patrick.net

LeonDurham says

Doesn't sound like you're too confident.

I'm confident that there will be no Blue Wave, hence this thread.

I'm also willing to put $500 on it. Are you?

"Gaining seats" means nothing. The Dems can gain "1 seat" and you win $500, but the Dems would have no control over the House or the Senate.

I'm betting for CONTROL of both houses (aka Blue Wave). But you seem to doubt it will happen , hence you're not accepting the bet?

Goran_K says

"Gaining seats" means nothing. The Dems can gain "1 seat" and you win $500, but the Dems would have no control over the House or the Senate.

Gaining 1 seat means one more Dem vote. It most definitely means something.

Yes, I highly doubt the Dems will win the Senate. It's a longshot.

LeonDurham says

Gaining 1 seat means one more Dem vote.

Well, I'm glad those are the type of victories the Dems are getting excited for. It means that the perception of the blue wave has become the "blew wave".

That makes me happy.

Goran_K says

Well, I'm glad those are the type of victories the Dems are getting excited for. It means that the perception of the blue wave has become the "blew wave".

That makes me happy.

Actually you'll be sad then when they gain control of the House.

LeonDurham says

Actually you'll be sad then when they gain control of the House.

And if they don't? Will you disappear or change your screen name again joey/tatupu/leon?

I'm happy for the 2 SCOTUS picks, 29 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 53 judges for the United States District Courts, and 49 Federal Judge appointments that will ALL be confirmed by next week.

All of whom will help deny anymore SJW/Dem/Socialist insanity.

LeonDurham says

Actually you'll be sad then when they gain control of the House.

They'll finally be able to get Trump on all that Russian Collusion evidence that Mueller has.

But I think Americans won't fall for that Democratic Okie-Dokie.

Goran_K says

I'll do a bet on who KEEPS the house and Senate.

I do not think there is any chance in hell that D's will win Senate...so the bet is a losing proposition for person betting against you.

dr6B says

I do not think there is any chance in hell that D's will win Senate...so the bet is a losing proposition for person betting against you.

Yes, but the "blue wave" was supposed to be an over take of both houses.

The senate (we all know) is lost.

The house is the actual real battle. But the funny thing is, it should not be a battle. Incumbents have only kept it 4 times in US History. But for some reason, it's gotten so close again.

I wonder why!

Even on NPR they think democrats fucked up and energized Republicans over SC drama.

Goran_K says

Yes, but the "blue wave" was supposed to be an over take of both houses.

"supposed" What the hell does that mean? It's always been almost impossible for Dems to win the Senate--even in a blue tsunami it's a tall order.

Goran_K says

I wonder why!

I'd say both sides are crooks but only one of the sides is fucking insane, and that is why "blue wave" will not materialize.

Goran_K says

The house is the actual real battle. But the funny thing is, it should not be a battle. Incumbents have only kept it 4 times in US History. But for some reason, it's gotten so close again.

It really hasn't. It's only close in your mind.

And that's why you won't bet on House control.

LeonDurham says

It really hasn't. It's only close in your mind.

Maybe you should go get an NPR or CNN/NBC/WallStreet Journal poll to REALLY convince me.

November 5th: "NYT and 538 say the Dems have a 98% of winning the Senate"
November 7th: "Uh, you're such an ignorant. The NYT/538 never said the Dems would win the Senate. Only a 98% chance. You don't understand math!"

Maybe a repeat of 2016?

I hope dems get blown out, then maybe they will get off the crazy train and back to working class politics and the little guy (not the tranny guy).

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

November 5th: "NYT and 538 say the Dems have a 98% of winning the Senate"
November 7th: "Uh, you're such an ignorant. The NYT/538 never said the Dems would win the Senate. Only a 98% chance. You don't understand math!"

Maybe a repeat of 2016?

Uh--wtf are you talking about? That example has no resemblance to anything 538 every said.

Goran_K says

Maybe you should go get an NPR or CNN/NBC/WallStreet Journal poll to REALLY convince me.

Great---then you should be happy to bet on House control, right?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Maybe a repeat of 2016?

If D's pull off another crap of the type Kavanaugh is Guilty Because He Has A Penis, then we can not exclude 2016 repeat.

I do not like however total dominance of one party, as constant winning will bring out village idiots in R ranks, namely religious fanatics.

LeonDurham says

Uh--wtf are you talking about? That example has no resemblance to anything 538 every said.

Official NYT Prediction: "only 93%" chance to win two weeks before the election.


I couldn't find the morning November 8th one, but here is the NYT official prediction as of 10PM EST on Election Day:


Nate "only" had her at 70% chance of winning.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/nate-silver-of-538-makes-final-election-day-prediction_2182990.html

And here's HuffPo

RC2006 says

little guy (not the tranny guy)

we can only wish, but humans tend to double down on their mistakes. I suspect D's will be helping the little tranny guy...

