Chair of the DNC, Tom Perez..."We always knew this election would be close."

[auburn41 492]

I have been hearing all along that the BLUEWAVE was coming.  Since when did the Democrats always know this election would be close??

About 1:34 into the video:

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/10/22/dnc-chair-perez-on-diminishing-blue-wave-we-always-knew-that-this-election-was-going-to-be-close/

[AUDub 11,131]

13 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

I have been hearing all along that the BLUEWAVE was coming.  Since when did the Democrats always know this election would be close??

About 1:34 into the video:

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/10/22/dnc-chair-perez-on-diminishing-blue-wave-we-always-knew-that-this-election-was-going-to-be-close/

The Dems could win the actual house vote by 5 points and Rs could retain control. That's how big the Republican structural advantage is. Anyone listening to poll analysis experts like Nate Silver knows this.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

48 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

I have been hearing all along that the BLUEWAVE was coming.  Since when did the Democrats always know this election would be close??

About 1:34 into the video:

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/10/22/dnc-chair-perez-on-diminishing-blue-wave-we-always-knew-that-this-election-was-going-to-be-close/

Yep the Dems are seeing reality set in. The GOP will retain the Senate and the Dems may win the House by 4-5, not a big enough majority to control much since a lot of Southern Dems wont kiss Pelosi's butt. For me keeping control of the Senate is a big deal if we have another SCOTUS vacancy.

 

[AUDub 11,131]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

Yep the Dems are seeing reality set in. The GOP will retain the Senate and the Dems may win the House by 4-5, not a big enough majority to control much since a lot of Southern Dems wont kiss Pelosi's butt. For me keeping control of the Senate is a big deal if we have another SCOTUS vacancy.

Polling has never indicated anything other than the Rs retaining the Senate. The Ds could win control, but we're talking about a real long shot there.

The House, OTOH, will most likely end up controlled by the Dems, and polling puts them at a 20ish seat advantage. A normal polling error could change things tremendously though. If the polls underestimate the Dems at the lower limit of a normal polling error, we're talking about a fifty seat majority. If they overestimate, every race will be a nail biter and the Rs could ultimately retain control. 

[auburn41 492]

33 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Polling has never indicated anything other than the Rs retaining the Senate. The Ds could win control, but we're talking about a real long shot there.

The House, OTOH, will most likely end up controlled by the Dems, and polling puts them at a 20ish seat advantage. A normal polling error could change things tremendously though. If the polls underestimate the Dems at the lower limit of a normal polling error, we're talking about a fifty seat majority. If they overestimate, every race will be a nail biter and the Rs could ultimately retain control. 

I just googled "blue wave" and this is was my first click.....https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/get-over-your-election-needle-ptsd-the-blue-wave-is-real-and-its-a-monster

Just one short month ago everyone was saying a Blue Tsunami was coming.  Not so much anymore.

[AUDub 11,131]

7 hours ago, auburn41 said:

I just googled "blue wave" and this is was my first click.....https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/get-over-your-election-needle-ptsd-the-blue-wave-is-real-and-its-a-monster

Just one short month ago everyone was saying a Blue Tsunami was coming.  Not so much anymore.

Have you been following 538? The bolded statement is a good indicator you have not. 

A month ago on their House forecast, D chances were 4 in 5. Then with Kavanaugh they fell to about 3 in 4, then rose again and stand now at 6 in 7.

The Senate forecast has remained steadily R, and if anything had become more strongly R in that span. 

Follow their forecast models. They do a good job cutting through the bull****. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 hours ago, auburn41 said:

I just googled "blue wave" and this is was my first click.....https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/get-over-your-election-needle-ptsd-the-blue-wave-is-real-and-its-a-monster

Just one short month ago everyone was saying a Blue Tsunami was coming.  Not so much anymore.

Why would you take anything Vanity Fair has to say seriously?  Find actual outlets that follow this stuff closely like the aforementioned 538 or RCP.

[auburn41 492]

8 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Why would you take anything Vanity Fair has to say seriously?  Find actual outlets that follow this stuff closely like the aforementioned 538 or RCP.

I don’t take Vanity Fair seriously. Just like I don’t take CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews seiuosly. The Newspapers and magazines are worse. That link was one of literally hundreds that I could have used. If you think there is one bit of difference between Vanity Fair and the New York Times.....you are sadly mistaken!  They were all talking about a blue wave before the Kavanaugh hearing. 

[AU64 10,122]

Just my observation but House races are almost about local issues and candidates..    Generally, people don't like Congress as a whole, but most like their local Representative..... incumbency is huge advantage.

Seems that folks are not inclined to vote against their local guy unless he or she has really screwed up.   Plus so many districts are gerrymandered that it's tough for someone new to knock off an incumbent ..especially in a non-presidential election. ...and JMO but the "wave" concept never made much sense...perhaps was a good rallying cry.....but even partisans like Perez know better. 

[AUDub 11,131]

1 hour ago, auburn41 said:

I don’t take Vanity Fair seriously. Just like I don’t take CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews seiuosly. The Newspapers and magazines are worse. That link was one of literally hundreds that I could have used. If you think there is one bit of difference between Vanity Fair and the New York Times.....you are sadly mistaken!  They were all talking about a blue wave before the Kavanaugh hearing. 

News orgs tend to amplify noise rather than signal. Stick with sites like 538 for raw analysis and you’ll be better for it. 

[auburn41 492]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

News orgs tend to amplify noise rather than signal. Stick with sites like 538 for raw analysis and you’ll be better for it. 

Seems to me I remember hearing that at 6:00 PM Eastern time on election day in November of 2016, 538 was still saying that Hillary had something like a 90% (this number is from my memory so I'm not saying it is exact) chance of winning.  So was Nate Silver amplifying noise or signal in November of 2016?

He may very well be right that it is about a 10% chance that the R's hold on to the house in this election.  I guess we will just have to wait and see.  I am not a gambling man, but if 2016's cycle was any indication, I would not put any money on any of them predicting correctly.

[AUDub 11,131]

3 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Seems to me I remember hearing that at 6:00 PM Eastern time on election day in November of 2016, 538 was still saying that Hillary had something like a 90% (this number is from my memory so I'm not saying it is exact) chance of winning.  So was Nate Silver amplifying noise or signal in November of 2016?

He may very well be right that it is about a 10% chance that the R's hold on to the house in this election.  I guess we will just have to wait and see.  I am not a gambling man, but if 2016's cycle was any indication, I would not put any money on any of them predicting correctly.

Nope. His final forecast gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, and the rationale he used to explain it (correlated polling errors across the rust belt) ended up being exactly what came to pass.

He actually caught a lot of hell for giving Trump such a high chance of victory. Some dumbass from HuffPo had the gumption to attack him for it, in fact.