The 2022 Midterm Elections

[chasfh]

How much you wanna bet that at least one Republican who wins their election hurls charges of fraud against the Democrats because they didn’t win by more?

[Mr.TaterSalad]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Interesting phrasing of the Q

I wonder what the numbers would be like if that question was asked that exact way in every poll. Sure, voters care about inflation, gas prices, and rising costs, but is that their top motivating factor to actually vote?

[oblong]

I just don’t see that a pollster gains by putting out a poll that they manipulated.  They make their living by being accurate. Doesn’t mean they will be but the point is they won’t make an effort to be inaccurate just to frame a narrative.  I think the “flooding” angle is just grasping at a positive that’s not there.  

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

They make their living by being accurate.

you can't seriously make this statement about anyone or anything related to the GOP can you?

You can debate what motivations may or may not be at work, but desire for veracity certainly isn't one.

Edited November 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

The GOP is spending heavily in Ohio and North Carolina. Not states where you would expect to be spending if you were anticipating a red wave. Trump is even doing a rally in Iowa. 60 years representing Iowa and Grassley needs Trump?

[Motor City Sonics]

I had trouble sleeping last night.  I am very worried.     Michael Moore has been pretty accurate in recent years and he still says a blue wave and I hope he's right.       

 

[Motor City Sonics]

The whole world is dealing with inflation but that doesn't matter - it's Biden's fault.   You can't explain nuance to Americans anymore. 

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

The whole world is dealing with inflation but that doesn't matter - it's Biden's fault.   You can't explain nuance to Americans anymore. 

and ours is gnerally lower than most places.

Edited November 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motor City Sonics]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

and ours is gnerally lower than most places.

but that doesn't matter. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

Nate has jumped the shark

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Nate Silver loves himself some Nate Silver. I think his increasing status in electoral politics has inflated his own self worth and ego.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Even the other Nate, Nate Cohn, is clowning on Silver now.

 

[CMRivdogs]

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.....

Edited November 5, 2022 by CMRivdogs

[Motown Bombers]

Because dems aren't releasing favorable polls.

[mtutiger]

6 hours ago, oblong said:

I just don’t see that a pollster gains by putting out a poll that they manipulated.  They make their living by being accurate. Doesn’t mean they will be but the point is they won’t make an effort to be inaccurate just to frame a narrative.  I think the “flooding” angle is just grasping at a positive that’s not there.  

I mean, Trafalgar put out polls that were off by over 15 points in the California Recall and have thus far lived to see the other side.

[mtutiger]

3 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Because dems aren't releasing favorable polls.

For context, this is potentially a rerun of the Kentucky Governor's race in 2019. Stitt has pissed off the tribes and has leaned hard into vouchers which has had a sizable impact in Rural OK school districts. Schools north of the border had challenges before he became Governor, to be clear, but we are now in a world where a number of districts in the rural part of the Oklahoma are now only offering classes four days per week out of necessity.

If Hofmeister wins (or even comes close) and it is an otherwise not great night for Ds, there may be a lesson to come out of Oklahoma and how to appeal to the broader group cross section of voters.

Edited November 5, 2022 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

3 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Nate Silver loves himself some Nate Silver. I think his increasing status in electoral politics has inflated his own self worth and ego.

I stopped reading or following 538 after the last election, and I doubt I'm less informed for it

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I stopped reading or following 538 after the last election, and I doubt I'm less informed for it

Nate must be so burned by his previous misses he can't bring himself to see anything but red.

[oblong]

So is it the consensus here that it’s not going to be red?  I am assuming a red house for sure.  

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

So is it the consensus here that it’s not going to be red?  I am assuming a red house for sure.  

I think it will be a Red House, dont know on what the gains will be. 15-30ish?

50/50 Senate is my guess. Some states will be better or worse than others based on geography, individual situations.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Nate must be so burned by his previous misses he can't bring himself to see anything but red.

My problem with all of it is that nobody seems to want to stand behind their work...

You have Nate Cohn at the NYT commissioning polls showing a relative neutral environment (House polls in KS, NM, NV, Senate polls in PA, NV, AZ, WI) and the writeups are about how they may all be wrong. 

You have RCP building a model which deducts share based on previous polling misses in the last three cycles, yet still is willing to project a different result than what the model shows (see MI Gov).

And then you have Nate Silver, who built a website based on modeling this stuff yet basically seems more interested in punditry and, similar to Cohn, looks for reasons to doubt his own work.

None of this matters obviously, Tuesday will come and go and very little that these guys do or don't do will change any of it. But the lack of spine to stand behind their work is kind of pathetic IMO. 

[oblong]

14 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

My problem with all of it is that nobody seems to want to stand behind their work...

You have Nate Cohn at the NYT commissioning polls showing a relative neutral environment (House polls in KS, NM, NV, Senate polls in PA, NV, AZ, WI) and the writeups are about how they may all be wrong. 

You have RCP building a model which deducts share based on previous polling misses in the last three cycles, yet still is willing to project a different result than what the model shows (see MI Gov).

And then you have Nate Silver, who built a website based on modeling this stuff yet basically seems more interested in punditry and, similar to Cohn, looks for reasons to doubt his own work.

None of this matters obviously, Tuesday will come and go and very little that these guys do or don't do will change any of it. But the lack of spine to stand behind their work is kind of pathetic IMO. 

That’s how I see it.  The polls aren’t telling me anything other than probably a red house and very close senate. I think PA flips and the others stand Pat. Is there a current D other than GA and AZ that’s in the conversation of flipping?

I just don’t see any punditry value in adding disclaimers to everything. Elections are held once.  It’s not like baseball where we use data to show how a person will likely perform over a period of time.  That’s useful. But in the context of a single at bat it isn’t. That’s what election night is.  Someone just give me an opinion on what they think will happen. 

[mtutiger]

15 minutes ago, oblong said:

That’s how I see it.  The polls aren’t telling me anything other than probably a red house and very close senate. I think PA flips and the others stand Pat. Is there a current D other than GA and AZ that’s in the conversation of flipping?

I just don’t see any punditry value in adding disclaimers to everything. Elections are held once.  It’s not like baseball where we use data to show how a person will likely perform over a period of time.  That’s useful. But in the context of a single at bat it isn’t. That’s what election night is.  Someone just give me an opinion on what they think will happen. 

I'm probably more worried about Nevada than either Georgia or Arizona tbh. I agree with you on PA; Fetterman (partly for reasons outside of his control) has had issues as a candidate, but Oz has terrible favorables and isnt a good candidate in how own right *and* he's sharing a ballot with Mastriano. It'll be close, but I think Fetterman wins.

I get why these guys are inclined to caveat everything, people have been hard on the polling/prognosticating industry the past few years. Sometimes without reason. But the constant caveating (based on conventional wisdom, what others are thinking or showing) is how people fall into groupthink as well, and that isn't necessarily a good thing if you are in the business of figuring out public opinion. 

Edited November 6, 2022 by mtutiger