WWTBAM Bored

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight is out with his first projections on who will control the House of Representatives and he gives the Democrats a roughly 75% chance of taking the House with a projected gain of 35 seats. Reliable polling in individual House districts is rare, so he usually relies on a variety of factors, including the generic ballot, fund raising, and past voting patterns in the district. He's going to update these projections every week until the election, and he also has individual projections for all 435 districts. A few of interest:

CA-10 (Spock's beloved Central Valley, currently represented by Republican Jeff Denham) Dem 71%
CA-48 (Dana Rohrabacher) Dem 66%
GA-6 (Karen Handel, my district) Rep 95% (I think this is way too high)
GA-7 (Gwinnett County, another Atlanta suburban district) Rep 74%
NY-27 (Chris Collins) Rep 75%
OH-12 (the recent special election) Rep 51%

What's interesting is how many of these districts are rated at 99% or above one way or the other, meaning that's virtually impossible for the seat to turn over.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... the-house/

Considering his accuracy in the last national election, I think I'll skip what Mr. Silver has to say.

>>>CA-10 (Spock's beloved Central Valley, currently represented by Republican Jeff Denham) Dem 71%<<<
.
GFY.

Heaven forbid that we look at an example of an area where the mass immigration model might not be working.

But what am I saying? From your standpoint it is working perfectly. Demographic changes leading to Democrats winning elections. Who cares about mass poverty, loss of the rule of law and other issues there?

FTR: I expect the Democrats to take the House.

However, I expect that SSS and the Bobs will have have exactly the same reaction to that as they had in 2010 when the Republicans took the House 2 years into Obama. (Yeah, Right)

I don't want to look back now, but I am pretty sure that they heavily minimized it. The events would be no different really.

Spock wrote:FTR: I expect the Democrats to take the House.

However, I expect that SSS and the Bobs will have have exactly the same (but inverse) reaction to that as they had in 2010 when the Republicans took the House 2 years into Obama. (Yeah, Right)

I don't want to look back now, but I am pretty sure that they heavily minimized it. The events would be no different really.

It would mean some honest-to-goodness Congessional investigation and oversight that we’re not getting now. So it would be a very big deal. For starters, it would mean the House would actually use its ability to obtain Donny’s tax returns. And it would have no obligation to keep them secret, so I fully expect the American people will find out what Donny’s been hiding all these years. —Bob

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Considering his accuracy in the last national election, I think I'll skip what Mr. Silver has to say.

That would be a mistake. Nate understands probability and risk better than anyone else writing about politics. Nate gave Donny a much better chance to win than almost anyone else in the media. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote: For starters, it would mean the House would actually use its ability to obtain Donny’s tax returns. And it would have no obligation to keep them secret, so I fully expect the American people will find out what Donny’s been hiding all these years. —Bob

Is it law that a president release his past tax records? If not, then what basis would the house have for obtaining them, other than for political motives? And other than it being President Trump, what do you think it a good thing?

silverscreenselect wrote:Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight is out with his first projections on who will control the House of Representatives and he gives the Democrats a roughly 75% chance of taking the House with a projected gain of 35 seats.

At this point in time, 35 seats seems way too generous. Going through the most recent projections from CNN, Daily Kos, Charlie Cook, and Larry Sabato, the average Democratic net gain sits at 10. Seats that are more likely to flip than the six that SSS mentioned:

--AZ-2: Gabrielle Giffords's old district; currently represented by Martha McSally, who is running to replace Sen. Jeff Flake
--CA-49: Darrell Issa, who is retiring after his razor-thin win in 2016
--FL-27: moderate Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is retiring because her district has becoming increasingly blue over the years
--NJ-2 and NJ-11: Frank LoBiondo and Rodney Frelinghuysen are both retiring from their respective purple districts
--at least three seats in Pennsylvania, after the courts un-f**ked the district map earlier this year
--VA-10: Barbara Comstock's northern Virginia district, which backed Hillary Clinton by 10 points in 2016

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: For starters, it would mean the House would actually use its ability to obtain Donny’s tax returns. And it would have no obligation to keep them secret, so I fully expect the American people will find out what Donny’s been hiding all these years. —Bob

Is it law that a president release his past tax records? If not, then what basis would the house have for obtaining them, other than for political motives? And other than it being President Trump, what do you think it a good thing?

