Those numbers seem very reasonable. My optimistic side tells me there is going to be a shift toward our side, particularly re the house--and hopefully toward Harris.
"What if he is right" is not a compelling reason to give credence to someone's predictions.
Everyone here wants Kamala Harris to be our next president. I'm pretty sure no one here needs to be convinced that she can win. Even if anyone feels there's a strong tilt in the election towards one candidate or another, it's hard to argue that the election is locked up at this stage.
I think you have a different interpretation of what I am arguing.
Gore won the election (even Nader knows this) but he didnтАЩt run the best campaign. ThatтАЩs my overall point. He also ran away from President Clinton a bit by choosing Joe Lieberman to appeal to conservative voters. He could have gotten more of the voters on the left that would have otherwise voted Green. Gore also became more liberal and a global warming alarmist after the 2000 election.
Agree with what youтАЩre saying about Gore combating global warming. Just mentioning IтАЩm talking about GoreтАЩs campaign, not about voting for him or not.
I completely agree with you. However, regarding Al GoreтАЩs appeal to the left, he just didnтАЩt get them inspired. ThatтАЩs what IтАЩm getting at here.
Back at college at SFSU, there were Gore supporters but most of the students who were fired up were because of NaderтАЩs presidential campaign. It was hard to convince them to move in GoreтАЩs direction. Gore simply did not fire up these voters that much. Might have made a difference for him in maximizing the votes but thatтАЩs all pure speculation.
Of course, Gore could have selected Bob Graham who unlike Lieberman was not a war monger.
That's about where I am, but I might have the Senate around 30%. Tester's clearly trailing in the polls. Similarly, I think at this point Trump needs either a systematic polling error or a favorable October surprise. Pennsylvania isn't nearly as close as 538 says it is once you take out the GOP troll polls.
Partly because the allocation of votes per Congressional district now seems to tilt in favor of narrow Democratic victories in more places. It used to be that Democratic voters were so concentrated in cities that it greatly diluted their strength elsewhere. Now Republican voters are so concentrated in rural areas that it's diluting their strength in the suburbs at least as much. Add in the fact that places like Louisiana and Alabama are poised to get new Democratic members of Congress and I think House control is as much or even more of a coin flip than Harris winning.
Interesting to me to see the wide discrepancy in predictions here so far with the three people who have given percentages. I can see the argument for the pessimistic, optimistic, and middle-ground views expressed here. There's a reasonable path for any of them to be correct.
I'm terrible at making straight up predictions and go out of my way to avoid doing so. I prefer looking at things from a more hierarchical view.
My hierarchical view: we're slightly more likely to win the presidency than to win the house, and we're far more likely to win the house than the senate. Presidency > House >> Senate.
I like doing it this way as it forces me to look at it without my emotional preferences biasing my view. The criticality of winning the presidency every four years biases my ability to assign any reasonable probability to winning, and any attempt to correct for my preferences risks over-adjusting in the opposite direction, or missing that things actually are as good as I want them to be.
But this approach doesn't have that problem. Winning everything is important, and it's just viewing which is more likely to happen. I like this for individual races and states too.
Thought in my mind - averaging my moods, rough guess poll-watching, etc. These are my rough percentage chances that Dems will control the followiing:
White House - 55%
Congress (HoR) - 70%
Senate - 15%
Numbers are always comforting to me, even if that leaves lots of room for the unthinkable.
Those numbers seem very reasonable. My optimistic side tells me there is going to be a shift toward our side, particularly re the house--and hopefully toward Harris.
Well, if you believe Michael Moore the race for the WH will not be close and KH will be #47.
I ignore Michael Moore because he aggressively pushed for Nader in 2000.
that sad fact notwithstanding, what if he is right. That was 24 years ago
Broken clocks, twice a day, etc.
"What if he is right" is not a compelling reason to give credence to someone's predictions.
Everyone here wants Kamala Harris to be our next president. I'm pretty sure no one here needs to be convinced that she can win. Even if anyone feels there's a strong tilt in the election towards one candidate or another, it's hard to argue that the election is locked up at this stage.
