Dude you should see some of the young voters who think they are too hip and cool to vote.

 

It's funny because they don't realize they have a lot more power than they think.

 

Put the bong down young ones before it's too late.

I think it's the latter, 37% of yesterday's voters were 60+. Still, it's the Democrats own fault. They pass Obamacare, less old people die, and now there are more of them to vote Republican.

 

Are you telling me Obama pigeon-holed himself to lose senate and house power by keeping Republicans alive to vote against him?

 

Edited November 5, 201411 yr by pettie4sox

I think it's the latter, 37% of yesterday's voters were 60+. Still, it's the Democrats own fault. They pass Obamacare, less old people die, and now there are more of them to vote Republican.

Obama should have got going on that whole race war white slavery thing!

 

It's disheartening to see Republicans being rewarded (or at least not penalized) for blocking Medicaid expansion which has left millions of people who would otherwise be eligible without coverage.

Are you telling me Obama pigeon-holed himself to lose senate and house power by keeping Republicans alive to vote against him?

 

 

It's joking of course, but it does seem to work out that way. The Republicans are trying to kill off their base and the Democrats are trying to keep them alive.

I see it this way. Now Republicans have two years to clean their image up or there will be another Democrat president for 8 years.

It's joking of course, but it does seem to work out that way. The Republicans are trying to kill off their base and the Democrats are trying to keep them alive.

 

POTD

 

I see it this way. Now Republicans have two years to clean their image up or there will be another Democrat president for 8 years.

 

If Hillary decides to run, I don't think the Republicans can do enough in two years to stop her. She's just way too popular.

If Hillary decides to run, I don't think the Republicans can do enough in two years to stop her. She's just way too popular.

Some of that will depend on whether we get a repeat of the 2012 clown show.

It's joking of course, but it does seem to work out that way. The Republicans are trying to kill off their base and the Democrats are trying to keep them alive.

That's Medicare, not medicaid

I still don't think Hillary is as unstoppable as those on this board claim. She is a DLC hawk. Is that really the climate in 2015?

I still don't think Hillary is as unstoppable as those on this board claim. She is a DLC hawk. Is that really the climate in 2015?

With these campaign finance rules?

Nate Silver's advanced metrics for predicting elections needs some work.

 

In 2010, election day he gave Quinn an 18% chance of winning.

 

Yesterday, he gave him a 66% chance.

With these campaign finance rules?

 

I mean, 2008.

Nate Silver's advanced metrics for predicting elections needs some work.

 

In 2010, election day he gave Quinn an 18% chance of winning.

 

Yesterday, he gave him a 66% chance.

Republicans outperformed the polls pretty much across the board.

 

But Silver (and others, like Sam Wang at PEC) would point out that they aren't predicting elections but giving probabilities. Put three balls, one black and two red, in a bag, and you have have a 66% chance of pulling out a red one. If you grab a ball and it's the black one, that doesn't mean the entire mathematical field of probabilities is wrong.

 

Even if he had given Quinn a 90% probability of winning and he still lost, it doesn't necessarily mean his methodology was wrong. It means that polls are analytics are less than perfect

 

edit: you'd also need to check the error bars on the probabilities.

Edited November 5, 201411 yr by StrangeSox

I mean, 2008.

Hopefully she learned not to let Mark Penn run her campaign if she wants to win the nomination in 2016. If she had hired someone who bothered to understand the delegates as well as Obama's team did, maybe she's able to beat back his early challenge. It would still have been really hard for her to overcome her Iraq war vote, though.

 

Who else is on the Dem bench?

 

edit: lol and just like that, the 2014 election thread morphs into the 2016 presidential campaign.

Edited November 5, 201411 yr by StrangeSox

Hopefully she learned not to let Mark Penn run her campaign if she wants to win the nomination in 2016. If she had hired someone who bothered to understand the delegates as well as Obama's team did, maybe she's able to beat back his early challenge. It would still have been really hard for her to overcome her Iraq war vote, though.

 

Who else is on the Dem bench?

 

edit: lol and just like that, the 2014 election thread morphs into the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

He barely survived, but I'm guessing Hickenlooper, Cuomo will go, Omalley, McAullife (jk), Kerry, McCaskill.

For some reason I thought Hickenlooper lost last night.

 

Cuomo is a horrible person and wouldn't stand a chance. I don't think anyone wants Kerry to run again.

I voted for ole Jerry Brown in California. Yep, I voted for a dem. Tip my cap for the fact that there has been at least some bipartisanship in the state. Actually had two major initiatives favored by both republicans and democrats. Didn't think that could happen anymore, haha.

For some reason I thought Hickenlooper lost last night.

 

Cuomo is a horrible person and wouldn't stand a chance. I don't think anyone wants Kerry to run again.

 

Cuomo is definitely running in 2016 though.

Republicans outperformed the polls pretty much across the board.

 

But Silver (and others, like Sam Wang at PEC) would point out that they aren't predicting elections but giving probabilities. Put three balls, one black and two red, in a bag, and you have have a 66% chance of pulling out a red one. If you grab a ball and it's the black one, that doesn't mean the entire mathematical field of probabilities is wrong.

 

Even if he had given Quinn a 90% probability of winning and he still lost, it doesn't necessarily mean his methodology was wrong. It means that polls are analytics are less than perfect

 

edit: you'd also need to check the error bars on the probabilities.

So all a bunch of BS. Anyone can pick a number out of a hat and say, those are the probabilities, although they may be wrong. There is no way to really confirm any accuracy.

 

He was pretty accurate with the electoral college last Presidential election.

So all a bunch of BS. Anyone can pick a number out of a hat and say, those are the probabilities, although they may be wrong. There is no way to really confirm any accuracy.

 

He was pretty accurate with the electoral college last Presidential election.

Wtf? Of course there is. He predicted more than 1 race. See how accurate those predictions were on the whole when weighted based on the probability he gave them.

I hope we get some push from the left in the next presidential primary. Maybe someone like Russ Feingold.

Wtf? Of course there is. He predicted more than 1 race. See how accurate those predictions were on the whole when weighted based on the probability he gave them.

 

It is simple math really. Something that has a 10% probability should happen in 1 time out of 10. If it didn't, it means your model is wrong. Just because something has a 90% probability doesn't mean it can't be wrong. It just means 9 times out of 10 it happens one way.

 

If something with a one in a million shot actually happens, it doesn't mean the model was wrong either. This is just a completely misunderstanding or misusage of statistics on display here.

So on election day Silver gives a 70% chance of senate flipping for republicans along with a number of articles about how polls in the big states may be biased against republican strength and the response is that his model is wrong and he's an idiot?

 

He'd have looked like a bigger fool if Dems won.

Wtf? Of course there is. He predicted more than 1 race. See how accurate those predictions were on the whole when weighted based on the probability he gave them.

Not really. I could read a newspaper and see what the polls say and throw out numbers, and be really accurate. His numbers were based on his info obtained election day:

 

1/5 of Quinn winning in 2010. 1/3 of Quinn losing in 2014.

 

Just bad luck it was the 1 time in 15 both those outcomes occurred ?