Nate just said the republicans

[sorefeet]

have a 60% chance of taking the senate. I'm ready to throw up. We got to get the Democrats to vote, somehow.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. We HAVE to remind the voters that a VOTE for a repub is a vote for THIS:

[PasadenaTrudy]

3. Lol at your Hiesinberg!

I'm almost finished with season 5. It's getting too intense for me and I'm taking a break!

[Cooley Hurd]

19. I AM THE ONE WHO KNOCKS!

[PasadenaTrudy]

4. Oh! Just noticed your King Crimson reference too! Cool n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

20. A sigline that seems so appropriate on modern DU.

[PasadenaTrudy]

21. Double talk double talk

[Cooley Hurd]

22. Arguments, agreements, advice...

[PasadenaTrudy]

33. Articulate announcements...

[malaise]

7. It's actually a vote for the impeachment of the first

African-American President.

[lostincalifornia]

13. There are absolutely no grounds for that, and if they did win the senate, even if they were stupid

Enough to do that the senate requires a two thirds vote for conviction and that won't happen

[malaise]

14. We both know that

but ReTHUGs want it real bad

[lostincalifornia]

16. Well if they did that then they will make themselves obsolete faster. At least that is my view

[sorefeet]

18. Interesting malaise

they probably couldn't impeach, but look at all the millions they could waste trying. Just like repealing ACA 50 times.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. If they keep the House, they WILL impeach

They don't care about whether they can get a Senate conviction or not. It goes on the record - just like Bill Clinton. Being impeached will ALWAYS be on his record as a stain, despite the fact that he was not convicted (conviction meaning he would have had to resign).

[malaise]

32. Remember they impeached Clinton

The Senate then stopped the crap.

[one_voice]

30. They will do it at warp speed...

it's what they've been waiting for.

Fuckers!

[SunsetDreams]

2. There seems to be some disagreement; Tarnished Silver (Nate Silver) by Paul Krugman

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/tarnished-silver/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&

Timothy Egan joins the chorus of those dismayed by Nate Silver’s new FiveThirtyEight. I sorry, but I have to agree: so far it looks like something between a disappointment and a disaster.

But I’d argue that many of the critics are getting the problem wrong. It’s not the reliance on data; numbers can be good, and can even be revelatory. But data never tell a story on their own. They need to be viewed through the lens of some kind of model, and it’s very important to do your best to get a good model. And that usually means turning to experts in whatever field you’re addressing.

Unfortunately, Silver seems to have taken the wrong lesson from his election-forecasting success. In that case, he pitted his statistical approach against campaign-narrative pundits, who turned out to know approximately nothing. What he seems to have concluded is that there are no experts anywhere, that a smart data analyst can and should ignore all that.

But not all fields are like that — in fact, even political analysis isn’t like that, if you talk to political scientists instead of political reporters. So, for example, before glancing at some correlation and asserting causation, you really should talk to the researchers.

snip

I don't see how anyone can make a prediction like that, this far out from an election. There are too many variables I would think.

[Silent3]

6. That article is mostly about the non-politics topics Silver is trying to take on...

...using an "ignore the experts" approach. When the "experts" are political pundits, putting more faith in aggregate polling data is a good idea. In some other fields, however, not so much.

[stevenleser]

5. I think we have to remember that this is a snapshot in time as it exists now. I see something else

I have been watching the amount of people who want to repeal ACA/Obamacare and that number is going down and the amount who want to keep it is going up. If Republicans cannot gin up outrage over that issue, it will change the dynamic of 2014 significantly.

My take on how to further exploit that is here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017182146 we continue to push them for solutions on how to make ACA better since 51% of the country want to keep it but fix issues with it. (13% want to keep it as is)

[Silent3]

8. Things looked much better for Dems during the budget/debt ceiling fiasco just a few months ago...

...but I knew at the time that it was so very sadly predictable that this effect wouldn't last, that the stupidity of equally blaming Obama (and all Democrats together) for the mess caused by Republican obstructionism would take over again -- just as Republicans have been counting on.

What we need is something that puts a harsh spotlight on Republicans once again, with just the right timing before November.

Sorry to say, I can't imagine what that would or could be right now.

[progressoid]

9. Ugh.

I'm going to need to go back on anti-depressants.

[hfojvt]

10. Why the defeatism?

60% is not that bad a number.

It's a hell of a lot better than 90% or even 80%.

You hear 60% in March and you already think it is all over?

Sheesh, John Paul Jones must be rolling in his locker.

[lostincalifornia]

11. Anyone who is that stupid and doesn't vote or votes republican after what the repukes have put the

Country through will wreak more misery on the country and everyone else.

If we lose the Senate because women decide not to vote or votes republican, why should I care if their rights are eroded if they vote against their own interest?

If we lose the Senate because labor decides not to vote or votes republican, why should I care if worker rights are eroded if they vote against their own interest?

If we lose the Senate because the unemployed, seniors, and the poor decide not to vote or vote republican, why should I care if unemployment isn't extended, social security and Medicare are cut and privitized, and food stamps are cut if they vote against their own interest?

BECAUSE IT AFFECTS US ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sorefeet]

12. One of those communist

Mao or Hitler or one of the bad guys said, America would destroy itself from within. Our true enemies (politicians) are guarding the hen house (USA) and they were elected by the obstructed citizens of America or the Supreme Court right wing deciders. Our voting process alone allows for corruption.

[Scuba]

15. If only the Democrats had had something to counter the Republican threat. You know, like policies.

[lostincalifornia]

17. Here is a link to silvers analysis which puts things into perspective

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

[adirondacker]

23. Typically when the forecast is for 60% sunshine it ends up raining most of the day.

Maybe Nate is using a weather model.

[RandySF]

25. We have to time to turn it around

But we better get ourselves in gear.

[WhiteTara]

26. You can help. Get a bunch of voter registration forms

stand out in front of your local post office and register people to voter on the spot. Remind them of the election dates and try to get them to add their email addy and phone number and of course register as a Democrat. That helps the candidates.
GOTV!

[LittleBlue]

27. So, business as usual

I'll be voting but you just know we won't turn up for mid-terms. Different mid-term, same old shit.

[Grey]

28. Wouldn't surprise me, in the least.

Having chatted with your average voter down at the coffee shop. 'Thick' is a word that comes to mind.

[pansypoo53219]

29. its early. GET CANDIDATES TO WIN IT. GET OUT THE VOTE! GOTV!

give people a REASON TO VOTE. that FL woman did not deserve to win. GO LEFT!

[Rex]

31. Wow, the M$M is scared already?

Republicans are going to lose big.