Have you noticed 538's recent Senate forecast trend?

[Anonymous]

In the past few days, the forecast on 538 has gone from less than a 15% chance of Democrats taking the Senate to 19% today. It had been relatively stable before.

Similarly, the House forecast has trended in the Democrats' favor over the same short period (84% to 88%), after a long period of stability.

I wonder if this is a sort of polling wobble at the last minute, or if this trend indicates something significant.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

I noticed, was overjoyed to see - then immediately sunk back into my anxiety spiral.

[Anonymous]

I don’t really believe it. For one thing, the Senate is very hard because Democrats are defending way too many seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t really believe it. For one thing, the Senate is very hard because Democrats are defending way too many seats.

The new forecast still gives Ds a very very low chance of taking the Senate. It's just slightly less low than before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I noticed, was overjoyed to see - then immediately sunk back into my anxiety spiral.

Just in case you hadn't seen it yet, the SNL midterm ad seems relevant to your interests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdNNjCHGixE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I noticed, was overjoyed to see - then immediately sunk back into my anxiety spiral.

Just in case you hadn't seen it yet, the SNL midterm ad seems relevant to your interests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdNNjCHGixE

This is PP - and as far as I am concerned that SNL midterm ad is a documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I noticed, was overjoyed to see - then immediately sunk back into my anxiety spiral.

Just in case you hadn't seen it yet, the SNL midterm ad seems relevant to your interests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdNNjCHGixE

OH MY GOD THAT IS ME

[Anonymous]

Wow that is the highest it has been. I do think certain seats have some momentum right now. Beto for instance I think is cresting a peak at the exact right moment. We shall see. If we hold MO I think we have a chance.

[Anonymous]

I saw a 538 tweet on that exact issue (the last minute uptick in the Senate model). The tweet said it was caused by a few odd polls that came in over the past 24 hours and likely was just an aberration that does not signal a shift.

Keep focused on the House is my view. Winning the House is just the start of the Wave. It’s power will continue to grow, and its full force will hit with the 2020 elections where we throw that traitor criminal and all the anti-American Republican senators supporting him out on their asses.

[Anonymous]

There was a late move towards Ds in Monday polls, so odds shifted a bit. It essentially means Ds have a little momentum that slightly increases the odds of an unexpectedly good night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw a 538 tweet on that exact issue (the last minute uptick in the Senate model). The tweet said it was caused by a few odd polls that came in over the past 24 hours and likely was just an aberration that does not signal a shift.

Keep focused on the House is my view. Winning the House is just the start of the Wave. It’s power will continue to grow, and its full force will hit with the 2020 elections where we throw that traitor criminal and all the anti-American Republican senators supporting him out on their asses.

Yup, specifically the last TN poll that came had Bredesen up on Blackburn 1.5 and all of the other ones had him down. Fingers crossed but very few expectations.

[Anonymous]

Polls all rely on phone calls, right? So how do they sample young voters? I have 3 kids over 18 and they all told me they never answer their cell phone if they don't know who's calling them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Polls all rely on phone calls, right? So how do they sample young voters? I have 3 kids over 18 and they all told me they never answer their cell phone if they don't know who's calling them.

My understanding is that they weight the responses they get. So (as an overstated example) if they know the population age 18-28 is 20% of the final vote count in most elections, and their polling sample has only 10% of respondents age 18-28, then they’ll double-count their responses to make up the difference. I suppose another way to handle it is to just poll more until you get enough young voters.

But every poller might take a slightly different attitude as to how to calculate the “normal” percent of each age group in each election, and how best to make up the difference. So that explains why different polls get systematically different results (eg Rasmussen skews heavily Republican because of some undetermined aspect of heir “secret sauce”).

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polls all rely on phone calls, right? So how do they sample young voters? I have 3 kids over 18 and they all told me they never answer their cell phone if they don't know who's calling them.

My understanding is that they weight the responses they get. So (as an overstated example) if they know the population age 18-28 is 20% of the final vote count in most elections, and their polling sample has only 10% of respondents age 18-28, then they’ll double-count their responses to make up the difference. I suppose another way to handle it is to just poll more until you get enough young voters.

But every poller might take a slightly different attitude as to how to calculate the “normal” percent of each age group in each election, and how best to make up the difference. So that explains why different polls get systematically different results (eg Rasmussen skews heavily Republican because of some undetermined aspect of heir “secret sauce”).

It is not just the younger generation that don't answer their phone to a number that is not recognized. I routinely do not answer the phone whether my cell phone or my landline. Not sure how this is factored into the polls.