I think now is the time for people who support Democrats or simply oppose Trump to get as serious as possible about ensuring that the Democrats take control of the House.
I would urge any woman with a credible claim of any misconduct against any male (or female) Republican candidate to come forward with that claim now. I would urge any person with any credible claim of any kind of misconduct - from racism to bad checks - against any Republican candidate to come forward now.
Maybe not the Democrat candidates themselves or their campaigns, but the people who want to get Trump out of the White House have to show they mean business. If you are capable of preparing and funding any kind of social media slur campaign against any Republican candidate, do it now.
There is nothing on the planet right now of even comparable importance to the necessity of having Democrats in control of the House next year. It doesn't matter what you can do to hurt a Republican candidate politically, do it. Just anything you can think of, now is the time to do it.
When they had to train ordinary kids to be killers by the millions when American declared war in 1941, they had to train those kids not to play fair - winning was too important. This isn't a game now. I believe this is about preventing a totally unnecessary nuclear war with Iran. There is nothing more important or more urgent.
If you can fake a video of a Republican candidate committing bestiality - do it now! Your country needs you!
Nate, please don't overlook Virginia's 2nd District. Republican Scott Taylor is in substantial trouble here, with his paid staffers apparently committing fraud to get independent Shaun Brown on the ballot to dilute support for Dem Elaine Luria. Negative publicity on Taylor has been flowing and will continue to flow if those staffers go on trial before the election.
Good article. Democrats, listen up! VOTE!
2
The Independents are going to be the ones to decide and make the difference (many primaries are closed to those voters). And most are not that 'undecided'. How are they polling?
The Democratic Party strategy to make the Mid-term election a referendum on Trump is not working. As seen in the GOP rise in the polls. Many seats that had Democrats excited with a big lead have tightened. This is not surprising. Why?
1) All politics is local. 2) People vote the candidate. 3) People vote their wallets.
The Democrats will struggle to win districts with a strong economy. People that don't like Trump will vote Republican anyways if their 401K's are getting fatter (they definitely are) and their families are employed.
You should read the paper more. At least finish the articles.
1
The biggest hurdle faced by Democrats in the heartland is Nancy Pelosi. When engaging in social discussions, the only person who can draw as strong negative comments as Trump is Pelosi. She is an incredible negative for we independents.
@Rick
Republicans have been going after Pelosi for years because they are scared of her. So if they can convince you & others that she is dangerous—Santa Fe Values no less, as if that's horrible on its own —she becomes "an incredible negative" for all.
Truth is she grew up in the Italian district of Baltimore & (don't tell anyone) she has old Baltimorian values deep inside. Of course she has values honored by San Francisco; she was elected to represent them. She wouldn't keep her job otherwise.
What Republicans really don't like is that Nancy Pelosi is effective in carrying through what most of the House members want to get done. She doesn’t decide what legislation will be proposed, but she sees it get the input from everyone — including Republicans if they aren't just being destructive. And, Yes, some Republican ideas went into the ACA.
Pelosi has been called the most effective Speaker in 30 years. That's what Republicans don't want so they use their image of her as a threat to put fear into the hearts of those who don't think hard about just who is saying what & for what reason.
I'm sorry you believe them.
2
Not a bad overview of the way political scientists look at elections. But Cohn doesn't seem up to date on how the thinking of the American electorate has changed since 2008. White middle-class voters assumed it marked an end to a century of ugly ethnic and racist politics. But Obama changed nothing. His party and his administration simply switched colors. Blacks were heroic, Whites were the "hegemonic other", and law and order meant nothing. Little wonder that millions of otherwise liberal Americans changed their party preference.
2
I have little confidence in polling after 2016 — not because the pollsters had poorly designed samples, but due to something far more sinister: people flat out lying about their preferences. This is almost a 100% affliction of the Republican Party under Trump, which often seems more interested in manipulation and mis-statements than any regard for the truth. When you throw into the mix the Deep State lunatics and the intentionally, willfully dumb, it’s difficult to be encouraged about this round of polls prior to the mid-terms.
6
Don’t expect a slam dunk for Democrats... now is the time to support candidates... donate, register voters, get people to fill out vote by mail forms, and make calls, texts and knock doors. It’s not enough to just vote.
7
Sorry, Nate. It'e just really hard for many of us to stomach the results of these "live polls" after the polling fiasco of 2016. Yes, that sting will linger through the better part of this century. The fact remains that every race is close, even the 9 point lead in the MN district. If us faithful Dems go back to reading these polls or even somehow believing they have any credibility, then the race is lost. It's the same thing I learned almost 40 years ago. Bad data in, bad data out. #SurrenderNate
4
No mention of democratic vs republican platforms. Maybe that isn't specifically relevant to this story, but people are generally not that dumb and will vote for one or the other platform that resonates with them personally. My point is, I don't really know what is the democratic platform. They used to be "have you seen the other guys?" but that's not a very compelling platform.
