What a tough time to be you guys, trying to dream up tarnished silver linings. The linked article plainly notes that Trump won that Wisconsin district by more than 20%. Yesterday's special election was a 14% win for the Republican. A 6% blue shift, now where else have we seen that?
The Cook Report's Charlie Cook, writing just hours after the crippling body blow to the Dems: “Today there is more than a one-in-three chance that Democrats will win a trifecta in November, the White House, the Senate and the House. The policy and governing implications are enormous.”
I'm afraid what's getting tarnished is the blue lining.
California: From the 538 article - "The California contest will test whether Democrats can hold onto a suburban and formerly GOP seat they captured during the 2018 blue wave." They failed the test. This was a seat won by Hillary +7%, and the Democrat who flipped the seat blue in 2018 won by 8%.
Wisconsin: Tiffany 57% Zuncker 43% Heh. The 538 article was hoping for a "narrow loss" by Zuncker. Your assertion that any off-presidential election Republican candidate must match Trump's 2016 number or it's bad news, is transparently unserious.
538: "So even a narrow loss by Zunker, if paired with a comfortable Smith win, would add to the evidence that another Democratic wave is building." Unfortunately, in the real world, a huge loss by Zuncker was paired with a Smith loss, instead. It looks like Nate himself may soon be shoving the 538 methodology.
You see the words "...would add to the evidence that another Democratic wave is building" and think it's tremendous blue-busting news because the pile of evidence didn't get any higher than it already is. Wise. Find your satisfactions where you can.
In the Wisconsin race, the GOP had a lot of ground to lose and lost one-third of it. That result "added to the evidence" that there's 6% to 8% erosion all over the place. Which means you're going to hold onto to nearly all of those 20% districts, so yay?
You might want to hold off on the California Comeback celebration until after the Republican Party can improve its current third place position among registered voters. Particularly for a seat that's already rated as a November tossup by five of six rating organizations. What an insulting way to treat a U.S. Representative who just won the seat by a double digit margin this week, and will be facing the same person he just beat. The sixth rating group sees the CA-25 race as a Democratic pickup.
Next year's Pulitzers will surely reward the National Review writer who laid bare this embarrassing piece of CNN classified intel that for obvious reasons had been clandestinely hidden on CNN television and CNN.com. (And 538, and RCP, and Politico, and Fox News, and Daily Kos, and the NY Times, and the NY Post, and...)
7 comments:
With all the pollmonger's reckless shoving recently of the 538 methodology, Nate Silver's soreness must be impeding his forecasting prowess.
What a tough time to be you guys, trying to dream up tarnished silver linings. The linked article plainly notes that Trump won that Wisconsin district by more than 20%. Yesterday's special election was a 14% win for the Republican. A 6% blue shift, now where else have we seen that?
The Cook Report's Charlie Cook, writing just hours after the crippling body blow to the Dems:
“Today there is more than a one-in-three chance that Democrats will win a trifecta in November, the White House, the Senate and the House. The policy and governing implications are enormous.”
I'm afraid what's getting tarnished is the blue lining.
California:
From the 538 article - "The California contest will test whether Democrats can hold onto a suburban and formerly GOP seat they captured during the 2018 blue wave." They failed the test. This was a seat won by Hillary +7%, and the Democrat who flipped the seat blue in 2018 won by 8%.
Wisconsin:
Tiffany 57% Zuncker 43%
Heh. The 538 article was hoping for a "narrow loss" by Zuncker. Your assertion that any off-presidential election Republican candidate must match Trump's 2016 number or it's bad news, is transparently unserious.
538: "So even a narrow loss by Zunker, if paired with a comfortable Smith win, would add to the evidence that another Democratic wave is building." Unfortunately, in the real world, a huge loss by Zuncker was paired with a Smith loss, instead. It looks like Nate himself may soon be shoving the 538 methodology.
Speaking of tarnished...
https://news.yahoo.com/cnn-buries-own-poll-results-011348264.html
You see the words "...would add to the evidence that another Democratic wave is building" and think it's tremendous blue-busting news because the pile of evidence didn't get any higher than it already is. Wise. Find your satisfactions where you can.
In the Wisconsin race, the GOP had a lot of ground to lose and lost one-third of it. That result "added to the evidence" that there's 6% to 8% erosion all over the place. Which means you're going to hold onto to nearly all of those 20% districts, so yay?
You might want to hold off on the California Comeback celebration until after the Republican Party can improve its current third place position among registered voters. Particularly for a seat that's already rated as a November tossup by five of six rating organizations. What an insulting way to treat a U.S. Representative who just won the seat by a double digit margin this week, and will be facing the same person he just beat. The sixth rating group sees the CA-25 race as a Democratic pickup.
You were always going to bite on the CNN "buries" its poll "exposé." Stay away from the clickbait, son. Or if you must hate-masturbate, make sure you don't read that powerful think piece past the Buzzfeedy headline. The details will make you limper than Lindsey Graham's wrist.
Next year's Pulitzers will surely reward the National Review writer who laid bare this embarrassing piece of CNN classified intel that for obvious reasons had been clandestinely hidden on CNN television and CNN.com. (And 538, and RCP, and Politico, and Fox News, and Daily Kos, and the NY Times, and the NY Post, and...)
Duh.
Post a Comment