And Moore pleaded for Nader to not run again in 2004. Al Gore was also not exactly running the most inspired campaign.
More of the left base that exists now in the Democratic Party was the Green PartyтАЩs base back in 2000.
Al Gore would have prevented global warming from getting this severe this quickly. "Not inspired campaign" my ass!
I think you have a different interpretation of what I am arguing.
Gore won the election (even Nader knows this) but he didnтАЩt run the best campaign. ThatтАЩs my overall point. He also ran away from President Clinton a bit by choosing Joe Lieberman to appeal to conservative voters. He could have gotten more of the voters on the left that would have otherwise voted Green. Gore also became more liberal and a global warming alarmist after the 2000 election.
Agree with what youтАЩre saying about Gore combating global warming. Just mentioning IтАЩm talking about GoreтАЩs campaign, not about voting for him or not.
Remember, I've been a socialist since 1979. No-one had any excuse for not voting for him because he he was "no different from Bush."
I completely agree with you. However, regarding Al GoreтАЩs appeal to the left, he just didnтАЩt get them inspired. ThatтАЩs what IтАЩm getting at here.
Back at college at SFSU, there were Gore supporters but most of the students who were fired up were because of NaderтАЩs presidential campaign. It was hard to convince them to move in GoreтАЩs direction. Gore simply did not fire up these voters that much. Might have made a difference for him in maximizing the votes but thatтАЩs all pure speculation.
Of course, Gore could have selected Bob Graham who unlike Lieberman was not a war monger.
Yes, or Governor Jeanne Shaheen of NH. But the bottom line is that while Gore made strategic mistakes, voters were responsible for their actions.
Yes indeed!
It was obvious that Bush Jr was going to represent a complete reversal of progress that the Clinton era made.
With everything going on and who the candidate is, those numbers are actually pretty depressing. It should be much higher for all three.
I'll go higher:
WH: 70%
House: 75%
Senate: 40%
That's about where I am, but I might have the Senate around 30%. Tester's clearly trailing in the polls. Similarly, I think at this point Trump needs either a systematic polling error or a favorable October surprise. Pennsylvania isn't nearly as close as 538 says it is once you take out the GOP troll polls.
WH: 45%
House: 50%
Senate: 2%
Why does everyone think a House flip is more likely than a presidential victory? Strictly because of the Electoral College?
Partly because the allocation of votes per Congressional district now seems to tilt in favor of narrow Democratic victories in more places. It used to be that Democratic voters were so concentrated in cities that it greatly diluted their strength elsewhere. Now Republican voters are so concentrated in rural areas that it's diluting their strength in the suburbs at least as much. Add in the fact that places like Louisiana and Alabama are poised to get new Democratic members of Congress and I think House control is as much or even more of a coin flip than Harris winning.
yes
Interesting to me to see the wide discrepancy in predictions here so far with the three people who have given percentages. I can see the argument for the pessimistic, optimistic, and middle-ground views expressed here. There's a reasonable path for any of them to be correct.
I'm terrible at making straight up predictions and go out of my way to avoid doing so. I prefer looking at things from a more hierarchical view.
My hierarchical view: we're slightly more likely to win the presidency than to win the house, and we're far more likely to win the house than the senate. Presidency > House >> Senate.
I like doing it this way as it forces me to look at it without my emotional preferences biasing my view. The criticality of winning the presidency every four years biases my ability to assign any reasonable probability to winning, and any attempt to correct for my preferences risks over-adjusting in the opposite direction, or missing that things actually are as good as I want them to be.
But this approach doesn't have that problem. Winning everything is important, and it's just viewing which is more likely to happen. I like this for individual races and states too.
WH--75%
House--85%
Senate--35%
Wow; I just noticed your post(directly above mine own; we basically agree on all three percentages); hoping that we are both wrong on the SenateЁЯЩГ
WH-73%
House-84%
Senate-32%