My suggestion: if you want to get elected, then make time to develop a platform & to communicate that platform. If you don't have a platform then it's hard to trust you to follow your declared platform, because you never declared one. Maybe it's just me who doesn't know what is the democrat platform? Anyway - it might not be communicated well enough for other people too. Just a thought.
4
A hint of Democratic strength? What will that get you? You had a Democrat with a 90% chance of winning the WH. She lost. Polls, LOL.
5
What I know and am gladsome about is this: Ted Cruz, he scared.
8
It is difficult for any objective reader to give much credibility to the selfsame pollsters who misread their samplings so badly last time around. Here we go again.
In this article we read about "well educated" voters in the suburbs of one Congressional district who, as always, vote Republican. Soon after, we learn that "well educated " voters usually trend Democratic, A credible study would define "well educated".
A credible pole would clearly denote that the majority of Americans never vote. It would identify and poll those who do and tell us about their methodology in defining and seeking them out.
If pollsters wish to be taken seriously, they must define their terms, tell us who they talk to and reveal the exact wording of their questions, Then they need to tell us their evaluation methodology.
Until then, I'll flip a coin and beat them every time.
5
I guess that Amy McGrath is a brave woman because she flew a fighter plane and went in many missions in Afghanistan.
That history may (or may not) help make her a good congresswoman. We don't know.
I am not all that "hep" on our often misused military power so
i have the tendency to Thank Mother Teresa.
This "Mother" also went on many "missions" in Calcutta without bullets and bombs but with aid for the poor.
To pilot McGrath, I'm glad you came home safely from your service, but i have questions about why you were sent to Afghanistan in the first place.
To Mother Teresa, i say simply -Thank you for your service !
3
I looked at Nate Silver's final 2016 probability which gave Trump a 29% chance of winning, so perhaps within the margin of error.
The biggest issue that will impact the actual results is voter turnout. It appeared to me that Trump supporters were far more likely to vote than Clinton supporters, while Obama supporters turned out and voted. This time around I don't think republicans are as enthusiastic.
5
Democracy is dependant on having two or more coherent governing philosophies. That is what America lost when Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan took over the GOP in 1964. The nomination acceptance speech crafted by Karl Hess III essentially denied the ballot box as the final arbiter of US democracy and it is only a new GOP that can bring sense and sensibility back into play in US governance. It is not only Trump and his overwhelming narcissisme that is a danger but the belief that small government and low taxes is a solution to anything but too large a government and too high taxes. Government's job is to try to find balance and requires trade offs and understanding of unintended consequences and the GOP is incapable of understanding what Jefferson understood in 1776.
13
I hold no faith in polls anymore, and frankly, I think they motivate voters to disastrous consequences such as when many predicted Hillary Clinton would win over Trump and the opposite occurred. The polls may have inspired Republicans to vote bringing us a real nightmare. I will believe the results once voting is complete, and I'm sorry to portray skepticism towards your hard work, but if the polls don't show a very wide lead for a candidate, I consider the final results the real "Polls".
11
Remember that this is the very same newspaper that said Trump couldn't beat 17 other Republicans in the primary. The very same paper that said Hillary was going to win by a mile. The same newspaper that for two years reported that there was Trump Russia collusion and there isn't any. I believe the NYTs had Hillary at 85% over Trump.
11
Yeah, Nate had Hillary at 99% even after she lost.
Meaningless. Just VOTE
2
@P McGrath Oh, there isn't any! Well phew, thanks for clearing that up Mr. Mueller, didn't know your investigation was done already! Sure did catch an awful lot of dirty rats to indict who worked for Mr. Trump, though, for there being no hint of any Russian collusion. ;-)
3
As if the news of Republicans Dana Rohrabacher and Matt Gates on a boat with a known 'white supremacist' for a fund raiser a few days ago in Newport Beach CA wasn't bad enough.
Today I heard about people voting in NEW YORK whose names were scrubbed from 'voting rolls' having to do an affidavit ballot
Is it hyperbolic to think this news don't bode well for November?
4
@Emma Jane
An affidavit ballot is used when there is a question about eligibility to vote. The people who have to vote so have ~ two days to bring IDs and whatever else they might need to prove themselves eligible to vote. This has been policy for decades. There is nothing hinky about it.
Their ballots are sealed & put into an envelope with their name on the outside so that they could prove eligible; then they could be opened & counted. Most of the time the races are not close enough that the affidavit ballots are going to make a difference so they are ignored by the people who had to vote by affidavit and I suppose are properly destroyed without anyone knowing how any of them voted.
