Nate Silver: GOP favored to win Senate

[BrentWil]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

[2pooped2pop]

1. if that happens we might as well just flush

the crapper and say goodbye to life in these United States.

[BrentWil]

5. We will win it back in 2016... The map

Just sucks this year.

[Historic NY]

7. Yeah sure.....

[2pooped2pop]

9. they will push through so much bullshit that it won't be worth living here

unless, of course, you are one of the rich. The rest of us will be imprisoned, or will have ingested enough toxins from our yellow water or food contamination that we will die within a few years.

[d_b]

53. fear not

the dem minority will just filibuster everything like the repubs

lol?

[Hippo_Tron]

91. Dems will filibuster and Obama will veto the crazy shit in the budget...

The biggest problem is that Obama will get absolutely no nominees confirmed.

[Beacool]

117. Filibuster what?

The Democrats changed the rules in the Senate, remember?

[Hippo_Tron]

151. They ended it for nominees, not for legislation...

The GOP could turn around and end the filibuster for legislation if they take the Senate, but I doubt they do it under a Democratic President.

[Beacool]

154. Thanks for the clarification.

[pnwmom]

24. We are at serious risk for decades because of the gerrymandering

and vote-suppression of the Rethugs.

[bluestate10]

40. Bullshit observation. We MUST hold the Senate and try to win the House.

2016 will be too late if those fuckers get a veto proof majority, they will try to impeach the President if he attempts to stand up to their bullshit.

[TexasTowelie]

95. Except that it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict the President on impeachment.

The Republicans won't be able to gain that many seats in the 2014 election for that to occur.

Since no meaningful legislation is going to get passed if the GOP retains the House, then the biggest effect of losing control in the Senate will be the ability to approve the nomination of any federal judges.

[DetlefK]

132. The GOP will NEVER try to impeach Obama.

They would have to come up with a good story WHY he should be impeached.

It's the same approach as in everything environmental and scientific: Don't explain anything, just badmouth your opponent's explanation.

[Chisox08]

147. Believe that if you want to.

I have a feeling if the Republicans get control of the Senate and keeps the House they will try to impeach Obama every chance they get.

[ballyhoo]

62. No. The Republicans will have most races fixed by then unless Team Koch makes

a real bad investment.

[Timez Squarez]

68. And Koch _WILL_ overplay their hand

and get caught, and then be indicted, sentenced to life in prison, and their companies broken up to collectives.

[ballyhoo]

76. That's the spirit!

[seveneyes]

39. No, the President has the veto pen and they won't have a two thirds mandate

It would just mean even more won't get done.

[bluestate10]

43. If republicans control the House and Senate, with their current mindset, they

will attempt to impeach the President. Republicans will essentially control the agenda to push through whatever legislation they want, women will particularly be at risk. In addition, if republicans control the Senate, they can insure that a conservative Supreme Court Justice get appointed if an opening come up. Anyone who thinks that we must not win in 2014 is a god damned fool, too much is at risk.

[customerserviceguy]

102. I think they learned their lesson about impeachment

about fifteen years ago. Oh, some will crow about it, but they're never going to get farther than a few sound bites on television.

We will see no significant legislation enacted for those two years, in fact, that's already started now. Extended unemployment compensation and immigration reform are dead, despite those going on the Sunday morning talk shows to do CPR on those topics. The game the Republicons are playing now is "keep the Democrats from doing any more of their agenda", and I'm sure they're using fear of Hillary in this effort. They know they haven't got a realistic shot at winning the White House in 2016, so they've scared the rural rabble into getting out to vote to block the progressive agenda.

Unfortunately, it seems to have been working for them.

[Beacool]

120. No one is going to impeach Obama.

But it would destroy whatever chances he had to pass anything meaningful for the remainder of his term in office.

[L0oniX]

2. Nate Silver ...shilling for the GOP?

Saying shit don't make it so. This ain't Star Trek.

[BrentWil]

6. As saying shit isn't good analysis doesn't make it so

[former9thward]

41. In 2012 he called all 50 states.

Silver, 34, a University of Chicago graduate and the computer expert who gave Obama a 90 percent chance of winning re-election, predicted on his blog, FiveThirtyEight (for the number of votes in the Electoral College), that the president would get 51 percent of the popular vote as he predicted each of the 50 states, including all nine battlegrounds.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-08/business/ct-talk-nate-silver-1108-20121108_1_electoral-votes-drew-linzer-popular-vote

But now his analysis is "shit". Ok ...

