http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

How well respected is Mr. Silver for his prognostication skills now? Will the Senate go Republican?

bbauska wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

How well respected is Mr. Silver for his prognostication skills now? Will the Senate go Republican?

He's pretty well respected for US political predictions. Of course, his accuracy goes up the closer to the actual election, as more information from polling comes in, and so at this stage it's going to have a fair margin of error, simply due to the uncertainty of polls several months ahead (in some of these races the primaries are not yet concluded, so the actual candidates are not all known).

It was not until June 2012 that 538 put out a prediction for the upcoming Presidential election. Let's see what Nate and his team are saying then, and in September.

His reputation has been built on getting a lot of calls right, or at least more calls than most of his competitors. There's really no more to it than that.

I have no idea about whether the Republicans can win the Senate. Based on current polling it would seem they're in with a shout, but there's a long way to go before the election. I'd guess that the ebbing of the Tea Party tide will help their cause in a lot of marginal states, but we'll have to wait and see.

It's not too difficult to explain.

The Democrats’ position has deteriorated somewhat since last summer, with President Obama’s approval ratings down to 42 or 43 percent from an average of about 45 percent before.

Is that going to improve? Maybe, but . . . why? Domestically, he's got the ACA holding his popularity down. In terms of foreign policy, he's not really come off as well as, well, Jimmy Carter. So, his popularity in one poll I just saw is 41%. He's lucky it's that high.

The AP-GfK poll shows 59 percent of Americans now disapprove of Obama -- a point higher than the previous high set in December.

More from 538:

A tie on the generic ballot might not sound so bad for Democrats. But it’s a misleading signal, for two reasons. First, most of the generic ballot polls were conducted among registered voters. Those do not reflect the turnout advantage the GOP is likely to have in November. Especially in recent years, Democrats have come to rely on groups such as racial minorities and young voters that turn out much more reliably in presidential years than for the midterms. In 2010, the Republican turnout advantage amounted to the equivalent of 6 percentage points, meaning a tie on the generic ballot among registered voters translated into a six-point Republican lead among likely voters. The GOP’s edge hadn’t been quite that large in past years. But if the “enthusiasm gap” is as large this year as it was in 2010, Democrats will have a difficult time keeping the Senate.

Again, what's going to change this? The economy? Not likely.

Further, I think they're downright generous with Kay Hagan (D-NC) 50-50?

Of course, some of it will depend on the Republicans avoiding candidates who take the bait and say stupid things. Even if there are a couple of those, I think the pressure is on the Democrats, who can't even have the President campaign for them because he's so unpopular.

The mid terms may well come down to how the ACA works out.
Although republicans are positioning it as a proven failure, as more and more people sign on and gain it is gaining ground.
Moreover, the investment and business communities are already factoring it as a success...(The wisdom of the markets?)

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... ll-succeed


The ACA is still a crumby solution, but because it is delivering positive change versus the status quo for more of the people directly affected than not, and because the problems in states that are opposing medicaid expansion are seeing exacerbating problems ... the direction is still positive. And the analysis of the investment community seems to reflect that... Whether Democrats can win the communication battle remains to be seen,. However if the objective truth is largely positive, eventually it should be persuasive. Myths, unfulfilled promise and baseless assertions eventually fall to the actual truth.

Nice political ad...

Do you think Mr. Silver is wrong. As I recall, you thought the sun rose and set on Mr. Silver's predictions (that did come to fruition). What do you think of his opinions now?

rickyp wrote:The mid terms may well come down to how the ACA works out.
Although republicans are positioning it as a proven failure, as more and more people sign on and gain it is gaining ground.

"Gaining ground?" In what sense? In terms of popularity?

Moreover, the investment and business communities are already factoring it as a success...(The wisdom of the markets?)

This is so much bilge. It would be just as accurate to say they are betting billions that "the ACA will not be repealed." Of course that sides winning right now--Obama is the President and he has the lying snake (and crook) Harry Reid in charge of the Senate. It will be interesting to see how these "markets" might change after November. But, these kind of investments are short-term plays. So, naturally, the pro ACA market is ahead right now.

