General Discussion

DemocratSinceBirth

(101,850 posts)

101. I understand the data

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 06:34 PM

Feb 2015

Oh, if you think those political forecasting models have the same accuracy as a weather report, especially a twenty four hour weather report, there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion either.

Barack Obama won the White House in a virtual Electoral College landslide while receiving a smaller share of the white vote than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale, who famously lost forty nine states and only garnered 41% of the popular vote in which was an essentially two man race, on the backs of Latino, African American, and Asian voters.

I don't see those voting patterns changing because the Democrats are trying onto hold the White House for three consecutive terms.

Also, in the article Drew Linzer said he wouldn't go much further than 60-40 on Hillary's chances. Three to two odds is substantial in betting parlors.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

103 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Think Hillary Clinton Is Likely To win? Think again. - NationalJounal [View all] WillyT Feb 2015 OP

A 50/50 race. Gee, what an insight! JaneyVee Feb 2015 #1

Silly post. Implyiny always 50-50 in a 2 person race. HERVEPA Feb 2015 #4

The Post Isn't Silly... The Math May Be... But That's Why We Post... WillyT Feb 2015 #10

I was being silly, on purpose. JaneyVee Feb 2015 #22

LOL !! - True... WillyT Feb 2015 #23

LOL! She lost to Obama after her odds were 70-30 merrily Feb 2015 #78

According to this model it would be QuestionAlways Feb 2015 #46

yup. Apparently. :-) HERVEPA Feb 2015 #76

yes but be sure not to go past 60 -40 either way lol nt msongs Feb 2015 #6

Yes, the 60/40 thing is a truly ridiculous thing to say. nt Chiyo-chichi Feb 2015 #73

Perhaps ike losing a primary after a 30 point lead? merrily Feb 2015 #79

Interesting article and theories. Gonna bookmark this. Autumn Feb 2015 #2

I wonder why the National Review is worried about Hillary. Oh, I got it, if Hillary is the DNC Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #3

This analysis has a MAJOR flaw in it - in that it's using President Obama's flawed approval ratings. BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #34

National Journal. Not National Review. onenote Feb 2015 #75

OK, the National Journal goes both ways also, just according to who is writing. Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #80

Take "National Review" off title, HUGEly diff from wonderful National Journal. RiverLover Feb 2015 #5

3-2 odds is huge DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #7

I read somewhere that an Electoral Landslide is 400 EV's or more Reter Feb 2015 #20

Does it mention what the chances are for other candidates? Renew Deal Feb 2015 #8

Those are largely deterministic models that use a generic candidate for both parties./NT DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #9

Yeah, but if she does win .... Scuba Feb 2015 #11

And if she loses... BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #29

The "lesser of evils" argument. Why do you believe we can't do better than that? Scuba Feb 2015 #32

One Democratic president in the White House is better than two Liberals in the bushes. BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #36

Yes, but one good progressive in the White House would be better yet. You seem to think ... Scuba Feb 2015 #40

It's not thinking on my part, Scuba. It's fact. A brief look into past elections is all the proof BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #47

Americans are not terrified of liberal ideas. Obama won twice running on them for god's sake. Scuba Feb 2015 #48

If that's what you want to believe, go for it. BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #49

I don't get the pretense that the only or even the most dominant reason a candidate TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #55

What wins is largely about getting folks... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #85

Was opposing marriage equality a liberal idea? DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #84

Are you suggesting that Obama did NOT run on a progressive platform? Scuba Feb 2015 #88

I am suggesting he trimmed some of his positions and kept to himself what he really believed DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #90

OK. The sub-thread you joined was focused on the popularity of progressive positions, so ... Scuba Feb 2015 #94

Bobby Kennedy is my hero... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #95

So, do you have a progressive who can win? brooklynite Feb 2015 #74

I am not voting for her. Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #51

Get that out of your system now. Because IF she announces, and you claim BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #54

No problem with that. It won't change what I will be doing. Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #59

Principle before posting privileges! Bobbie Jo Feb 2015 #68

So Impoverished with the Illusion of Social Justice or Impoverished with no Illusion of social Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #103