[L0oniX]

85. Ok ...so never mind voting then. Thanks for the pep talk.

[former9thward]

87. The poster I was replying to said Silver was shit.

Do you agree? Nothing to do with a pep talk or voting. This is the same old DU thing of attacking polls which have results you don't like and praising polls which have favorable results. Juvenile.

Comments about polls and pollsters will not cause even one DUer to vote or not vote. That is just silly.

[Blue_Tires]

99. To be fair, he only had to call nine states

since 41 were clearly obvious...

[former9thward]

123. Who else did?

Is his analysis "shit" as the OP said?

[Blue_Tires]

131. I didn't say that, did I?

I just said there's a difference between correctly predicting fifty toss-up states, and nine...

[Dawgs]

136. Actually, many other websites and statisticians were even more accurate.

You might not remember that Nate didn't make a final call on Florida. He said it was 50/50 on the day just before the election. Others were brave enough to actually predict that Obama would win it.

[Dawgs]

111. So did just taking an average of all of the final polls.

It wasn't hard.

[former9thward]

122. Why don't you get in the business then?

Since it is not hard ...

[Dawgs]

135. Actually, I'm working on it right now.

I will let you know when my website is finished.

And I don't know why you're being so snarky. It's not my fault that Nate did something that was super easy. Maybe his supporters aren't good at math. That's not my problem.

[former9thward]

138. Well good luck to you.

[L0oniX]

84. I'll let the chicken little gang enjoy snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Logical]

18. LOL, we love Nate when he says dems will win. We hate him other wise. So stupid. n-t

[Sheepshank]

29. I'm pretty sure there will be plenty here rubbing their hands will glee over that prediction n/t

[L0oniX]

82. Cheering for the negative? Are you sure you are on the right site?

[Logical]

88. Cheering his accuracy. You can be in denial all you want. n-t

[L0oniX]

106. So yea ...don't bother to vote. So we loose and you would be happy that the pollster was right.

...and I am denying that we will loose huh ...what a pile of shit that is.

[Beacool]

121. I don't think that is what Logical is saying.

I take this as a wake up call that Democrats better start fighting for the Senate, and do so sooner rather than later.

[Agschmid]

126. +1

[Logical]

134. Lol, temper temper, who said not to vote? Are you mad bro? nt

[L0oniX]

141. Yea ...I am angry that Dems didn't get out and vote for Alex Sink ...maybe they saw Nate's poll...

and didn't bother to vote.

[Capt. Obvious]

144. Nate had a poll for that special election?

Do you have the link handy?

[Logical]

149. Well, then they are stupid I agree, but Nate will predict based on facts....

Not sure I want that to be stopped.

[Silent3]

23. I hate that stupid, reflexive response that any pollster bearing bad news...

...must be "shilling" for the other side.

Nate Silver has a pretty sound methodology with a good track record, about which you have failed to point out any specific flaws. You're the only here just "saying shit".

Apart from that, calling the odds 60/40 in favor of Republicans wouldn't be very effective shilling even if Silver were a shill. For anyone who has any smarts, and was ever motivated enough to go out and work for Democratic victory in the first place, these results are in the useful kick-in-the-pants department, not the instilling hopeless despondency department.

[Logical]

31. So true! nt

[Capt. Obvious]

37. Imagine carrying this response out in other areas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024715289

[L0oniX]

80. +1

[bluestate10]

46. The "Pure" crowd has planted their flag. You see them repeatedly on DU

insisting that they will only vote for a candidate that exactly matches their fucking narrow values. Our best shot is to work with Independents, they seem to be a little put out by republicans, as recent polls seem to indicate.

[steve2470]

103. nailed it nt

[L0oniX]

81. Rushing into defeat ...huh. Are you sure you are on the right site?

Hard to believe DU members would be defending negative poll numbers. Enjoy!

[Silent3]

92. You somehow equate what I said with "rushing into defeat"?

Do you consider reflexive denial of bad news (which in this case is stated as no more than a slightly negative leaning of probabilities, hardly a fist-slamming, adamant prediction of defeat) the more loyal, or more effective response?

What's the right approach? Thinking happy thoughts, boosted by scathing accusations of "shill" at anyone who would upset your rainbow bubble, in order to will victory into existence?

