Althouse: "Democrats Unlikely to Regain House in 2014."

November 17, 2012

"Democrats Unlikely to Regain House in 2014."

Nate Silver explains.

18 comments:

MartyH said...: He seemed to leave out the other obvious reason-Obamacare will have been implemented, and it will not sit well with people losing their coverage, access, or hours, or paying through the nose to maintain them.; 11/17/12, 2:56 PM
Tim said...: MartyH said...

"He seemed to leave out the other obvious reason-Obamacare will have been implemented, and it will not sit well with people losing their coverage, access, or hours, or paying through the nose to maintain them."

That, and Obama is very likely to have the least successful, most miserable second term since Carter luckily avoided his, and GW Bush unluckily did not.; 11/17/12, 3:43 PM
shiloh said...: So Althouse, if you have learned anything the past couple mos. you've learned not to bet against Nate, eh.

Too funny how Althouse is now referencing Nate Silver like he's the gospel truth. Which of course would be accurate!

Which makes her presidential prediction all the more hilarious. Again, Althouse like the rest of her delusional con lemmings were ((( wishin'/hopin'/prayin' ))) mittens would win, rather than doing astute political analysis.

One would only hope she doesn't reference Rasmussen or Gallup again any time soon.; 11/17/12, 3:57 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Is that unlikely at 52.451%? or unlikely at 52.775%?

C'mon Silver, you're a big name now, you need to up your game.

Please, I only want to hear about this guy around late October every two years. Otherwise, go play with your PECOTA.; 11/17/12, 3:59 PM
edutcher said...: shiloh said...

So Althouse, if you have learned anything the past couple mos. you've learned not to bet against Nate, eh.

No, he's actually behind the curve. nobody believes the house will change hands.

Too funny how Althouse is now referencing Nate Silver like he's the gospel truth. Which of course would be accurate!

No, she just passes it along for what little masturbation value the little weasel gets out of it.

Which makes her presidential prediction all the more hilarious. Again, Althouse like the rest of her delusional con lemmings were ((( wishin'/hopin'/prayin' ))) mittens would win, rather than doing astute political analysis.

Actually, I don't recall her making one.

But, if she'd gone for the Romster, she would have been right.

Stealing the election doesn't count as being right.

One would only hope she doesn't reference Rasmussen or Gallup again any time soon.

At least they'll take an honest survey.

Speaking of honest, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?

Mucking out silver's stall?; 11/17/12, 4:17 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Also unlikely to gain on Governorships or State legislatures.

Looks like the Presidency will be the last to fall, but when it does, all the other parts will already be in place.

And I haven't heard much about the Republicans gaining clear control of the Wisconsin Senate. There's some schadenfreude for you.

And look at Tennessee! Republicans have such majorities there that the Dems could all Flee Bag to Kentucky, and it wouldn't stop a thing. Woot!

Kill the body and the head will follow, as boxers say.

Progressive mandate indeed.; 11/17/12, 4:52 PM
mccullough said...: I thought he was a numbers guy. This is political science he's talking about.; 11/17/12, 6:18 PM
garage mahal said...: Romney landslide. That's what all the smart people were talking about.

Oops, no?

That's okay! There is plenty of room in this tiny clown tent. Squish on in!; 11/17/12, 6:19 PM
edutcher said...: It seems to be filled with Lefties.; 11/17/12, 6:48 PM
trumpetdaddy said...: The Dems had two main objectives this year. Save Obama and a Dem Senate. They accomplished those objectives, barely, but accomplished them.

They abandoned all other offices down-ticket. Silver is stating an obvious truth regarding the House. Barring a black swan event in the next two years, there is no way Dems regain the House.

Republicans decisively control the governorships and state legislatures. Obamacare will be thwarted at the state level as a result.

The Dems will be sorely lacking a charismatic presidential candidate in 2016. Hillary will be almost 70 and Biden will be well over 70. They will be representing to one degree or another whatever Obama manages not to fuck up in the next 4 years.

I think Deval Patrick will be the attempt to re-create the Black Jesus enthusiasm. Which will be hilarious as Warren and he have a intra-Mass primary fight.

If the Republican primary this year looked like a clown car convention, the Dem primary in 2016 will be the whole damn circus.

Whereas, the Rs will be running Gen X candidates with TV appeal and running on "had enough, now?"; 11/17/12, 7:19 PM
trumpetdaddy said...: Moreover, the Dems'll be in serious danger of losing the Senate again. Only one R incumbent seat is likely to go Dem in 2014, Collins of Maine. At least 6-10 Dem seats are in states won by Romney or that Romney lost by less than 3%.

And Rockefeller in WV and Levin in MI are serious targets to retire. Lautenberg in NJ looks to be virtually on death's door but the Dems'll keep that one even if he doesn't run again.

I also expect the Rs to pick up the governor's mansion in KY next year. Beshear can't run again and the Dems have no bench with statewide experience.; 11/17/12, 7:42 PM
edutcher said...: As far as elections go, more evidence of the F word.

37 precincts in (where else?) Chicago saw no votes for the Romster.

Since we can't count on the Justice Department, it looks like constitutional rights is becoming a contact sport.

And, yes, I'll find a place to post this piece when more serious people are conscious.; 11/17/12, 10:31 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Plus keeping Nancy Pelosi as leader puts a glass ceiling on the number of House seats Democrats can win.; 11/18/12, 12:25 AM
campy said...: 37 precincts in (where else?) Chicago saw no votes for the Romster.

Wake me when an avowed RR voter in one of those precincts comes forward.; 11/18/12, 6:38 AM
Rusty said...: campy said...
37 precincts in (where else?) Chicago saw no votes for the Romster.

Wake me when an avowed RR voter in one of those precincts comes forward.

Unless you have a precinct with just a handful of voters it is statistically highly improbable to have zero votes for a candidate when there is a choice of two or more candidates.
Error alone would garner some votes.
But it's Chicago where the vote fraud machine runs like a well oiled vote fraud machine.; 11/18/12, 7:58 AM
campy said...: Unless you have a precinct with just a handful of voters it is statistically highly improbable to have zero votes for a candidate when there is a choice of two or more candidates.

Great! So I can expect you to produce that defrauded voter real soon now?; 11/18/12, 8:04 AM
kentuckyliz said...: A voter who marks a ballot in error is not going to come forward because they didn't realize their error.

Error.; 11/18/12, 9:28 AM
campy said...: A voter who marks a ballot in error is not going to come forward because they didn't realize their error.

So your contention is that every voter in one of these precincts who thinks he voted GOP will look at these results and think, "I must have made a mistake marking my ballot! Silly me!"

Error.; 11/18/12, 11:56 AM