The National Review is William F. Buckley's love child with the Conservative movement. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #12

The OP made a labeling mistake-it's the Nat'l Journal. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #13

Thanks for the clarificaiton. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #15

Because... Like All Mags... Right Or Left... They Might Produce A Kernel Of Truth... WillyT Feb 2015 #14

Jeesh, Willy, you didn't post an article from National Review. National Review is TRASH. RiverLover Feb 2015 #16

Done. WillyT Feb 2015 #19

Willy- it doesn't matter. You mislabeled it. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #17

Fixed.. WillyT Feb 2015 #18

Posted to for later to find out who HRC could lose to. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #21

They are based on generic candidates. The dumbing down of DU continues. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #24

I think you need to change you next to the last word to "might"... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #53

I left open room for uncertainty. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #57

Well, even I would admit to continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #60

It's how you look at it. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #64

It strikes me as awful, too... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #66

No answer yet DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #26

'Liver' is pretty impressive, though! randome Feb 2015 #31

If you accept the models at face value it is more likely than not we lose... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #33

I know, models are only a starting point, nothing more. randome Feb 2015 #41

According to Drew Linzer he said he wouldn't go much north of 60-40 odds DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #44

pssh, pollsters said the Dems'd lose both houses in 2014--who can trust 'em?! MisterP Feb 2015 #25

The models aren't based on polls DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #27

How Insightful fredamae Feb 2015 #28

Incredible, isn't it? {Yawn}. randome Feb 2015 #30

this hilliary juggernaut has to run its course RedstDem Feb 2015 #35

BULL. With President Obama's campaign masterminds behind her and with him BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #37

A fifty dollar donation to DU says those that are recommending the article neither read ... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #38

Exactly. There's going to be a huge backlash from the Latino community after this Texas judge, BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #45

I forgot the exact line but it's the line that goes from downtown to Montebello. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #52

I'm not being snarky but did you actually read the article and understand it? DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #42

This analysis is flawed. They're using flawed polling on President Obama's approval ratings BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #39

These models are right until they are wrong. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #43

She was a terrible candidate in '08 and had to carpetbag her Senate seat. Motown_Johnny Feb 2015 #50

I listened to Daily Kos radio yesterday, and they agreed... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #62

The same holds true for the (R)s Motown_Johnny Feb 2015 #96

Pay attention Android3.14 Feb 2015 #56

Did you even bother to read the article? DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #82

My post was about ignoring data Android3.14 Feb 2015 #98

The models were based on a generic Republican running against a generic Democrat. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #99

Willful ignorance only results in disaster Android3.14 Feb 2015 #100

I understand the data DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #101

K & R L0oniX Feb 2015 #58

She will win. n/t Orsino Feb 2015 #61

Why? eom MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #63

Because at several points before Election Day... Orsino Feb 2015 #67

I agree with the oddsmakers DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #86

Maybe too far to call. Albertoo Feb 2015 #65

According to the model, EVERY democrat loses Orangepeel Feb 2015 #69

which explains the 13 recs (so far) and the OP's happy donkey kick wyldwolf Feb 2015 #71

Using his model, doesn't this mean ANY Democrat loses? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #70

The level of political sophistication here is, often, not of a order higher than Free Republic, DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #83

I predict that if Hillary loses the Left will be blamed. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #72

^^^ Here^^^ MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #97

The methods used are generic, not Clinton specific. It is a negative view of Democratic chances at Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #77

And make no mistake, the VP candidate counts, especially if it's Julian Castro. Hispanics are libdem4life Feb 2015 #81

Plus it will provoke the GOP to be even more xenophobic... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #87

Very true, and often the small difference in the General Election is those Undecided Centrists who libdem4life Feb 2015 #89

I am so interested to see how Jeb Bush navigates the Republican primaries... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #91

They may give him a pass because of his wife. Not entirely, but the Bushes have a way with libdem4life Feb 2015 #93

This model is utter nonsense. Dawson Leery Feb 2015 #92

Bookmarking...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #102