How do you forecast for November?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Back to OP. I'm not confident the electorate will do their job and ensure balance is brought back to the force. If people are serious about getting rid of Trump through impeachment, then they need to vote for the jury.

James Madison: “if the president be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him,” he should be impeached.

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

it also doesn't discount it...

It was already discounted by EA's post above. Your methodology is stupid.

[_subgenius]

it also doesn't discount it...

It was already discounted by EA's post above. Your methodology is stupid.

Or not....and yet it worked for 2016.

(fyi, post mortem butt-hurt ain't the same as "discount")

[_subgenius]

John Kerry had larger crowd sizes than George W. Bush. On the eve of the election he had a rally in Madison that was attended by an ocean of people. (Somewhere around 100k).

Yet I am having a hard time remembering the President Kerry years.

Also, what’s subs explanation for political scientists and political data journalists like Nate Silver and Nate Cohn not figuring out his rock solid forecasting method?

How did ole Nate predict the 2016?

And since you often find a challenge with context, note that my "method was simply just observation. I never claimed that crowd size was a method per se (and it wasn't just one rally I noticed, it was a consistent trend) ; my claim was thatcriwd size was simply an indicator for my deduction in 2016.
Your rebuttal is not warranted, or rational, and simply serves to indicate yet another reason why you struggle here. You insist on the extrapolation of all things and thus constantly come across as guy who never sees trees but only forests....and even then you only notice leaves.

[_Brackite]

How did ole Nate predict the 2016?

Nate and the polling was mostly off in Michigan and Wisconsin. Wisconsin was off mainly due to voter turnout being lower in 2016 than it was there in 2012. As for Michigan, if 25% of the individuals there that voted for Jill Stein instead voted for Hillary Clinton, than Hillary would have won that state. Michigan was very close. Link

FiveThirtyEight is forecasting 72.6% chance the Democrats take the House, and a 27.4% chance the GOP maintains a majority. I think it's a bit closer than that, more like 60-40.

I give the Democrats about a 70% chance of taking back the House. FiveThirtyEight doesn't have the Senate forcast out yet.

[_EAllusion]

How did ole Nate predict the 2016?

He gave Trump about a 30% chance of winning on election day. Since Trump won, that proves Nate Silver's forecasting models are off base. Or, at least if you are dumb as a box of hammers, it does.

Personally, I predict who is going to win based on which candidate has the most D's in their first name. Donald Trump won, so that proves my methods are sound. Any other examples that contradict this method need to reckon with the fact that it got 2016 right.

[_subgenius]

How did ole Nate predict the 2016?

He gave Trump about a 30% chance of winning on election day. Since Trump won, that proves Nate Silver's forecasting models are off base. Or, at least if you are dumb as a box of hammers, it does.

Personally, I predict who is going to win based on which candidate has the most D's in their first name. Donald Trump won, so that proves my methods are sound. Any other examples that contradict this method need to reckon with the fact that it got 2016 right.

[_Brackite]

FiveThirtyEight now has their Senate forcast out. Link
They are stating that there is a 67.7% chance of the Republicans keeping control of the Senate.

[_EAllusion]

Fun thing is happening right now in that the macro-indicators like general preference polls are trending in the direction of a Democrat blow-out, but polling of specific races isn't too bad for Republicans - arguably pretty good given the conditions. On the one hand, *shrugs*. On the other, I know that polls in specific races are the last thing to break and the macro-indicators tend to lead to shifts in polling in local races closer to the election. That happened in 2014, 2010, and 2006. Prediction models like Silver's captures that, but the uncertainty is tense. Everything from a very modest Democrat victory that leaves them without majorities to a total Democrat blow-out seems plausible still.

[_Gunnar]

And since you often find a challenge with context, note that my "method was simply just observation. I never claimed that crowd size was a method per se (and it wasn't just one rally I noticed, it was a consistent trend) ; my claim was thatcriwd size was simply an indicator for my deduction in 2016.
Your rebuttal is not warranted, or rational, and simply serves to indicate yet another reason why you struggle here. You insist on the extrapolation of all things and thus constantly come across as guy who never sees trees but only forests....and even then you only notice leaves.

And you are a prime example of someone who sees only selected individual trees but not forests. I cannot understand how anyone supposedly intelligent enough to be a successful architect can fail to see the overwhelming and largely uncontroversial evidence of Trump's open, scarcely (if at all) concealed corruption and mendacity, not to mention the stupidity and willfull ignorance of DJT. It is almost as if you admire his ability to get away with his constant pathological lying and almost total lack of regard for the advice and opinions of people much more qualified than himself who contradict or interfere with his own self-serving agenda.