On the Horns of a Republican Dilemma?

[carpedm9587]

It's almost like you think aggregate of CNN, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, r/pol/, NYT, Bezoz blog helps you unskew bias.

To some degree, yes (though your list is skewed to the left and incomplete). Because I have come to suspect most news sources of some degree of bias, I read across the political spectrum, including Fox, WSJ, Drudge, as well as the sites you listed (except Bezoz?). I've also recently started reading Politico, and both the WaPost and WaTimes. I also make heavy use of www.allsides.com, www.fivethirtyeight.com, and www.realclearpolitics.com as aggregators. It does not completely unskew the bias, but it gives me a more balanced perspective by reading (and listening) across the political spectrum.

I draw the line at sites that are extremist left or right, so I don't waste time on Brietbart, National Review, Jezebel, or Mother Jones. Huffington Post is also one I take with a large grain of salt.

I didn't always read this way. Like most people, I was pretty serious "bubbled" until November 2016. Centrists have bubbles too. Since then, I've worked to expand my framework and try to get a better handle on points of view from further to the left and right.

[Mountain Man]

What expectations? Nate Silver was actually one of the people pointing out that Trump had a reasonable chance to win the election.

Not exactly. He gave Trump a slightly better chance than other pundits were giving him, but he was still confidently predicting a lopsided win for Hillary.

[rogue06]

If you saw how giddy the MSM was at the beginning of election night (and how crestfallen and depressed they became by 9-10:00) it was pretty obvious they were unquestioningly believing the polls/studies that showed Hillary had it clinched with a landslide in the offing:

• HuffPost at 98.2% Clinton to 1.7% Trump
• Princeton Election Consortium had her odds of winning in the 98-99% range with Hillary getting 323 EV^[1] and Trump only 215 EV and the Democrats taking the Senate
• The New York TimesDaily Kos put Clinton at 91%
• Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation had her chances of winning at 90%
• Emerson College declaring the day before the election that Hillary would garner 323 EV to Trump's 215
• CNN's Political Prediction Market increased Hillary's chances of winning from 78% to 91% right before the election
• Los Angeles Times predicted that Clinton would get 352 EV with Trump getting only 186 EV
• Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia Center for Politics declaring she would win 322 EV to Trump's 216 EV

1. Electoral Votes

[Cow Poke]

If you saw how giddy the MSM was at the beginning of election night (and how crestfallen and depressed they became by 9-10:00) it was pretty obvious they were unquestioningly believing the polls/studies that showed Hillary had it clinched with a landslide in the offing:

• HuffPost at 98.2% Clinton to 1.7% Trump
• Princeton Election Consortium had her odds of winning in the 98-99% range with Hillary getting 323 EV and Trump only 215 EV and the Democrats taking the Senate
• The New York TimesDaily Kos put Clinton at 91%
• Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation had her chances of winning at 90%
• Emerson College declaring the day before the election that Hillary would garner 323 EV to Trump's 215
• CNN's Political Prediction Market increased Hillary's chances of winning from 78% to 91% right before the election
• Los Angeles Times predicted that Clinton would get 352 EV with Trump getting only 186 EV
• Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia Center for Politics declaring she would win 322 EV to Trump's 216 EV

Then I flipped channels as I saw things changing as the electoral map began to change, and the countenance of those news readers drastically changed.

I have to admit some personal satisfaction at seeing that.

[carpedm9587]

If you saw how giddy the MSM was at the beginning of election night (and how crestfallen and depressed they became by 9-10:00) it was pretty obvious they were unquestioningly believing the polls/studies that showed Hillary had it clinched with a landslide in the offing:

• HuffPost at 98.2% Clinton to 1.7% Trump
• Princeton Election Consortium had her odds of winning in the 98-99% range with Hillary getting 323 EV^[1] and Trump only 215 EV and the Democrats taking the Senate
• The New York TimesDaily Kos put Clinton at 91%
• Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation had her chances of winning at 90%
• Emerson College declaring the day before the election that Hillary would garner 323 EV to Trump's 215
• CNN's Political Prediction Market increased Hillary's chances of winning from 78% to 91% right before the election
• Los Angeles Times predicted that Clinton would get 352 EV with Trump getting only 186 EV
• Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia Center for Politics declaring she would win 322 EV to Trump's 216 EV

1. Electoral Votes

I am aware of what the pundits said, and I am aware of what the Democrats thought. Most thought it was a shoe-in, and most were floored when a man like Trump actually took the office of the president. I was too.

