Could the Polls be Wrong?

[babylonsister]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/02/could_the_polls_be_wrong.html

Could the Polls be Wrong?


Mark Blumenthal: "The short answer is of course they can. In an era of low response rates, imperfect sample coverage and a host of new polling technologies, nothing is certain. At this hour however, the most likely range of that error lies somewhere between a Democratic defeat comparable to 1994 and something much more severe."

First Read: "When there's plentiful public polling and stable national trends to base their assumptions upon, their prognostications are usually more or less close to the mark. But politics is unpredictable, and pollsters use different methods to determine who's up and who's down. Every once in a while, they get it wrong."

[DarthDem]

1. Even Better . . .

. . . for the most part, with respect to the House, a truckload of the key races were polled once or not at all. And from that - - it's a wave!! Stupid.

[Tippy]

2. Untill they begin polling cell phone users

none can be very accurate... I see a big GOTV going on.... there is no way to calculate a reliable out come.....I still think we have a very good chance for a good outcome..

[Igel]

8. It seems this idea needs as many posts as there are believers.

Many of the pollsters call cell phone numbers.

There are DUers who have said that they've been polled at their cell phone #.

Those polls haven't yielded markedly different results.

Now, the lack of real difference could mean that cell phone users really aren't that distinctive a political constituency as non-cell-phone users in the same demographic categories. The lack of a marked difference could result from the polling model used, so that while cell-phone users form a distinctive demographic their role in the model is (wrongly?) diminished. Or perhaps some other factor makes their distinctiveness (appear) unimportant.

Want reasons for not believing them? Look at the far more obvious reasons.

[krabigirl]

12. Most polling agencies that do poll cells, only poll a very small sample of them.

Susa is the only one, to my knowledge, that includes quite a few cell phones.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I Do Not Think That Is Accurate

Gallup includes cell phones in each national Gallup poll. Gallup has been including cell phone-only households in all national telephone Gallup polls since January 2008. Further, cell phone-only households are now as likely to fall into national Gallup polls samples as those living in traditional landline households.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110383/does-gallup-call-cell-phones.aspx

In fact many pollsters including Gallup, Pew, CBS/NYT, et cetera contacr cell phone users.

[Tippy]

36. Pew says.....

The Pew Research Center notes that the latest estimates indicate a quarter of U.S. households have only a cell phone and cannot be reached by a land line telephone. “The land line folks tend to be a little bit more Republican at this point then the cell only populations,” said Scattergood.

Those cell phone only users, Scattergood noted, tend to be younger and lower income, both demographic groups which tend to skew more towards the Democrats in their voting patterns.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. But They Are Being Polled

~

[Tippy]

46. Very few are being polled ...it cost to much.....

[zelda7743]

43. One problem with cell phones...

You can set up different rings for callers you know and callers you don't. When my phone rings and it's someone I don't know, I don't answer. You really can't do that on a land line. No one has ever polled me because I avoid the calls.

[Alcibiades]

3. There is an issue regarding likely voters

"The other issue associated with the enthusiasm gap involves estimating the likely electorate. Like most polling organizations, we have been reporting our trial ballot results among registered voters throughout 2010. As the election nears, though, we wanted to estimate who is a likely voter within our poll and report the ballot numbers for that sub-sample. Almost all polling organizations make this switch in October, as voters focus in on the races and interest and engagement rises. ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, NBC/Wall Street Journal, CNN/Time, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and Gallup have all reported their numbers for likely voters in their most recent polls. Predictably, since these likely voter models rely on self-reported interest and turnout intent, they have produced significantly more Republican-leaning results than we find among all registered voters. In the case of Gallup’s initial likely voter results, a single-digit Republican edge in the generic ballot for Congress swelled to a 19-point GOP advantage. Gallup did offer a less “restrictive” likely voter screen (their “high turnout” model), which showed a still huge 12-point Republican lead."

The question is whether our voters show up. So far, Republicans have been more likely to tell pollsters that they are likely to vote than Democrats. Yet what we have in actual election results so far does not confirm this: the enthusiasm gap, at least in my state, North Carolina, has not resulted in Republicans voting at a disproportionate rate during early voting.

