November 6, 2018

Dónde votar.

Posted by Ann Althouse at 8:02 AM
Tags: , ,

215 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 215 of 215
Achilles said...

Birkel said...
I am going to ask a serious question about a point I raised above:

Why should Democrats spending more money be taken to be a factor that moves polling?
Please relate any answer to demonstrated results in previous election cycles.

Because in most elections there are two candidates for the same party: team oligarch.

Since reagan we have had choices between:

Bush - Dukakis
Bush - Clinton
Dole - Clinton
Bush - Gore
Bush - Kerry
Obama - McCain
Obama - Romney

Every person on that list is from the same party: Party Rich People who serve Richer People.

It would stand that in an election between two people from Party of Rich People who Serve Richer People the person who got more money from Richer People won.

Like Reagan and possibly Carter and Nixon we got a president the Richer People do not want in Trump.

In this case Trump winning is the outlier.

Just like 2018 will be.

11/6/18, 1:44 PM
Qwinn said...

My "bold prediction" is based on the fact that Democrats are defending 25 seats to the Republican's 9. The GOP seats look safe, and Trump won in 10 of the states with seats being defended by Democrats. If the GOP only wins in half the states Trump won, and the Dems sweep every other race they're defending, we're at 57. If we get all 10 that Trump won and no more, 62.

That's why I've been making this same call for 18 months.

11/6/18, 1:46 PM
Achilles said...

bagoh20 said...
The two scariest words to Democrats are "law and order".

You need to adjust the quotes.

But very accurate.

11/6/18, 1:46 PM
Bay Area Guy said...

@Gabriel,

"I used to be an academic. I'm now in the business world. As an academic, all i had to do was have the right information and not make a mistake."

From Ghostbusters:

Dr. Raymond Stantz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've WORKED in the private sector. They expect *results*.

11/6/18, 2:04 PM
MadTownGuy said...

"¡Ya basta! - The two scariest words for Democrats."

...to turn an old Democratic Party election slogan on its head.

11/6/18, 2:09 PM
BJM said...

@Cracker

I don't disagree, if we are going to allow them in illegally and offer a staggering array of freebies, that's our bad not theirs. However that's not my point, deeply ingrained cultural differences are.

There are many reasons why Hispanics may not become a reliable Dem voting block.

11/6/18, 2:13 PM
Gabriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
11/6/18, 2:28 PM
Gabriel said...

@BayAreaGuy:They expect *results*.

The private sector pays me money to do their work. The academic sector expected me to pay them money to do my work.

11/6/18, 2:38 PM
ThunderChick said...

I think the 2 scariest words for Republicans would be: people voting... or even better women voting.

Right … just like in 2016. All women would surely vote for Hillary and no sensible person would ever vote for Trump.

Don't assume all women vote Democrat. I voted straight ticket Republican as did most of my female friends and family members. It might help to get out of your Pasadena bubble every once in a while, Vicki. Thankfully, most of the US is not like the People's Republic of California.

11/6/18, 2:49 PM
Bilwick said...

Two scariest words for Democrats: "economics" and "logic."

11/6/18, 3:06 PM
n.n said...

The two scariest words to Democrats are "law and order"

Thus the left-right nexus of totalitarians and anarchists. Right of left clings to the principle of stability as a religious order, and there is liberal evidence of its progression.

11/6/18, 3:06 PM
n.n said...

2 scariest words for Republicans would be: people voting... or even better women voting

Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature.

That said, how many women will hold their babies, or their neighbor's babies, hostage, as they cling to their liberal faith? Will they hold abortion rites and warlock trials? Perhaps reduce a few naive women to the sum of their body parts? Barefoot, naked, and disenfranchised.

11/6/18, 3:10 PM
Birkel said...

Spending money matters in elections?

Let's see how Menendez, Manchin, and O''Rourke do tonight.
My money is not on the money.

11/6/18, 3:40 PM
Saint Croix said...

He's saying a lot more than that which for some reason you chose to leave out, which contradicts your summary.

okay, okay, I think I got it.

"Republican chances of holding the House are only about 1 in 1000."

Democrats have "An 86% chance, or around 6 in 7: of winning the House."

Unless there is a "systematic polling failure," (I think I'm going to try that the next time I screw up and get a speeding ticket. "How did you get it so wrong?" the cop will ask me. "There was a systematic driving failure," I will say). Anyway, if there's a "systematic polling failure," it's a toss-up.

I don't know how he gets 50-50 when Red starts off with a nice economy and a 23 seat incumbent head start, and all Blue has is hysterical cheerleaders who are saying mean shit about Red.

So I'm reading more Nate Silver, and I've decided that 1-in-a-1000 is just some sentence that I cherry-picked out of some damn Nate Silver article. I've seen multiple people excited across the political spectrum on the Althouse message boards about something Nate Silver said.

Nate, you should run for office! You've got a gift.

Anyway, I think Nate Silver has decided to go with his 86% chance: "An 86 percent chance is closer to Barack Obama’s odds of winning in 2012 than Hillary Clinton’s in 2016." I don't think this is the part where I laughed out loud, but it's getting there. "Clinton, who had a 71 percent chance of winning the Electoral College in our final forecast — much lower than most journalists and most other statistical models assumed, as I’m annoyingly obligated to point out" and that's where I started laughing and stopped reading.

Dude, you changed the model, right? Yes? Big change in the model? One would hope? Or did you just assume 29% bit you in the ass?

11/6/18, 7:36 PM
Saint Croix said...

From one of the other threads…

The 538 forecast has dropped to just a 39.3% chance that the Democrats take the House tonight.

I don't want to spike the football. Because there's a 61%, shit, I got to do math again, 60.7% chance that I am right, according to Nate Silver. Yes!

11/6/18, 7:46 PM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 215 of 215   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)