[L0oniX]

109. Most teams have cheerleaders. Nate is right? ...ok ...so don't bother to vote. Got it!

WTF

[Agschmid]

127. No one said that.

Your are coming off a bit OTT in this thread...

Here is what I have read in this thread so far:

- Nate Silver predicts it will be challenging to win the Senate in 2014.
- Nate Silver is pretty accurate in his polling.
- Let us all work out asses off to make sure by November his polls show some different results.

Where you get that people are saying "don't bother to vote" is beyond my grasp.

[Silent3]

139. All except for the fact that I said the exact opposite about voting.

But why quibble over details like that when you find a good opportunity for indignant rage?

[demwing]

101. So polling legitimacy is based

On how favorable are the results?

God damn, that's embarrassing...

[L0oniX]

105. Are you trying to depress us and trying to make people not vote? WTF

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Talk about embarrassing! My district lost with Sink because voters didn't get out and vote. Negative polls like this only serve to discourage Dem voters. Embarrassing it is that DU members would boast of a pollsters record to prove we will loose! Thanks a fucking lot! Yea that is embarrassing indeed!

[NobodyHere]

113. Perhaps these polls should encourage Democrats...

to make sure they GOTV.

60% is hardly an insurmountable challenge.

[L0oniX]

116. That's a much better way to use the poll. Saying Nate's always right is saying don't bother to vote.

[demwing]

119. No, it isn't saying that at all

You're hearing that, so it says something about you, not the OP

[demwing]

118. You're fucking welcome

For speaking the hard truth rather then the convenient lie.

If a bad poll is too damn depressing for you and makes you want to just stay home then what the fuck on you doing on an "underground" political website?

This is a full contact sport, not an interpretative dance recital.

[L0oniX]

140. ..and enjoy your Dems are going to loose fucking poll.

[Agschmid]

130. You've lost it in this sub thread.

You are making claims about what people said, when they never said it.

Please reconsider your posts.

[840high]

94. ...^ that

[bluestate10]

44. Silver is a Statistician, he calls it as he sees it. We must prove him wrong. We

have the votes as long as the "pure" crowd don't fuck us up and other Democrats get out and vote.

[L0oniX]

86. Prove him wrong or never mind voting. Take your choice!

[Art_from_Ark]

100. Some of us have no one to vote for for some races

For example, Arkansas' 3rd Congressional district has not had a Democratic challenger for the past 2 cycles. There was a Democratic challenger for a while in 2012, but he was forced out of the race after it was disclosed that he might not have been completely truthful about his military record This year, there are only 2 candidates-- the Republican incumbent, and a Libertarian challenger. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I have heard that are other Congressional races like this in other states as well.

[ProSense]

3. That's a really

There are 10 races that each party has at least a 25 percent chance of winning, according to our ratings. If Republicans were to win all of them, they would gain a net of 11 seats from Democrats, which would give them a 56-44 majority in the new Senate. If Democrats were to sweep, they would lose a net of just one seat and hold a 54-46 majority.

So our forecast might be thought of as a Republican gain of six seats — plus or minus five. The balance has shifted slightly toward the GOP. But it wouldn’t take much for it to revert to the Democrats, nor for this year to develop into a Republican rout along the lines of 2010.

...broad forecast.

Still, this is interesting:

Overall forecast

In consideration of these factors, we assess the probability of the Democratic or Republican candidate winning each seat. Where the choice of candidates is uncertain — for instance, in a race where a Democrat will face either a moderate, six-term incumbent U.S. representative or a poorly-financed tea party upstart, depending on the outcome of the Republican primary — the probabilities are meant to reflect a weighted combination of the plausible match-ups. Our assessment of the 36 races2 up for grabs this November is as follows:

[BrentWil]

8. Yes but...

Honestly the story since 2010 is that the GOP should control the Senate. They don't because if the tea party. They may help is out in GA, NC, and even KS this year.

[Dawson Leery]

13. Landrieu is leading her likely Rethug opponent by 7 points.

She has higher favorable numbers too. Grimes is leading the turtle by 2-5 points. Nate is either going out on a limb or he has joined the pundit class with disdain for Democrats.