There's also the effect of our GOTV efforts. GOTV can increase your turnout by about 10%, if its done correctly. I think that some of what we have learned as Democratic activists over the course of the last couple of election cycles ought to carry through today. The problem is that this administration has alienated many activists by governing from the center (i.e. trading enforcement of the law against Bush administration criminals for the confirmation of Eric Holder, trading the public option for insurance industry support, waffling on DADT, maintaining a strong troop presence in Iraq, escalating in Afghanistan, etc.) When I look at the signup sheets for canvassing at our local campaign office, it is about one tenth of what it was two years ago.

If we lose, that will be why.

[okieinpain]

35. but here's what i don't get, why is it so supprising that the

repugs would win 50+ seats if most of the seats were in conservative areas anyway. didn't we win most of those seats because bush was just that damn bad anyway, so why would it be a shock if repugs in repug areas get their seats back. I mean I'm not going to be shocked tomorrow if mary fallen is governor because oklahoma is just backwards like that.

now to me it would be shocking if the wins came in dem areas, that would be bad.

[randr]

4. The closer they call the vote

the more money pours into the campaign.
Statistically it is impossible for as many races to be so close.

[karynnj]

5. Blumenthal's first sentence is excellent, but the second does not flow from it

Years ago, I worked in an in house mathematical analysis group, which mostly did sampling in the Bell System. The flaws that he describes in the first sentence have become increasing prevalent. Just the fact that more people have caller ID likely leads to the lower response rates that are increasingly worrisome. Where you could assume that the 10 or even 20% of people you fail to reach who are in your sample are identical to those reached, when it gets to be closer to 50%, that is a huge burden for that assumption to bear. (For those who have done phone banking, consider the proportion of people who are never reached in person.) That does not even get into the "imperfect sample coverage", where some voters are not even included in the universe that the sample is drawn from.

For me, there is a weird almost schizophrenic response to polls - I know they have design problems that would be hard if not impossible to correct for, yet they are numbers to play with and at least when comparing results over time for a given race have some merit. It does let you get some measure of the impact or lack of impact of events in the campaign.

Now, the problem I have with the second sentence is that it kind of assumes (as First Read does- though with last minute wiggle room) that if every poll - with different samples and different polling methods, converge to similar results - they are likely correct. However, if they all have the same insurmountable problem in getting a good, genuinely representative sample - they could all be very correct about the population they actually sampled, but very wrong on the entire population.

Also remember, this is not a national election. It is a collection of state or district elections. It is stunning how many of these elections are really really close - within say 3%. The ME always cited are for statistical fluctuation only - any structual bias (ie any group under represented) is not part of this. From the pollsters who sample cells as well as landlines, we KNOW there is a difference in our favor. We also know that the likely voter models are not assuming a high turnout, yet they are assuming a high Republican turnout. If by later in the day, it is clear that there really is high turnout, it likely will mean that the model underestimated Democratic turnout. It really will come out to turnout - and I know that in my district, I have been called and robocalled at least 5 times this week - and all we have is a completely non-competitive Representative race.

If weather matters, it is a beautiful Fall day here in NJ (so likely the same in PA and NY.)

[Robbins]

6. Yes

Registered voters polls which the MSM Ignore has It better for Us.Sestak,Bennet,and Reid are actully ahead In Registered voters
polls.They are assuming Democrats are not voting In lare numbers.Even with registered voters we will lose 3 Senate seats and several
House seats.

Nate Silver Is already trying to cover his back If the doom and gloom study doesn't happen.Obama being at 50 Percent yesterday by RAS
IS their way of proving cover If Democrats hold the House and limit the senate and Governor's loses.With Steele unwilling to say a
Republican takeover of the House Is going to happen with his foot In the mouth disease and some already saying Democrats are trying to steal Election this Is a possable Omen Republicans may be seeing the likely voter polls are not what they are seeing.

[wmbrew0206]

7. We'll find out tonight, but the statistical probablity is pretty small.

[Teaser]

11. no, the probability isn't small

the probability is unknown. We have estimates of the probabilities involved, and those estimates are small, but we have no idea what the actual probabilities are.

[wmbrew0206]

14. There would have to be something very, very, different about this election

for all the polls to be wrong. I don't see this election being significantly different than another mid-term in terms of turnout models.

[Hawkowl]

20. Minority turnout

Minority turnout is usually very depressed during a midterm election. So, likely voter samples are overweighted in republicans to compensate for this fact. I think this could be the major reason we see an awful lot of inaccurate polls. Obama is the first minority president and even though a lot of the black and hispanic communities might not be ecstatic about his performance, I think they will turn out in atypical fashion for a midterm and vote democratic as support for Obama.

