No. Starting the timeline “after your hiatus” is saying, “let’s only consider elections where my team did well.” Why would you predict well in elections where your team does well? Do you exhibit signs of ridiculous over-optimism?
Yes. Yes, you do.
Then link to it. Fewer posts, more effort, more substantiation.
Like I said, I only dipped in when there was but a glimmer of seriousness in your verbiage. It’s easy to spout off, but irritating to have to plow through such stuff. I’m not yet at the point where I will endorse or even evaluate your post-hiatus track record.
ETA: Apropos nothing, kudos for having a sense of humor about your pitting. I mean that seriously; I actually cut you some slack then.
You don’t need to be impressed. We just need to quit acting like an adaher prediction is a sure bet that the opposite will happen.
True. It can help, but it’s not worth as much as you might think. Obama increased black turnout, but all in all it probably just got him 1% more of the vote, total. Obama would have won if black turnout had been at 2004 levels because he ran up high totals among young people and Latinos, despite being neither particularly young nor Latino.
Not true.
People don’t vote enthusiastically against anything. They vote enthusiastically for things. If they hate the Democrats but hate the Republicans more, voters will just not vote. And right now, the Democrats have a dilemma: BLM is forcing African-American issues to the forefront, which is frankly something I think most white progressives would rather see put behind inequality, climate change, immigration and health care as an issue. But unless it vaults into a “first 100 days” priority, a lot of black voters might be staying home. But if it is a first 100 days issue and those other cherished issues get deprioritized, that will make white progressives less enthusiastic and many white independents outright hostile. Not because many people disagree with what BLM wants, but because I think 90% of Americans have different priorities. If this election is about body cameras and grand juries, that’s not a winning message for Democrats. Especially since Republicans don’t even really disagree much.
Democrats would have to win every race for that to be true, and even I am not that optimistic. 
Not true. I registered to vote enthusiastically against Reagan in 1980.
I’m sure some people do, but races where neither candidate is well liked tend to be low turnout affairs. Democrats have made the “people will vote against the Republican crazies” prediction every cycle and it has yet to come true except coincidentally when someone Democrats really, really like is the Democratic nominee, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. And despite supposed Republican nuttiness, Democrats utterly failed to show up for the last two midterms. THis is not a base that is motivated to vote against Republicans, it’s a base that is motivated to vote for Barack Obama.
Once again, you’re projecting an alleged insight about how the Democatic party is collapsing and using midterms as the reason. This isn’t an insight: it’s a voting pattern that’s been pretty consistent for decades, and you keep implying it’s something new.
As far as people thinking your predictions are wrong, again I think you misunderstand. There’s that phrase from I think Diogenes: just because a fool says it is night doesn’t mean it is day. I don’t think anyone’s saying your predictions are so bad that the opposite will usually happen. They’re saying your predictions are worthless because they are generally based on what you wish will happen. They aren’t really predictions, they are more like aspirations.
Yep, it’s almost like you, adaher don’t even need to make predictions - we already know you will predict whatever it is that you want to happen.
Which as I’ve proven, is inaccurate. I don’t just predict “Republicans win!” I get specific.
Sanders will win NH barring a new candidate’s entry. That’s not wishful thinking, that’s based on data and history.
No, it isn’t. It’s just a WAG. You don’t use data and history, as exemplifed by your claims that rely on others being ignorant of basic American political history. For example, that Democrats controlling fewer legislatures in 2015 compared to the Solid South days is evidence of Democrats being on the verge of permanent electoral failure.
It’s a guess, and not a particularly good one, IMO. But we’ll see.
It just occurred to me: the perfect analog for adaher’s predictions is my NCAA tournament bracket. Sure, I know the 9 seed often upsets the 8 seed, and I tend to pick either Connecticut or a Pac-12 team to go all the way. But really, I’m just picking teams and seed numbers.
When Connecticut does win every few years, that doesn’t make me a genius or my predictions any good. It just means I’m biased toward Conn and sometimes it works out for me.
Yo dawg, I hear you like predicting so I predict I’ll start predicting what you will be predicting.
Seriously, this is another threadjack courtesy of the usual suspect.
I love this. It’s true: a prognosticator who is *always *wrong would be extremely useful to everyone else once they notice the consistent pattern. **Adaher **is not that.
How about this for a prediction? On November 9, 2016, **Adaher **(if s/he shows up at all) will say “We woulda won if it wasn’t for Trump” (even though it won’t be true). 
No, I am willing to get specific, which takes my predictions beyond wishful thinking. If the Republicans lose, it won’t be because of trump, unless he runs as an independent. But his weirdness is actually helping Republicans by making them all look more reasonable than he is.
If on the crazy scale Democrats are a 5 and Republicans are a 10 and Trump is 100, then that makes the differences between Democrats and Republicans not look very significant.
He will run as an independent. Count on it.
Not true. I am as specific as possible in my NCAA tournament picks. It isn’t like I pick “some team from the SEC to make it to the Final Four.” But I have a feeling my NCAA predictions are equally researched and just as thoughtful as your political predictions.
Well we both understand it was funny for a while. You may recall that I’ve joked about the coming apocalypse when I IDed instances where you were correct.
I don’t want my underlying point to be missed though. I know that you can compose adequately substantiated posts - often it takes just a single link of the right kind. I’ve seen you do that. But just mouthing off a plausible story that you haven’t vetted wastes electrons and wastes people’s time. And it lowers the quality your thinking: when I check for cites I often have to tweak my story in one way or another. Empirics matter.
Also Ravenman’s et al’s point. But heck, if you post a well substantiated prediction that would be ok, even it it’s motivated by wishful thinking.
Cite! Check out longbets.com. They don’t just place wagers. Each side is suppose to give a detailed explanation of why they think their prediction will come about. That way, we can learn about the world at a future date: that way we have an idea of what exactly is being tested. Although, hell, events can still topple the premise: this bet was about 2005 mileage traveled on US highways vs 2010 mileage. It totally ignored the possibility of recession-related changes in miles traveled, so the exercise was dubious. Or maybe that’s the takeaway on a lot of these predictions: they require careful vetting. I suspect that the best bets are compound ones, meticulously negotiated.
ETA:
I shouldn’t just pick on adaher. I’m not bent out of shape and no worries, but a prediction like this doesn’t teach anybody anything.