danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:RE: Senate midterm elections

GOP gains 8 seats and controls the Senate
IA, AK, AR, LA, MI, NC, MT, SD, WV go GOP
KY goes Dem (Maybe!)

The rest retain the same party.

Since this was supposed to be about polling et. al, does any others wish to partake?

What you are doing is not polling, it's predicting.

You were the one who said this forum was about polling AND predictions. I took a shot at it. Apparently you are choosing not to.

I was just interested in what those who are on the other side of the political spectrum had to say.

fate

. You're saying 8+ million have no insurance? Care to prove that?

I'm not saying it Fate. I'm quoting from articles referencing the Census bureau..
Why don't you believe that?

1. Texas
• Pct. without health insurance (2012): 22.5%
• Unemployment rate (2012): 6.8% (17th lowest)
• Poverty rate: 17.9% (11th highest)
• Pct. aged 65 and over: 10.9% (3rd lowest)
Not only did Texas have the highest rate of uninsured people in 2012, but the state also
had among the highest portion of uninsured children, elderly, and unemployed people. Additionally, over 30% of adults under 65 were uninsured in the state. Lawmakers have been opposed to the Affordable Care Act, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz speaking for over 20 hours in an attempt to block the law from taking effect.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... e/2898803/

Fate

Did you actually read what you just posted? A single-parent making $2500 a year? What does she do, take 11 months off a year?

Lets say she couldn't find a job for most of the year and only part time work most of the year...
Maybe thats just hard for you to imagine...
But for whatever reason she finds herself with that low of an income,
the point of the illustration is that in Texas, she doesn't qualify for Medicaid...even having that low of an income.
Try to imagine that ...

rickyp wrote:fate

. You're saying 8+ million have no insurance? Care to prove that?

I'm not saying it Fate. I'm quoting from articles referencing the Census bureau..
Why don't you believe that?

Because I posted contrary facts. Sadly, so did you.

1. Texas
• Pct. without health insurance (2012): 22.5%
• Unemployment rate (2012): 6.8% (17th lowest)
• Poverty rate: 17.9% (11th highest)
• Pct. aged 65 and over: 10.9% (3rd lowest)
Not only did Texas have the highest rate of uninsured people in 2012, but the state also
had among the highest portion of uninsured children, elderly, and unemployed people. Additionally, over 30% of adults under 65 were uninsured in the state. Lawmakers have been opposed to the Affordable Care Act, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz speaking for over 20 hours in an attempt to block the law from taking effect.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... e/2898803/

So, let's take your 22.5% (I cited 24%, so why are you arguing?). 22.5% of Texas' population of 30M is . . . 5.85M, not 8M. So, thanks for proving my point and being foolish about it.

Fate

Did you actually read what you just posted? A single-parent making $2500 a year? What does she do, take 11 months off a year?

Lets say she couldn't find a job for most of the year and only part time work most of the year...

But, we're speaking in generalities--how many do you suppose fall into the $2500 a year category? I wonder if you'd care to do more than speculate? How many single parents make less money than I could if I just went out and collected recyclables three times a week?

At $7 an hour, that's less than 7 hours of work per week. If that person is able-bodied, there is no excuse for it. Sorry.

Maybe thats just hard for you to imagine...
But for whatever reason she finds herself with that low of an income,
the point of the illustration is that in Texas, she doesn't qualify for Medicaid...even having that low of an income.
Try to imagine that ...

She should start working. If she's disabled, guess what . . . ? She can get assistance!

One can construct all manner of horror stories, but how many people are actually in that income level with dependents?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:. . . on the 'no toss ups' table they break them down as Dems hold NC and gain KY, . . . .

I would say RCP is being very kind to the Democrats in those two races.

RCP bases it's predictions on the polling, and it's RCP average for each race is the basis for the calls. It's not really predictions (whereas what Silver does is to make predictions based on polling and a load of other factors).

So RCP is not being 'kind' at all - the last few polls on average put Hagan and Grimes up

bbauska wrote:You were the one who said this forum was about polling AND predictions. I took a shot at it. Apparently you are choosing not to.

Yep. I tend not to until much nearer, as at this stage a lot is more wishful thinking than anything else

I was just interested in what those who are on the other side of the political spectrum had to say.

It's not really that interesting. Fans of a sports team will often tend to boost for them against rivals, even if the oddsmakers and pundits are less positive. It would not be that surprising if right wingers thought they would win in the Senate at this point, and that Democrats would have doubts. But it means little so far out (and with it so close)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:. . . on the 'no toss ups' table they break them down as Dems hold NC and gain KY, . . . .

I would say RCP is being very kind to the Democrats in those two races.

RCP bases it's predictions on the polling, and it's RCP average for each race is the basis for the calls. It's not really predictions (whereas what Silver does is to make predictions based on polling and a load of other factors).

So RCP is not being 'kind' at all - the last few polls on average put Hagan and Grimes up

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... olina.html

Hagan is under 50% against everyone. That's not good for an incumbent. Furthermore, until the GOP candidate is selected, she has a massive name ID edge. Considering that, a minor, within the MOE, edge is not too impressive. RCP has it in gray for "toss up."

McConnell is in much the same situation. However, there are several key differences: Hagan is running against the GOP tide, McConnell with it; Hagan is running with Obamacare on her back, McConnell is not; Hagan faced no serious opposition in the primary, McConnell did.

I'm 99% confident of both of those races.

Doctor Fate wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/north_carolina.html

Hagan is under 50% against everyone. That's not good for an incumbent. Furthermore, until the GOP candidate is selected, she has a massive name ID edge. Considering that, a minor, within the MOE, edge is not too impressive. RCP has it in gray for "toss up."

I know they do - I just looked at the exact same page when writing my post. But in the 'no toss up' page, NC is shown as a hold. I expect that is because when compared to the Republican who is leading the primary polls (Tillis), Hagan is ahead. Yes, that is on less than 50%, but then again that's likely with so many DKs There are DKs because not enough is known by voters. Sometimes DKs break more for the incumbent than the challenger (on the 'better the devil you know' principle')

I'm 99% confident of both of those races.

of course you are. I'm saying that I would not be confident either way - hence not making a prediction of my own. It is way too early. But if you want to stake $50 against nothing, then I won't stop you.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/north_carolina.html

Hagan is under 50% against everyone. That's not good for an incumbent. Furthermore, until the GOP candidate is selected, she has a massive name ID edge. Considering that, a minor, within the MOE, edge is not too impressive. RCP has it in gray for "toss up."

I know they do - I just looked at the exact same page when writing my post. But in the 'no toss up' page, NC is shown as a hold. I expect that is because when compared to the Republican who is leading the primary polls (Tillis), Hagan is ahead. Yes, that is on less than 50%, but then again that's likely with so many DKs There are DKs because not enough is known by voters. Sometimes DKs break more for the incumbent than the challenger (on the 'better the devil you know' principle')

I'm 99% confident of both of those races.

of course you are. I'm saying that I would not be confident either way - hence not making a prediction of my own. It is way too early. But if you want to stake $50 against nothing, then I won't stop you.

My money is safe. Hagan is so much road kill of the ACA, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and Democratic excesses.