of convenience.

(My biggest hang up is he is giving the current edge to the team I’d rather (reluctantly) see win. If he was saying the leftists were going to win, I’d be much more apt to “evolve” on the opinion.

But as it stands, I assume he is more likely than not correct and I’m wrong, again. However I just can’t “buy” it yet.

[quote]

Suggesting that he had special inside data from the Obama camp is insulting. He nailed the 2010 elections as well.[/quote]

I’m not suggesting it, rather just repeating what I read. It is totally a “rumor” I heard for sure. I should have been more clear on that.

Silver isn’t predicting anything though really beans. He is saying based on my model and the data I have right now here is the % chance that X will happen ACCORDING TO OUR PROJECTIONS.

It is the same thing Vegas does. Do you follow sabermetrics in sports?

It’s just using data to make predictions based off data.

My, Bad, H…

I guess I was so excited to get a more “pure” political discussion going, that I didn’t appreciate that you wanted this to stay essentially a Mid-Term discussion.

To me, the Mid-Terms are a “no-brainer” in that 1) House Districts, AT THIS TIME, favor the Republicans…so that the 2014 Mid-Terms are predicted to be more of a “schlacking” than those of 2010. (At least on the House side).

The Senate will be the more intriguing, in that there appears to be no clear consensus…EXCEPT that the Senate is “there for the picking” for the GOP.

It’s up to them.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
My, Bad, H…

I guess I was so excited to get a more “pure” political discussion going, that I didn’t appreciate that you wanted this to stay essentially a Mid-Term discussion.

To me, the Mid-Terms are a “no-brainer” in that 1) House Districts, AT THIS TIME, favor the Republicans…so that the 2014 Mid-Terms are predicted to be more of a “schlacking” than those of 2010. (At least on the House side).

The Senate will be the more intriguing, in that there appears to be no clear consensus…EXCEPT that the Senate is “there for the picking” for the GOP.

It’s up to them.

Mufasa

[/quote]

You’re cool. No big thing. I just think 2016 is a different ball game. Just wanted a thread other than religious wars 2.0

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s just using data to make predictions based off data. [/quote]

I’m not sure you understand the degree to which I shit on dude’s model, over and over, and over again.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s just using data to make predictions based off data. [/quote]

I’m not sure you understand the degree to which I shit on dude’s model, over and over, and over again. [/quote]

At least you are still here taking it like a man. Zeb fucking disappeared with his tail between his legs.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s just using data to make predictions based off data. [/quote]

I’m not sure you understand the degree to which I shit on dude’s model, over and over, and over again. [/quote]

Lol who cares though? I mean so you got one wrong. Shit I’m wrong all the time. Hell I’ve had everyone on this forum call me out over something or another.

Silver’s a good guy with numbers. Doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. It just means his ability to interpret numerical data is solid.

It’s one reason why he made bank in poker, then in sports, then in politics, now back to sports, and has his own site based off numerical data.

Predicting politics is tougher than most predictions anyways.

I think you may be under-valuing the GOP’s chances because of 2012 results. Midterms are different than presidential years. A lot of people voted for Obama and he had a coat tail effect. That won’t happen this time. The GOP has a far better chance of success in 2014 than 2012 IMO.

They cost themselves 2012 anyways. The Democrats didn’t win certain races as much as the Republicans just decided to run dipshits who HAD to lose. See Missouri and Indiana.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s just using data to make predictions based off data. [/quote]

I’m not sure you understand the degree to which I shit on dude’s model, over and over, and over again. [/quote]

At least you are still here taking it like a man. Zeb fucking disappeared with his tail between his legs.
[/quote]

haha.

I don’t mind that I was wrong as much as I would mind if I was a jerk about it, lol.

I still have butt hurt over 2012, mainly due with the fact that my best option was Romney, but it goes beyond that.