What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2022 MidTerms & State races- who ya got?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dxmnkd316 said:
The polls weren't wrong in 2016. The polls were very close. The problem was we have a winner-take-all system where a single vote can change an entire state's electoral votes. 40,000 votes swung the entire 2016 election. The pundits didn't account for that very well, which is why the deluxe and classic models were so far off but the polls (lite) was well within the margin for error.
Click to expand...

The polls may have been very close but the entire media and pollsters reporting was Clinton is going to win. Only a few outlets and pundits tried to warn everyone that Trump was a good possibility.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Silver's no saint in this. He was the least wrong of the pundits and his agglomeration of polling is good. He should have left it at that and stayed off Maher and the other talk shows. If he ditched the stupid deluxe and classic models it would be better. It's no different than massaging the data. Just let the GD data speak for itself.

Lite should be: Unadulterated Data
Classic should be renamed: Moderate fuckery - Pollster grades, size of polls, LV vs. RV, basic stuff.
Deluxe should be called: "Here's what I think the data should look like"

There was a great tweet i saw the other day:


It's perfect.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good breakdown of what the (non idiot) critics of Nate Silver say. Then he usually opens his mouth and the nimrods go hyperbolic about it and troll him which is fun to watch but not very helpful to the discussion. (then his defenders dial it up to 11 in defense and away we go!) He was always better when he just put out the data and left the fuckery out of it. The lite version of the data is the only one that should be used for real discussions. The rest should be for hypothetical style analysis.

There are other problems with certain aspects of his methodology (according to nerds who understand this more than I ever could) but there is no system that is ever going to be able to figure this out or predict with any real sense legitimacy because the baseline data is in and of itself flawed. Polls have bias, sample sizes are small and often random, opinions change on a dime for sometimes weird and unknown reasons, the polls are conducted stupidly or at the wrong times, people lie...etc. Short of someone literally polling everyone in the US of voting age multiple times over the course of multiple years asking dozens of questions there is no real way to fix that.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
lol. You can keep trying to pretend it wasn't like I said it was but that was what was being reported and polled. I lived through it.
Click to expand...

You're confusing polls with pundits. Pundits use polls for whatever they want to say and we willingly consume it. The polls are what they are. You can go back and look at them. I did a couple months ago and they were shockingly close. They missed that small fraction of people who were undecided and those people broke to Trump near the end. Not sure we know why they broke to trump so late. It's a complicated oddity, muddled, even yet.
 
Handyman said:
This is a pretty good breakdown of what the (non idiot) critics of Nate Silver say. Then he usually opens his mouth and the nimrods go hyperbolic about it and troll him which is fun to watch but not very helpful to the discussion. (then his defenders dial it up to 11 in defense and away we go!) He was always better when he just put out the data and left the fuckery out of it. The lite version of the data is the only one that should be used for real discussions. The rest should be for hypothetical style analysis.

There are other problems with certain aspects of his methodology (according to nerds who understand this more than I ever could) but there is no system that is ever going to be able to figure this out or predict with any real sense legitimacy because the baseline data is in and of itself flawed. Polls have bias, sample sizes are small and often random, opinions change on a dime for sometimes weird and unknown reasons, the polls are conducted stupidly or at the wrong times, people lie...etc. Short of someone literally polling everyone in the US of voting age multiple times over the course of multiple years asking dozens of questions there is no real way to fix that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think they operate on the same theory I operate on, "With enough information, nearly anything is predictable to a reasonably certain degree." THe disagreement comes, as you hinted at, what constitutes enough info?

I think they fall in love with their model and overestimate its infallibility. If you just say there's a 95% chance the range falls between x and y, that's all you need. You can even add the comment, if the 95% range is 45-51, that 51% is a big fuckin deal if you're Florida or Pennsylvania.

I think if I were Nate, I'd show more of the data. Overlay the bell curves for the states (lite model!) and run the monte carlo showing several of the actual state results. Ok, so Clinton wins in this result because Florida looked like this <----H-->, PA looked like this <---T--->, etc. Show the national result but show the individual state bell curves and how the simulation's result led to the 330-208 result. Or don't. Just show each state's bell curve and don't make a national one.

I really liked the NYT, and (patting myself on the back) the live model I made during the 2020 election. I said, "Here's where we're at with known votes. Here's how much Trump would have to outperform the rest of the votes to win." That moving target, similar to the NYT gauges, gave you a time-based indicator of the momentum, the state of the vote, etc.
 