So if the Dems manage to hang onto both houses, I think they owe Obama big time, and Obama needs to finally start strong arming Blue Dogs, Conservadems and rethuglicans.

[wmbrew0206]

22. I see what you are saying, but some pollsters are using a model turnout similiar

to '08 to account for a possible heavy minority turnout. From what I have seen those models show smaller republican gains, but still gains. The loss of independents is really hurting us.

[Hawkowl]

25. We shall see

Interesting do you know which pollsters? However, I agree that the dems will incur losses. It is simply unavoidable in disastrous economy, unless you have a superhuman president like FDR. Obama is nowhere near FDR caliber. He could be someday but not now.

[wmbrew0206]

26. Shit, no. I've been reading so many different polls, I can't remember where I read that.

I think Nate Silver might have talked about it in some of his models, but not sure.

[Hawkowl]

27. Well we will know

If the dems do manage to hold on to both houses, you can bet your ass will know, because they'll be shouting from the rooftops about how they were the only one who got it right :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. The Dems Lost 72 Seats In 1938

[Hawkowl]

41. Noted but...

I was thinking more of mid term during FDR's first term, 1934, where dems continued to pick up seats. They picked up more seats in 1936, but yes, 1938 was a bit of a blood bath. FDR did shift more left after 1938. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will do the same after this election.

[Teaser]

45. All the data in the world doesn't tell us what the probabilities are though

it just gives us a database from which we can guess at the actual probabilities.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Nate Has A Very Short Track Record Although An Excellent One

Sabato has been right much more than he has been wrong and if he erred, he erred on the side of predicting that the Democrats would do better than they did.

[Ter]

44. Depends how the poll numbers are

We can win races that we're behind 5 to 7 points. However, I don't think we can win races where we're 12, 15, or 20+ points behind. Do you?

[flamingdem]

9. Do they poll Spanish speakers? nt

[Beetwasher]

10. The Register Voter Vs. Likely Voter Spread Is Ridiculous This Year

And I've never seen anything like it.

I believe the Likely Voter screens are horribly flawed (intentionally or not).

Could I be wrong? Sure. But my intuition is telling me there are serious problems with the model.

[FBaggins]

28. Nothing to worry about.

I have it on good authority that the republicans shot their wad back in August and we've had the momentum ever since.

[Beetwasher]

30. Aww, It's Scrappy Doo!

C'mere boy! :rofl:

Still insisting AK's not in play and Murkowski won't go write in?

[FBaggins]

32. You've been entertaining.

Sadly... there's less than half a day left to your run.

[Beetwasher]

33. My Run? Have I Been Running For Something?

:shrug:

You're so adorable how you hang on my every word. I must be very important to you. :rofl:

[FBaggins]

34. Your "run" of pretending that we gained and held the momentum weeks ago.

I'm not sure that there's anyone left with two brain cells to rub together who thinks that we've had the "big MO" all this time.

[Beetwasher]

37. We Did Get Momentum Weeks Ago

Was it enough to keep us from losing the House? We'll see. I could argue it was enough to keep us from losing the Senate, should that happen. But it could have been much worse if the Repubs timed their campaign better.

That's my opinion. Yours is different. Though you pretend it's not an opinion. That's your personal delusion.

Now go fetch boy! There's a Scooby Snack in it for ya! WOOF!

[FBaggins]

40. We did?

So you're saying that we lost it at some point and republicans surged?

I could have sworn I saw these same "WOOF!" BS posts just a week or so ago with you continuing to belittle anyone who failed to see our massive momentum.

Can you post a link to when your view changed?

[Beetwasher]

42. Yes, We Did, Scrappy!

And we'll see if it was enough to keep us from losing the house. That's what I'm saying. Sorry the meanings of words escape you. Have Scooby Snack, maybe it'll clear things up for you.

Woof! :rofl:

You are just enthralled with me. It's so cute!

[FBaggins]

48. Survey says? No... we didn't.

n/t

[Beetwasher]

50. Sure we Did

Just wasn't enough, Scrappy. Though I'm sure yr thrilled about it.

