The Democratic wave is growing, just how big will it be?

LV426 said:
Your argument is that we shouldn't trust the polling of today's midterms because the national polls back in 2016 correctly predicted Hillary would win by about 3%.
Click to expand...

No, that is not my argument. not even slightly.

Then you tried to pretend that all those National Polls, which were straight up polls, included the EC when they clearly didn't.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. I said multiple outlets made PREDICTIONS, BASED on polling data, which in part correlates to the EC. This is what nate silver and others did. They studied the polls and then made projections.

I am not saying the polls were wrong. I am saying they were correct. You are assuming I am making an argument or have ulterior motives in this thread, and have jumped the gun with wrongful assumptions because you cannot read what I am saying.

Now that I have literally said "no, that is not what I am saying at all," and I have clarified that I am 100% not saying we shouldn't trust polls, you can either admit to yourself you jumped the gun on my argument, or that you don't understand my argument, and either ask for further clarification or simply move on, because I am not making the arguments you think I am.
 
LV426 said:
Your argument is that we should not rely on polls because they accurately predicted Clinton's margin in 2016.
Click to expand...

no, i am not making that argument at all, not even slightly. Not even remotely. As I said, you clearly don't understand what it is I am discussing.
 
LV426 said:
We're not talking about Nate Silver, we were talking about the reliability of polls.

And all those polls showed Clinton winning by a margin of about 3% which was her actual margin of victory.

So it seems to me like you are trying to pretend that Silver's analysis of polls is somehow representative of the polls themselves, and you're doing that to gaslight the recent polls showing a pretty huge Democratic margin. So it would appear you're trying to gaslight midterm polls just to feel better about yourself.
Click to expand...

I am and was taking about nate silver, and other analysts trying to predict the election BASED ON POLLING DATA, before you butted in and assumed I was disagreeing with you.
 
Sailor said:
And she (thankfully) is still not President. Not sure what your point is here other than your obvious oblivion to how our elections work.
Click to expand...

So you're jumping around from non-sequitur to non-sequitur and it's pretty obvious why.

This debate started out with someone saying that the Democrats have a large polling lead on the generic ballot, and that lead could spell a blue tsunami. Conservatives, rattled by those polls, decided to indict and gaslight polling by saying polls can't be trusted because Clinton polled ahead of Trump, yet lost the election because of the EC. What the EC has to do with a popular vote poll is a mystery to me, but it would seem like you want people to think that Trump won the electoral college and the popular vote, because that way you don't have to accept the conclusions of the polling that shows a Democratic advantage in the midterms.

I see right through you.
 
Irthriuth said:
No, I did not. I said multiple outlets made PREDICTIONS, BASED on polling data, which in part correlates to the EC. This is what nate silver and others did. They studied the polls and then made projections.
Click to expand...

Right, but you keep wanting to talk about projections and interpretations, and I'm telling you that none of that matters when it comes to polling accuracy because the polls in 2016 were accurate.

So there's no reason to believe the polls aren't accurate today.
 
LV426 said:
Right, but you keep wanting to talk about projections and interpretations, and I'm telling you that none of that matters when it comes to polling accuracy because the polls in 2016 were accurate.

So there's no reason to believe the polls aren't accurate today.
Click to expand...

i agree they were accurate in 2016.

I agree they are accurate today.

Again, you are too stupid apparently to notice I have said this already ten times in this thread. No where did I say the polls would not be accurate for this upcoming election.

Trump had accurately a 30% to win in 2016, and that 30% chance materialized.

The republicans have roughly a 30% chance to maintain the house this year. It may or may not materialize. It is unlikely that it will, but there is still a strong chance it could occur.
 
LV426 said:
So you're jumping around from non-sequitur to non-sequitur and it's pretty obvious why.

This debate started out with someone saying that the Democrats have a large polling lead on the generic ballot, and that lead could spell a blue tsunami. Conservatives, rattled by those polls, decided to indict and gaslight polling by saying polls can't be trusted because Clinton polled ahead of Trump, yet lost the election because of the EC. What the EC has to do with a popular vote poll is a mystery to me, but it would seem like you want people to think that Trump won the electoral college and the popular vote, because that way you don't have to accept the conclusions of the polling that shows a Democratic advantage in the midterms.

I see right through you.
Click to expand...

None of it matters the racist right wing cheated anyway. Hilary was clearly the winner.

The polls didn't mean anything except now the media can twist everything into the republican favor.
 
LV426 said:
Hold on.

Back up.

You tried to indict the polling by claiming that the polls can't be trusted because Clinton didn't win the election, despite winning the popular vote by the same margin the polls all predicted.

