jerryster
(685 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 05:20 AM
Original message |
Fivethirtyeight.com has even worse news for Dems today |
ixion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 05:23 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Giving up? No. Disappointed and pissed off and feeling disenfranchised? |
|
Yep.
This is, of course, the logical result of telling your base: STFU and vote for us.
|
jerryster
(685 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Thanks for responding. I understand your frustration. I'm not a big fan of Chris Van Hollen's performance as DCCC chair. Still, I am not looking forward to at least 2 years of John Boehner being in the line of succession. Yeech.
|
regnaD kciN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. More like the logical result of your "base"... |
|
Edited on Sat Oct-09-10 06:53 AM by regnaD kciN
...starting to scream about "betrayal" at the top of their lungs seconds after Obama did the first thing that wasn't 100% what they wanted, while finding fault with every achievement he and his administration compiled. (As Rachel Maddow put it, the last time a President accomplished this much positive change in such a short time, booze was illegal.)
It's one thing to be critical of a leader from your own side. But the "progressive purity pricks" have been turning their back on Obama from the get-go. Never even gave him a chance.
But that's what you get when one side has the primary goal of increasing their power, and the other has the primary goal of declaring their purity. Each side winds up getting what they wanted: the former side winds up with all the power, while the latter side gets to preen in its so-called "integrity" and "courageous" refusal to compromise -- which is all it can do in its permanent minority status. :-(
|
ixion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Ah, thank you for confirming my premise |
|
because you are, in fact, saying: STFU and vote dem, no matter how bad their performance.
That is simply not a winning strategy, however badly you may want it to be.
|
PruneJuiceMedia
(17 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I can remember months ago, maybe even a year ago, Ed Schultz telling his listeners on the radio that the Dems BETTER NOT forget their base. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like too many people were listening at the time. smh.
|
Dogmudgeon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 05:26 AM
Response to Original message |
2. That's what happens when we fight over purity instead of building our party |
|
A quarter of a billion bucks from the Radical Right also helped.
There's one caveat: The Big Mo didn't start shifting until after Nate's data sets were selected -- October 2-3 or so. If things are still Sucksville on the 15th, THEN I'll consider increasing my Wellbutrin.
--d!
|
jerryster
(685 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Thanks for responding. I'm never quite sure what the lag time is with Nate's numbers so I appreciate the info.
Guess I'll hold my breath until the 15th as well!
|
Gman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 08:00 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I have pretty much zero confidence in this |
|
First, not many races have current polling results. I know of one in Texas where the most recent poll is mid-August.
Secondly, I believe they are using the same methodology that TIA uses by running simulations. The biggest problem with these simulations is they use current data and are based on statistical trends in polling data. If the data is flawed, or old or something has happened, the models don't consider it. I don't care how many simulations you run, one or 100,000, bad data gives bad results.
Don't put a lot of stock in this.
|
jerryster
(685 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Thanks for responding.
As much as I'd like to not put a lot of stock in it Nate's projections have historically been pretty accurate. And just now before logging back in to DU I checked his website. Guess what? He has INCREASED Sharon Angle's chance of winning to 66%. This is scary shit.
|
Gman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. That's not scary, that's the product of an incorrect use of data |
|
I don't think it's at all likely by 2-1 odds that Angle will win.
|
LawnKorn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-09-10 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |
11. People are falling for the media line |
|
We can win this one, and we can win big. It takes getting every Democrat out to the polls to vote.
The people who voted for President Obama in 2008 are still here, and they are still Democrats. We need to put out the word:
VOTE!
There are two solid weeks before the election, convince a friend to go vote with you.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 08:40 PM
Response to Original message |