[FBaggins]

51. So you think that in August we were set to lose 80 seats and just improved from there?

Strange. I seem to remember you insisting that far more optimistic predictions than that were nonsense. We had a shot at picking up seats IIRC. McAdams had a shot at a pickup and Sestak had just put the race away with a genius ad.

Face it. You didn't have a clue what you were talking about. The real generic picture was EXACTLY where I said it was and the expert predictions were spot on... Or even too optimistic.

It's ok to admit... My day sucks either way. But hey! I was still wrong about Murkowski, right? That and a couple "woofs" should pump you right up.

[Beetwasher]

52. Sometimes Momentum Gets You Across The Finish Line, Sometimes It Doesn't

Not a difficult concept. Guess they could've used your Puppy Power! a bit more.

"I seem to remember you insisting that far more optimistic predictions..."

See, now you just make shit up. I never insisted on anything of the sort. I stated my opinion. See, that's the difference between you and I, Scrappy, I realize my opinions are just opinions.

[FBaggins]

53. "momentum" involved moving in the right direction.

Republicans had all the momentum.

That much is clear to anyone.

And don't forget that it wasn't just "momentum" in your opinion... it was surging. The generic ballot was OBVIOUSLY tightening in your world. I said that it had remained constant at about 6% for some time now... then a few days ago I commented that it might have expanded to 7%.

The actual turnout from yesterday? Somewhere between 6-7% republican.

Just another coincidence... I'm sure.


See, now you just make shit up. I never insisted on anything of the sort. I stated my opinion.

And your opinion was wrong. Get over it.

I realize my opinions are just opinions.

And my opinions just magically came true, right? No connection to knowing what I'm talking about (or all the experts who were saying the same thing)... and you really knew what you were talking about and it's a fluke that none of the electoral results match your version of reality.

How convenient.

[Beetwasher]

54. Momentum Helped Dems Hold Onto The Senate IMO

And as bad as things turned out in teh House, they could have been a lot worse, though it's clear you're quite thrilled with the outcome.

"No connection to knowing what I'm talking about..."

Umm, this coming from Mr. Murkowski will never go write in?

It's amazing Scrappy, your Puppy Power! was singlehandedly responsible for the Repubs gains in a mid term election! I mean, way to go out a limb predicting the part in power would lose seats! No one could have seen that coming! :rofl:

Now, if I had said Dems definitely would not suffer losses, you may have something on me, but I never said that, so you have no point. But keep following me around pretending you do!

I'm so flattered that you hang on my every word! It's so cute!

[FBaggins]

55. Nope. Triage did... just as I advised at the time.

They picked a handful of races to focus on (largely the ones that you and I both agreed were able to be helped) and they pulled out enough of those to keep R gains to a minimum (heaven help me that I'm happy with six). They saved at least two senate seats (possibly three) and almost saved PA as well.

But there was never a prediction from any expert that we were going to lose the Senate. The chances never got above 1:3... so no, it didn't help us "save" that which wasn't really in danger.

And as bad as things turned out in the House, they could have been a lot worse

They are a lot worse than anyone was predicting before you claimed that republicans had "shot their wad" and we now had the momentum. The fact that it's possible you could have been more wrong doesn't help your embarrassment.

Umm, this coming from Mr. Murkowski will never go write in

I don't know... is this from the guy who thought Crist was likely to win?

That Alaska was in play for us?

That we had a decent chance against Vitter (we lost by almost 20%)?

That we might gain seats in the Senate? (I don't know how you go from "we might gain" to "momentum kept our losses to six" with a straight face... but that's your problem).

The guy who said we'll probably lose a couple seats? (Same comment as above... except to add a question re: is it that you don't know what a "couple" is or can't compare 2 to 6 to see if you were right?)

"Races Are Tightening All Over And Dems Are On The Move" after "we might lose a few house seats".... and we kept the momentum... yet lost 65? I think it's the math that's stumping you.

The guy who said "I believe we are seeing the Repubs peaking as we have seen at the end of August for the past few years."

You were wrong. They peaked yesterday.

though it's clear you're quite thrilled with the outcome.

Bull (but at least par for the course). I haven't slept yet I'm so spun up from how awful thigns were. Once of the few pieces of good news is that I get to point out how ridiculously wrong you were (and rude at the same time). Yep... that makes me feel .0037% better than I would otherwise have.