The only decent ads for Biden are STILL being done by Republicans.

I don't know if it's the bunch of 80-year olds who have run the DNC for 30 years, or if it's ANY bunch of 80-year olds, but good god the Dems should defenestrate every person who has worked their campaigns whose name is not Stacey Abrams.
 
Kepler said:
Worth watching.

It is hard to remember, talking to you folks every day, just what the average voter is like.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a replica of the Warnock ad for Slotkin.

I haven’t been able to find it online, and I’ve only seen it played once, so it might’ve been pulled already, but without a doubt the worst ad I’ve seen so far this cycle is the ad to vote against the abortion amendment for MI. As a little background, it gained the most signatures ever of any proposal, but the GOP members on the board of canvassers refused to certify it because they said the final version was unreadable because of some odd kerning issue that puts some words too close together. The Supreme Court made them put it on, so it’ll be there in November.

The ad plays out something like this:
“Do you want 60 errors ENSHRINED into the Michigan constitution??!?!?!?!?!?!”
*goes to people on the street interviews (with either the worst actors ever or people who were told what to say three seconds before)*
”If I had known that I wouldn’t have signed it”
”I didn’t even know what I was signing”
”How can we let something with so many problems become permanent?”

That’s the only ad I’ve seen against it so far, so things are looking pretty promising.
 
They're desperate. Having received more than enough valid signatures to make any challenges to signature legitimacy preposterous, the GQP tried to ratfuck it in committee by voting against direct democracy, then lost their lame formatting argument in court (also along party lines). Proposals like ours are the last thing the GQP needs in purple states.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
They're desperate. Having received more than enough valid signatures to make any challenges to signature legitimacy preposterous, the GQP tried to ratfuck it in committee by voting against direct democracy, then lost their lame formatting argument in court (also along party lines). Proposals like ours are the last thing the GQP needs in purple states.
Click to expand...

The fascists have had a bad few years in Michigan going back to the voting/redistricting referendum in 2018. Lots of temper tantrums.
 
bronconick said:
The fascists have had a bad few years in Michigan going back to the voting/redistricting referendum in 2018. Lots of temper tantrums.
Click to expand...

Don't they still have a State Leg supermajority or something like that because of the Idiocy of the Countryside?
 
Kepler said:
Don't they still have a State Leg supermajority or something like that because of the Idiocy of the Countryside?
Click to expand...

Not anymore.

Redistricting in Michigan - Ballotpedia
According to The Detroit News, The Linden Senate map...is expected to create districts that could yield 20 Democratic seats and 18 Republican seats. Senate Republicans currently have a 22-16 majority."[SUP][8][/SUP] Clara Hendrickson of the Detroit Free Press wrote that, "The map appears to create 19 solidly Democratic districts, 16 solidly Republican districts, one Republican-leaning district and two toss-up districts, according to election results from the past decade."[SUP][45][/SUP]

Beth LeBlanc of The Detroit News wrote that, "The Hickory House map...is expected to create districts that could produce 57 Democratic seats and 53 Republican seats. After the 2020 election, Michigan House Republicans had a 58-52 majority in the House."[SUP][8][/SUP] Hendrickson wrote that, "The new map appears to create 41 solidly Democratic districts, 46 solidly Republican districts, nine Democratic-leaning districts, two Republican-leaning districts and 12 toss-up districts."[SUP][45][/SUP] She also wrote, "Unlike the current map, there is no majority-Black district in the state Senate map adopted by the commission, while the state House map reduces the number of majority-Black districts in place today. Current and former state lawmakers from Detroit and civil rights leaders are vehemently opposed to how the new district lines reduce the share of Black voters. They argue that the elimination of majority-Black districts disenfranchises Black voters."[SUP][45][/SUP] These maps take effect for Michigan’s 2022 legislative elections.
https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Michigan
Click to expand...
https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Michigan
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
They're desperate. Having received more than enough valid signatures to make any challenges to signature legitimacy preposterous, the GQP tried to ratfuck it in committee by voting against direct democracy, then lost their lame formatting argument in court (also along party lines). Proposals like ours are the last thing the GQP needs in purple states.
Click to expand...
Does the State Legislature have the ability to change it back? That's likely about to happen with our Ranked Choice Voting here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top