Congress passed a tax law last year that may have benefited Trump Inc. A Democratic House will want to change tax laws, and how they impact the President is relevant. The Founding Fathers envisioned that sort of oversight when they wrote the emoluments clauses.

jarnon wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: For starters, it would mean the House would actually use its ability to obtain Donny’s tax returns. And it would have no obligation to keep them secret, so I fully expect the American people will find out what Donny’s been hiding all these years. —Bob

Is it law that a president release his past tax records? If not, then what basis would the house have for obtaining them, other than for political motives? And other than it being President Trump, what do you think it a good thing?

Congress passed a tax law last year that may have benefited Trump Inc. A Democratic House will want to change tax laws, and how they impact the President is relevant. The Founding Fathers envisioned that sort of oversight when they wrote the emoluments clauses.

That doesn't answer the question: Is it law that a president release his past tax records?

Also, I would hope we are more concerned about how tax laws effect (benefit) House and Senate members because they are the ones writing and passing the laws. I don't see much call for them to release their tax records.

And by the way, the tax laws past last year benefited a lot of people, a bunch. But I can see way the Democrats don't like that. It will hurt them in November.

BackInTex wrote:That doesn't answer the question: Is it law that a president release his past tax records?

It answers your other questions. I thought the first question was rhetorical.

BackInTex wrote:Also, I would hope we are more concerned about how tax laws effect (benefit) House and Senate members because they are the ones writing and passing the laws. I don't see much call for them to release their tax records.

Members of Congress and candidates must fill out financial disclosure forms, like this: Lindy Li. If there's something worth looking into, like the candidate owns a billion-dollar company, Congress can get their tax returns, but normally those are not released to the public.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Considering his accuracy in the last national election, I think I'll skip what Mr. Silver has to say.

Disagree. 538 ran the 2016 model 100,000 iterations and it yielded 71% for Hilary and 28% for Trump. There were even a couple oddball situations where the guy from Utah upset the math enough to throw the election into the House.

Point being, 538 was really the only outlet that said Trump had a decent chance of winning. Unlike much of the rest of the mainstream media, they actually crunched the numbers.

bazodee wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Considering his accuracy in the last national election, I think I'll skip what Mr. Silver has to say.

Disagree. 538 ran the 2016 model 100,000 iterations and it yielded 71% for Hilary and 28% for Trump. There were even a couple oddball situations where the guy from Utah upset the math enough to throw the election into the House.

Point being, 538 was really the only outlet that said Trump had a decent chance of winning. Unlike much of the rest of the mainstream media, they actually crunched the numbers.

Two other points. First, most of the polls were fairly close to predicting the popular vote total, which Hillary won by just over 2% (considerably more than the amount by which Gore beat Bush in 2000).

Second, the polling errors were concentrated in the Midwest, where they significantly underestimated the number of Obama voters who voted for Trump. The vote totals in other parts of the country, if anything, underestimated Hillary's strength.

The biggest problem in predicting House races is the lack of reliable polling. By election day, you will see a number of polls for every Senate and Governor's race that's remotely competitive, but individual House District polls from reputable polling firms are few and far between. The reason is that polls cost money and it's tough to find someone wanting to foot the bill for polls in 50 or so California House Districts. If you look at Real Clear Politics, with the exception of the special elections, they are averaging about a half dozen polls per month in individual house districts.

bazodee wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Considering his accuracy in the last national election, I think I'll skip what Mr. Silver has to say.

Disagree. 538 ran the 2016 model 100,000 iterations and it yielded 71% for Hilary and 28% for Trump. There were even a couple oddball situations where the guy from Utah upset the math enough to throw the election into the House.

Point being, 538 was really the only outlet that said Trump had a decent chance of winning. Unlike much of the rest of the mainstream media, they actually crunched the numbers.

Predictions vs. projections is a very difficult concept for laymen to understand... and even if they do, they still want predictions because they're BOLDER. Only pundits make predictions, which is why they look like fools half of the time...

lb13

Pastor Fireball wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight is out with his first projections on who will control the House of Representatives and he gives the Democrats a roughly 75% chance of taking the House with a projected gain of 35 seats.