I'll take what I can find at this point. :)

[Beetwasher]

56. See, You Have To Resort To Just Making Shit Up, Scrappy!

I never said any of those things. I've said various things were POSSIBILITIES. Your problem is you redefine "possible" as "definitely" and "momentum" as "Dems will win!". You can't just make shit up to suit yourself, words have meanings.

I find it quite flattering that you put so much effort into following me around, Scrappy! Although you might want to examine your obsession with me, it might be a tad unhealthy.

Oh, and usually people don't gloat about things they are unhappy about, so, though you pretend otherwise, your actions speak louder than your words. It's clear your thrilled with outcome. Bully for you Scrappy! Must have been your Puppy Power that did it! :rofl:

[FBaggins]

57. "I never said any of those things"

Bull. Most of those were quotes.

I've said various things were POSSIBILITIES

More bovine droppings. You didn't say that it was POSSIBLE that dems were surging and had momentum. You said we had it and belittled anyone who corrected you.

Oh, and usually people don't gloat about things they are unhappy about,

Oh don't get me wrong there... I'm fine with you being proven wrong yet again - if for no other reason than you've been a pain about it and should learn your (substantial) limitations.

I'm not happy with the price that came along with being right. But unlike some people (hint hint) I'm not able to create my own fantasy world where things really are as I wish them to be.

[Beetwasher]

58. C'mon Scrappy, Just Admit It, You're In Love With Me

It's obvious to everyone! The way you hang on my every word and follow me around like a little puppy! You make up all these fantasies about things I've said....Just ask me out already, you never know ;)

[FBaggins]

59. A junior high psych student could see through your avoidance.

I'd tell you that it's cute... but it's really just childish (which... come to mention it... explains both the Scooby Doo references and the sub-elementary math skills... I think I've figured you out at last!)


So when you said "Sestak Just Locked PA, Bank On It!... Done deal, I'm telling you. Perfectly timed and effective. Done... He will win this." that really meant that it was POSSIBLE that Sestak would win... right?

"words have meanings" indeed.

[Beetwasher]

60. Nahh, I Was Wrong About Sestak, But That Race Was Pretty Damn Close!

And I chalk that up partially to that commercial which was terrific! Oh well, you win some you lose some. I'll live.

What are you wearing, cupcake? ;)

[FBaggins]

61. Didn't know you could write that... good job.

Let's try another.

"Races Are Tightening All Over And Dems Are On The Move"

Races were not tightening all over (except counting the large number of our house seats that were tightening from Safe, to Lean to Tossup. I gave you at least two lists of dozens of ratings changes. About 90% of them were moving against us... and it continued right up until election day.

Come on... you can say it again. It's gets easier each time. :)

What are you wearing, cupcake?

Sorry. You're not my type. There may even be a statutory restriction.

[Beetwasher]

62. Oh, But I Think I Am Your Type, Since You Seem To Follow Me Around Everywhere

The question is, are you my type? I must admit I'm flattered by your attention, but I think it borders on an uhhealthy obsession which might indicate you may be a little nutty. Now, sometimes I'm turned on by a little nuttiness. Are you hot?

Races were tightening, I stand by that. You say it's completely from "triage", I'd disagree and say it's a combination of triage PLUS momentum. I don't believe I was wrong about Dems getting momentum. I think they did, it just wasn't enough, unfortunately. :shrug:

[FBaggins]

63. More evidence, thanks

As if we needed one more example of your disconnect with reality?

Races were tightening, I stand by that.

And you were wrong.

You say it's completely from "triage", I'd disagree and say it's a combination of triage PLUS momentum

Momentum affects more than just the handful of races you triage. Everything else (DOZENS of House races) was moving in the other direction.

I don't believe I was wrong about Dems getting momentum. I think they did, it just wasn't enough, unfortunately.

Then you have to believe that things were much worse in August... (though that doesn't match your comments at the time... nor the polling... nor the analysts... nor what I told you).

I "get" that you believed you were right.

You weren't. I'm so sorry.

[Beetwasher]

64. Things WERE Much Worse In August , Without A Doubt!

We won races that we had no chance in in August! The picture was much worse in August and we closed the gap in a lot of races. Now you're trying to rewrite history, Scrappy.

[FBaggins]

65. Find me an analyst that said so

Just one.

[Beetwasher]

66. So Are You Saying They Weren't Worse In August?

You show me how things were better in August. But go ahead and rewrite history if it floats your boat, Scrappy!

