2022 Senate Map

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people are being lulled into a false sense of optimism by these early voting numbers. In NY there have been polls that have a 2-1 sampling size favoring registered Dems where Zeldin is tied with Hochul. Just because registered Dems are voting early doesn’t mean they’re voting for Dems. There is a large contingent of Dems that will be voting for Republicans like Zeldin this year because of inflation and crime. You can wish this weren’t true but if you look at the fine print of these polls Dems should be rightly worried. If Dems were really not in a state of panic HRC would not be stumping in a solid blue state like NY.

Jeeeeeeesus this is like the 10th post I’ve seen from a Republican that makes vast, GOP-friendly predictions based, they claim, on various polls. But you never link to the polls that are so damning. You sound like a GOP operative, an unpaid one.

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/NY-General-Poll-Report-1031.pdf

Poll was made up of 53.6% Dems, 27.5% Republicans, and the rest were independent. I know Trafalgar is Republican leaning, but they were very accurate in every election since 2016. If Dems are even in any poll where they’re overweighted by 2 to 1 in the sampling size how is that anything less than a very worrying sign for the party at large?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of survey methodology. Democrats aren't overweighted 2:1 in this poll, they are oversampled. The results are then reweighted according to the underlying partisan composition of the state.

If I had the secret sauce to be a very effective pollster I wouldn't be posting on DCUM, but in any event, oversampling Democrats doesn't make much sense to me. If anything, you'd want to oversample independents, since there has been a shift in partisan self-identification but not necessarily voting habits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to have some of whatever this Simon Rosenberg is smoking.

You can. Read his tweet thread and follow the links he supplies.

Nate and his team have thoroughly debunked this Simon Rosenberg’s BS.

I just listened to the podcast where he discussed this. His argument seems to be that his model adjusts for biased polls and that democrats could release their own partisan polls. It sure that’s really a debunking. He’s not saying the polls are good. He’s just saying his model (unlike real clear politics) takes their bias into account.

He's saying that SR's analysis is BS. "Hopium" is what he called it - which I guess is just an edgelord say of saying that it's a basket of wishes.

Things don't look great for us Dems right now. As an optimist, I can't help but hope that we will hold the Senate still. Seems not impossible. I keep trying to talk myself through the "how bad could it get" scenario. At least with Biden in the WH they can't get through any truly egregious legislation; they just won't do anything except probably launch a hundred investigations and impeachments, and not confirm any more judges.

Yes, he called it hopium, but he had no response to the claim that a lot of these polls are biased. In fact, he essentially confirmed they were because he said that it was a real problem for the RealClearPolitics site because they don't account for that bias and just do a straight average.

If the D internal polls were good for them, they’d be releasing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people are being lulled into a false sense of optimism by these early voting numbers. In NY there have been polls that have a 2-1 sampling size favoring registered Dems where Zeldin is tied with Hochul. Just because registered Dems are voting early doesn’t mean they’re voting for Dems. There is a large contingent of Dems that will be voting for Republicans like Zeldin this year because of inflation and crime. You can wish this weren’t true but if you look at the fine print of these polls Dems should be rightly worried. If Dems were really not in a state of panic HRC would not be stumping in a solid blue state like NY.

Jeeeeeeesus this is like the 10th post I’ve seen from a Republican that makes vast, GOP-friendly predictions based, they claim, on various polls. But you never link to the polls that are so damning. You sound like a GOP operative, an unpaid one.

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/NY-General-Poll-Report-1031.pdf

Poll was made up of 53.6% Dems, 27.5% Republicans, and the rest were independent. I know Trafalgar is Republican leaning, but they were very accurate in every election since 2016. If Dems are even in any poll where they’re overweighted by 2 to 1 in the sampling size how is that anything less than a very worrying sign for the party at large?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of survey methodology. Democrats aren't overweighted 2:1 in this poll, they are oversampled. The results are then reweighted according to the underlying partisan composition of the state.

If I had the secret sauce to be a very effective pollster I wouldn't be posting on DCUM, but in any event, oversampling Democrats doesn't make much sense to me. If anything, you'd want to oversample independents, since there has been a shift in partisan self-identification but not necessarily voting habits.

That is exactly right, and there is an additional problem here. Because the number of republicans and independents is relatively small, any weighting they applied (which is undisclosed in the report) will magnify any error in that sample.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Republicans are going to be up to 53 Senators and will win the House handily. Bolduc will win NH and Walker will win but lose in the run off.

In 2024 Republicans will nominate DeSantis and if Biden runs they’ll win by the widest margin since Obama won in 2008. Dems better hope Kari Lake isn’t on the ticket because those VP debates will be brutal.

