For fucks sake ...get out and vote Dem ...fuck Nate Silver!

[L0oniX]

WTF ...people ...stop the doom and gloom shit will ya. Do us all a favor and ignore Nate and any other asscarrot that predicts a Dem loss. Be determined to vote Dem and encourage others to do the same. What we don't need is anything that can make or suggest that Dem voters give up and not bother to vote.

[Wounded Bear]

1. I intend to....nt

[Loudly]

2. Don't curse Nate. Thank him for the "or else" necessity of our GOTV efforts.

Truth is your friend.

[trof]

72. zackly

[JoePhilly]

3. Its part of the GOP voter supression strategy.

The GOP can't pass state laws that block ALL Dems from voting.

So, they block as many as they can ... then, do everything they can to discourage the rest from voting at all.

You can feel that being pushed right here on DU every day.

That's what the endless "Dems suck", and "the ACA sucks", drumbeat is all about.

[rhett o rick]

15. I find your incessant complaining about DU to be divisive.

"You can feel that being pushed right here on DU every day.

That's what the endless "Dems suck", and "the ACA sucks", drumbeat is all about."

This is a load of crap aimed at dividing the Democratic vote.

[JoePhilly]

18. I want all Dems to vote straight DEM ticket. Do you?

Curse the President, bash the first lady, blame the ACA for problems it didn't create, attack other Democrats, get lots of recs.

Praise the President, say the ACA is a major accomplishment, say that we need to GOTV in 2014 ... and get called a 3rd way, DLCer.

The only folks I see trying to divide the democratic vote, are those claiming that they aren't going to vote if the right things aren't said.

I'll be voting straight Dem ticket. I'll be advocating that position with EVERY person I talk to about the elections.

Will you be doing that?

[rhett o rick]

24. I resent that you asked that question. It appears to me that you are trying real hard

to piss off some of the Democrats here.

You think that you can tell Democrats to how to behave? How to march lock step and kiss the Pres ass? We arent Republicans.

"Praise the President, say the ACA is a major accomplishment, say that we need to GOTV in 2014 ... and get called a 3rd way, DLCer. " That's crap. I say that the ACA is a major accomplishment and I say that we need to GOTV in 2014 and no one has called me a "Third Way'er". You will get called a Third Way'er if you act like a Republican and try suggest that we never, ever question the President or anyone with a D behind their name. Dont try to stifle discussions among Democrats. We all dont agree that everything that our Democratic representatives do. And we think that those that want us to march in lock step are not following Democratic principles.

If you want to unite Democrats to win in 2014, you are going about it all wrong.

[JoePhilly]

33. I was describing a reality on DU, not describing you or how you vote.

There are many here who would claim that voting straight Dem is a bad thing to do. Not knowing where you stand, I asked directly.

An OP that attacks the President gets far more recs and supportive replies and recs than one that praises something the President has done.

You don't have to trust me ... you can see it today in a thread by Manny, and one by NYC_SKP quoting Skinner. And its a phenomenon you can see on almost any other day. Just a fact.

Finally, if you can find a thread in which I say you can "never, ever question the President", send it to me, and I'll leave DU forever. I've never called for that.

I will however, mock the folks who run around DU with their outrage meter pegged to 11 day in and day out. They complain endlessly, and yet never propose specific actions that would help us move in the right direction. And to be clear, saying "we need single payer" isn't proposing anything. Its stating and end goal, not how to get there.

[DCBob]

35. +1

[rhett o rick]

38. I always question those among us that believe that only they can really see reality.

And to say that there are DU members that would vote for a republican is statistically absurd. Maybe you can find a DU member or two that will state they will vote for a Republican but even if you did, out of thousands of DU members, that is not significant enough to use to state, "here are many here who would claim that voting straight Dem is a bad thing to do." No there arent. And making that claim is divisive and harmful to our efforts.

Ah yes Manny. Do you think Manny's criticism of the president is a bad thing? Should any Democrat criticize the president? Remember we are Democrats and not lock-step Republicans.

Bottom line, I think your constant criticism of those that dont march to your drummer is divisive and may harm our chances in 2014.

[JoePhilly]

63. I did not say what you just claimed I said.

Nowhere did I claim that DU members are running around voting for Republicans. You keep building strawmen.

Its very simple. Those on DU who claim voting straight Dem ticket is BAD, do so because they are claiming that would be to put "party above principles". They claim a "real liberal" would not vote straight Dem because that would mean they'd have to vote for some Dems who they don't consider liberal enough, and that would be a bad thing to do.

Its basically the same folks who claim they won't vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

As for Manny's criticism ... meh ... he's been complaining since a couple days after Obama was elected. He'll be complaining until the day Obama leaves office. Strange that he rarely proposes a path forward.

I'm curious, do you think Manny should take his criticisms out on the street as part of his 2014 GOTV canvassing? Do you think his OPs would help motivate Dems to go vote, or perhaps discourage them enough to cause them to give up and stay home?