[dsc]

49. she leads her likely opponent in a jungle primary

when the shot is down to two, which it will be if she doesn't clear 50%, then she may well be in trouble. She has pulled out tough races in the past so she should never be counted out, but this one will be her toughest ever. I actually think Grimes has a better shot right now than Landrieu due to the fact McConnell is so unpopular.

[freshwest]

66. There will be NO 'poorly-financed tea party upstart' with Koch dollars in play. n/t

[Timez Squarez]

69. Actually, every Koch dollars will be exposed as dirty

and then Koch Brothers will be indicted, found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison, and their companies broken up and owned by the people as a collective.

[freshwest]

79. What Wilburforce will do this?

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Meh. Let's just focus on 2016

The 2014 midterms are irrelevant. The President is dictator and has the power to get legislation through Congress without votes from representatives in Congress.

Now excuse me while I go buy my Sanders/Warren 2016 bumper sticker.

[Rex]

10. Nope.

nt.

[msongs]

12. repubs already control the senate, this will be a mere formality nt

[Tom Ripley]

14. +1000

[d_b]

54. ouch

[ballyhoo]

59. Yep. Pretty much..........

[rumdude]

15. It might be a bad year for Democrats

The Reps might take the Senate. But 2016 is the most important election. That's the one that will set the state of affairs for a good long while.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Uh no. Democrats only need 17 seats to take the House

and 20-some of them are in swing districts.

2016 is a long time from now.

[philosslayer]

57. About time someone said it!

Why are we writing off the house for 2014 already? We should be concentrating on winning the House, and stop wringing our hands about maybe losing the Senate.

[Pepper Cat]

146. Does any forecaster predict that Democrats will come close to picking up 17 seats?

?

[BumRushDaShow]

156. During the gov't shutdown

there were 20-some seats IDed in swing districts as possible Dem pickups (purple districts that previously had Dem reps pre-2010 redistricting and which were potentially leaning Dem + indie with a high turnout). And these are who the media kept focusing on as the group of GOP reps who could potentially vote with the Dems to end the shutdown. A bunch are right here in PA (e.g., Meehan in the 7th & Fitzpatrick in the 8th)

One forecaster to follow is Sam Wang, who often parries with Silver -

http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/17/house-2014-election-analysis-errors-not-mine-i-think/#more-9965
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/24/just-how-steep-is-that-climb-anyway/#more-9994

He hasn't done any recent congressional analysis since his post-shutdown commentaries, but once he does, it will be interesting to see...

[arcane1]

30. Bullshit. Saying the mid-terms aren't important is a giveaway to the republicans.

You may as well say "don't bother voting in 2014".

[bluestate10]

48. There are some "There is no difference between Democrats and republicans"

thinkers on DU. I haven't followed the person making the post that you responded to, but I wouldn't be surprised if the person is in that camp. I don't see how that camp can justify having the party take a step back every time Democrats get momentum. My suggestion is that we forget about the Nader loving, "It doesn't matter" crowd and work on convincing Democratic leaning Independents to come with us to win 2014.

[steve2470]

104. 2014 is just as important nt

[Kild the Radio Star]

17. I take him at his word

Unlike a Teapublican, I believe in math over mythologies about People In The Sky. 'course, if the GOP gives in to their overpowering lust to nominate nutfucks again, all bets are off!

[Motown_Johnny]

19. 49.2 (D) - 50.8 (R) this far out isn't bad.

All we need is one crazy teabagging nutjob going off about legitimate rape or second amendment remedies to make that prediction a 50-50 Senate.

At that point, we still hold control.

We should all be concerned, but not panicked.

[Dawson Leery]

20. Georgia looks promising.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. the Moral Monday movement spilling over there may help turnout too n/t

[bluestate10]

50. In particular that it is in the South. Seats in Georgia, Louisiana,

Kentucky and South Carolina could be put in play, and the movement could help Democrats hold North Carolina and Arkansas.

[Pepper Cat]

145. How promising?

What do Georgia polls say?

[Silent3]

21. Favored, yes, but not by such a margin that it can't be turned around

Oh, I'm worried, and with good reason, but there's still time to swing things in the other direction.

GOTV will matter.

There might still be time to turn minimum wage and unemployment benefits into bigger issues.

Maybe Republican discipline will slip again in trying to keep their candidates from saying batshit crazy and hateful things.

Obamacare successes might start to replace memories of the bad roll out.