So before we can move on and let you have your bottle, you need to be held accountable for the attempted gaslighting you just tried to do. Why were you trying to gaslight polling when the polling was accurate in 2016? The polls showed Clinton winning nationally by 2-3% and that was her actual popular vote margin. So would you say you were wrong when you were trying to gaslight polling data by very duplicitous pretending it had anything to do with the Electoral College?

It's actions like the one you took here that makes me think you're a piece of shit garbage person, and why I have absolutely no respect for you.
Click to expand...

Bro, you are taking this waaay to personally. I said the EC predictions prior to the election were wrong and somehow that has triggered you and made me a horrible person. Most people thought Hillary would win the Presidency, that's just a fact. That's not gaslighting anything.
 
cawacko said:
Bro, you are taking this waaay to personally. I said the EC predictions prior to the election were wrong and somehow that has triggered you and made me a horrible person. Most people thought Hillary would win the Presidency, that's just a fact. That's not gaslighting anything.
Click to expand...

What EC predictions? This is all within the context of the general polling showing a Democratic advantage in the midterms right now. What does the EC have to do with that? Nothing.

You're just a garbage person. One of the worst of the worst.
 
Nordberg said:
538 has a 75 percent chance the Dems take the house.
Click to expand...

depends what view you are looking at. it's 75% in classic which takes into account historical data and fundraising in addition to polls. lite just has the polls. deluxe has a bit more.

but thanks for the headsup I might have to adjust the odds I accept a tinge :)
 
cawacko said:
Ahhhh, I see. Pollsters don't predict who will win the presidency they just predict who will win the popular vote. Makes sense. Why predict what matters right?
Click to expand...

the step the demmycrats keep forgetting is to look at polls on a state by state basis.......personally I hope they never get it right.......
 
LV426 said:
I think the Democrats will probably pick up between 30-50 seats in the House, and might net out +1 or +2 in the Senate. Recent Senate polling in red seats like TN, NV, AZ, and even MS, show Democrats either ahead or breaking even.

The real story is going to be at the state level...there, I think Democrats are going to clean up bigly. There are 25 governorships up in 2018, and I think Democrats have a real shot at flipping most of the red ones thanks to poor Conservative candidates and policies.
Click to expand...

Well if having control of redistricting is a priority you need more than Governorships. You need State Houses too.
 
Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
soon they will all claim they didn't vote for trumpy

just like none of them voted for Bush

or Robmoney
Click to expand...

I voted for Trump......I voted for Romney.......I voted for McCain......I voted for Bush twice......
 
LV426 said:
What EC predictions? This is all within the context of the general polling showing a Democratic advantage in the midterms right now. What does the EC have to do with that? Nothing.

You're just a garbage person. One of the worst of the worst.
Click to expand...

El Oh El. Sure thing homeboy. Some more words of wisdom, learn to read what people say instead of just assuming.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well if having control of redistricting is a priority you need more than Governorships. You need State Houses too.
Click to expand...

And I think the tsunami is going to be felt most at the state level. That's what I was referring to when I said "the real story is going to be at the state level". I was just using governorships as an example, because I think you're going to see a lot of state houses shift from red to purple and/or blue.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the step the demmycrats keep forgetting is to look at polls on a state by state basis.......personally I hope they never get it right.......
Click to expand...

you are partially correct.

yes, state by state matters, but you can still take away trends and patterns from national data. For an extreme example, if democrats were up by 40 pts nationally, it should be pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that would translate very well for them on a state by state basis.

Concurrently, lets say clinton in 2016 was projected to win the state of alabama by 10 pts. Now, one could say "hurrr durrr that's only one state, that doesn't have any say on what happens elsewhere" but again, anyone with a brain would be able to see that if clinton were going to win alabama by 10 points, that this would indicate an almost for sure electoral college victory, because if you are winning over a state 80%+ republican, you are almost certain to be polling as good if not better in any other state.

So, national data correlates to state data. This is where electoral projections in part come from. Thorough analysis will take into account polling within states but also look at national trends and other correlating effects to get an accurate picture.
 
Irthriuth said:
I am apparently much more informed than you are. Again, just like 2016, you are the one that is clueless. I am not saying dems wont take the house. it's very likely. 66% likely in fact. But 33% is still a very high number for republicans to pull off keeping the house. This is basic data and statistics, and your arrogance or lack of understanding of this doesn't do you or your side any favors. your arrogance last election might have cost you, as you assumed it was all locked up and inevitable clinton would win, and you got bitchslapped.

I wont be surprised at all if dems take the house. The opposition party almost always wins more seats in the midterm election. You on the otherhand will be blasted into the stratsophere if republicans keep control, and i'll be here laughing in your face if republicans roll a 5 or a 6 with you thinking such a thing is impossible.
Click to expand...

I predict they will not lose the house......I predict they will not even come close......I predict the Republicans will add seats in the Senate......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top