538

[delldude]

 
Former New York Times Election Wonk Has a Prediction That’s Likely to Terrify Democrats 

 
Former New York Times statistician Nate Silver — who just launched his own website, FiveThirtyEight — has an election forecast that Democrats won’t be happy to hear.
 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/23/former-new-york-times-election-wonk-has-a-prediction-thats-likely-to-terrify-democrats/

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

 

 
Former New York Times Election Wonk Has a Prediction That’s Likely to Terrify Democrats 

 
Former New York Times statistician Nate Silver — who just launched his own website, FiveThirtyEight — has an election forecast that Democrats won’t be happy to hear.
 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/23/former-new-york-times-election-wonk-has-a-prediction-thats-likely-to-terrify-democrats/

 

 
Yea, it's fairly possible dell. I'll give you that.
BUT as YOU know very well,.......such a scenario would give  ' Hill  a EXTRA platform (which she Wont need) to pick the Whack Job conservatives Apart.
In a way, it could be a Blessing in disguise !!!
 
 HILL-16' in a Landslide. (Maybe 60 %)
Women are fickle, and EVEN a REPLUG gal may not pass-up the one and only time a woman runs for POTUS, and she'll be in the booth..WITHOUT her ol' man....to 'ADVISE' her.

 

[delldude]

Hilary is weak with no experience and/or accomplishments.

 

[eolesen]

Dell beat me to it, but here's another link to the same video...

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/123528-espn-stats-guru-projects-gop-senate-takeover-2014/

Only a fool would expect women to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman.

By the same logic, McCain-Palin should have been a landslide because of a woman on the ticket.

 

[jimntx]

By the way, the last time your Mr. Silver made a similar prediction was in 2008. He predicted that the GOP would gain solid control of the U.S. Senate. At the time there were 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 independents. 33 seats were being contested. The GOP LOST 8 seats.  We can only hope he is equally off the mark this time.  Side note:  This was the 2nd major election cycle in a row in which not one Democratic seat went Republican.

 

[delldude]

By the way, the last time your Mr. Silver made a similar prediction was in 2008. He predicted that the GOP would gain solid control of the U.S. Senate. At the time there were 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 independents. 33 seats were being contested. The GOP LOST 8 seats.  We can only hope he is equally off the mark this time.  Side note:  This was the 2nd major election cycle in a row in which not one Democratic seat went Republican.

 
I doubt it will go that way this time........you dismiss his success with other predictions?
 
Apparently DNC does........LOL

 

[eolesen]

His model was certainly correct in 2010 and 2012.

My take on 2008 is that just about everyone, including Silver, underestimated the impact of the youth and minority vote. Those factors are now baked into the models, so I'd put a little more faith in what's being projected now in an off-year vs. an extraordinary election like 2008.

 

[jimntx]

Oh, and any time the party of give to the rich and take from the poor doesn't win, it's an "extraordinary" year?

 

[Ms Tree]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/millennials-liberal-but-not-democratic-poll-shows/

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/poll-millennials-tend-be-less-religious-patriotic/nd8JS/

 

[eolesen]

Not saying that at all, Jim.

The significance of 2008 was an historic election with a Black candidate being nominated by one of the two major parties. You can't ignore the power of that -- he was the inferior candidate from the get go, but was marketed extremely well. You had the GOTV campaigns which targeted the Black communities, and parallel campaigns targeting minorities with the "support our guy, because next time it might be someone who looks more like you" message.

It was brilliant, actually, and why I call it exceptional. It won't be repeated, ever. Even if Hillary does become the next nominee for the Dems, you won't see the same level of excitement.

Aside from his election, Obama really hasn't turned out to be all that remarkable of a President. He's failed at bringing the country together, he's done nothing for the economy, and his foreign policy has been a disaster. Each misstep adds more fuel the fires of those critics who labeled him as nothing more than affirmative action candidate.

Because of that general ineptitude, Hillary will have a much harder time being elected. She can try to distance herself, but that only works so far. She was in a key position in his admin, and part of the reason foreign policy is so screwed up now.

Running on "they're the party of No" won't work out too well, either -- just about everything from the naysayers on Obamacare has come true.

The Senate vehemently opposed considering the GOP's "just delay it" and shut down the government over it. Then, when all the tin-foil dreams started turning into prime-time realities, Obama himself delayed it, essentially doing exactly what he refused to consider when it was "the other guy's idea"...

So... no, I really don't see 2014 being a repeat of 2008, nor do I think it will be horribly exceptional. It will be the typical midterm backlash against the party of an increasingly unpopular President.

Sure, the uber-faithful liberals will still turn up, but I suspect you'll see the Hope & Changers doing exactly what the Tea Partiers did to Romney in 2012 -- staying home. Their lack of enthusiasm cost Romney the election. This November, you'll see the roles reversed.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

You know Eric,...........far be it from me, to remind you, that you'd be FAR more successful at PICKING your NOSE, than picking Political Winners.
Even If the WHACK Job REPUGS do recapture the Senate, Your "BOYS" have ........NOTHING, Absolutely NOTHING to run against "HILL, and you G D ...WELL know it.   I've Punked You,............DARED you to throw out some possible names as to WHO might 'Possibly' run for POTUS, and in typical fashion, your "ran and HID"
In addition for REPLUG......"SHIITS and GIGGLES"....your stuck with a Very Formitable primary PROBLEM in RAND PAUL.
 