[FBaggins]

67. Lol! Do you even remember how this debate started?

You're making yourself look like a fool. It was the predictions of Nate Silver and Charlie Cook that set you off in the first place.

Republicans dramatically outperformed those predictions from August. Nobody came close to predicting 65 house seats and 20 state legislatures with 500 legislative seats lost. They were talking about the chances of republicans retaking the House... not winning more seats than they had held in 7-8 decades. That wasn't even on the radar screen.

If you took Cook's August prediction, republicans would essentially have to win every single tossup race AND every single Leans D race to do this well.

Nate Silver's August 25th post was titled "New Forecast Shows Democrats Losing 6-7 Senate Seats" - His model for the House predicted a republican gain of 45 seats

Charlie Cook archives every one of his prediction tables. Just take a look at the last couple dozen... with VERY few exceptions (O'Donnel winning the primary of course) they get worse and worse and worse.

Yes. Things were NOT worse in August

On edit - I see that you scurried back and edited out your specific questions about races. You realized that the answer was "yes - any or all of them could have won under those predictions" didn't you? :rofl:

Reid was ahead in virtually every July/August poll. Feingold was essentially tied... ans was Giannoulias.

[Beetwasher]

68. What Planet Do You Live On?

Even before August there was non stop talk of Dems being decimated and losing BOTH the House AND the Senate. In case you didn't notice, we held the Senate, I'd say that's an improvement, but feel free to believe otherwise.

I realized some candidates hadn't been nominated yet, so the comparsions were pointless in August. Duh.

[FBaggins]

69. Earth. You should visit some time.

Even before August there was non stop talk of Dems being decimated and losing BOTH the House AND the Senate.

Nonstop, eh? So you should have no trouble finding a SINGLE example of ANY major analyst predicting a loss of both the House and Senate.

Just ONE.

Silver? Sabato? Cook? Rothenburg?

Nope.

[Beetwasher]

70. LOL! You Must Have Been Living Under A Rock Over The Summer

:rofl: Shit like this was everywhere.

Here's just one quicky:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010601-503544.html

Another

http://www.frumforum.com/poll-dems-may-lose-senate

More:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html

[FBaggins]

72. Game Set and Match

Take up your new created memory of August with my buddy Beetwasher. We'll let him describe what things looked like in August.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=421121&mesg_id=421911

Still waiting for a SINGLE prediction that Democrats would lose the House and Senate. Just ONE

[Beetwasher]

73. LOL!! What Does That Show???? Nothing! (Actually, It Shows I Was RIGHT! Thanks!)

I thought the chances were slim and so did Nate, so what? I was right! We held the Senate! Just as I thought! Thanks for showing ANOTHER example of how right I was!

That doesn't mean other people weren't saying it was a real possibility (which I doubted)! Duh.

http://www.frumforum.com/poll-dems-may-lose-senate

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/26/madigan_illinois_senate

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/08/senate_play

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010601-503544.html

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

74. Still waiting.

Not some republican speechwriter shilling for his favorite outcome... an actual analysts with an actual prediction. Just ONE will do.

And now you're posting articles from October?

LOL!! What Does That Show???? Nothing!

It shows your disconnect with reality. It shows what you thought the situation was in August (nowhere near the worst electoral beating of our lifetime)... to compare to your new claim that everyone knew things were worse in August than what actually happened.

That doesn't mean lot's of other people weren't saying it was a real possibility

Now you're giving someone ELSE a hard time for what they said was POSSIBLE? Don't you want to wait a few hours to let your own spin cool a bit on the off chance that others wouldn't recognize the hypocrisy too readily? Yesterday proved that it WAS possible. CO and WA were almost down to recounts and DE/NV were gifts from the tea party (and WV was a gift from a a ridiculous R ad followed by our guy running like a republican). It was a hair's breadth from actually happening... of course it was possible. Had it not been for that "triage" it probably would have happened. Everything else went against us. More governorships, far more house seats... far FAR more sate legislative seats... redistricting... ballot measures (even three state SC justices voted out for the first time in history in a shocker). Everything else was worse than in August except the senate that we got back to August levels.

Things haven't been getting better since August. They were getting worse. Much worse.