Whether Democrats can win the communication battle remains to be seen,.

Mercy. Where hasn't the President been to push this? He's done every stupid show available--even trying his hand in an improv comedy bit with Zak what's his face. Democrats are "winning" the communication battle, but they've got a product most people don't like. That's what the problem is.

This is the most "upbeat" prognostication:

“In terms of Obamacare, don’t defend it,” Lake said bluntly at a briefing hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “Say it was flawed from the beginning, and we’re going to fix it.”

She added that the positive message Democrats can deploy for the midterm election cycle regarding the Affordable Care Act would be to highlight the law’s protections against the abusive practices of insurance providers. “Say, we’re not going to go back to the days of leaving you on your own with the insurance companies,” Lake advised.

She noted that voters are “exhausted” by the endless debate over the ACA and they want to “fix it, rather than start all over again.”

Look at the map: Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Alaska, North Carolina--Democrats (at best) will be fighting for their lives. Throw in Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota (at a minimum), and there are plenty of reasons for Democrats to worry.

As I think I mentioned, I heard from Rand Paul's pollster (personally) that the ACA has 80% negatives in competitive districts. That's a lot of "communication" to overcome.

However if the objective truth is largely positive, eventually it should be persuasive. Myths, unfulfilled promise and baseless assertions eventually fall to the actual truth.

Do you think Mr. Silver is wrong. As I recall, you thought the sun rose and set on Mr. Silver's predictions (that did come to fruition). What do you think of his opinions now?

I'm not really sure why you keep making this point Brad. Nate Silver really does have a great record in his predictions. You seem to be saying that the only reason Ricky and Dan endorsed them was because he was predicting a Democratic win, but you have no basis for saying that.

bbauska

Do you think Mr. Silver is wrong. As I recall, you thought the sun rose and set on Mr. Silver's predictions (that did come to fruition). What do you think of his opinions now?

I think Silver has the best rack record. What he's saying is if the vote were held now, the results would be great for republicans.
However the election is some ways off. And the first thing Silver will tell you is that the grater the distance to an election the greater the uncertainty.
The ACA will be a major issue. As will be whatever alternative is or isn't offered by republicans....
Today the 6 millionth person signed up. Which puts the program pretty close to its original sign up goals... As people learn its effects on them personally, and on most it will have little effect, minds will be made up.
Most of the scare mongering has been hyperbolic nonsense, and faced with the reality it should gain popularity. However i'm sure there will be a huge campaign of disinformation as well....

rickyp wrote:The ACA will be a major issue. As will be whatever alternative is or isn't offered by republicans....

So, show me a poll that says it will help Democrats. I'll wait.

Today the 6 millionth person signed up. Which puts the program pretty close to its original sign up goals...

No, it doesn't. They wanted 7 million paid. We have no idea, according to the "always honest" Kathleen Sebelius, how many have actually paid. 20 million could have "signed up," but if only 3 million paid, then you've got . . . 3 million. It's funny: insurance companies tend to "not cover" those who don't pay.

So, how many have paid? 100%? Highly unlikely.

Besides that, you're believing propaganda that even the Huffington Post is skeptical of:

The number does not distinguish between individuals who have chosen a health care plan and have paid their first month’s premium, and those who have not — which has been estimated to be around 20 percent of those who have signed up.

The numbers also don’t include individuals who have enrolled in Medicaid, which was expanded in many states to individuals who earn up to 133 percent of the poverty level. They also don’t count those who have purchased insurance directly from a private insurance company but will be included in the overall risk pool.

How many of the "six million" didn't have coverage before? You don't know.

How many are the young folks they need to make this thing work economically? You don't know.

Why don't you know? Because the government won't tell us.

As people learn its effects on them personally, and on most it will have little effect, minds will be made up.

You're praying minds will be changed. That has not happened in 4 years. It is the most unpopular entitlement program ever passed. You can't name ONE that was this unpopular 4 years after it was passed. Go ahead. Try.