At this point in time, 35 seats seems way too generous. Going through the most recent projections from CNN, Daily Kos, Charlie Cook, and Larry Sabato, the average Democratic net gain sits at 10. Seats that are more likely to flip than the six that SSS mentioned:

--AZ-2: Gabrielle Giffords's old district; currently represented by Martha McSally, who is running to replace Sen. Jeff Flake
--CA-49: Darrell Issa, who is retiring after his razor-thin win in 2016
--FL-27: moderate Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is retiring because her district has becoming increasingly blue over the years
--NJ-2 and NJ-11: Frank LoBiondo and Rodney Frelinghuysen are both retiring from their respective purple districts
--at least three seats in Pennsylvania, after the courts un-f**ked the district map earlier this year
--VA-10: Barbara Comstock's northern Virginia district, which backed Hillary Clinton by 10 points in 2016

The Tucson area is split into three congressional districts. Therefore, we're getting bombarded with three times the number of political ads as most other cities (well Phoenix is worse). The primary is August 28.

Of the Democrats running in AZ-2, only Matt Heinz and Ann Kirkpatrick have significant support. Ann is a former AZ-1 rep, Matt is a former state rep. Each is running many ads, mostly accusing each other of being too NRA-friendly and anti-healthcare. Both have votes on record substantiating those.

The Republicans have four candidates who have no distinction. I have not seen one ad from any of them. It seems the Republicans have conceded AZ-2.

In AZ-1, Tom O'Halleran, the Democrat incumbent, is running unopposed. He's my rep. Oro Valley was gerrymandered away from the other Tucson communities. I met him on Tuesday evening. He's a nice guy but too willing to "reach across the aisle." The problem is that the Republicans have been unwilling to extend a hand across the aisle.

The Republican AZ-1 candidates are Wendy Rogers, Tiffany Shedd, and Steve Smith.

Rogers, a retired Air Force pilot, has made her support for the president central to her campaign. She highlights her support for building a border wall, reducing gun restrictions, and overturning Roe v. Wade. As trump won the district by just 1%, that's probably a poor tactic.

Shedd has the party talking points: Pro-wall, anti-Obamacare, pro-gun. She says the 2nd amendment is non-negotiable.

Smith is the only one with experience. His endorsers include House Freedom Caucus leader Mark Meadows, the National Border Patrol Council, Sen. Ted Cruz, and a number of state legislators. He hasn't come out strongly for anything and doesn't mention trump or the NRA. I predict he will win the primary.

AZ-3 is the west side of Tucson and goes up to the Phoenix area and all the way to the California state line. Raul Grijalva is the Democrat incumbent and Joshua Garcia is a declared write-in candidate. There's zero change Garcia will win the primary. Grijalva is a cousin of mine of some degree.

The Republicans have three candidates running in the AZ-3 primary: Sergio Arellano, Nicolas Pierson, and Edna San Miguel. None have any distinction.

In the Senate race to replace Jeff Flake who isn't running again, Kyrsten Sinema and Deedra Abboud are running in the Democrat primary. Sinema has the vast majority of support. She is the current AZ-9 Congresscritter. She's the first openly bisexual member of Congress.

The Republicans have Joe Arpaio, former sheriff of Maricopa County, Martha McSally, U.S. representative, and Kelli Ward, a former state senator. I won't say much about Arpaio and McSally. Ward introduced state legislation pushing back against the National Security Agency and the federal government’s warrantless surveillance programs and is being attacked in ads for that. She's pro-2nd Amendment and anti-amnesty. I say it's a toss-up between McSally and Ward.

Bob Juch wrote:Grijalva is a cousin of mine of some degree.

If any of the candidates aren't related to you, that would be noteworthy.

Bob Juch wrote:She's the first openly bisexual member of Congress.

I'm all for equality, but I'd rather not know any politician's sexual habits.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Grijalva is a cousin of mine of some degree.

If any of the candidates aren't related to you, that would be noteworthy.

We're all cousins.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:She's the first openly bisexual member of Congress.

I'm all for equality, but I'd rather not know any politician's sexual habits.

