CNN gives 86% ftmtw!!!
Wont be drinking Miller Lite tomorrow night, that's for dang sure!!
WASH POST: 97% CHANCE
CNN 95%
NYT: 70%
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CNN gives 86% ftmtw!!!
Wont be drinking Miller Lite tomorrow night, that's for dang sure!!
Do you appreciate why you're losing the Senate? Is there something you think needs changing in your Party?Debbie Wasserman Schultz swears the Dems will hold the Senate. Others on this site have been predicting a Democrat victory for some time.Nobody in the entire nation would be surprised to see the GOP with 51-53 seats in the senate by the time the votes are counted.
There won't be any pundits with egg on their faces if that happens. I'm not sure why there has been a spate of threads on it in the last few days.....as if it is controversial.
Great thread!
Shultz is the DNC chair. You are funny suggesting that she should predict a loss for her party. What is your problem? Can't you be honest for even a fucking minute?
Who has been predicting a Democrat victory here? Name them please.
Are there enough incumbent democrats up for re-election that it could be possible the GOP could take 61 or even 67 seats? I would love that.
Then get your minions out and counter it. It's not our fault your side which has the #'s to stop it is not inspired.The GOP is the Unbama party. Whatever Obama wants to do, they are against it. They have no plans of their own.
It is very sad that is the only reason people are voting for the Unbama party.
The rubes have set the bar very, very low. They make no demands of courage or leadership or loyalty or honesty or even sanity. "If you are against whatever Obama does, we will vote for you." They have a vassal's fealty to their overlords.
It just does not get any sadder or more retarded than that.
Do you appreciate why you're losing the Senate? Is there something you think needs changing in your Party?Debbie Wasserman Schultz swears the Dems will hold the Senate. Others on this site have been predicting a Democrat victory for some time.Nobody in the entire nation would be surprised to see the GOP with 51-53 seats in the senate by the time the votes are counted.
There won't be any pundits with egg on their faces if that happens. I'm not sure why there has been a spate of threads on it in the last few days.....as if it is controversial.
Great thread!
Shultz is the DNC chair. You are funny suggesting that she should predict a loss for her party. What is your problem? Can't you be honest for even a fucking minute?
Who has been predicting a Democrat victory here? Name them please.
I don't have a party.
I know exactly why the Democrats are likely to lose the senate. I've outlined it a dozen times here. Check the archives.
The GOP is the Unbama party. Whatever Obama wants to do, they are against it. They have no plans of their own.
It is very sad that is the only reason people are voting for the Unbama party.
The rubes have set the bar very, very low. They make no demands of courage or leadership or loyalty or honesty or even sanity. "If you are against whatever Obama does, we will vote for you." They have a vassal's fealty to their overlords.
It just does not get any sadder or more retarded than that.
Do you appreciate why you're losing the Senate? Is there something you think needs changing in your Party?Debbie Wasserman Schultz swears the Dems will hold the Senate. Others on this site have been predicting a Democrat victory for some time.Nobody in the entire nation would be surprised to see the GOP with 51-53 seats in the senate by the time the votes are counted.
There won't be any pundits with egg on their faces if that happens. I'm not sure why there has been a spate of threads on it in the last few days.....as if it is controversial.
Great thread!
Shultz is the DNC chair. You are funny suggesting that she should predict a loss for her party. What is your problem? Can't you be honest for even a fucking minute?
Who has been predicting a Democrat victory here? Name them please.
Why would I even care? Statistheilhitler is another poseur on this site.LOL. Poor little fellow. Complete meltdown in the face of superior Jewish logic.Ironic post is moronic.No. Electoral history, all the way back to 1946 predicts a low-turnout for voters. 40% is indeed a low turnout.
I personally would rejoice were we to have 90% turnout or more for every single election.
So, care to try again, or are generalizations all that you have to offer?
Only in your twisted, perverted thoughts, lacking in depth of thought and any semblance of usable logic.
Off = the direction in which you can and should fuck.
How do you think you'd do in a poll versus Stat if the question was about depth of knowledge regarding elections and every person polled was honest?
The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history.
And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice. And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire.
You need to learn some about history and statistics before you preach and spout off at the mouth, gumball.
Why would I even care? Statistheilhitler is another poseur on this site.LOL. Poor little fellow. Complete meltdown in the face of superior Jewish logic.Ironic post is moronic.
Only in your twisted, perverted thoughts, lacking in depth of thought and any semblance of usable logic.
Off = the direction in which you can and should fuck.