How about the OPs in which the author claims the Dems and the Republicans are all the same? Think those points of view will help motivate Dem voters, or cause them to give up and stay home.

Finally ... I don't really care what you think about my criticism of DU's Combustible Hair Club.

They can join me and vote for every Dem that they can, which is my preference, or they can stay home and pout.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. Awomen! What Joe said....

[JohnnyRingo]

55. Rec

You took some of the words right out of my mouth.

I now tend to overlook the endless series of frantic posts that demand dems throw out our moderate incumbents and start anew. I don't like to walk into flamethrower.

[JoePhilly]

70. The Combustible Hair Club ...

... I find ... tends to confuse strategic goals with short term tactics.

If they coached a football team, they'd throw nothing but bombs. Because clearly that's the fastest way to score a touch down. Why would you do anything else?

And, if you were the coach, and you mixed in running plays, draws, and screen passes, they claim you didn't really want to score at all.

And man, would they be angry if you kicked a field goal, because clearly, you never really wanted to score 7 points. Instead, you compromised with the defense and only scored 3.

[rhett o rick]

96. Projection. Those that panic when someone doesnt march lock-step with their leaders, now that's

the combustible hair club. Democrats often dont agree with each other. That's what makes us Democrats. Suggesting that because we argue among ourselves that we might not support Democrats is absurd and divisive.

Let's talk about strategic goals. The middle class is dying and some here want to enter into bi-partisian agreements with the Republicans. Maybe play a little patty-cake with John Boner. Some here are willing to put SS on the table. Some think that fracking is a-ok if the president likes it. Some support pipelines that run across our country. Some support the fucking Patriot Act. Some believe that the TPP will be a godsend.

If my hair is on fire because I believe the status quo will lead to the death of the middle class, then I will accept it.

Go ahead and fiddle while Rome is burning and call me names.

[lillypaddle]

138. I think that you are the divisive one

lock step bullshit meme.

[rhett o rick]

139. Never questioning the President, never holding him accountable, that's lock-step. nm

[lillypaddle]

160. I agree

but I don't know anyone who never questions the President. You use a broad brush.

[lillypaddle]

137. You are right on Joe

forget him.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

91. I think he's asking a very valid question. nt

[rhett o rick]

97. Asking me if I vote only for Democrats is insinuating that there might be a chance that I dont.

Well Homey dont play that game.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

106. ok nt

[JoePhilly]

127. Lots of people here claim they'll vote Green or some other

3rd party.

I'm glad to hear you won't be doing that, Homey.

[Bobbie Jo]

29. Well said. nt

[NoOneMan]

126. I want all elected Dems to vote for and advocate straight DEM positions

You know what they say about wishing in one hand and shitting in another?

[Katashi_itto]

107. You think it doesn't happen here???

[totodeinhere]

51. Are you suggesting that Nate Silver is a part of some kind of conspiracy to

suppress the Democratic turnout? If so I totally reject that. Nate has a lot of integrity and has predicted many Democratic wins in the past.

[JoePhilly]

66. No, but its being framed as I describe when its reported.

Let's take Huffpo ... the article title is this ...

Nate Silver Predicts GOP Senate Win, Democrats Promptly Freak Out

Then in the article, we find this ...

In Silver's words, that only makes the GOP "slightly favored" to win, and there are still very many months to go until November.

Nate knows how limited his predicative ability is this far out from the election. His book (which is great btw) talks about the fact that the further you are from the election, the less predictive capability you have. His best example ... the best predictor for tomorrow's weather, is today's weather.

So in reality, the numbers he has now says the GOP is "slightly favored" ... so clearly, the left leaning Huffpo says Nate predicts doom for Democrats.

If Dem voters think they are going to lose anyway, no sense in getting up and voting.

[totodeinhere]

82. Yes Nate went out of his way to say that Republicans are only slightly favored at this

point and the situation could change. And that's fine. But you said that it's part of the GOP voter suppression strategy. That implies to me at least that you are suggesting that Nate is in cahoots with the Republicans. That's the part that I objected to. And that's not to say that the GOP doesn't have a voter suppression strategy. We all know that they do but to imply that Nate is in on it is ridiculous.

[JoePhilly]

129. The way the media frames it is part of the GOP voter supression

strategy.

Nate is not involved. Nate is not trying to help them. Nate reports data.

The media are simply using his information to frame the situation in a manner intended to discourage Democrats from voting.

Do I need to state that any clearer for you?

They do the same thing when the bring a RW pundit on to attack the ACA from the right, and then they bring on a LW pundit to attack it from the left.

The RW pundit's message is intended to anger their base so they will vote against Democrats. The LW pundit's message is positioned so as to discourage Democratic voters and get them to stay home.

Watch any of the cable news shows and you will see this kind of panel discussion.

2 totally opposite versions of why Dems suck, presented one after the other.