She announced it, NTTAWWT.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: For starters, it would mean the House would actually use its ability to obtain Donny’s tax returns. And it would have no obligation to keep them secret, so I fully expect the American people will find out what Donny’s been hiding all these years. —Bob

Is it law that a president release his past tax records? If not, then what basis would the house have for obtaining them, other than for political motives? And other than it being President Trump, what do you think it a good thing?

Either the House or the Senate Finance Committee (I think that’s the right committee) is authorized by statute to get them. Under Republican control, they’ve chosen not to use that authority. It’s a good idea to use it so that we can see how financially beholden Donny is to the Russians. Given his refusal to divest, in violation of the Emoluments Clause, it’s also appropriate to see how Donny’s official actions have impacted his finances. I’m guessing that the tax bill alone saved him scores of millions of dollars. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: For starters, it would mean the House would actually use its ability to obtain Donny’s tax returns. And it would have no obligation to keep them secret, so I fully expect the American people will find out what Donny’s been hiding all these years. —Bob

Is it law that a president release his past tax records? If not, then what basis would the house have for obtaining them, other than for political motives? And other than it being President Trump, what do you think it a good thing?

Either the House or the Senate Finance Committee (I think that’s the right committee) is authorized by statute to get them. Under Republican control, they’ve chosen not to use that authority. It’s a good idea to use it so that we can see how financially beholden Donny is to the Russians. Given his refusal to divest, in violation of the Emoluments Clause, it’s also appropriate to see how Donny’s official actions have impacted his finances. I’m guessing that the tax bill alone saved him scores of millions of dollars. —Bob

Were you interested in seeing how financially beholden Obama was to the Iranians? Or the Clintons to Russia? Nope.

littlebeast13 wrote:

bazodee wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Considering his accuracy in the last national election, I think I'll skip what Mr. Silver has to say.

Disagree. 538 ran the 2016 model 100,000 iterations and it yielded 71% for Hilary and 28% for Trump. There were even a couple oddball situations where the guy from Utah upset the math enough to throw the election into the House.

Point being, 538 was really the only outlet that said Trump had a decent chance of winning. Unlike much of the rest of the mainstream media, they actually crunched the numbers.

Predictions vs. projections is a very difficult concept for laymen to understand... and even if they do, they still want predictions because they're BOLDER. Only pundits make predictions, which is why they look like fools half of the time...

lb13

I truly do enjoy your attempts at math logic. It lightens the day.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Is it law that a president release his past tax records? If not, then what basis would the house have for obtaining them, other than for political motives? And other than it being President Trump, what do you think it a good thing?

Either the House or the Senate Finance Committee (I think that’s the right committee) is authorized by statute to get them. Under Republican control, they’ve chosen not to use that authority. It’s a good idea to use it so that we can see how financially beholden Donny is to the Russians. Given his refusal to divest, in violation of the Emoluments Clause, it’s also appropriate to see how Donny’s official actions have impacted his finances. I’m guessing that the tax bill alone saved him scores of millions of dollars. —Bob

Were you interested in seeing how financially beholden Obama was to the Iranians? Or the Clintons to Russia? Nope.

He released his tax returns, just like every other serious candidate for President in the last 40 years until Donny. So we all knew he had nothing to hide and you have no basis at all for insinuating to the contrary. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Were you interested in seeing how financially beholden Obama was to the Iranians? Or the Clintons to Russia? Nope.

He released his tax returns, just like every other serious candidate for President in the last 40 years until Donny. So we all knew he had nothing to hide and you have no basis at all for insinuating to the contrary. —Bob

I feel quite certain that if there had been anything remotely suspicious about Obama's tax records, the Republicans would have raised a fit in Congress for eight years about it. As for the Clintons, for all the claims about the Clinton foundation, there's been no actual evidence of any wrongdoing, and the foundation continues to do charitable work around the world.

As for the Clinton uranium "scandal":

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hilla ... ssia-deal/

And if you don't believe Snopes, here's a source you might believe:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... rking-fury

silverscreenselect wrote:

bazodee wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Considering his accuracy in the last national election, I think I'll skip what Mr. Silver has to say.

The biggest problem in predicting House races is the lack of reliable polling. By election day, you will see a number of polls for every Senate and Governor's race that's remotely competitive, but individual House District polls from reputable polling firms are few and far between. The reason is that polls cost money and it's tough to find someone wanting to foot the bill for polls in 50 or so California House Districts. If you look at Real Clear Politics, with the exception of the special elections, they are averaging about a half dozen polls per month in individual house districts.