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

LeonDurham says

Uh--wtf are you talking about? That example has no resemblance to anything 538 every said.

Official NYT Prediction: "only 93%" chance to win two weeks before the election.

So when I say that 538 never said anything like what you posted, you counter with quotes from:

Huffpost,and NYT?

Typical disingenuous Trump cultist response.

I like this wager book idea, though I have to think about the legal issues and payment issues.

LeonDurham says

So when I say that 538 never said anything like what you posted, you counter with quotes from:

Huffpost,and NYT?

Typical disingenuous Trump cultist response.

And nate silver himself. Go back and read. I even included a link.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

And nate silver himself. Go back and read. I even included a link.

70 doesn't equal 99. Hopefully you know that.

Basically he said 1 out of every 3 times, Trump will win. Not exactly a huge upset.

Goran_K says

There will be no "Blue Wave", change my mind!

I'd rather just let the outcome change your mind.

If you're in the Trump cuck bubble, then you might think Trump is the cat's pajamas. (age appropriate expression for Trump lovers).

But we know that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and a lot of non republicans hate Trump, and are smart enough to know that just becasue a tax cut, mostly to corporations and the wealthy has stimulated the economy, doesn't mean that all the people angry about this moronic asshole being President are changing their minds.

I'm looking for at least the house turning over big time. THe Senate would be tough. but it's like a 20% shot or so. Similar to Trump's apparent chances when we were this far out in 2016.

We'll see.

marcus says

I'd rather just let the outcome change your mind.

lol we'll see.

So far, for those taking score:

- 2 SCOTUS picks (3rd one coming when Ginsburg dies)
- 29 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 53 judges for the United States District Courts, and 49 Federal Judge appointments coming next week.
- Senate lost for the foreseeable future (GOP should pick up 2 seats easy, possibly 4 if closer races pan out).
- Tax Reform
- NAFTA reformed
- Trump immigration ban upheld in SCOTUS
- Individual mandate dead
- Lowest black and hispanic unemployment in decades

I'm not saying the House is 100% going to stay in the hands of the GOP (it's only happened 4 times before for incumbents), but I honestly can't find any significant victories for your Democrat friends in 20 months. Can you?

My feeling is the Kavanaugh smear job fired up the base just in time for the midterms (mail ballots are already in voter hands). This could be like Comey's FBI bomb shell on Hillary one week before the 2016 election.

We will see Marcus. Whatever the result, I hope you don't leave and stick around to chat about it.

LeonDurham says

70 doesn't equal 99. Hopefully you know that.

Surely you understand hyperbole when mocking a position, yes?

Nate Silver had Hillary at 86% this date in 2016. He his final prediction was 302 electoral votes, just about the opposite of the actual outcome.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

And the NYT at 85% and HuffPo at 98.1% is all but "Guaranteed Win".

Show me one Mainstream Media Outlet that wasn't all but guaranteeing a Hillary Victory. Right here on this board, Trump supporters were being mocked for even bothering to contest the election given such overwhelming numbers.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Nate Silver had Hillary at 86% this date in 2016. He his final prediction was 302 electoral votes, just about the opposite of the actual outcome.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

The guy is a fraud. Adding statistics to something doesnt male his process a formula. All he did was look for figures which supported his bias.

I'd suggest the best political dipstick of public support is enthusiasm at events. Compare a Trump rally to anything HRC or any other politician's humble crowds in comparison.

I am predicting 56 senate R seats and hang on tot he house at 230+ R. All because of Dianne Fienstein and Avenatti!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

personal

"The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average 30 seats in the House, and an average 4 seats in the Senate; moreover, in only two of those has the President's party gained seats in both houses."

Quoted from wikileadia.

Aphroman says

I’m the one who suggested the Skin In The Game because right wingers have been talking so much shit with no skin in the game.

Yet y’all don’t seem so confident if you’re offering only + ev. odds on your “bold prediction”

Ok. According to historical trends, losing 30 seats in house and 4 seats in Senate is typical for 1st midterm election.

I'll bet you $500 that the dems do worse than this in both. The dems BOTH gain less than 4 Senate seats AND gain less than 30 House seats.

CBOEtrader says

Ok. According to historical trends, losing 30 seats in house and 4 seats in Senate is typical for 1st midterm election.

That was before all the districts were gerrymandered.

Aphroman says

LeonDurham must be using a lot of personal attacks, much worse than the right wingers

Yes, this does seem to be true.

Patrick says

Yes, this does seem to be true.

OK please help me. What was personal? So I can avoid it in the future.

I didn’t see the posts that were flagged but in general anything that can be construed as a personal insult, it’s getting flagged.

So saying “Trump cultist usually say something like you said”, yeah that’s borderline personal. I usually let those fly but I can see if other mods nuke those kind of comments.

So to be on the safe side, keep everything non-personal.

I still don't get it why wear vaginas on your head? Do you want someone to screw your head?