Political Scientists Say Democratic Control [of House] a "Near Certainty"

Political Wire ^ | October 25, 2006 | Taegan Goddard

[grobdriver]

Our model allows both a point forecast

The only "point" is on top of your head, fella.

[Arrowhead1952]

"Via computer simulation based on statistical analysis of historical data, we show how generic vote polls can be used to forecast the election outcome.

Yup. That same idea got Skerry and edwards elected in 2004... Oh wait.... NOT!

Every time I read this type of garbage, this comes to mind.

........................

[lexington minuteman 1775]

"ANSWER HAZY, PLEASE TRY AGAIN."
Who are they trying to convince? Us or them?
Everyday there is a whole new spate of Republicans are doomed. And the only conservative I have read who says we will lose house is Michael Barone?
SO WHO ARE THESE DOOM AND GLOOM NAYSAYERS?

[ilovew]

Good thing I don't have any plans to go to law school. The LAST thing I want to do is be a lawyer. I have every intention of staying with the DoD after my internship is over.

[phillyfanatic]

All pollsters should be put on a report card on Nov. 8. If they get it right, no matter the outcome, believability will be forthcoming. But, if as many suspect, these left leaning pollsters are using bad techniques and will be wrong.

[rfp1234]

"Charles de Gaulle said there were three ways to go to hell:

1. Gambling
2. Women
3. Believing Experts"

#4: Surrendering.

[tcrlaf]

Funny that people who get PAID to do generic polling are always touting how great they are, isn't it??

[rfp1234]

--"Via computer simulation based on statistical analysis of historical data, we show how generic vote polls can be used to forecast the election outcome.--

Replace "generic vote polls" with "global climate data".

Then replace "election outcome" with "future climate change" and you have a strong argument that the global warming hysteria is also pure crap.

In both cases, the libs can massage their shaky statistical data to predict their desired outcome. It all gives a new meaning to the term "political science".

[NewHampshireDuo]

I don't think those majors existed when I went to college.

[Arrowhead1952]

The sad truth about this matter, is that most of these individuals couldn't find their @$$ with both hands.

[Torie]

I guess we need a list of respected "conservative" political tea readers to decide.

[Torie]

I read the paper of these political scientists, and it is a rather grotesque example of what is called in the statistical trade as "data mining." What is data mining? It is creating a model based on past data, until one gets the best "fit," and then projecting it into the future, without some explanatory theory that suggests the past will be the future because the variables have some theoretical continuing validity. This model is so Rube Goldberg, that it is laughable. Sure, the more lopsided the generic polls, the more seats one party will get as an initial matter, but doing regression analyses, with a complex formula, with only 15 data points, is well, when it comes to voting behavior, just not very persuasive. Yes, there are too few data points for this puppy, particularly since the dynamics of each election has so many rather unique factors, regional, and otherwise.

Ya, I know, I am just a dirt bag lawyer. But statistics is one of my hobbies. I branch out!

And there you have it.

[jwalsh07]

Looks like Pubbies hold the senate. My opinion is that Corker wins easy, Allen holds on, Talent beats McCaskill by 2, Santorum unfortunately loses as does Dewine in Ohio.

And now to the interesting races. Kean gets beat in New Jersey because of the Jersey Machine. No tears there for me, I don't like the guy. Michael Steele almost but not quite gets to the line in front of Cardin. And in RI, I'm predicting against alll odds that Chafee soemhow returns to the senate. Ugh!

That leaves Tester and Conrad Burns. Throw a coin for that one.

I've watched some of the house debates from Indiana and other points west. The dem is just as conservative as the pubbie. Pretty funny sometimes, they agree on everything.

[Torie]

"The dem is [makes noises] just as conservative as the pubbie."

You well know, that the partisan dynamics, drives votes.

Your senate predictions are reasonably sensible, except for Chafee. His only hope, is if voters think the GOP has a lock on the Senate. If they don't, he's toast, because RI does not want Chafee to get in the way of Dem control. That is the BIG issue in RI. Burns is such a rube, but Tester is an out of the closet liberal, in a state that leans GOP. I have this feeling that Talent will lose. He's a bit too stiff. But then he was a big firm corporate lawyer. Stem cells will indeed hurt him. Boomers as you know want to live forever, and ever, and tend to be in love with that lottery ticket. Granted, the narcissists are thinner on the ground in Missouri than California, but whatever.

[185JHP]

Economics isn't a real "science" either.

[jwalsh07]

I'll bet you a buck that Talent wins and the cloning amendment goes down in flames. :-}

Chafees numbers are artificially low, methinks folks like me will end up voting for him when they walk in the booth. We'll see. I know it is counter intuitive and flies in the face of the data but there you have it anyway sensei.

[TheLion]

We ought to re-run all these Democrat wet dreams after the election!

[Torie]

This is a fun election for psephologists. Some are going to go down in flames, perhaps. What is your case for the Missouri initiative legalizing cloning? In any event, that does not matter. The fact is, is that Talent opposes spending federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Yes, I know, that it might not be the most value added approach to keeping my old bod alive, but that is a science issue, and science loses so often when it comes to these kinds of issues. I suspect you agree, that a majority of voters don't think such zygotes or whatever they are called, qualify for protection as nascent human beings, of which as you know, I am one. We all have our little leaps of faith, even those "objectivists" who claim otherwise in their willful hubristic ignorance. :)

[jwalsh07]

Does Amendment 2 ban human cloning?

No. The 100 word ballot summary voters will see upon entering the voting booth states that the proposal bans human cloning, but this is false. The ballot summary is relying upon a scientifically inaccurate definition of human cloning found in the full text of the proposal, which voters will not see when entering the voting booth. If voters could read the full text, they would know that human cloning is being authorized in the form of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).

I've read the full text, Michael Fox and the followers of scientism spending 30 million to get this passed are lying through their teeth.

Don't belive me, ask the NIH. SCNT is cloning according to them. Of course, I know it's cloning because I know exactly what somatic cel nuclear transfer is but the average citizen doesn't and that pisses me off.

There's more. You should read the amendment in it's entirety. There's a section in there that FORBIDS the legislature from having anything to to with appropriating the funds meant for cloning. Really an astounding document.

[DeFault User]

Where I went to school the polysci majors were the ones who couldn't make it in any other major (except education). ... Exceptions you forgot: Communications, and Sports Management! (:^D)

And what are we to make of those who flunked out of Divinity School. Anybody remember Al Gore?