Final Update: Republicans Have A 3 In 4 Chance Of Winning The Senate http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...s-have-a-3-in-4-chance-of-winning-the-senate/
today we find out a great deal about how accurate polls are. poll accuracy based on how they set up that templates of Ss vs Rs vs Is vs subgroups vs is it true the millenials really became anti democrat. if so the polls will be off and the Rs will have an easier time of it in the close states. vs is there really a democrat ground and a strong non american vote fraud game? the algo is only at 58% R control the senate... but it also has a 20% chance of the millenials swinging close individual races strongly in Rs favor.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate/ the lastest polls were very tight in the swing contests... looking forward to seeing the results this evening. Race/Topic (Click to Sort)PollResultsSpread New Hampshire Senate - Brown vs. ShaheenWMUR/UNHShaheen 49, Brown 48Shaheen +1 New Hampshire Senate - Brown vs. ShaheenNew England CollegeShaheen 48, Brown 49Brown +1 New Hampshire Senate - Brown vs. ShaheenPPP (D)Shaheen 50, Brown 48Shaheen +2 Iowa Senate - Ernst vs. BraleyQuinnipiacErnst 47, Braley 47Tie Iowa Senate - Ernst vs. BraleyPPP (D)*Ernst 48, Braley 45Ernst +3 Colorado Senate - Gardner vs. UdallQuinnipiac*Gardner 45, Udall 43Gardner +2 Colorado Senate - Gardner vs. UdallPPP (D)*Gardner 48, Udall 45Gardner +3 N.C. Senate - Tillis vs. Hagan vs. HaughCivitas (R)Hagan 41, Tillis 41, Haugh 6Tie N.C. Senate - Tillis vs. Hagan vs. HaughPPP (D)Hagan 46, Tillis 44, Haugh 5Hagan +2 N.C. Senate - Tillis vs. Hagan vs. HaughHarper (R)Hagan 44, Tillis 46, Haugh 6Tillis +2 Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn vs. SwaffordSurveyUSAPerdue 47, Nunn 44, Swafford 5Perdue +3 Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn vs. SwaffordPPP (D)Perdue 46, Nunn 45, Swafford 5Perdue +1 Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn vs. SwaffordWSB-TV/LandmarkPerdue 50, Nunn 46, Swafford 2Perdue +4 Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn vs. SwaffordInsiderAdvantagePerdue 48, Nunn 45, Swafford 3Perdue +3 Kansas Senate - Roberts vs. OrmanPPP (D)*Orman 47, Roberts 46Orman +1 Alaska Senate - Sullivan vs. BegichPPP (D)*Sullivan 46, Begich 45Sullivan +1 Minnesota Senate - McFadden vs. FrankenKSTP/SurveyUSA*Franken 51, McFadden 40Franken +11 New Jersey Senate - Bell vs. BookerMonmouthBooker 54, Bell 40Booker +14 Michigan Senate - Land vs. PetersFOX 2 Detroit/Mitchell*Peters 52, Land 40Peters +12 Maine Senate - Collins vs. BellowsMPRC (D)Collins 57, Bellows 37Collins +20
After seeing the results last night... especially in Virginia you have to conclude many of the polls needed unskewing. . I note, early last night Dana Bash was on CNN quoting Dem HQ saying knew there would 7 to 10 seats lost because everything turned against them 3 days ago... I have heard that in every post election that Republicans have won since I can remember. They always say things turned in the last week. The reality is the polls are skewed until the last few weeks and then they start drifting closer to reality.
