I'm glad i can provide you with entertainment next time write a coherent sentence or two...thank you

"i'm not a model builder but look how good i would be if i did - i'm going to say i called the changes in seats (after the fact) and you have no way to prove otherwise!!!!"

Whether you built the models or not, you used them to make predictions that were so far off that the real results came in outside the range you yourself asserted was the realm of possibility. Watching you vainly try to assert that your own error is somehow a highlight of MY humiliation is simply beyond a coherent retort.

What I wrote is perfectly coherent: your comprehension of what we discuss here is so incredibly poor, to the point that you often don't even understand what's actually written, so the notion that you're capable of evaluating my job performance is absolutely laughable. If you indeed didn't understand that very post then you yourself just made my point for me.



Except, not. We all saw what I wrote (except maybe you), so trying to conflate what the example could be used for after I've already explained how a model should be built just makes you look incompetent.



You're making errors on top of errors, of course I'd laugh at that. And all you can hope to accomplish is to distract attention away by misrepresenting something that happened years ago? And the misrepresentation itself hinges on others understanding how elections work as poorly as you do? Okay then, what good does that do you?

That's the funniest thing about this: every time you rush to try to attack me it just backfires spectacularly; inevitably you just expose the fact that you know depressingly little about what we discuss here.

feel free to link your redacted garbage lmao!

I was right the first time, it was the House.

The only error here is this: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=70828877&f=119&o=225



...that you even followed up with a pre-election projection that estimated the net gain between 5-9, but in reality came in at +13, well outside your continually-updated projections based on race-by-race assessments over months.

Uh... of course your spectacular backfire contained some errors. Two of them are glaring: we're obviously not building a model here, and if we were I just got done explaining how that happens, and your sloppily invoking of one cycle is the exact opposite of what was spelled out.

Re: the thread, I had forgotten I picked the exact GOV seats that'd change hands too, good times. It's pretty chilling reading the last couple of pages of that now that we're able to see how accurate the contours of what was predicted re: the GOP's overextending on 2014 at the expense of 2016 turned out to be. It's amusing to learn that you think a net gain of 13 seats in the House given the size of the chamber and scope of the battlefield is a huge difference between 9, 7, or 5 seats. That's what I meant when I said that all you ever accomplish is exposing your own ignorance re: electoral politics, and I was exactly right: all I can take out of this is that you're completely oblivious to the existence of the universal swing, how it works, and what influences it.

Clinton == Nomenclatura

Nobody could argue against that

That was a fun thread


Its hilarious that he looks back at his egregious errors that we called him on in that thread and tries to paint it as fantastic pinpointing of the exact results for each seat months in advance.

I mean I appreciate the laugh as a result of your shit reading comprehension, but it's pretty clear what was raised re: the GOP's big bet on 2014 by moving their money forward turned out to be remarkably accurate. Anyone who paid even casual attention to the 2016 primaries in addition to how the Clinton/Trump matchup is shaping up can see that, we get reminders of it every day. The results of the 2015 elections further confirm it: the bet just didn't work.

Humorously the only thing you managed to accomplish in that thread was to demonstrate that you like Santara are completely oblivious to the existence of the universal swing, as well to the reality that polling surveys are snapshots in time. I only wish I had time to re-read the entire thing; I can only imagine how many howlers the two of you contributed as a result of sheer ignorance.