[totodeinhere]

140. Now that you said that Nate is not involved I agree with you. But your

original comment that I responded to was not clear on that point. I just wanted to be sure what you meant because I am a big fan of Nate's.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. I think he's suggesting that Nate Silver seems to have diehard fans pushing him to stardom

and a god-like entity worship

[totodeinhere]

99. That is not the impression that I got from his comment. n/t

[reformist2]

4. Nate's predictions are based on current polls. His system doesn't predict changes in polls.

He should probably post error bars along with his prediction - or does he, I forget. I would think with seven months to go, the predictability of the polls isn't all that high.

[totodeinhere]

54. Yes and Nate has said that in so many words himself. I don't look at this as doom and gloom

but rather as a wake up call for us to get off our tails and do something.

[South_Street]

5. Unless he predicts Dems to win...

... As he has in years past.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

93. Nah. Look at this article. It the title bashes Dems but when you read the article, it's a different

story. That's how the mass media works.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-senate-prediction-democrats-2014-3

[Rex]

6. Yes! Don't depend on some suit on a show for the results

BE the results! Oh get ready for it Loonix, this shit is just getting started! Sadly.

[FSogol]

7. Kick and Rec. Too many Eeyore's.

GOTV

[herding cats]

8. And support Democratic candidates in vulnerable seats!

If your able to help out a campaign, be it with your time on the phone or your money or whatever, do it! Get out there and get active!

[Pepper Cat]

9. Nate has now been called a crackhead and an "asscarrot" since making his forecast

It's Nate's fault. He should have said that Democrats are favored at this point, not Republicans. Nate knew we were going to read his forecast, yet he still did not say that Democrats are favored.

Memo to Nate: This is the Democratic Underground.

[Rex]

19. Another DUer told me he was real smart and good at predictions.

Just to you know...be 'fair and balanced'. Welcome to the DU!

[el_bryanto]

10. Should I fuck Nate Silver before or after i vote Dem?

I'm not sure whether I want to Fuck Nate Silver in the first place - i do like the idea of voting for democrats - and supporting them.

Bryant

[L0oniX]

12. Voting Dem IS fucking Nate with his poll.

[totodeinhere]

56. No it's not. Nate is not advocating for Republican votes. He is

merely making a prediction based upon his analysis at this point in time. And he readily admits that the situation could change.

[Pepper Cat]

67. His poll? I didn't know Nate had a poll

[phleshdef]

75. You are taking Nate Silver all wrong. He is objective.

[BainsBane]

16. I found out a while back that I'm not his type

So fucking Nate Silver isn't an option for me. I do plan on voting Dem though.

[stillwaiting]

11. We need to do more than that.

We need to enter in to conversations with friends, acquaintances, and maybe even some strangers and get them to wake up to what's been happening in this country for the past 3 to 4 decades.

We need to get them to understand what's at stake, and we need to get them to fully understand what the Republican agenda is all about.

We need to build a movement that is not tied to a politician.

Of course, we also need to vote Democrat.

[polichick]

14. How do you explain why Dems have adopted RepubliCon policies?

[BainsBane]

17. Because the right has been more effective in making their voices heard

and holding politicians accountable who don't vote how they want.

[polichick]

28. I mean in trying to convince people to vote Dem...

imo it's a hard sell in light of the fact that Dems keep moving right and adopting RepubliCon policies - hell, it's even a hard sell for me, who has never missed a vote.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Here I'll be campaiging for Jeff Merkley and Peter DeFazio, both just fine with me.

Not only are they both good progressive Democrats in their own right, their opposition will be utterly cloud coo coo right wing. There is a very real and distinct difference between our Democratic candidates and the Republican candidates around here.

[stillwaiting]

32. Hey there,

Don't get me wrong polichick. I am disgusted with how the Democratic Party has been invaded by corporate/wealthy interests. I just see value in harm reduction as a philosophy (much as clinical psychologists do), and I do believe LESS HARM will ensue if Democrats are in Congress and the White House. So, there is value in voting and campaigning for them on that basis while simultaneously increasing awareness of the corporate/right-wing takeover of the Democratic Party so that people are not devastated when many of their lives do not improve economically and progressive policies are not enacted. There is value in electing someone who will cause less harm and suffering in this country and around the world. And yes, I think it is a tragedy that I feel compelled to vote for someone who will cause further harm economically for the average American. It's still better than what the stated Republican agenda would do, and so I see value still.

I do not make any excuses or have strong expectations that elected Democrats are going to usher in a progressive era in this country if they do well in the 2014 election. Today it is still playing defense for me, and hopefully losing less ground than if the stated Republican agenda is ever validated at the ballot box.

Republicans in Congress and the White House will not end well for the things that I value most. With most Democrats I will probably be happy with their positions and actions on social policy. How they handle foreign policy will also be MILES better than Republicans in many/most instances.

What I'm saying is that I REALLY hope that when I vote for the Democrat that they are not DLC/New Democrat/3rd Way, but if they are I will vote for them and continue to criticize them whenever they deserve it (which will be often if they are 3rd Way Dem). I've just decided it's the best thing I can personally do in today's political climate. What I will never do is cheerlead a politician when they hold positions I don't agree with, pursue policies that I don't agree with, or betray promises they made when in campaign mode. I will never be able to do that.