The Polls were skewed. (according to Nate Silver) http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-Were-Skewed-All-Right-in-Favor-of-Democrats As the 2014 midterm election wound to a close, left-wing pundits repeated the error of their conservative rivals in 2012, claiming that the polls forecasting doom were skewed. It turns out that they were right--but in entirely the wrong direction. As fivethirtyeight's numbers guru Nate Silver noted after midnight Wednesday, the polls were skewed, on average, six points in favor of Democrats in the key Senate races where Republicans romped. As Silver noted: The pre-election polling averages (not the FiveThirtyEight forecasts, which also account for other factors) in the 10 most competitive Senate races had a 6-percentage point Democratic bias as compared to the votes counted in each state so far.... The bias might narrow slightly as more votes are counted; late-counted votes tend to be Democratic in most states. Still, this is a big “skew,” and it comes on the heels of what had been a fairly substantial bias in the opposite direction in 2012. It remains to be seen whether the press shows the same interest in documenting the internal polling foibles of Democrats that it did in documenting Mitt Romney's data meltdown in 2012. Regardless, it was a very poor night for polling overall--and not just for Democratic pollsters. Conventional wisdom was that the individual Democrats were doing better than President Barack Obama. The story of how that failed should be fascinating. Senior Editor-at-Large Joel B. Pollak edits Breitbart California and is the author of the new ebook, Wacko Birds: The Fall (and Rise) of the Tea Party, available for Amazon Kindle. Follow Joel on Twitter: @joelpollak
The one exit poll you need if you want to understand the elections: The one that shows that 69 percent of the orders for home booze delivery in DC last night went to Democrats... Midterm Elections Were Great for the Alcohol Delivery Business http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/...e-great-for-the-alcohol-delivery-business.php Whether people were cracking bottles in celebration or drenching their despair, Tuesday’s elections had at least one non-partisan winner: alcohol delivery. Drizly, an app that serves thirsty DC residents who are either too busy or too lazy to go to the liquor store, reported record business on Election Day, with twice as many orders yesterday as a typical Tuesday, the company says. It might have also helped that Drizly dropped its delivery fees yesterday, with users entering promotion codes doubling as party identification: “Blue” for Democrats, “Red” for Republicans, and “Perot” for independents, because the 1990s will never end. While Democrats hold a three-to-one voter registration advantage over Republicans in the District, their majority is even more lopsided when it comes to phone-based booze orders. Drizly says 69 percent of its orders last night came from self-identifying Democrats, compared with just 8 percent from Republicans.
Nate Silver had an epic fail with Trump. He should have used the Jem Algo.... http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-trump-wrong-2016-5 In September 2015, writer and statistician Nate Silver urged people to "calm down" about the possibility of Donald Trump winning the Republican presidential nomination. Two months later, he wrote that the media should "stop freaking out about Donald Trump's polls"and that Trump's odds were "higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent." Six months after that, after Ted Cruz had dropped out of the race but before John Kasich had done so, Silver wrote: "Donald Trump is going to win the Republican nomination." "Other than being early skeptics of Jeb Bush, we basically got the Republican race wrong," Silver wrote. It's easy to cringe at how, in August, for instance, Silver outlined the "six stages of doom"that he foresaw for Trump in the coming months — and how, in December, he updated the post to note that "the most difficult hurdles between Donald Trump and the Republican presidential nomination are still to come." So how did the site that prides itself on a numbers-based approach end up just another late-stage Trump bear with its tail between its legs? Silver has some ideas. For one, some of Silver's earliest Trump doomsday analysis was, by its own admission, in line with the theories of "The Party Decides," a theory that posits candidates must be electable and believers in the party's positions. By January, Silver was rereading the book: Either the book's hypothesis that functioning parties nominate strategic candidates is wrong, he said then, or the Republican Party is not a functioning one. But Silver isn't giving up on "The Party Decides" quite yet. So when, on Wednesday, Silver admitted that "in Trump, the Republican Party may have a candidate who fails on both counts," he unsurprisingly also argued for the "failings of the Republican Party as an institution." Silver wrote: To me, the most surprising part of Trump's nomination — which is to say, the part I think I got wrongest — is that Trump won the nomination despite having all types of deviations from conservative orthodoxy. He seemed wobbly on all parts of Reagan's three-legged stool: economic policy (he largely opposes free trade and once advocated for a wealth tax and single-payer health care), social policy (consider his constant flip-flopping over abortion), and foreign policy (he openly mocked the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War, which is still fairly popular among Republicans). But Republican institutional failure alone is only one of three major facets of Silver's analysis, which simultaneously addressed Trump's success and Silver's (predictive) failure. The other two components are the incredible volume of media coverage of Trump and the tribal nature of Republican primary voters. On the latter, Silver said that Trump's appeal to "cultural grievance" worked. "It's a point in favor of those who see politics as being governed by cultural identity," he wrote, "as opposed to carefully calibrating one's position on a left-right spectrum." Statistical analysis is always still analysis and, as such, requires some assumptions. And though he didn't address it specifically in his post on Wednesday, Silver said in November that a statistical approach to presidential-campaign prediction is a hard problem because there's only so much data. Perhaps Silver's most prescient prediction came in November: "Unprecedented events can occur with some regularity." Read the full post at FiveThirtyEight: 'Why Republican Voters Decided on Trump' >>