But that is NOT what the polls said. Go back and look at the www.realclearpolitics.com and www.fivethirtyeight.com aggregations. Clinton's 6-point lead two weeks before the election, after the re-opening of the email investigation, began to shift. By the night before the election, most polls had the election within the margin of error. The pundits did not, in general, pick up on it. Hillary and her campaign certainly didn't. I went to bed, the night before the election, telling my exuberrant wife that she might want to wait before counting her chickens - things were simply too close to call and a Trump win was not by any means out of the question.

There is little doubt that a significant swath of America was deeply disturbed (and still is) that we could have put a man like Trump in the highest office in the land. The same was true of many news outlets. It was true of me.

[Mountain Man]

If you saw how giddy the MSM was at the beginning of election night (and how crestfallen and depressed they became by 9-10:00) it was pretty obvious they were unquestioningly believing the polls/studies that showed Hillary had it clinched with a landslide in the offing:

• HuffPost at 98.2% Clinton to 1.7% Trump
• Princeton Election Consortium had her odds of winning in the 98-99% range with Hillary getting 323 EV^[1] and Trump only 215 EV and the Democrats taking the Senate
• The New York TimesDaily Kos put Clinton at 91%
• Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation had her chances of winning at 90%
• Emerson College declaring the day before the election that Hillary would garner 323 EV to Trump's 215
• CNN's Political Prediction Market increased Hillary's chances of winning from 78% to 91% right before the election
• Los Angeles Times predicted that Clinton would get 352 EV with Trump getting only 186 EV
• Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia Center for Politics declaring she would win 322 EV to Trump's 216 EV

1. Electoral Votes

I saved this image from the New York Times election tracker. You can actually see the moment when the hearts of liberals everywhere were broken.

Winning.jpg

[Cow Poke]

I saved this image from the New York Times election tracker. You can actually see the moment when the hearts of liberals everywhere were broken.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25712[/ATTACH]

Somewhere, I have those speedometer-like images that showed probability of electoral votes... and they were leaning WAY left all night, then began creeping up to 'neutral', then really flipped "right". It was fun to watch.

I'll have to see if I can dig those up - I just did screenshots as the dial changed.

[demi-conservative]

I am aware of what the pundits said, and I am aware of what the Democrats thought. Most thought it was a shoe-in, and most were floored when a man like Trump actually took the office of the president. I was too.

Did not foresee Trumpslide

"Drumpf will lose in 2020!!!'

[rogue06]

I am aware of what the pundits said, and I am aware of what the Democrats thought. Most thought it was a shoe-in, and most were floored when a man like Trump actually took the office of the president. I was too.

But that is NOT what the polls said. Go back and look at the www.realclearpolitics.com and www.fivethirtyeight.com aggregations. Clinton's 6-point lead two weeks before the election, after the re-opening of the email investigation, began to shift. By the night before the election, most polls had the election within the margin of error. The pundits did not, in general, pick up on it. Hillary and her campaign certainly didn't. I went to bed, the night before the election, telling my exuberrant wife that she might want to wait before counting her chickens - things were simply too close to call and a Trump win was not by any means out of the question.

There is little doubt that a significant swath of America was deeply disturbed (and still is) that we could have put a man like Trump in the highest office in the land. The same was true of many news outlets. It was true of me.

Curious to know if you were at all disturbed about putting someone like Hillary in there?

[carpedm9587]

Curious to know if you were at all disturbed about putting someone like Hillary in there?

I wasn't. I had researched both candidates. Although there were aspects of Hillary's political machine that I found distasteful, and areas I found her to be unwise, in general I thought she was knowledgable, experienced, and could have been a reasonably good president. My primary concern about Hillary as president was the degree to which she was hated by the right - and the possibility/probability that her presidency would be one long stalemate with endless investigations by the Republican-controlled Congress, with little accomplished. Largely because of that dynamic, I thought she was a poor choice (I did not vote for her in the primaries).