[Beetwasher]

75. LOL! Man, You Just Can't Take It Can You? I Was Right, The Chances Were Slim And We Kept The Senate!

People were talking about how the Dems could lose the Senate. It was happening just as I said. I knew it was slim chance then and I was right despite the propoganda and the picture improved since then and we held the senate. There were primaries and actual candidates and Dem voters got engaged and motivated and we held it. Just as I thought was going to happen. My whole point was people didn't really engage until after Labor Day. I was right. Dems engaged, got motivated and the momentum was enough to help us keep key races we might otherwise have lost.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/26/madigan_illinois_senate

http://www.frumforum.com/poll-dems-may-lose-senate

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html

[FBaggins]

76. Is it some kind of personality disorder that I should be more sensitive to?

eople were talking about how the Dems could lose the Senate.

Could? Could?!? Why is it that you wiggle with "I meant that it was POSSIBLE" when you actually said something was likely... but they CLEARLY say that there's a slim chance (and the authors are not political analysts) ?

You're looking for an actual prediction of us losing both houses.

Just one will do.

And since you've claimed that things were so clearly worse in August... a single prediction of 65+ seats would be nice too. There should be several, right?

Here's a hint. We now know what DID happen. In order to claim that things were clearly worse in August and have been getting better ever since... you can't take someone's pie-in-the-sky best-case wish. It would have to be the mid-case.

You won't find one because they don't exist. NOBODY in August thought that an outcome worse than this was the most likely outcome. Nobody without a toe fetish anyway.

[Beetwasher]

77. Umm, Not Even Your Pal Nate Silver Makes Predictions Like That In August, Scrappy!

It's all about possibilities and probabilities. And I was right, Dems engaged and motivated after Labor Day, and we held onto key seats as a result of that momentum, among other things. And we held the Senate and stemmed even worse Republican gains, IMO.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, even for a puppy like you!

"I think the key take away is that things are very fluid right now. Yes, as of now things are looking good for Repubs to make some decent gains, but the chances of them taking over the senate are slim. On the other hand the Dems actually have a slim 3% chance of having a net gain according to Nate. But it's also still August and way to early to make an reliable predictions one way or another. Who would have thought before yesterday that there was even a chance that Miller could win in Alaska? If he wins, that may actually put Alaska in play for the Dems and I don't think anyone predicted or envisioned that even being possible."

[Arkana]

13. Some of them, maybe, but not all of them.

We're going to sustain some sizable losses.

[LatteLibertine]

17. Screw the narrative, Vote!

I just did, please do the same :)

[timkainemustgo]

19. I'm holding out hope because most "leads" show them under 50%.

I think Ried will win in Nevada. Also I think Pennsylvania is going to be really close.

[FBaggins]

29. The "under 50%" rule primarily applies to incumbents.

There aren't many republican incumbents in tight races this year.

[David Zephyr]

21. There was not a single poll prior to 11/08 showing Obama winning by 9 million votes.

Yes, polls can be wrong.

They were totally wrong in 2008.

I keep repeating this because it's important.

Gore won the popular vote by 600,000 against Bush in 2000.

Obama won the popular vote by 9,000,000 against McCain.

So, yes, polls can be wrong. They were all wrong in 2008.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Must Repectfully Disagree

In 2008 the pollsters were pretty much spot on:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm



In 2000 some pollsters were right, some pollsters were wrong, but most were within the margin of error. That's what happens when the two main candidates essentially tied or one candidate winning by less than one percent:


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm

[Dinger]

23. I Heard This On TV Today:

Sorry, I can't remember the show, might have been GMA. Anyway, they said with all the doom and gloom horseshit, it might make the Dems get out and vote, so it could have the opposite effect. (Trying to cover their asses already?)

[Riley133]

38. Rhetorical

Of course they can be wrong, particularly the closer it gets to an election.

[tblue37]

47. I hope all the gleeful crowing about the Republican tsunami, combined with the

constant reporting of the presumed Demoratic enthusiasm gap, has made Dems that much more likely to get out and vote--especially to prevent a takeover by all those crazy teabaggers.

Wouldn't it be delightfully ironic of the main reason why Repubs lose (if they do lose) is that they crowed so long and loudly about their inevitable sweep of both hosues that they terrified the relatively sane voters who might otherwise have sat out a midterm election?

[FBaggins]

49. Looks like "no"

The polls were pretty darn close so far.

[niceypoo]

71. Hindsight is 20/20