Might, I say. Why is that that I feel like the bad roll out will stick in people's minds as something to hold against Democrats, when in the end it caused very little actual harm, while the shutdown debacle which caused plenty of harm and costs many billions of dollars seems like it's already a distant, faded memory for most of the American public, who don't seem to remember their all-to-fleeting anger at Republicans for that?

[bluestate10]

55. It is important that Democrats GOTV, if that happens, Democrats

control the Senate and House. But on our side, the "purist" crowd is already making noises, my solution is to tell them to fuck themselves while we focus on winning over Independents. The Independents are much more reliable anyway and are capable of making accurate value evaluations.

[treestar]

25. It's too early to just give up because of that

Why is he even predicting that right now? It's months and months away.

[bluestate10]

56. Silver is making a prediction based upon historical trends. No time is

too soon. My view is that Democrats are better off peeling off the 30-40% of Independents that can be convinced to vote with us. View by Independents in polls are within 10% of where Democrats are and significantly different from republican opinion. My position is that we shouldn't worry about pleasing "pure" progressives because those people have taken a "do it my way or else" attitude and are determined not to be of assistance in stopping republicans from taking the Senate and holding the House.

[treestar]

96. +1

You are quite right about that. We need to be positive about the ACA. Hopefully there will be more good stories about it in people's real lives and they will quit believing the M$M's lies about it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. Perhaps it is meant to put a little fire under our asses to GOTV!

[Cha]

71. It definitely Should Put a Big Ol Fire Under our Asses!

[stopbush]

27. This is good news at this point in the year.

Winning elections is about momentum.

If the Ds held a slight lead 8 months before the election, then it's theirs to lose. Any movement in the direction of the Rs is defined as a shift in momentum.

With the Rs slightly ahead, Ds are cast in the role of underdogs, with nowhere to go but up.

I'd be much more worried if it was the Ds with a slight edge right now.

[Politicalboi]

28. I predict Nate Silver will be wrong

When more people get signed up for ACA, and the more the GOP talk about women and minorities, how on earth can they win. A blockbuster summer movie would shatter their chances if they used EVERY crazy thing the GOP says about women and minorities.

[GoCubsGo]

36. Me, too.

It's a long time between now and November, and anything can happen. The primaries haven't even happened yet, and who knows what we'll get, especially with republicans. A bunch of teabagger nutjobs are running to fill Suxby Chambliss' seat in Georgia, and that well-known Southern belle, Lindsay Graham, is going to be tea-bagged, as is Mitch McConnell. I am sure there are others. It's quite possible that any of these seats could go to the Dems, depending on who gets the republican nomination, and how crazy they are. Even here in South Carolina, they're getting tired of the extremists. It's just a matter of a "Macaca" moment to tip the balance, and these freaks are quite prone to those sorts of things.

[Number23]

45. I hope you're right. But you have to acknowledge that Nate's track record has been fairly

spectacular.

[Timez Squarez]

72. Nope. On crack.

And forgetting other factors, such as the provision of the PPACA to register new voters.

We have 5 million new Democratic voters.

[L0oniX]

110. No we don't have to accept Nate's shit poll. I am going to vote anyway. Fuck Nate!

Nate and some DU members would have us not bother to vote because a poll says we will loose and Nate is always right ...wonderful ...makes me wonder what website I am on.

[Number23]

148. I am doing to assume (for your sake) that you responded to the wrong person

and that you are not going off on some predictably unhinged tangent for no reason. Again.

[bluestate10]

60. we need to drive the GOTV effort. We can't assume anything.

Our side has millions of potential voters that don't vote. Republicans are maxed out, there are no untapped votes for republicans, they have tapped all the anger that they can draw out. If Democrats get 10% of our voters that normally sit out midterms, we win the House and hold the Senate by a comfortable margin.

[Timez Squarez]

70. Nate Silver is on crack, as usual.

He also forgot one little tiny modification to the PPACA - the Motor Voter law.

His statistics means shit right now.

[L0oniX]

108. ^^^this^^^ will make some DU members sad I guess.

Embarrassing that DU members would cheer Nate's accuracy concerning a poll that indicates Dems will loose. Trolls trying to discourage Dems from voting? "oh yea thanks Nate ...I might have gone out and voted but now I won't bother cause Nate is always right" Alex Sink lost here so I am pissed the Dems didn't get out and vote.