I hope you're doing well!

[polichick]

37. Hi! I'm doing well - just trying to kick that sick feeling I got...

last time I went to the polls. I said then that voting for Terry McAuliffe might be the final corporatist Dem vote for me. 'Course we were all just voting against the nightmare named Cuccinelli and what are the chances that we won't be faced with a never-ending list of teanutz?

What really did change for me last time is I didn't bother to round up all the young voters I usually harass until they get to the polls (friends, family and neighbors) - couldn't stomach selling another corporate Dem to anyone.

[L0oniX]

87. "couldn't stomach selling another corporate Dem to anyone" Nailed!

I feel the same way. I can't recommend some Dems without a disclaimer.

[redqueen]

31. +1

[MineralMan]

13. GOTV 2014! nt

[SomethingFishy]

20. Why are you automatically assuming that Nate Silver is "shilling"?

Frankly I see the exact opposite. I have always counted on Silver to be an accurate numbers cruncher. I never asked or wanted to know his party affiliation. I just know that usually he is very accurate, he doesn't take sides, he just reports the numbers.

So what makes you think he's shilling for the GOP? From where I'm sitting we still have 8 months left and maybe, just maybe Nate is trying to HELP YOU. Maybe he's trying to make sure Dems get out there and vote so this doesn't happen.

IMHO if Nate came out and said "DEMS IN A LANDSLIDE" it would make Dems less likely to come out and vote, not more likely. I mean if it's a landslide then they don't need my vote do they? But if Republicans have a chance of winning, that makes me vote and get every one I know to vote too..

But as usual that's just me, and from my perspective the party is just as much to blame as the voters. Maybe that's why I see this differently.

[Capt. Obvious]

22. He's shilling the same way weathermen are

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024715289

[supernova]

21. Nate isn't destiny

NS is only stating what the numbers state now and trending.

That does not equate to... fated. to happen. in the future.

If he is saying that, as of right now the GOP would win in Nov. That simply means we need to get our GOTV out.

Don't make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[randome]

25. You are a supernova of wisdom!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[JNelson6563]

23. I plan to. Will be helping all I can!

We Dems really need to win some offices here in Michigan! Omg this state has been turning more and more red! It's horrifying!

Julie

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. When you don't like the evidence, swear at it and it will go away?

The number of DUers attacking Nate Silver for his conclusions, rather than his methods, saddens me.

[lostincalifornia]

27. Actually it Nate's analysis give republicans a slight edge this far out. It is not the doom and

gloom that the media loves to every chance they get dis the Democrats

At least that is my take.

Most of this is the media trying to demoralize the Democrats

They did the same thing in 2012

[HERVEPA]

30. Yeh, ignore intelligent, likely Democratic voting guy

who is not the slightest bit anti Dems and has an excellent track record.
Throw stones at anyone who says something you're not happy with.
Nowhere does he say anything is certain of course.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Anyone paying attention to Silver should be MORE motivated to vote, not less.

Christ, he's saying up front that it's going to be close, that several races are very much in play from both directions. That means Get Out The Damn Vote.

[demwing]

44. Right, how hard is it to get that concept?

But NO, any deviation from the cheerleader's script and some people fucking panic!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

57. This

It should be a fucking wake up call.

No one complained when Nate told us Obama was a lock while Skewed Polls and Faux were assuring their viewers Underpants Rmoney was winning.

[JVS]

36. But I'm afraid, Bluto. Nate Silver says we won't win.

[NightWatcher]

39. It's March and the election is in November. Nothing has been decided yet

Let's not gnash teeth and rend our garments yet. Give the people something to vote for (or point out something to vote against) and let the chips fall where they may. Here in Florida, medical cannabis will be on the ballot. I expect a larger than normal turnout for medical cannabis and against pRick Scott for Gov.

[demwing]

40. Who here is saying we should give up?

Who?

[rhett o rick]

41. I hope you are directing your rant at the centrists.

My experience is that, like all elections, the left will show up and man the phones, go door to door and work directly for Democratic candidates. In my experience, the so-called centrists among us, do not participate in the election process, especially in non-presidential election years.

[Bobbie Jo]

45. Ok....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4717615

So who are you calling "centrists?"

I find the way that term is thrown around here to be insulting and divisive.

[rhett o rick]

47. Ok I am open for suggestions. We know who the left is. And we know there are those here that

disparage the left. So how are they? Your link shows a poll of one that claims to be progressive isnt very convincing. I have participated in GOTV efforts every election, I have walked in the rain to protest the war, I have stood outside the post office on tax day to call attention to those that dont pay their fair share, etc. Those that stand or work beside me are on the left, they arent supporters of the DLC or whatever they call themselves now. We have a good group that meets once a month for Drink Liberally.
The left does their part and I resent those that try to blame the left for failures of the Party.

If you dont like the term "centrist" I will gladly welcome a suggested alternative.

[Bobbie Jo]

48. Many of us do all those things, and are

equally engaged in the process.