Prediction: Dems hold 50/50 Senate and hold House (squeaker).
In 2024 Kari Lake will run for President and win (which is terrifying.)

If Kari Lake is the first woman president this board will have an epic meltdown.

I'm not saying Kari Lake represents what I want in a president; but she has the looks, personality, and moxie to campaign very effectively. She would be very appealing to a broad spectrum of voters .

You’re exactly right. As a politician she has that once in a generation talent. She’s the Republican Obama.

Good one! You almost had me.

Most charismatic Republican politician since Reagan too. There’s a reason Dems are so scared of her. She’s shrewd, very media savvy, very personable, and had a presidential look. If she wasn’t such a good politician why do you see so many hit pieces on her? You can tell who’s a strong Republican presidential candidate by the amount of hate she gets. It’s the same reason why you can tell DeSantis would be strong. Weak candidates don’t get hit pieces because they aren’t threatening.

Spare me. History is littered with the dustbin of charismatic politicians. To the extent Democrats are scared of her, it's because she's an unserious oaf who will run Arizona into the ground. She is - as you say - shrewd and media savvy, but still is a right wing extremist, an election denier, and represents the moral decay and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican party.

It is, indeed, very telling that you consider factual reporting to be "hit pieces," however!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. Is this a joke?. The “over performance” vs. 2020 is 0.2% and independents make up 30% of the vote. Not to mention Dems are massively underperforming vs 2018 (the last off cycle election).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people are being lulled into a false sense of optimism by these early voting numbers. In NY there have been polls that have a 2-1 sampling size favoring registered Dems where Zeldin is tied with Hochul. Just because registered Dems are voting early doesn’t mean they’re voting for Dems. There is a large contingent of Dems that will be voting for Republicans like Zeldin this year because of inflation and crime. You can wish this weren’t true but if you look at the fine print of these polls Dems should be rightly worried. If Dems were really not in a state of panic HRC would not be stumping in a solid blue state like NY.

Jeeeeeeesus this is like the 10th post I’ve seen from a Republican that makes vast, GOP-friendly predictions based, they claim, on various polls. But you never link to the polls that are so damning. You sound like a GOP operative, an unpaid one.

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/NY-General-Poll-Report-1031.pdf

Poll was made up of 53.6% Dems, 27.5% Republicans, and the rest were independent. I know Trafalgar is Republican leaning, but they were very accurate in every election since 2016. If Dems are even in any poll where they’re overweighted by 2 to 1 in the sampling size how is that anything less than a very worrying sign for the party at large?

Incorrect. Here’s Trafalgar’s final 2020 map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to have some of whatever this Simon Rosenberg is smoking.

You can. Read his tweet thread and follow the links he supplies.

Nate and his team have thoroughly debunked this Simon Rosenberg’s BS.

I just listened to the podcast where he discussed this. His argument seems to be that his model adjusts for biased polls and that democrats could release their own partisan polls. It sure that’s really a debunking. He’s not saying the polls are good. He’s just saying his model (unlike real clear politics) takes their bias into account.

He's saying that SR's analysis is BS. "Hopium" is what he called it - which I guess is just an edgelord say of saying that it's a basket of wishes.

Things don't look great for us Dems right now. As an optimist, I can't help but hope that we will hold the Senate still. Seems not impossible. I keep trying to talk myself through the "how bad could it get" scenario. At least with Biden in the WH they can't get through any truly egregious legislation; they just won't do anything except probably launch a hundred investigations and impeachments, and not confirm any more judges.

Yes, he called it hopium, but he had no response to the claim that a lot of these polls are biased. In fact, he essentially confirmed they were because he said that it was a real problem for the RealClearPolitics site because they don't account for that bias and just do a straight average.

If the D internal polls were good for them, they’d be releasing them.

When have internal polls ever been released?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to have some of whatever this Simon Rosenberg is smoking.

You can. Read his tweet thread and follow the links he supplies.

Nate and his team have thoroughly debunked this Simon Rosenberg’s BS.

I just listened to the podcast where he discussed this. His argument seems to be that his model adjusts for biased polls and that democrats could release their own partisan polls. It sure that’s really a debunking. He’s not saying the polls are good. He’s just saying his model (unlike real clear politics) takes their bias into account.

He's saying that SR's analysis is BS. "Hopium" is what he called it - which I guess is just an edgelord say of saying that it's a basket of wishes.

Things don't look great for us Dems right now. As an optimist, I can't help but hope that we will hold the Senate still. Seems not impossible. I keep trying to talk myself through the "how bad could it get" scenario. At least with Biden in the WH they can't get through any truly egregious legislation; they just won't do anything except probably launch a hundred investigations and impeachments, and not confirm any more judges.