[MFM008]

32. Nates not perfect

Last year he said the Seattle Seahawks would go into and win the superbowl(2013). We lost. He was just a year off but just saying.

[Sheepshank]

33. If historical true, the final count at the voting booth with have nothing to do policy,

or platform...it will have everything to do with party affiliation and money that will prompt voter turn out.

Of course, unless stats are 100% predictable, we could say there is hardly any point...but I'm thinking Obama already bucked the trends. The Dems voting blocks have already bucked the trends....loving me some political intrigue and disillusionment

[JaneyVee]

34. i trust Nate's math, but it can change this far out.

Lets make it change GOTV 2014!

[TDale313]

98. ^^^ this^^^

[L0oniX]

107. I find the responses in this thread to be way too freeperish.

I mean geeze ...they are almost praising this pollster and his negative poll. Maybe the idea is to discourage Dem voters? WTF As far as I know most sports teams have cheerleaders for a reason. It may be that Nate has been right but bringing that negative info into this is not helping IMO. It's like freeper cheer. Alex Sink lost here so I am pissed that Dems didn't get out and vote.

[RBInMaine]

35. Polls mean absolutely positively NOTHING right now. NOTHING.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Worrying, but not immensely so.

Silver has a good track record, but a lot can change in six months.

[davidn3600]

42. Democrats tend to have poor turnout when the presidency isn't at stake

[BumRushDaShow]

47. Although when pissed enough, they can come out like in 2006

when they took back the House after 12 years of GOP control.

[davidn3600]

58. Yeah, but Bush was president

[bluestate10]

64. Right and wrong. What turned Democrats out in 2006 was the behavior

of republicans in 2005. The Terry Schiavo case angered many people, republicans also pushed severe rightwing legislation. Democrats must nationalize the election, take every rightwing effort from every state and pin those efforts on republicans, that would be valid because republicans do have a coordinated efforts going on to deny voter rights and restrict freedom of choice and access to healthcare for the poor.

[MFrohike]

90. Not lately

Contrary to popular DU belief, Democratic turnout in 2010 was above average. The problem was that GOP turnout was far above average.

[gulliver]

51. The ACA reality is just starting to dispel the Republican bullshit.

It's early. The ACA just needs to keep saving lives and keeping families out of the poor house. I don't have statistics, but it seems like the media aren't giving the "people don't like Obamacare" angle as much time in the rehash rotation lately. It won't be long before everyone is one or two bacons away from a positive Obamacare story. The negative stories are dropping like flies.

I plan on contributing and doing my part for GOTV efforts. I'm looking for upside. We could really start getting people back to work if we overwhelmed the Republican austerity machine with Democrats. With the Republicans in charge, we could expect a surge against marijuana legalization and, of course, more economic obstruction. I'm sick of Republicans getting away with crap like that, so I'm going to do as much as I can to take away their fun.

We outnumber them. We just need everyone to get off their asses. We need to make it easier to vote too. If people could vote at the grocery store, there would be no more need to worry about a Republican Party.

[bluestate10]

65. Republicans are going to make it as hard as possible to vote, so don't count on

republicans letting people exercise their constitutional right to vote. Our side has to adapt to republican suppression efforts and get people registered, then to the polls. Numbers are on our side, republicans are maxed out, they have drained the well of angry, non thinking voter dry, there are no more of that type to vote for republicans.

[Timez Squarez]

73. Any attempt to suppress should be immediately stopped, and then the perpertrator

arrested, sentenced to death with 48 hours (then changed to life, after singing like a bird).

You do not fuck with the process of the right of the voters. Period.

[Richardo]

77. what color is the sky on your planet?

Voter suppression has been going on for years. The Supreme Court has been little help.

[no_hypocrisy]

52. Well, if democrats stay at home and don't vote in November,

sure, it's possible.

[L0oniX]

114. ...and some here are praising Nate. Message: Don't bother to vote.

Alex Sink lost here because Dems didn't get out and vote and I am pissed about that. This is just the kind of message that can and will discourage Dems from voting. Hard to believe Mirt has missed some DU freeps. It's bad enough that we have a prospect of having to vote for someone because Dems suck less.

[ballyhoo]

61. Silver is the best I've ever seen at prognostication. With what I think will happen prior to

November, the eleven figure will be closer than the six. The Republicans will not win the presidency in 2016 unless serious mistakes are made before then.