The constant label-making that goes on around here is incredibly divisive, and only serves to perpetuate the never-ending, holier than thou pissing contest.

Just so you know.....I'm on the left too, my friend. You don't get to claim it as your own, and act as its official gatekeeper.

The sooner we do away with the instinctive need to pin labels on one another, the better.

[rhett o rick]

88. You are right of course. I am doing what I rail about in others.

Reciprocation is not adequate justification.

[L0oniX]

61. I was bombarded with Dem phone calls for Alex Sink (D).

We have a large active Dem get out the vote gang here. I got at least 20 calls. I had to put my phone ringer on silent.

[DCBob]

42. are you suggesting nate purposely skewed the numbers?

[DCBob]

43. are you suggesting nate purposely skewed the numbers?

[Bluenorthwest]

49. I'd say the 'skewing' comes in presenting 'the numbers' as having any actual

meaning at this point in the year. His numbers are based on polling figures, which this far out are not anything like accurate. He's accurately stating what he thinks the numbers are telling him, but he's leaving out the part where the accuracy of polling this many months out from a midterm is almost nil.
That's the skew. Claiming the numbers actually mean something. He could in fact do a study of how accurate polling in March is about elections in November, and actually address that. But this would not serve his schtick.
We don't even know who's running in all the races as yet. So that's what we are talking about in reality. Polling about vague things that will happen just before Thanksgiving involving people who won't be known until Summer.

[Pepper Cat]

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

Several people have shown disinterest in finding out what Nate's forecasting model is like.

candidate quality

State partisanship

incumbency, and

polls.

He explains each here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

[Bluenorthwest]

81. Yes, and I noted that candidate are not even known in many cases

so pretty hard to judge their quality. Too soon to call, but he's in the business of calling, so he calls.

[SidDithers]

130. ...

Sid

[totodeinhere]

50. Nate is a good guy. I disagree with saying f*** him.

He is merely calling it as he sees it. Many times in the past he has predicted Democratic victories as well. Personally I appreciate having this information and I hope it will motivate Democrats to get off their tails and do something about it. And Nate specifically said it's early and these numbers are tentative. So please lay off from Nate.

[calimary]

52. Damn straight!

[ancianita]

53. Democrats' campaign slogan:The Democratic Registration Advantage WILL BE The Turnout Advantage.

Attitude drives action.

[Enthusiast]

58. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Seriously. Hundreds!

[L0oniX]

59. Well there are a lot of Nate lovers apparently.

[Enthusiast]

64. Maybe he was right but we can change it starting now.

We can change the trajectory.

[Capt. Obvious]

76. "Well there are a lot of Nate lovers apparently."

And rightfully so.

[mikeysnot]

60. I'd be more impressed with this BS if he predicted

Which seats were going to flip....

Which Senator is going and which one is going to win... until then I will ignore him and concentrating on GOTV.

ms

[L0oniX]

62. Reminds me of that old Italian guy who used to predict the horse races.

[neffernin]

68. *sigh*

I'd highly recommend reading his blog post before discounting his method. Predicting which seats are going to flip is only a fraction of what he discusses.

[neffernin]

65. Nate Silver's ability with statistics is second to none

At least when it comes to this kind of stuff.

To clarify a few things:
1. The results of what he comes up with is actually NOT hard based on polls; polls are just one of the few things that has an effect on what he comes up with. If many of you had bothered to read what he said, he explains it to the nth degree. Many Senate races including the biggest ones have had few polls. If anything, the fact that the majority of races are in heavy GOP states and Obama is an "unpopular president" seemed to have more of an effect on his predictions. I'd hate to say it, but there hasn't been much of any good news coming from any government for....ever now and it is hardly uncommon for the president to get much of the blame (especially when the GOP is continuously pointing fingers at him).

2. Just because his results aren't what you want doesn't mean he's anti-DEM or pro-GOP.

3. How often are closely contested polls accurate this far out? If anything, his blog is a barometer for where things are at now.

Lastly, lets hope that he isn't right (like he was for 2012 50/50 and for Seattle winning the SB). While I'm pretty bullish about Democratic chances for keeping the presidency in 2016, nothing scares me more than a GOP house, president, and senate.

[FailureToCommunicate]

69. Nate Silver sez...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1FUB8SrlQAE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TBF]

71. Nate is pretty accurate so

I see this as a wake up call to GOTV.

[Cha]

74. KICK!

[Gothmog]

77. Let's turn Texas blue while we are at it

Silver's predictions are based on today pollings. Things will change a great deal between now and the November elections. One thing that will change Silver's predictions is voter turnout models and if we can get more voters to turnout, Silver's predictions will shift.

GOTV

[stage left]

78. I will be voting for Democrats in 2014 and urging others to do the same.

We have a Democrat, Vincent Sheehan running for Governor against Nikki Hayley. From what I can tell he's fairly centrist in his stance and I'm a Social Democrat, but he's better than Nikki. He has pledged to expand Medicaid in SC, if elected, and that will help a lot of people.