How do you think you'd do in a poll versus Stat if the question was about depth of knowledge regarding elections and every person polled was honest?
Only in your perverse wet-dreams, oh fake Rabbi. You wouldn't know a cogent argument even if it hit you in the face of the ass. Oh, wait, with you, they are one and the same bodily-part...
The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history.
And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice. And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire.
You need to learn some about history and statistics before you preach and spout off at the mouth, gumball.
You're one to talk. From all the polls I've seen, all the undecideds are making up their minds. Polling trends indicate many of them breaking for the Republicans. By the way, I bet Nate Silver is a better statistician than you.
"The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history."
No, they are losing the Senate because Americans, as a whole electorate have decided to shift back to the center.
"And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice."
So?
"And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire."
Quite a bit presumptuous, aren't we? I thought statisticians didn't make presumptions?
Why would I even care? Statistheilhitler is another poseur on this site.LOL. Poor little fellow. Complete meltdown in the face of superior Jewish logic.Only in your twisted, perverted thoughts, lacking in depth of thought and any semblance of usable logic.
Off = the direction in which you can and should fuck.
How do you think you'd do in a poll versus Stat if the question was about depth of knowledge regarding elections and every person polled was honest?
Only in your perverse wet-dreams, oh fake Rabbi. You wouldn't know a cogent argument even if it hit you in the face of the ass. Oh, wait, with you, they are one and the same bodily-part...
So, calling someone names is a 'cogent argument?' Right. Moving on.
Blah blah blah.The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history.
And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice. And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire.
You need to learn some about history and statistics before you preach and spout off at the mouth, gumball.
You're one to talk. From all the polls I've seen, all the undecideds are making up their minds. Polling trends indicate many of them breaking for the Republicans. By the way, I bet Nate Silver is a better statistician than you.
"The D's are losing the Senate because this trend is exactly in line with more than 160 years of electoral history."
No, they are losing the Senate because Americans, as a whole electorate have decided to shift back to the center.
"And because the R's are winning in single digits in deep red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than +20 apeice."
So?
"And because three long-term D's who would have easily won re-election all decided to retire."
Quite a bit presumptuous, aren't we? I thought statisticians didn't make presumptions?
Well, you need to learn some about electoral history as well, I see.
And do allow me to take a moment to thank you for showing your ass, so I can now tell you to go fuck off.
Thanks, gumball.
Poor impotent little boy.Why would I even care? Statistheilhitler is another poseur on this site.LOL. Poor little fellow. Complete meltdown in the face of superior Jewish logic.
How do you think you'd do in a poll versus Stat if the question was about depth of knowledge regarding elections and every person polled was honest?
Only in your perverse wet-dreams, oh fake Rabbi. You wouldn't know a cogent argument even if it hit you in the face of the ass. Oh, wait, with you, they are one and the same bodily-part...
So, calling someone names is a 'cogent argument?' Right. Moving on.
Oh, no, you won't move on. Whilst sucking down potato chips on Grammy's couch and doing lip exercises, you will have a meltdown and then write a thread about you wanting to leave USMB. And then you will apologize for being a total dick.. rinse, wash, repeat.
Now, go fuck yourself, gumball.
And with that, back to the OP:
Nate Silver now gives GOP 74% chance of capturing Senate
I would say the odds are more like 90% that the GOP, when all is said and done, gets to 51 seats without an Independent caucusing with them. I've been saying it actually for quite a while now.
Oh, and did I already tell you to go fuck yourself?
Why, yes, I did.
Carry on.
Because brown gay people are always Democrats.Browner, and gayer. Great outlook.
It's the Democrat racism coming through.
The Democrat party is inclusive and protective of minorities. They fight for marriage equality. They fight for voting protections. They fight for social programs that are there for the most vulnerable in society. Why would brown or gay people vote for policians who want to take those rights and protections away? How is that racist?
Facts make Coloradoweenie turn tail and run.Because brown gay people are always Democrats.Browner, and gayer. Great outlook.
It's the Democrat racism coming through.
The Democrat party is inclusive and protective of minorities. They fight for marriage equality. They fight for voting protections. They fight for social programs that are there for the most vulnerable in society. Why would brown or gay people vote for policians who want to take those rights and protections away? How is that racist?
no one would vote for such a person, but that does not mean there are those kind of people.
The democrats had no problem disfranchising the military vote. They support fraud in election cloaked in a veil of looking out for the little guy. Liberals love telling the little guys what is wrong with them and how the liberals will take care of them.