[Darth Executor]

I wasn't. I had researched both candidates. Although there were aspects of Hillary's political machine that I found distasteful, and areas I found her to be unwise, in general I thought she was knowledgable, experienced, and could have been a reasonably good president. My primaery concern about Hillary as president was the degree to which she was hated by the right - and the possibility/probability that her presidency would be one long stalemate with little accomplished. Largely because of that dynamic, I thought she was a poor choice (I did not vote for her in the primaries).

If you think the worst part about Hillary was that she was hated by the right you are beyond hope.

How about the fact that she, unlike Trump, learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq war? Or the fact that the relatively less corrupt Obama used the government machine to go after political opponents?

These days I hate the center-left a lot more than the far left. At least the latter openly declare themselves as enemies.

[carpedm9587]

If you think the worst part about Hillary was that she was hated by the right you are beyond hope.

How about the fact that she, unlike Trump, learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq war? Or the fact that the relatively less corrupt Obama used the government machine to go after political opponents?

These days I hate the center-left a lot more than the far left. At least the latter openly declare themselves as enemies.

I'm not anyone's enemy. I AM opposition in many respects.

[Darth Executor]

I'm not anyone's enemy. I AM opposition in many respects.

Nah, you can't vote for Hillary (or Trump for that matter) and then say you're nobody's enemy.

[hedrick]

I think you're being unnecessarily uncertain. Yes, 2020 is out there, but Trump shows no sign of reversing or altering approach - so his unpopularity remains. He is pathologically incapable of admitting error or doing anything other than think of himself, so I do not see that changing. He is also systematically alienating one group after another, chipping away significantly at the very narrow margin by which he won in 2016 (about 80,000 votes in three states). The one thing that I think MIGHT keep Republican control of the WH is a) if he realizes he cannot win and doesn't run (but that requires admitting defeat, so I doubt it), or b) a solid conservative "primaries" him and wins (which I think is a significant possibility). THAT would make for an interesting 2020 contest.

As for 2018, take a look at the Cook PVI stats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_P...n_Voting_Index). We have seen an average 10 (congressional special elections only) to 16 point (all 2016 elections included) to the left. This has happened in both deeply red and more swing districts. Let's just conservatively predict the shift will drop to 5 points (maybe loss of momentum?). There are 52 districts with a PVI above -5 (negative indicating Republican leaning) and only one district in Democratic hands below that number. Democrats only need 23 seats to take control of the House, so less than half the conservative number (5 point shift, 52 districts). If the shift is closer to the 16 mark, another 119 districts (161 total) are in play. So it appears there are somewhere between 52 and 161 districts that have a significant probability of shifting. I do not think we have EVER seen such numbers.

I frankly cannot see a scenario where Democrats do NOT take the house. And if they take is despite the deep gerrymandering of Operation Red Map, Republicans have a serious problem. Another poster (not sure who) pointed out that the gerrymandering usually creates multiple favored districts, but by comparatively narrow numbers (via cracking and packing). That could actually work against Republicans in a serious wave election, and every sign is that this is exactly what we are going to see.

The Senate is a tougher play in 2018. Democrats are defending 25 seats and Republicans only eight. It would take a miracle for them to take the Senate (and we all know how I feel about miracles ). But 2020 is a different story: Republicans are defending 22 seats to 11 for Democrats. So if Democrats can simply hold fast in 2018, they look very good in 2020. I don't really want a trifecta for Democrats any more than I want one for Republicans, but it is looking increasingly likely, IMO.

I hope you're right. I think irrationality is more deeply seated than typical projections allow for.

Another question is just what is going to happen to the two parties. I'd like to see them both move back towards the center. That's probably more likely to happen for Democrats up to 2020, but by no means certain. A recent NYT article gives some hope that Democrats are going to start looking at their next generation for leadership. Pelosi, Clinton, and Sanders don't look like the future to me. A strong Democratic victory then might give Republicans a chance to reconsider their current direction.

[carpedm9587]

Nah, you can't vote for Hillary (or Trump for that matter) and then say you're nobody's enemy.

Actually, I can. In fact, I think I just did.

"Political opposition" is not the same as "enemy." If you choose to paint it in such terms, so be it. I do not.