G.O.P. Odds of House Majority Now 3-in-4 (Nate Silver)

[onehandle]

Source: New York Times

The latest FiveThirtyEight projection for the House of Representatives shows little overall change from our previous update, released this weekend, but the Republican position has improved slightly. They are now given a 75 percent chance of winning the House on Nov. 2, up from 73 percent previously. During an average simulation run, the Republicans finished with a total of 228 seats (up from 227): this would reflect a net gain of 49 seats from their current position.

As I have warned repeatedly in the past, we believe that the uncertainty in the forecast is intrinsically quite high, stemming from the unusually large number of seats in play, and from differences of opinion among pollsters in how to calibrate their likely voter models to account for the so-called “enthusiasm gap.” There are only 170 seats that the model thinks of as “safe” Republican — those where their chances of winning are 95 percent or higher. However, there are only 151 seats that the Democrats are at least 95 percent assured of winning.

The slight movement toward Republicans this week is not the result of shifts in the polling. Our estimate of the generic ballot remains unchanged, showing about 6 point lead for Republicans among likely voters. And some of the local polling has been decent enough for Democrats in the past few days, like a nonpartisan survey showing their incumbents ahead in two tight races in Michigan, and a poll suggesting that Ben Quayle, a Republican, could lose in Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District — although our model is skeptical and still gives Mr. Quayle an 89 percent chance of prevailing.

Some polls can also be prone to misinterpretation by those who lose sight of their context. The large batch of polls released by The Hill this week shows many Democratic sophomores trailing. Clearly, this is not good news for Democrats — but in most cases, these sophomores are in difficult districts and had already appeared likely to lose in a universe in which Republicans were poised to gain 50 or so seats.

Read more: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/g-o-p-odds-of-house-majority-now-3-in-4

---

[Botany]

1. The chamber of commerce, American Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity ...

.... ads have been brutally effective and targeted to blame the economic problems
and loss of jobs on the Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama ..... Classic Rove blame the
other side for your own faults.


We need to GOTV

[TexasObserver]

2. This is what happens when the party in power bends to the power out of power.

Two years of the president chasing the fiction of bipartisanship has led to this point.

We are in trouble for not adopting THE DEMOCRATIC program we ran on in 2008. By cowering to the demands of the GOP, the president and congress gave away their control of congress. And for what?


When he wakes up with a hostile House investigating everyone he's ever known, maybe the president will finally get it.

[Raster]

21. Boy, ain't that the truth! Bipartisanship is code word for "bend over and take it."

President Obama COULD HAVE taken his election momentum and used it to be even more effective.

President Obama SHOULD HAVE abandoned all pretense of bipartisanship and slapped the rethuglican minority in Congress around the room several times.

President Obama WOULD HAVE galvanized a wakened citizenry into demanding more positive change of our government.

[No Elephants]

3. Et tu, Nate?

[texastoast]

4. Fools abound in this country

Fools with short memories, a need for instant gratification, and little foresight.

[still_one]

5. Is this really "Latest Breaking News"? /nt

[Roland99]

6. my gut is calling BS

[nyy1998]

7. I love his blog, but Nate is certainly giving himself enormous room for error.

[iamthebandfanman]

8. well, the media said it was so months ago

so it must be.

especially if we all have this guys attitude.

[pattmarty]

9. Nate Silver and Charlie Cook are two of the best. Their reputations...............

..........depend on being right or at least "close". There are quite a few here that don't want to believe ANY poll if it says Dems will lose.


Let's ALL face it, the Dems are going to lose the House. It now is just a matter of how many seats they lose. We have had two years of basic gridlock and we're going to have two more, so what is the fucking big deal? The Republicans are ass hole obstructionists and the Dems are weak kneed cowards. This is what we essentially have, is a standoff between both parties where nothing of consequence gets done under the Dems and under the Republicans is a scorched earth policy against the working/middle class and poor.

Does someone here want to explain to me how this kind of political warfare is doing anything but destroying what is left of this country?

[robcon]

10. Agreed. They're fallible, but equally liable to be high than low.

It could be worse than they predict, or it could be better.

But I think the House is lost.

[Beetwasher]

11. Here's The Problem With Nate's Analysis, He's Using Rasmussen And Gallup As Part Of His Data Set

And of course he should since both outfits release tons of data. However, it's becoming clearer that there may be serious problems with the data from both of those outfits.

Nate crunches all the data from all the polls. If two of the biggest pollsters saturate the field with data based on a flawed (or corrupt) methodology, then Nate's analysis will be skewed.

That being said, he may be entirely correct, but I have some serious doubts these days. Gallup and Rasmussen together can have a significant impact on an analysis since they are so predominant in the field and there's more and more evidence that their methodology may have serious flaws.

[nyc 4 Biden]

12. ding ding ding

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x483814

[robcon]

13. I think Silver and cook know more about polls than the average DUer

"Nate crunches all the data from all the polls. If two of the biggest pollsters saturate the field with data based on a flawed (or corrupt) methodology, then Nate's analysis will be skewed."

I think I'd trust Nate Silver or Charlie Cook to analyze whether the data is flawed.

[Beetwasher]

14. They Would Really Only Be Able To Do That Accurately After The Election

When it was apparent there was a disconnect.

Until then, there would be no way to test it, so why bother? The way to discover flawed methodology is when you can compare the predicted outcomes against actual results.

[robcon]

15. Alternatively, one could look at a group of polling organizations...

and use data from all of them.

That's what Cook and Silver do, IMO.

[Beetwasher]

16. Yeah, So? That's My Point!

They use data from all of them, but two of the biggest out there, with the most polls, may have some seriously flawed data which could have a significant impact on any analysis. Rasmussen releases more polls than anyone, and Gallup may be #2. If their polls make up a significant portion of the data set, and they are seriously flawed, that's a big problem that wouldn't be evident until you can compare your predictions against the actuals.

[robcon]

17. Seriously flawed???? Didn't you say we can't measure their flaws until after the election?

You seem to be shifting your position in mid-stream.

The best solution is to use all the polling organizations. That's what Silver and Cook do.

[Beetwasher]

18. Yes, There MAY Be Serious Flaws

and we won't know for sure until we see the predictions vs. the actuals.

That's how you test your models/methodology. You make a prediction and compare them vs. actuals. You seem to not know much about the subject that you are attempting to discuss.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/21/912204/-Gallup-Scandal.-Urged-to-STOP-Polling-Immediately.-

[onehandle]

19. Yep. nt

[AtomicKitten]

20. I've always been impressed with Nate Silver -- I just hope this time he's wrong. nt