That is clearly the case, looking at the fact that 538/Silver has the democrat as a 16 point favorite (58-42) in NE-2, beating the incumbent. When you put too large of an emphasis on generic ballots, national Trump fatigue, et al, you entirely miss the need to consider who actually lives in the area. While the NE-2 is the one Nebraska district that is fairly even in Republican and Democrat registrations, with a healthy number of independents, it largely skews to the conservative side of the spectrum. It is a major reason why the housing bubble and recession really did not hit here, and unemployment is consistently low. It is a population of level-headed, hard-working folks.

The Democratic Party candidate is the Nebraska version of Ocasio-Cortez's brand of socialism, right down to winning the primary as a political neophyte in a low turnout election against the "mainstream" candidate (and former one-term Congressman) due to grassroots efforts. So far, it is not playing well with the masses, although this race really is not getting much coverage right now.

So, 538's prediction is a pick up of 33 seats, at best.

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

bazodee wrote:

The biggest problem in predicting House races is the lack of reliable polling. By election day, you will see a number of polls for every Senate and Governor's race that's remotely competitive, but individual House District polls from reputable polling firms are few and far between. The reason is that polls cost money and it's tough to find someone wanting to foot the bill for polls in 50 or so California House Districts. If you look at Real Clear Politics, with the exception of the special elections, they are averaging about a half dozen polls per month in individual house districts.

That is clearly the case, looking at the fact that 538/Silver has the democrat as a 16 point favorite (58-42) in NE-2, beating the incumbent. When you put too large of an emphasis on generic ballots, national Trump fatigue, et al, you entirely miss the need to consider who actually lives in the area. While the NE-2 is the one Nebraska district that is fairly even in Republican and Democrat registrations, with a healthy number of independents, it largely skews to the conservative side of the spectrum. It is a major reason why the housing bubble and recession really did not hit here, and unemployment is consistently low. It is a population of level-headed, hard-working folks.

The Democratic Party candidate is the Nebraska version of Ocasio-Cortez's brand of socialism, right down to winning the primary as a political neophyte in a low turnout election against the "mainstream" candidate (and former one-term Congressman) due to grassroots efforts. So far, it is not playing well with the masses, although this race really is not getting much coverage right now.

So, 538's prediction is a pick up of 33 seats, at best.

To be precise, Nate’s Classic model has the Democrat at 58% to win the seat, which Nate classifies as a toss-up. He’s probably projecting about a 1-point win. The way you wrote this, it looks like you think Nate is predicting (or projecting) that the Democrat will win by 16 points, and that’s not the case. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

That is clearly the case, looking at the fact that 538/Silver has the democrat as a 16 point favorite (58-42) in NE-2, beating the incumbent. When you put too large of an emphasis on generic ballots, national Trump fatigue, et al, you entirely miss the need to consider who actually lives in the area. While the NE-2 is the one Nebraska district that is fairly even in Republican and Democrat registrations, with a healthy number of independents, it largely skews to the conservative side of the spectrum. It is a major reason why the housing bubble and recession really did not hit here, and unemployment is consistently low. It is a population of level-headed, hard-working folks.

The Democratic Party candidate is the Nebraska version of Ocasio-Cortez's brand of socialism, right down to winning the primary as a political neophyte in a low turnout election against the "mainstream" candidate (and former one-term Congressman) due to grassroots efforts. So far, it is not playing well with the masses, although this race really is not getting much coverage right now.

So, 538's prediction is a pick up of 33 seats, at best.

To be precise, Nate’s Classic model has the Democrat at 58% to win the seat, which Nate classifies as a toss-up. He’s probably projecting about a 1-point win. The way you wrote this, it looks like you think Nate is predicting (or projecting)that the Democrat will win by 16 points, and that’s not the case. —Bob

Well, I didn’t say that Silver was predicting a 16 point win. I understand probabilities ticeib. I know how to read, but I will let you know when I want you to interpret for me.

Still wrong based on the reality of the district and candidates, though. The results always are tight, but I would put Don Bacon as a 2-1 favorite right now, winning with about 52%.