Did I hear correct that "Hill is busy with Roseta Stone.......taking up....HISPANOL  ??
 
Hey. Mabey you could PROP-UP  Susanna Martinez from NM.   Helll, shes a hispanic WOMAN, so that 'could' cause "HILL grief.            OOPS, I forgot.  Shes already allienated virtually Every Young Spanish voter in the country.  Legal or Illegal  !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
(PS)...With 'HILL, you get.................B I L L, and Chelsea too. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !

 

[southwind]

You know Eric,...........far be it from me, to remind you, that you'd be FAR more successful at PICKING your NOSE, than picking Political Winners.
Even If the WHACK Job REPUGS do recapture the Senate, Your "BOYS" have ........NOTHING, Absolutely NOTHING to run against "HILL, and you G D ...WELL know it.   I've Punked You,............DARED you to throw out some possible names as to WHO might 'Possibly' run for POTUS, and in typical fashion, your "ran and HID"
In addition for REPLUG......"SHIITS and GIGGLES"....your stuck with a Very Formitable primary PROBLEM in RAND PAUL.
 
Did I hear correct that "Hill is busy with Roseta Stone.......taking up....HISPANOL  ??
 
Hey. Mabey you could PROP-UP  Susanna Martinez from NM.   Helll, shes a hispanic WOMAN, so that 'could' cause "HILL grief.            OOPS, I forgot.  Shes already allienated virtually Every Young Spanish voter in the country.  Legal or Illegal  !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
(PS)...With 'HILL, you get.................B I L L, and Chelsea too. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !

BENGHAZI !  Guess we'll see what difference it really makes!

 

[eolesen]

Sorry, Bears, but at this point, my "boys" are the Libertarians, not the GOP.

But I also am practical enough to know the L's won't make it to the big game, which means I'll have to pick the better bad choice after the primaries.

And as far as Libertarianism goes, Hillary ain't even close.

 

[Ms Tree]

Not saying that at all, Jim.

The significance of 2008 was an historic election with a Black candidate being nominated by one of the two major parties. You can't ignore the power of that -- he was the inferior candidate from the get go, but was marketed extremely well. You had the GOTV campaigns which targeted the Black communities, and parallel campaigns targeting minorities with the "support our guy, because next time it might be someone who looks more like you" message.

It was brilliant, actually, and why I call it exceptional. It won't be repeated, ever. Even if Hillary does become the next nominee for the Dems, you won't see the same level of excitement.

Aside from his election, Obama really hasn't turned out to be all that remarkable of a President. He's failed at bringing the country together, he's done nothing for the economy, and his foreign policy has been a disaster. Each misstep adds more fuel the fires of those critics who labeled him as nothing more than affirmative action candidate.

Because of that general ineptitude, Hillary will have a much harder time being elected. She can try to distance herself, but that only works so far. She was in a key position in his admin, and part of the reason foreign policy is so screwed up now.

Running on "they're the party of No" won't work out too well, either -- just about everything from the naysayers on Obamacare has come true.

The Senate vehemently opposed considering the GOP's "just delay it" and shut down the government over it. Then, when all the tin-foil dreams started turning into prime-time realities, Obama himself delayed it, essentially doing exactly what he refused to consider when it was "the other guy's idea"...

So... no, I really don't see 2014 being a repeat of 2008, nor do I think it will be horribly exceptional. It will be the typical midterm backlash against the party of an increasingly unpopular President.

Sure, the uber-faithful liberals will still turn up, but I suspect you'll see the Hope & Changers doing exactly what the Tea Partiers did to Romney in 2012 -- staying home. Their lack of enthusiasm cost Romney the election. This November, you'll see the roles reversed.

 
In your opinion.  More people thought that McCain and Palin were a huge joke and were far less qualified to be POTUS.
 
Personally I think the foreign policy is going about as well as can be expected in this crazy world.  Obama finally got Bin Ladin.  He has taken out a large number of terrorists.  He is drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He is attempting to shrink the military.  I do not think Clinton will have any issues with this at all.
 
You can claim that the Democrats shut down the government but the words of various republicans (Cruz) all say you are wrong.  

 
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (1/6/2013): Senator John Cornyn ... he said "it may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well being of our country.
REP. PETER KING, R-NY (10/6/2013): We are the ones who did shut the government down.
REP. JOE WALSH, R-IL (2/2011): We will do what we have to do to shut down the government if we have to.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TX (11/2010): Government's gonna have to shut down.
REP. MIKE PENCE, R-IN (3/2011): I say, shut it down!
 

 

[eolesen]

Sure, go ahead an get some great quotes about who claims responsibility for the shutdowns, but it took both sides to come to fruition, and the Dems were the ones refusing to consider anything the GOP was suggesting.

You also can't ignore the hypocrisy of Obama and Reid refusing to negotiate in October, and then Obama turning around and ruling by Executive Order pretty much exactly what the GOP had been asking to do in the first place.

It ain't about the build-up or the rhetoric -- it's about the outcome.

And let's be clear -- Obama didn't "get" Bin Ladin. Careerists at CIA and DOD did.