[L0oniX]

84. +1

[L0oniX]

108. That's the whole point of the op. GOTV ...in spite of what Miss Cleo says.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. What was your view of "Mrs Cleo" when he

predicted with hard data that the dems would do well? I am willing to bet you were not as dismissive.

The democratic coalition does not show up at midterms, I can take it to the bank. It is not as simple as...GOTV. It is actually quite complex. He is seeing the same exact data we all are.

What you need to do, is to get people to understand why the election is relevant to them. You have no idea how many times I have heard this. Republicans cracked the code, by the way. Why do you think items they want are preferably n off year primaries and general elections? They make the election relevant. You might call it red meat, I call it wise politics.

I don't agree with them, but damn voters will walk through coals. The dems only do really during national general elections. And I am not talking of people here. I am talking of the regular voter, who might or might not be registered democratic and that is critical for the coalition.

By the way, the POTUS also predicted the a-clobbering. Is he also Mrs. Cleo?

[L0oniX]

167. My vote is not swayed by polls or Miss Cleo. I can only wish the same goes for other Dems.

IMO the POTUS has done much to hurt Dem chances of holding on to or increasing seats. Apparently he knows that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

168. If you confuse polls with statistical analysis

and political trends that is not my problem.

As to the POTUS, my friend, he is reading the same fracking data the rest of us who are not deep partisans are reading. By the way, my job is not to be partisan. I do it so well I have been accused by both sides, within the span of a minute of being in bed with the other side.

[treestar]

79. Yes! And it's early and even his ever so accurate polls can change

No discouragement. That's the last thing Dems need.

[gulliver]

80. K&R

We need all eligible voters to stop skipping out on the vote. We need a cultural change. If our voting patterns are going to be like the weather, they need to be like the weather we've been seeing recently. Light rains here, westerly winds there, huge honking hurricane bearing down on the Republicans.

[Jim Lane]

83. You aren't the first person to expose Nate Silver's total incompetence.

Here are some notable examples:

From a RedState diarist, October 10, 2012: ""Nate Silver Is A Relatively Dumb Liberal Propagandist". Highlight:

Nate Silver . . . writes columns that attempt to mask his liberal bias. He claims to crunch numbers to assure liberals that Obama’s chances of winning this election are extremely high and Romney’s are ridiculously low. Presently this feel-good clown shows Romney has a 71.2% chance of losing to Obama.

. . . .

Let me state unequivocally that Barack Obama and his allies will be kicked out of power in November.

From Breitbart's site, October 9, 2012: "NYT's Nate Silver Exposed as Obama Propagandist". Highlight:

You see, Silver's over-arching job really isn't to analyze numbers; and in all seriousness, it's not to make Upper Westside liberals feel better (though that's certainly a by-product). What Silver really is, is a Narrative Creator. Silver poses as an objective independent analyst and then uses an impressive-looking but completely ridiculous number-crunching formula as a way to keep things looking up for Obama.

Perception is crucial in politics, and if Silver can always be there for the media, the media has something to look to so they can always be there for Obama. Like almost everything else the media does, it's all a hustle, a scam, a juiced-number conspiracy that allows the media to not write stories about Obama The Loser -- which would be devastating.

And, a few weeks later, a different Breitbart savant, November 3, 2012: "Nate Silver: Patron Saint of Confirmation Bias". Highlight:

When the history of the 2012 election is written, Silver deserves prominent attention. In the aftermath of Obama's debate debacle, Silver has been the left's oracle, reassuring them that everything is fine. His influence has been such that the Obama campaign didn't make any real course corrections in response to Romney's momentum. When the left wakes up on Wednesday, surveying the electoral wreckage around them, they may regret allowing themselves to be lulled into such a false sense of security.

It was an article of faith on the right wing that Silver and other objective analysts were not only wrong, but were deliberately distorting the truth so as to discourage Republicans from voting. Those people would certainly join you in saying "fuck Nate Silver!"

For my part, I appreciate having a knowledgeable and industrious statistician who calls them as he sees them, and let the chips fall where they may.

[L0oniX]

85. Sorry you don't get it.

Be determined to vote Dem and encourage others to do the same.

[Logical]

89. +1000! n-t

[mmonk]

86. I will but it won't count because I've been gerrymandered. Wake up to reality.

Then join me in the streets.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

90. I had no idea people were worshiping this Asperger's sufferer. He's the favorite psychic for some

people, I guess. Reagan's wife loved psychics too.

[Orsino]

103. Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

"Asberger's sufferer" is now fair game as a slur. Enjoy!

