bantler wrote:I rode Nate Silver's 538 train every day in 2016 until the fatal catastrophe of November 8th. After that gruesome pileup I'm too scarred to ever again put my faith in polls, math, and possibly humanity.
No poll is immune to error, and the favored outcome still certainly has a chance of not happening. My bets on Trump in the lead-up weren't prescient...I just thought the odds were better than folks had offered. Take enough bets like that, and in the long run you come out ahead.
Polls are useful tools, so long as you keep in mind their limitations, which to be fair to Nate, he generally does a good job of highlighting.
emceng wrote:I just don't understand anyone supporting trump at this point. The only two reasons I can possibly see are that they are financially benefiting directly, or that they are so incredibly ignorant they don't know anything about politics.
For traditional Republican goals, he hasn't actually been all that bad in terms of what he's done. Sure, when he speaks, he's often obnoxious, but judging by the actual results, it's little surprise that many of them are okay with him. For most, the most immediate result they can see is a smaller withholding for taxes from their daily paycheck. Plus, unemployment remains decent, and the stock market's up. That's hardly going to enrage them.
Plus, yknow, there's the usual partisanship. Everyone's pretty good at justifying the other side as worse in any given scenario.
Now, you and I can agree that manner of presentation has value and what not, and you may not share their values, but at least you can see how those factors help people accept him. Economy and partisanship are incredibly huge predictors of who likes any given president, not merely this one.
Nate Silver tells me I'm wrong, and Democrats should play everywhere (worry about your coalition for 2020). The reason Democrats are overperforming with Red States instead of suburbs is a simple reversion to the mean. Lamb won because of both suburbs and Trump voters.
I think it's good to field candidates everywhere you've got a shot, at minimum. Beyond that, you can get into financial cost/benefit issues. Fielding a candidate even in a doomed district does help the brand slightly overall, but it's weak in practical results. The specific tradeoff might be informed by how many good candidates you have, though. Right now, Democrats are getting a surplus of candidates in at least some districts. Potentially interesting, at minimum, and a useful prerequisite for some strategies.
I just saw the back-story of this "special election" today:
It was called when longtime Republican congressman Tim Murphy, who espoused strong anti-abortion views, resigned last autumn amid revelations of an extramarital affair in which he urged his mistress to get a termination.
If you're going to produce moments like that, don't go complaining when people latch onto them, point them out and laugh at you, Repubs.
Eh, there's always some hypocritical Republican candidate in some such situation. Doesn't mean much. Sure, enjoy the amusement of laughing at 'em, but often the seat stays red after someone else takes over, or they're a tearful apology away from round two.