[Timez Squarez]

74. The Rethuglian Party will be dead or set aside as a regional party

by 2016.

PPACA will have ruined whatever credibility (as if they had any) the Thugs have left...

[butterfly77]

63. So...

I guess that means its true or at least the media willl report it 24/7. I guess that means we may as well not vote so his prediction will come true..

[Timez Squarez]

67. Nate Silver is on crack, as usual.

I see no change in Senate. Yes, we may lose South Dakota, and maybe Montana, but it is offset by wins in Maine, Kentucky and Georgia.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

83. As usual?

Do you not remember the last election?

[Richardo]

89. ...or the one before that?

[Pepper Cat]

124. Let's hope Grimes' 0.5% lead in Kentucky holds nt

[hrmjustin]

75. It will be hard but we can still hold onto it but we need to get our base out.

[liberal N proud]

78. If that happens, this country is doomed

We are all fucked, if they hold both chambers.

The world is fucked if they hold both chambers.

The middle class will become extinct.

[lancer78]

93. Problem with Nate is

that even if he is really good with presidential races, his predictions for senate races are not perfect. In 2012, he had both Heitkamp and Tester losing their races and he considered Reid toast in 2010.

[Shivering Jemmy]

97. much harder

less polling (presidential race is heavily polled) and many more chances to get it wrong (assuming Nate has a small chance of getting any one election wrong, with ~30 seats up for election in the Senate, his margin of error is going to be much much higher than in presidential years).

[Andy823]

115. A "SLIGHT" CHANCE!

"FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecast: GOP Is SLIGHT Favorite in Race for Senate Control."

Slight is the key word. It does not mean it's a sure thing, but a small chance. When I see the weather man say their is a "SLIGHT" chance of rain, the odds are usually that there will be NO rain at all. We need to understand that if we get out and vote that "slight" chance can become "no chance at all"!

[theboss]

125. The good news is that Silver is only as a good as the polls he uses

And state by state polls are not nearly as accurate as presidential polls. (See Nevada 2010).

The bad news is we are likely in for a shellacking unless something changes.

[HughBeaumont]

128. How anyone can vote for a Republican after the stench of the Bewsh years is beyond me completely.

The "I got mine and I hate (insert racial slur here)s" crowd is obviously larger than we think.

[uponit7771]

129. *******************"Slight Favorite in Race for Senate"**********************

OP is not reporting article conclusion

[fredamae]

133. No matter Who says What

when the proverbial Rubber hits the Road--It's up to us...the electorate.

[JoePhilly]

137. Nate also ways polls this far out are not very predictive.

Read his book.

The most predictive poll for an election is the one taken the day before the election. Then next most predictive poll is the one the day before that. And then the day before that. And so on.

But we need something to talk about.

So here we are, freaking out.

[Pepper Cat]

142. Polls are not the only factor Nate considers, when making his forecast

His factors are : candidate quality, State partisanship, incumbency, and head to head polls.
He explains each here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

[JoePhilly]

143. I've read his book.

Forecasts this far out are not as predictive as folks like to think.

He points out that the margin of error gets smaller the closer you get to the actual event.

We are so far out, the current margin of error is very large.

Freaking out now is uncalled for.

[Pepper Cat]

150. Polls are not the only thing Nate bases his forecasts on

dupe

[Hippo_Tron]

152. Polls combined with some basic common sense this far out are very predictive

Sure, the polls the day before the election are the most predictive because little if anything happens between the time the poll was taken and the election that would change peoples' minds.

What the polls don't tell us today is what will happen between now and 7 months from now. However, basic common sense tells us that on the whole it's not going to be good for Democrats. The President's approval ratings are in low 40's, the ACA is wildly unpopular, midterms are historically terrible for the party in power, the red states we're running in have become more and more hostile to Democrats over the past several years, and our incumbents are below 50% re-elect.

So what in the realm of reasonable possibility could change the macro dynamics over the next 7 months? Absolutely nothing I can think of, how about you? The only thing that could save some of these incumbents are weak opponents like Todd Akin. But if we're relying on that to save the Senate, we're really in a horrible position.

[KamaAina]

153. The Nate Silver who just hired a climate change denier for his new website?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024717137

Wake me up when someone without an agenda picks the repukes to win.

[L0oniX]

155. Bwahahahahah ...nailed it!