[Capt. Obvious]

104. Shocking - or not I suppose

[Sarah Ibarruri]

105. Did I put in a "B?" No, I didn't. Who did????? The person reporting me?? nt

[840high]

135. I'm amazed this was allowed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. I am not, this is the new DU

[stevenleser]

111. Sarah, come on. We don't always agree but this is way beneath you. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

114. Well, Nate is not some sort of god, yet his predictions are being treated as if he were. nt

[L0oniX]

136. +1

[Sarah Ibarruri]

147. Thanks! nt

[tblue37]

169. Using Asperger's that way, as if you consider it to be a "clever" insult, is deeply offensive! nt

[Arkana]

112. Seriously?

The man's a statistician. He reports what he finds, nothing more, nothing less. You don't get to write him off just because you don't like what he predicted.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

113. What is crazy is making this man appear as if he were the world's best statistician. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

115. What's even crazier

is calling him an "aspergers sufferer"

[Sarah Ibarruri]

116. Are you kidding me?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-blumenthal/my-lunch-with-nate-silver_b_2090688.html

[Capt. Obvious]

118. I'm sorry, I should have been more direct in my post

calling him an "aspergers sufferer" as an insult.

But what is that link supposed to show?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

119. Why? There are arthritis sufferers, migraine sufferers. Don't tell me sufferer is an expletive. n

[Capt. Obvious]

120. Play coy all you want

But again - what was your link supposed to show?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

121. No, let's discuss it. Explain EXACTLY what is wrong with saying someone suffers from a disease?

I'm waiting.

[Capt. Obvious]

122. Oh, why did you say that then?

Just throwing it out there?

Again - what does that link have to do with anything?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

123. Because Aspergers sufferers suffer Aspergers. What? Do you think there's a secret meaning?

Isn't that clear enough for you? Or do you think this is part of a conspiracy theory? What exactly do you find objectionable? State it once and for all.

[Capt. Obvious]

124. Again - why did you post that link?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

144. Because the man exhibits every symptom of Aspergers. What are you not understanding? nt

[Capt. Obvious]

162. You linked to a satire piece

Written by a humorist. Good job trying to justify your horrific insult.

[Capt. Obvious]

125. Ok, better question

You obviously think he suffers from aspergers. And you were just innocently pointing that out even though it had nothing to do with the rest of your post.

Did you diagnose Nate?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

145. You have made no sense and continue to make none after things are explained to you.

Please go pick someone else to do this to. I plan on not responding to you again.

[G_j]

128. wow,

do you really think people here are that stupid? I think you are being incredibly dishonest.

[Capt. Obvious]

131. She apparently does

[Sarah Ibarruri]

146. About? Be explicit. nt

[tblue37]

170. You intended everyone to interpret the idea of his having Asperger's as a reason to hold him in low

regard, as though having Asperger's were some sort of fault that should lead people to discount the value of his work.

That is why people are appalled at the comment--because you intended the designation as a slur.

[whopis01]

163. So your diagnosis of him is based on a humorist's satirical article?

I suppose that once you are willing to ignore the barrier between fantasy and reality then the conclusions that you come to may make sense.

You couldn't possibly have thought that article was a real description of him, could you? Or that anyone would be swayed to your opinion by your posting of it? I can't imagine that would be the case - I don't think there is any way you could be as stupid as to imagine any of that.

Or are your posts some sort of meta-satire? An attempt to elevate the level of surreality in the conversation to new levels.

I eagerly await your reply.

[tblue37]

174. Um, that is a comic *fiction*. The writer didn't really have those interactions with NS.

He made them all up.

[Arkana]

117. Maybe he's not, but there is no arguing with his results in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

He's very good at his job, and it sounds like you're trying to pretend that he's not for the sake of partisanship.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

153. I'm not writing him off. I'm writing off all those who worship him as if he were Jeanne Dixon nt

[L0oniX]

171. +1

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

132. Disgusting

Apparently everyone who doesn't agree with you has some sort of condition you can shit on them with and use to dismiss them.

You've really embarrassed yourself this time, and your "What? What did I do?" act is even more pathetic.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

151. Actually, you are the one that is making a fool of himself. You know absolutely nothing about this

individual, Nate. The man has every symptom of this condition.

[Capt. Obvious]

161. Bill Frist is famous for doing this

congrats.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

166. Lemme guess, you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows him

"My cousin's daughter's best friend's hairdresser's roommate lives down the street from him! I can tell you stories!"



Yes, "condition". Maybe we should lock him up. At least ignore him, ammiright?

Never meant that as a pejorative, huh? You are still disgusting.

[pa28]

133. He's not a psychic.

He's a statistician giving you a snapshot of how things look today. His analysis could change tomorrow based on new facts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

150. Statisticians attempt to make a guess. They're sometimes wrong and they're sometimes right.

Is that better odds than psychics? Perhaps a bit. They attempt to predict human nature, but since human nature is not a science, it's very hard to predict, and they often fail. So this one had a little run of luck. So do some athletes, so do some people who gamble. Then their run is over, and it's bye bye.

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. Facepalm

I should clarify why the multiple of them. This is inumeracy on steroids.

Statistics, when well done has a damn good track record. Did you have a problem with Silver "guessing" the results of the last few elections that went your way? I guess not.

[1000words]

134. Makes me wonder what affliction you are suffering from

Don't bother ... welcome to ignore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. So statistics is now horoscope reading?

