Will Republicans Hold The Senate And House?
Poll
 | 7 votes (43.75%) | ||
| | 7 votes (43.75%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (12.5%) |
16 members have voted
Quote: WatchMeWinIt is going to be interesting.
Got a 100.00 riding on this with Wellwellwell regarding the House
I can still lose
but
I like me chances :-)
Quote: terapinedGot a 100.00 riding on this with Wellwellwell regarding the House
I can still lose
but
I like me chances :-)
As long as the Dems keep talking and pulling their stunts, you have a great chance!
Dems are motivated. Republicans were not until the circus the Dems made of the Kavanaugh hearings. Now both are about equal.
What we do not have is this "I wish I had not voted for Trump" thing the media is pushing. Trump rallies are still over-packed.
It will be about turnout. If the GOP holds the liberals will go even crazier.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe media has reported there will be a "Blue Wave" from Feb 2017. Same people who predicted a Hillary win are predicting the Dems capture almost by the same amounts.
Yes, but there's no electoral college in play with these elections. The media/pollsters predicted a Hillary win; they were "right" in that she "won" the popular vote within the margin of error that was predicted.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe media has reported there will be a "Blue Wave" from Feb 2017. Same people who predicted a Hillary win are predicting the Dems capture almost by the same amounts.
Dems are motivated. Republicans were not until the circus the Dems made of the Kavanaugh hearings. Now both are about equal.
What we do not have is this "I wish I had not voted for Trump" thing the media is pushing. Trump rallies are still over-packed.
It will be about turnout. If the GOP holds the liberals will go even crazier.
This is just a lot of words without actually making a prediction.
Quote: TigerWuYes, but there's no electoral college in play with these elections. The media/pollsters predicted a Hillary win; they were "right" in that she "won" the popular vote within the margin of error that was predicted.
Nice spin! I think they actually predicted that she win the election, which required winning the electoral vote.
Quote: RonCNice spin! I think they actually predicted to win the election, which required winning the electoral vote.
???
I wasn't spinning anything. I was stating facts. Fivethirtyeight gave Hillary a 71% chance of winning overall by 67 electoral votes, and you're right, she obviously didn't get the electoral votes (and I never said she did). But the popular vote was predicted in Hillary's favor by 3.6%, and she actually "won" that by 2.1%. So that specific prediction was correct, but didn't give her the win, which is why I put "right" in quotation marks when referring to the accuracy of the prediction.
There are no electoral votes in play for the midterms. Just popular votes. That's all I'm saying.
Quote: TigerWu???
I wasn't spinning anything. I was stating facts. Fivethirtyeight gave Hillary a 71% chance of winning overall by 67 electoral votes, and you're right, she obviously didn't get the electoral votes (and I never said she did). But the popular vote was predicted in Hillary's favor by 3.6%, and she actually "won" that by 2.1%. So that specific prediction was correct, but didn't give her the win, which is why I put "right" in quotation marks when referring to the accuracy of the prediction.
There are no electoral votes in play for the midterms. Just popular votes. That's all I'm saying.
The popular vote total overall is not even considered for the Presidency. Candidates run to win the electoral college. Yet we still talk about it as if it was important to the Presidential election. The other candidate lost the only election that counted.
Correct--this is popular vote in each area, but I am not sure how much I trust polls at all after Mission's article!
