Wang is also using “special sauce”, he’s just not admitting it. The polling shows GOP +6, which gets them 51. How he gets 80% chance of Democratic hold if the election were held today is beyond me. I’d be glad if someone could explain it. Here’s what I see:
http://election.princeton.edu/
GOP leads in AK, LA, and AR. Then there’s the three they are considered locks to take: WV, MT, SD. That’s 6. What am I missing?
Right, and I eagerly wait 2 more weeks of data to see or confirm which sort of world we live in.
Adaher - not sure about the answer to your question, but Alaska has moved towards the Democrats in the last week. NYT and Hufpo give it about 55% Dem, while Nate has it at 61% Rep, but trending in a Democratic direction.
The Democratic position has also strengthened in Kansas and Louisiana, while it has weakened in Michigan and New Hampshire. I ignored movements that mostly began and ended in the outer 2 quartiles (Georgia, for the Republicans).
Fairly muddy, but it’s not like we’re discussing a decisive swing.
His methods are clearly laid outon the site.
He even provides open access to the code. He does not cheat or skew or use some fundamentals that he does not admit to. He runs the numbers accordig to a polls data only model and lets the outliers cancel each other out.
The rest of the herd converge towards Wang’s numbers even more … WaPo now 51/49 favoring Democratic control and 538 has moved down to 47/53 marginal GOP control odds.
I have no idea who will end up with control. Wang’s 70% odds is still in the too close to call range for my taste. But so far the clear loser seems to be the models that try to outdo the polls-only approach with fundamental special sauces. (It is reminding me a bit of the debate between stock pickers and index funds …)
If things continue this way, and the Dems do make gains / retain control, how much power can be harvested from Republican heads imploding?
IMO, a public option wouldn’t have needed to provide cheaper-than-market premiums. It could serve just as a floor or stopgap. It would imply more choice, not less. And, its existence as an insurer-of-last-resort would have allowed easing of the restrictions placed on private insurers.
My understanding is that Democratic leadership refused to consider a public option. I’d like to read more about that betrayal, though this is obviously not the thread for it.
What’s astounding to me in all this is that the latest NYT poll today shows that more people trust the Republicans to better handle the economy, by a margin of 49% to 38%. Yes, the same Republicans who caused all the ruination just six years ago, and who will do it again if given the chance.
That doesn’t actually tell me succintly why he has Democratic control at 80% if the election were held today even though he lists the Republicans with a 6-seat gain on his own site.
Many of us conservatives actually like the idea of an insurer of last resort, but that’s not really the way the public option would have worked. It was going to be set at Medicare+10% payment rates to undercut the private sector. Which would be fine if the private sector just couldn’t compete on price. What made is a poison pill is that it would not be allowed to fail. Assurances that it would be funded by premiums only are not very reliable either because there are a lot of government programs that supposedly pay for themselves as long as you don’t use the same accounting methods that the government requires of corporations.
It’s not a very long story. Since Republican opposition was monolithic, the bill that could pass would be whatever Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson would support.
The amendment to lower Medicare eligibility to age 55, IOW a partial public option, needed Lieberman’s support to pass, but his patrons in Hartford wouldn’t allow it.
THe idea was for people to buy into Medicare, right? They wouldn’t get it as a benefit so much as be allowed to pay the actual cost of Medicare. Which yeah, is a public option, and frankly I could support making that available to everyone as an option. IF we repeal the cadillac tax. It’s anticompetitive to make Medicare the clearly superior option mainly because you won’t allow other options to become superior by offering more.
Assuming you get a paycheck, look at the stub next time. Tell us what you find there, under Deductions.
It’s kind of funny how much this board is clinging to Wang’s model this cycle, when in 2012, adherence to 538 on the SDMB was downright ubiquitous and the PEC was (if anything) a comfortable reinforcement of Silver’s analysis.
And look, I’ll admit it: My own leftwing biases have me trusting Wang’s calculations more than Silver’s this time around. Still, though, it’s not entirely a baseless switchover; indeed, if memory serves, Wang called 100% of the competitive Senate races in 2012, including the two (Montana & North Dakota) that Silver incorrectly pegged as GOP wins.
The fact that all other models are moving towards the PEC forecast would seem to validate Wang’s approach, yes?
Kinda obvious, isn’t it? Republicans pretty much always rally round in loyal support of the Commander in Chief in times of crisis. That’s because they are much more patriotic and loyal Americans that us treacherous lefties.
I wouldn’t say most of us are “clinging to” Wang’s model. I’ll fully admit that you should put your money on the Republicans if you’re taking sides. That said, it’s definitely looking better for Democrats than it was a few weeks ago if only by narrowing the list of probable GOP gains.
That list hasn’t narrowed. All that’s happened is that in a couple of races the Democrat has pulled ahead. But at the same time, the GOP is gaining in NH. The Democrats are only 1 better than they were two weeks ago if you count Kansas, and Orman will caucus with the good guys unless Democrats hold the senate.
I think I just figured out what Wang was saying. He’s saying 80% chance of Democrats + independents. Problem is, Orman isn’t a Democratic-leaning independent. Heck, even if he causes with Democrats, if he forces them to fire Reid I’ll call that a big win.
As the main person bringing up Wang I’ll readily admit why and when I began to prefer him - it was after the last election when Silver became the mainstream media darling while Wang’s better showing was going unsung. Wang just became more of a nerd’s nerd to me, IOW, my sort of nerd. And the more I looked the more impressed I was with Wang. No question that Silver does a better job at storytelling and at making math wonkiness accessible to a wider audience. But Wang’s lack of showmanship is part of the appeal to me.
In the context of this thread the point of bringing up Wang’s analysis was in the context of those who believed that Silver’s 60% odds for GOP majority was game set match. Wang was, very realistically, stating that saying 60% at that point was saying you really don’t know. He to some small extent was calling out Silver for media posturing when Silver knows the math better than that. And he makes what seems to be a very reasonable case that the value added from various special sauces, including Silver’s, is little to negative, as each additional fundamental adds noise as well as potential signal.
In truth BOTH have been saying that this is going to be close and is still too close to call. I remain happy to have gotten 3 to 1 odds on my bet but I am not counting my money yet.
Clinging is not really the right word, both Wang and Silver have been very accurate in the past. Silver was simply better known so he was quoted more often.
Brown’s chances are quite low.
Considering Orman’s record of statements, it seems quite likely that he’ll caucus with the Democrats unless the Republicans have 51 or more.
Yes he is. He’s sort of pretending he’s not right now, but it doesn’t take a particularly deep look to see on which side his sympathies lay.
And he is not saying 80% … don’t confuse the snapshot with the prediction. His prediction is made with 70% confidence based on historic random walk factors. 80% is if the election was held today.