By the way, that was a mean way to describe somebody with Aspergers. Not that I am surprised or shocked the jury let it stand. It is the new DU.

If you do not like it how it stands right now...never mind.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

148. What about it was mean. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. This

I had no idea people were worshiping this Asperger's sufferer.

If we need to explain that making fun of somebody's disability that is a problem.

Also calling a statistician a horoscope reader is a problem too.

Oh and by the way, the data he is working with is the same data the DSSC is working with, as well as the President of the United States. I guess Obama is also rooting for the other side.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/21/obama-democrats-get-clobbered-in-midterms/

Are you going to call anybody who knows the regular pattern a silly, Aspergers suffering idiot?

I won't tell you what to do with that information. My job prevents me from telling you what to do with it, but if you are that afraid, there are things you can do. Me, will happily cover the election, REGARDLESS of who comes on top.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. Are you aware that you are still digging?

And that you are making fun of a disability. For the record, Rainman is not Aspergers either.

Seriously, some people on this board might even have Aspergers... you knew that? I know damn statistics, but that is possible.

[tblue37]

172. Some well-known, intelligent, and respected DUers DO have Asperger's and have said so here. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. I know, why I called Sarah on it

Aspies are not that rare, not that common, but not that rare

And if you add ADHD and ADD to the spectrum...

[NuclearDem]

94. Nate Silver's a statistician. He goes with the numbers.

But all that means is we need to GOTV. The Senate isn't districted, so every last vote counts.

[polichick]

95. Blessing in disguise? Nate's take could make people focus on the election...

and show up to vote, if only to keep the complete nutz out of office.

[L0oniX]

109. Indeed GOTV

[bobduca]

98. Tendency toward "Magical Thinking" view re: the efficacy of posts at DU

Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Why is it that everyone thinks that every democrat or potential democrat reads DU *and* is on the fence about voting or not?

[mvd]

100. Nate's good but it's way too early to panic

I don't understand why he has KY such a high percentage for Repukes. We have a good candidate there and McConnell isn't popular at all. Party just needs to give Grimes the resources she needs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. Some of his analysis is based on average turnouts at midterm

and those tend to suck for Dems. Why? The reasons are multiple, and I will give you one that I have been told so many times in different languages by poor and minority voters (or potential voters) "Why should I vote? Why is it relevant to my life?"

Now put something like I don't know, a raise in the minimum wage (that is relevant) and the GOP learned that lesson a while ago. Why we will have culture war stuff in the november ballot.

[TSIAS]

102. Don't even know where to start

I get these emails from the DNC and DSCC predicting doom and gloom as well. I know they are trying to scare people into voting and giving money, but their hysteria is a bit over the top.

If I recall, Silver predicted all but one Senate race correctly in 2012. I'm sure he'd agree that it's too early to tell. He relies on polls and obviously those polls will change between now and November.

I understand the importance to keep the Senate, and trust me if it weren't so important I wouldn't care if this lousy group of Democratic Senators and candidates lost. These are the people (Landrieu, Pryor, Begich) who probably killed the Murthy nomination. Now we have Alison Grimes in Kentucky trying to out-gun Mitch McConnell on Twitter. I guess gun-nuttery is all the rage in the Democratic Party nowadays in the South. Even Jimmy Carter's grandson wants more guns in bars and schools.

But back to Silver. I can't believe how many people turn on him when he makes a prediction that they don't like. I remember reading Silver's blog in 2012 to assure myself that the idea of a close Obama/Romney election was simply a media smoke scree... and he was right. I watched the piece and all he basically said was that WV, SD, and MT were pretty much losses, AR was 70 % for the GOP and other races were close to 50/50. And that's not considering the chance that Dems take 1 or possibly 2 in Georgia and Kentucky.

The fallacy is that Silver can predict the results, so there's no need to vote. All he does is follow what people tell reputable pollsters, and adds in various factors like the state's historic tilt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. His forecast is accurate for the time period in question. No serious person disputes that.

That being said as the political environment changes his forecast will change, for better or worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Geeze louis, you understand the difference

between a poll (this is not) and a statistical likelihood? This is that.

Nate is not to blame here. It is very well known dynamics in American politics. Why is it that Dems have a hell of a time in midterms?

Hint one, they hold the WH. The party not in power tends to do better in midterms

But seriously, what are local democratic parties doing to excite voters?

[davekriss]

149. ABSOLUTELY!

[Generic Brad]

158. Probabilities are not certainties

And I don't think we should shoot the messenger here. Nate may be telling us things we don't want to hear, but that does not mean we should give up and not try. We still have plenty of room and time to change the outcome.

[Jake Stern]

159. Dinner first or just show up his place with tequila and a Marvin Gaye CD?

Now to be serious. It's far from the election so this is hardly set in stone but I do pay a little more attention to his predictions due to his uncanny ability to be spot on.

Use this as a wake up call to GOTV.

[L0oniX]

164. Indeed ...the op is about not allowing discouraging info to impede GOTV.

If anything we should be more determined to be actively soliciting for our Dem candidates.