Democrats Now Have a Seventy-Per-Cent Chance of Retaining Control of the Senate

Last weekend, the Sunday news shows were abuzz about the growing consensus in the mainstream media that the G.O.P. holds a slight advantage in the battle for the Senate. This forecast has come from the New York Times’ The Upshot, the Washington Post’s The Monkey Cage, and FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, the nerd king of statistical analysis. All of these predictions have one thing in common: they are based on more than pure polling data. By considering other factors, these data journalists are putting their thumbs on the scale—lightly, but with consequential effects.

Here is a table of current polling data for the key Senate races, along with win probabilities issued by various handicappers:*

The first column of numbers lists the median lead by either candidate in the recent polls.* The next three columns show Democratic win probabilities from sites that only rely on polling data: the Princeton Election Consortium, which I founded; the Huffington Post’s Pollster; and Daily Kos’s Poll Explorer. Win probabilities higher than fifty-five per cent are colored blue if Democrats are favored, and red if Republicans are. The rationale for these calculations is straightforward: if a candidate is leading now, he or she is likely to win in November. The discrepancies in these numbers come from the slightly different rules each organization uses to average the poll results.

So relying on only poll data is more accurate than adding data plus opinion, hmmm makes sense to me.
If the election were held today this is what there data claims the results would be:

Sam Wang is saying that Democrats have a 70% chance of retaining the Senate in November.

thenewyorker

Typical liberal spin. Don't believe it for a second.

The libs churn out fake polls like this when it get close to election time to sway the stupid people into their corner.

I really, really want that to be true. I also put a lot of faith in Nate Silver though.

FiveThirtyEight’s Senate Forecast

The New Yorker included some of that data. The Kansas and Iowa races are the ones that will be close.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Sam Wang is an associate professor of neuroscience and molecular biology at Princeton University.

You would think with his level of intelligence he would realize that polling 2000 people hardly represents the actual numbers of what the majority of Americans want and think?

If I was the GOP I'd be more worried about losing the House. Your platform can't just be "We're not Democrats." The hard right will vote for you. The hard left against and the Centrists will look and think, "What are the Rep's doing?"

a reply to: intrepid

Do you or anyone else honestly believe the world will be rainbows and unicorns if EITHER party wins?

Seriously, follow the money!

Those that get elected to the Federal Government in the United States owe an allegiance to the "BIG MONEY" that donated to their election campaigns.

The people get what scraps they decide to throw at us to keep us compliant to their game of corruption.

originally posted by: intrepid
If I was the GOP I'd be more worried about losing the House.

Why? Their districts are gerrymandered in such a way that they can't lose the house until, at least, 2022.

a reply to: seeker1963

Just giving an synopsis man. The GOP has got to come up with something more than "It's their fault. We aren't them." See what I mean? Some political savvy. Some thought. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Leave gay rights and abortion out of it. Useless issues that were settled in the SCOTUS and it's not going to change. Please, DON'T EVEN BRING THEM UP! They muddy the waters of issues that are important and relevant.

originally posted by: intrepid
If I was the GOP I'd be more worried about losing the House. Your platform can't just be "We're not Democrats." The hard right will vote for you. The hard left against and the Centrists will look and think, "What are the Rep's doing?"

Actually the Democrats have that problem with regaining the House. They don't have anything to run on except we're not Republicans. Everything they otherwise run on is not popular - immigration/amnesty? foreign policy? the economy? health care? gun control? ... They've hit on all these issues; they've pushed on all these issues, and they've made themselves enormously unpopular. So, all they have is we're not Republicans and a hope that people will still see Republicans as worse.

