....just the NYT pissin in da wind
Reason 1: Stupid, lazy people want more “free” stuff, paid for with other peoples’ money. The Democrats are more than happy to provide this; it’s about all they do these days.
Voter Fraud
The only way the dems win is if they make enough noise to wake the dead.
Translation: They're stealing it.
I want what Nate Silver is smoking. But you’d have to live in California to get that stuff after today.
So the polls all tilt toward over-sampling of Republicans... these liars can’t even come up with lies that are semi-believable.
Here’s what this story is REALLY about: a cover story in case voter fraud is massive and obvious.
My theory for why Nate is full of it: Nate’s yoga instructor convinced Nate that drinking his own urine is therpeutic.
Nate has his theories and I have my own.
My theory for why Nate is full of it: Nate’s yoga instructor convinced Nate that drinking his own urine is therapeutic.
5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/5-reasons-republicans-could-do-even-better-than-expected/
1. Downballot and cross-ballot effects. Republicans are poised to win somewhere from 22 to 28 of the 37 United States Senate races on the ballot. There are also 37 races for governor; the picture there is a bit murkier, but Republicans will almost certainly win a clear majority, and could conceivably win as many as about 30.
2. Unlikely voters voted — and they voted Republican! Almost all pollsters apply likely voter models of some kind, which estimate how likely a respondent is to vote based on their degree of interest in the election, their voting history, and in some cases, their knowledge of things like where their polling place is. On average, these models show Republican candidates performing about 6 points ahead of their standing among all registered voters in these surveys.
3. The incumbent rule, or something like it, makes a comeback. The incumbent rule — the notion that undecided voters tend to break against the incumbent — is something that I’ve spent a lot of time debunking. There isn’t really any evidence that it’s been true in recent elections (the period I’ve studied in detail covers 1998 through 2008). Undecided voters in these elections were about as likely to vote for incumbents as challengers.
4. The Scott Brown effect. Here is a little pet theory of mine. Say that you’re a fairly conservative Republican in Massachusetts. Your senators have been John Kerry and Ted Kennedy for many, many years. Your representative to the House is a Democrat. Your governor is a Democrat. Your state always votes Democrat for President. You feel compelled to vote out of patriotic duty, and you usually do. But deep down, you’re resigned to the fact that your vote won’t really make any difference, and the candidates you want to win never will. And to be honest, you’ve got a little bit of pent-up frustration about this.
5. Likely voter models could be calibrated to the 2006 and 2008 elections, which were unusually good for Democrats. In addition to wrongly excluding some Republican “unlikely voters” (see Point No. 2), it’s also conceivable that some likely voter models based on past voting histories are overrating the propensity of Democrats to vote. The reason could be that some of them are based on past voting history, and a common question is whether the voter had participated in the last two elections.
The left might be living on food stamps and welfare but they all have iPhones.
Highly unlikely to see them bothering to vote. They have their phone, their flat screen, their internet connections all paid for and they know that stuff is not going away.
Demorat wet dream. Ring, ring, ring. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
I see Nate Sliver is is trying his hand at erotic fiction.
But, if you read the article, that's exactly his point. He is trying to identify all the straws that Democrats want to grasp -- and then effectively destroys them.
His conclusion is that the Republicans are most likely take control of the House by a significant margin. But, he points out that a huge blowout (70+ seats switch to Republican) is unlikely, and that the Democrats holding on to control of the House is just as unlikely.
If this were a radio report instead of print, you would have heard the heels clicking together as he spoke...
one reason only........ fraud
Problem is the cellphone effect has yet to materialize in any real way. Also given that some polls do poll cellphones and the largest number of sole cell phone users are youth the effect is minimal. In a tight race it may manifest in a point or two difference but I dont see it making or breaking many races.
Nate Silver makes a good case against presuming GOP hubris today. The Democrats could overperform despite everything the polls are saying and narrowly hold onto the House.
I don9;;t think it will happen tonight but we shouldn’t be shocked if despite all the negative headwinds they’re facing, the Democrats somehow manage to hang on to control of the House.
Conservatives should not be overconfident and think they have the election in the bag. Unless every one goes out and votes - a Democratic comeback could be the surprise of this 2010 election.
‘