Yes, he called it hopium, but he had no response to the claim that a lot of these polls are biased. In fact, he essentially confirmed they were because he said that it was a real problem for the RealClearPolitics site because they don't account for that bias and just do a straight average.

If the D internal polls were good for them, they’d be releasing them.

When have internal polls ever been released?

They are sometimes, but that's irrelevant. The R polls we're talking about are not internal polls (i.e. ones done by the campaigns or the party). They are just done by partisan orgs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to have some of whatever this Simon Rosenberg is smoking.

You can. Read his tweet thread and follow the links he supplies.

Nate and his team have thoroughly debunked this Simon Rosenberg’s BS.

I just listened to the podcast where he discussed this. His argument seems to be that his model adjusts for biased polls and that democrats could release their own partisan polls. It sure that’s really a debunking. He’s not saying the polls are good. He’s just saying his model (unlike real clear politics) takes their bias into account.

He's saying that SR's analysis is BS. "Hopium" is what he called it - which I guess is just an edgelord say of saying that it's a basket of wishes.

Things don't look great for us Dems right now. As an optimist, I can't help but hope that we will hold the Senate still. Seems not impossible. I keep trying to talk myself through the "how bad could it get" scenario. At least with Biden in the WH they can't get through any truly egregious legislation; they just won't do anything except probably launch a hundred investigations and impeachments, and not confirm any more judges.

Yes, he called it hopium, but he had no response to the claim that a lot of these polls are biased. In fact, he essentially confirmed they were because he said that it was a real problem for the RealClearPolitics site because they don't account for that bias and just do a straight average.

If the D internal polls were good for them, they’d be releasing them.

When have internal polls ever been released?

Often they are released ("leaked") if the news is good. But it's not hard to read the tea leaves on what internals are showing - just watch advertising and where dollars are being spent. The fact that Abigail Spanberger and Jennifer Wexton are still spending money in this expensive media market to the degree that they are tells you all you need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to have some of whatever this Simon Rosenberg is smoking.

You can. Read his tweet thread and follow the links he supplies.

Nate and his team have thoroughly debunked this Simon Rosenberg’s BS.

I just listened to the podcast where he discussed this. His argument seems to be that his model adjusts for biased polls and that democrats could release their own partisan polls. It sure that’s really a debunking. He’s not saying the polls are good. He’s just saying his model (unlike real clear politics) takes their bias into account.

He's saying that SR's analysis is BS. "Hopium" is what he called it - which I guess is just an edgelord say of saying that it's a basket of wishes.

Things don't look great for us Dems right now. As an optimist, I can't help but hope that we will hold the Senate still. Seems not impossible. I keep trying to talk myself through the "how bad could it get" scenario. At least with Biden in the WH they can't get through any truly egregious legislation; they just won't do anything except probably launch a hundred investigations and impeachments, and not confirm any more judges.

Yes, he called it hopium, but he had no response to the claim that a lot of these polls are biased. In fact, he essentially confirmed they were because he said that it was a real problem for the RealClearPolitics site because they don't account for that bias and just do a straight average.

If the D internal polls were good for them, they’d be releasing them.

When have internal polls ever been released?

Often they are released ("leaked") if the news is good. But it's not hard to read the tea leaves on what internals are showing - just watch advertising and where dollars are being spent. The fact that Abigail Spanberger and Jennifer Wexton are still spending money in this expensive media market to the degree that they are tells you all you need to know.

Agree on Wexton but Spanberger’s race was always going to be close.

[Anonymous]

They have to spend money because our politics is flooded with dark PAC money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have to spend money because our politics is flooded with dark PAC money.

+1 All blessed by that huckster and fascist John Roberts.

[Anonymous]

No one was spending on Cao's behalf until very recently. To me that means that the republicans now think it's winnable and the democrats agree and are trying to spend on Wexton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one was spending on Cao's behalf until very recently. To me that means that the republicans now think it's winnable and the democrats agree and are trying to spend on Wexton

Yes. Super PACs are coming in and dumping money in the last weeks.
Democratic candidates have out fund raised republicans.
They are having to compete with outside money, and interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one was spending on Cao's behalf until very recently. To me that means that the republicans now think it's winnable and the democrats agree and are trying to spend on Wexton

Yes. Super PACs are coming in and dumping money in the last weeks.
Democratic candidates have out fund raised republicans.
They are having to compete with outside money, and interests.

The outside interests wouldnt be spending unless they thought they could win. There are plenty of close races they could direct money to if they didn't think Cao could win