But one thing they do have in their corner is that they still have some cohesion in their base. The hard left and the moderate left WILL still vote together. This is different than the Republicans who are facing dissension in their ranks from the hard right, the moderate/democrat light and the libertarians, all of whom want to go different ways. At election time, the RINOS and the hard right will probably still vote together (those hard rights who vote), but the libertarians will vote libertarian. This combination of increasing apathy from one side and outright rebellion on the other and arrogant refusal to believe in it from the third could prove to be their downfall.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's my point. It seems like the GOP mandate has been to allow the Dems to do whatever(in moderation) to look bad and then capitalize on it. The thing is that they were doing SOMETHING. I've seen 3 provincial elections this year where the incumbent was dirty as hell and were expected to lose. ALL 3 were reelected. The Devil you know is a strong pull. And my point is that Centrists don't know what the GOP is about. It could easily backfire.

a reply to: intrepid

You know why bad incumbents win? Because voters vote against the other guy. Voters don't vote for candidates, they vote against them.

I don't take any polls to heart. At most they are supposed to give you an idea of which way the tide is going. New polls like this need to be tested for accuracy but that can only be accomplished after elections. Remember the last election when Romney lost and Ham Rove...err I mean Karl Rove blew a gasket in disbelief because all his polling said the opposite.


Maybe polls sway hw some will vote but they don't sway me I don't really understand why anyone would fix a poll.

What do I want more? Right-winged zio freaks or left-winged lunatic liberals? Decisions decisions...
I know, how 'bout REVOLUTION! yeah
The system is broken and only work for the elite. There's no future on the road we are traveling. I truly believe this. We need a hero right now.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: seeker1963

Just giving an synopsis man. The GOP has got to come up with something more than "It's their fault. We aren't them." See what I mean? Some political savvy. Some thought. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Leave gay rights and abortion out of it. Useless issues that were settled in the SCOTUS and it's not going to change. Please, DON'T EVEN BRING THEM UP! They muddy the waters of issues that are important and relevant.

That's what "the people" got to realize. If we allow them to let us focus on Gay rights and Abortion, meanwhile they are walking out our backdoors with all our cash!

But yes, the GOP is disgusting. After what they did to Ron Paul, they can pretty much go screw themselves IMO. Doesn't mean I think any better of the Democrats though.....

I guess in the United States of America, I might as well be considered one of the homeless when it comes to believing in a political party that is already bought and paid for by bankers and corporations?

Edit: Seriously? In the "scheme of things" at the moment that the world seems to be on the brink of disaster, just how IMPORTANT are gay rights and abortion? If we all keep it up, this planet will have one MASSIVE ABORTION OF ALL HUMAN LIFE.......

a reply to: intrepid

ISIS is 'doing something' too, doesn't mean people would vote for them.
I would rather have a do nothing Congress that one that does all the wrong things.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: intrepid

ISIS is 'doing something' too, doesn't mean people would vote for them.
I would rather have a do nothing Congress that one that does all the wrong things.

That very well might be but "Mr and Mrs Get the Kids Fed and to Bed" only hear the background stuff. They hear "Obama" "Pelosi", whatever. Do you think they even remember Benghazi? The Devil you know.

a reply to: intrepid

I understand your point and grant that it does fit for a certain demographic.
I wonder how Obamacare will figure in?

a reply to: seeker1963

Sorry, but explain to me how Ron Paul's foreign policy stance would lead to anything other than exactly what we see going on in the world right now?

I am not in favor of meddling but I am also not in favor of sitting back while Russia poaches its neighbors, China poaches its neighbors and some random guy declares and builds a brutal Caliphate in the Middles East.

a reply to: butcherguy

Damn, that just gave me a thought. You know why elections are in Nov? It's about as far away from tax day as you can get.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: intrepid

ISIS is 'doing something' too, doesn't mean people would vote for them.
I would rather have a do nothing Congress that one that does all the wrong things.

That very well might be but "Mr and Mrs Get the Kids Fed and to Bed" only hear the background stuff. They hear "Obama" "Pelosi", whatever. Do you think they even remember Benghazi? The Devil you know.

Speaking as Mrs. Get the Kids Fed and to Bed ... Obamacare may mean feeding the kid and not myself, and I'm not joking. So, Hell will freeze before I'll ever trust a Democrat to "be his or her own person and vote in my best interests." Do I like Republicans? No, but I damn sure hate Democrats after what they've done and are trying to do to my family.