blah blah typical egotistical nonsense with the same few catchphrases we hear over and over again with a complete failure to recognize your previous failures and mistakes that I EXPLICITLY called you out on ahead of time.
Extreme arrogance and stubbornness don't magically make you right.

Pollster for president

Holy fucking spin, Batman! There's a difference without a distinction, making projections from whatever model you've built with building the model itself. And even if you want to hide behind some notion that somebody else built the model, you're still responsible for your own projections based off it and that means knowing the strengths and/or failings of the model you yourself are using.

I'm sure you know what this is, and it's a visual representation of what you presented all throughout that thread, and that it essentially has a zero on the left and a 9 on the right for our purposes. And 13 IS a huge difference considering the gerrymandering is long done and most of the benefit was already squeezed out of it. There's simply not terribly too much further to the right that team R could ever go.



You made projections, you're in a position to know better, and you've admitted that people pay dearly for the information those models can squeeze out, and here you are, not even close.

This is like seeing karl rove's clipboard being played out forum-style.

You're the only one spinning anything, as usual. I don't know why you ever pretend otherwise.

It sounds like part of the problem is that you don't understand what "likely" means in the mathematical context. If a net gain of 5-9 is the likely outcome and it has that 80% confidence level, that doesn't mean a net gain of 4 or 10 or 13 or 15 is impossible or wrong. It simply means those outcomes were less likely. It would be even easier to know that after Election Day when we knew that turnout was a 60-year low, thanks to (some of our) understanding of the universal swing.

More of the problem may be your total lack of understanding of the House though. The Republicans have put out feelers for 34 more Democratic-held House districts. The Democrats have marker data for 77 GOP-held districts. The idea that there's a big difference between a net gain of 9 seats and 13 seats is arguably the dumbest thing you've ever said on the forum, given the reality how House seats move in bunches and how little it takes to move them, and that's a really long list to try to top.



Leave the sad attempts at projection for Santara. You stupidly took issue with what I said even though we're surrounded by the evidence, and we're supposed to pretend that you don't have terrible reading comprehension or that you weren't completely oblivious to the concepts I noted simply because you shrugged it off by starting a reply with "blah blah blah?" Yeah, no. Like I said I appreciate the laugh and all, don't let me stop you from providing more.

Unfortunately I've had to duck-walk them through thread after thread explaining elementary concepts of polling. We usually get to a point where, to spare their feelings, we have to just pretend that they don't "really" not understand how a mathematical application works.

This post was edited by Pollster on Jun 29 2016 06:23pm

Lulz, you were way off and I'm the one spinning.

Well except for the pesky little detail that we already know intellectually how math works, and you're not entitled to your own rules of math inside your little bubble. If only something was true simply because you said it was true.

Now, it's entirely possible that you simply don't know how things like probability distribution (or hell, probability itself), confidence intervals, or aggregation works, and if that's the case then I can completely understand why there was some confusion. That said, there's really no reason to be unaware of how many seats are being contested and targeted. That alone is enough context in addition to the size of the House.

Edit: It is kind of amazing to read through some of this. Nailing 5 House races 4 months out is nice enough, but nailing how the other 2 would develop 24 months out, when the Democrats had just gotten locked out of one and triaged the other is hilarious. I'm definitely going to have to set aside some time for this tomorrow.

This post was edited by Pollster on Jun 29 2016 07:00pm

Typical arrogance and hypocritical empty accusations.
Who is this "we"? You are by yourself on this one, desperately trying to toss out insults to deflect from your demonstrated and documented abject failure without ever substantiating your claims about me.

The "blah blah" is noting my impatience with your tired act of "you are embarrassing yourself" "poor reading comprehension" "i appreciate the laugh" etc etc ad nauseum whenever someone calls you out on your bullshit and brings up facts you dont like, and instead of refuting them or admitting your failure you mouth off with these same exact lines.

The posts of me calling you out for bias and skewing your ranges in favor of the Democrats and shorting the republicans on the max range, and you laughably saying things like 'its a fact that mcconnell is losing' are right there for anyone to see.
Rather than a spot on prediction of the result of each individual race, you missed the boat completely in exactly the direction I brought up despite setting up a big range.

"There's nothing about the four-way race in South Dakota that's a lock." Republican won my 20 points.

"The Republicans posting a net gain of zero is not beyond a joke"


(Reality R+13)
(Reality: R+9)
"I am measuring the entire range of likely outcomes."

"To put it simply: there's no evidence to suggest that a net gain of 8 seats is possible for the Republicans at present. "



This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jun 29 2016 07:29pm

Wow, his ranges for who was going to win what seats sure were as wrong as most people's in the last midterm, you guys really got him on the ropes now.