Most of the scare mongering has been hyperbolic nonsense, and faced with the reality it should gain popularity. However i'm sure there will be a huge campaign of disinformation as well....

You need to review the word "disinformation."

That would be stuff like, you know, the "Lie of the Year Award" the President won last year. Remember that? Or, how about telling people they could keep their doctor?

This whole program is built on disinformation. If not, why not craft a program that ONLY affected the uninsured? Why did insurance that the vast majority of Americans like have to change?

Again, PLEASE tell us when the polls indicate Americans love the ACA. Until then, enjoy your socialized medicine.

Btw, if the Huff Po is right, that means there is a max of 4.8M who have actually paid.

rickyp wrote:The mid terms may well come down to how the ACA works out.
Although republicans are positioning it as a proven failure, as more and more people sign on and gain it is gaining ground.

Ah yes, I suppose it all depends on how one defines "gaining ground."

A new poll shows that just 26 percent of Americans support Obamacare, but at the same time only 13 percent think the law will be completely repealed. . . .

The AP noted that support for the law has dropped 13 points since 2010, when 39 percent favored the law. Opposition also has dipped 7 percentage points from 2010, when it stood at 43 percent. The number of people on the fence, the AP reported, has tripled from 10 percent to 30 percent.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2xHl3SaRB
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

So, if more indifference is "gaining ground," you may be onto something . . .

On the other hand, when more people lose their insurance or find out how much it's going to go up this fall, the ACA (or as I'm calling it the "Ad-hoc Care Act" because the law changes almost daily by Presidential whim) may stop "gaining ground." It really is overwhelming--the indifference to the law. I expect we'll see nap-ins in favor of it.

fate

On the other hand, when more people lose their insurance or find out how much it's going to go up this fall ...

Yes, this scenario is a game changer. After all, tt was over two decades of rapidly escalating health insurance costs, and health care costs, and the rapidly increasing size of the uninsured that finally forced the creation of the ACA.... (And the failure to offer up better alternatives or gain acceptance for Medicare for all...)

The ACA isn't the problem. Its just a not terribly good fix of the problem. That's why support for it can be low, but support for its repeal is so low as well.
There haven't been any ideas put forward that have also been accepted by a significant fraction of the populace. (With the exception of Medicare for all ...)

Fate

No, it doesn't. They wanted 7 million paid. We have no idea, according to the "always honest" Kathleen Sebelius, how many have actually paid. 20 million could have "signed up," but if only 3 million paid, then you've got . . . 3 million. It's funny: insurance companies tend to "not cover" those who don't pay

.

But they all vote. And they all have friends and family who vote. And if they are having their lives made better (By finally affording decent insurance) then how do you think they'll vote? And what will their stories do to influence people.
Familiarity breeds understanding, and acceptance.... And if you start trying to argue about taking it away (repeal) then you have a problem.
Those in the middle, who aren't ideologically blind, will care about how it affects the problem of health care costs and insurance costs and universal access.... And it has time for that message to be learned.

Sassenach wrote:

Do you think Mr. Silver is wrong. As I recall, you thought the sun rose and set on Mr. Silver's predictions (that did come to fruition). What do you think of his opinions now?

I'm not really sure why you keep making this point Brad. Nate Silver really does have a great record in his predictions. You seem to be saying that the only reason Ricky and Dan endorsed them was because he was predicting a Democratic win, but you have no basis for saying that.

Exactly. I thought his methods had merit, as they took a wider view and looked at polls, economic conditions and predictions, and other trends. So far he has been doing well (although he was not very good on the UK general election in 2010).

Perhaps you are projecting, bbauska, assuming that because we defended Silver against his detractors that we were in some way 'worshipping' him. Not true. It's as lame a line as that people 'worship' Obama just because they prefer him to his opponents.

I don't think Silver is 'wrong' on this. But he would tell you, as any decent statistician would, that predictions made 8 months out have a high level of uncertainty.

Not everyone is perhaps as tribal as you would like to think.

Not attributing anything to tribalism. Just asking what people think of Mr. Silver now. His predictions have been uncannily accurate.

Just sayin'...