It is just as bad that an eligible vote lose his right to vote as it is to have a non eligible person vote.
Trump now says that the terribly tragic Puerto Rican storm disaster
was Trump's greatest success. The greatest disaster was his greatest success. Weird.
These polls are somewhat indicative of Democratic strength but they are not scientific because of the subjective selection of the districts polled and because the response rate to the telephone calls was actually trivial.
They most likely greatly underestimate GOP weakness right now stemming form Trump.
2
Polling is meaningless when the actual voting is done on secret software-using, corporate designed, non-traceable voting machines. The Republican Party has already and will once again cheat and steal this election. The fix is in. Vote, but don't count on it mattering. *Real* change will come from the barrel of a gun.
11
I wonder if The Times reported with such breathless enthusiasm when the polls showed a complete wipe out of the Democrats in 2010. I will bet against it.
8
You’re projecting Democrats’ enthusiasm onto the NYT for simply reporting what is basically the manifestation of that enthusiasm—weird! (Do you not call the parts of the reporting about the Republicans with strength and good standing enthusiastic, if does that fit into your obvious bias? Just asking!)
4
@Erik Let me guess you must be a Trump supporter. Blame the newspaper for doing its job and everything that you don't like is fake news. Why not go back and see what the NYT reported in 2010?
2
@37-year-old guy And the Sox are still ahead by 9 games.
All of this doesn’t matter when you have vote-tabulating computer systems around.
8
@Thomas Busse The real world doesn't square with your reading. Look again.
Translation:
The Democratic candidates are winning by a large margin, but because the districts are so heavily gerrymandered they're trailing.
Anyone remember Deathrace 2000? Only by winning was the champion able to abolish the race. Here's hoping that the Dems can beat a rigged game and fix a crooked house.
17
FYI Gerrymandering happens at the state and not federal level and is certainly not the exclusive purview of the Republicans. Both parties do it, and even if control of Congress does change it's not going to stop gerrymandering by whichever party happens to be in power in each state.
5
@Paul, I'd agree with you until about 20 years ago when Republican gerrymandering became more blatantly racist and extreme. And the Republicans have come to control more states' gerrymandering power than the lackadaisical Democrats.
I take it you're unfamilar with Schwarzenegger's districting reforms.
Pity.
1
Nate, you’re making the same mistake from 2016.
In 2016 you enthusiastically claimed Hilary would win in a rout, and during the day as your speedometer went from ‘90% Hillary’ down to ‘Trump Wins’, you kept blogging asking how you guys missed so bad.
Then and now you are asking Blue voters who will they be voting for, and ignoring the rest of the country.
Get out of the city and go look.
Democrats do not have the wind at their back. They might have it in deep blue corners of deep blue cities, but exit those and that support drops to nothing. Like the NYT favorite Ocasio-Cortez, she won a deep blue seat in a deep blue corner of deep blue Brooklyn; but for some reason this meant she was the next coming of Obama. Then she goes out in the country and starts saying in Kansas: ‘“We’re gonna flip this seat red in November.” And every person she has backed up, has lost.
But you saw that. And yet somehow continue to be convinced her brand of socialism is popular out side of Williamsburg.
Wake up Nate. Stop being a cheerleader, and become a journalist. We need you reporting the pulse of the country, not cheering for some one.
9
@AutumLeaff this totally miscasts - or misunderstands - what polls do and how they work. A binary 90% likelihood of one outcome means that there's a 10% chance of the opposite, by definition. Polls are never going to be right all the time, and although this was a particularly surprising case for a whole host of other reasons, it was within the statistical margin of error.
Equally, the comment about polling blue voters in blue cities misunderstands how polls work. They are samples that follow a strict method to randomise the people selected - the methodology is specifically designed to ensure that the pollsters do not choose where or whom they sample. The responses are then weighted by demographic factors like age, sex, ethnicity, etc. to try and accurately reflect the actual voter makeup.
Of course, there were also a lot of questions post-election about what had gone wrong and needed to be better accounted for, including telephone response rates, weighting for education as well as race and gender, etc. Pollsters pretty obsessively talked about this and about what they could do to improve their polling - their whole job is based on whether they make the right call (who's going to listen to a pollster who's no better than tossing a coin?). But it's simply not correct to call them cheerleaders or to conflate Ocasio-Cortez's support of fellow partisans with pollsters following rigorous methods to make statistical inferences.
10
@AutumLeaff - Not only that, Joe Crowley is still on the ballot in her district. Don't be surprised if.....
2
@AutumLeaff
I'm all the way on the other side of the continent and you're in Manhattan but I know that Ocasio Cortez won in a district in the Bronx and part of Queens, not Williamsburg Brooklyn.
3
It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that in any nation that 50% of the people have to be of below average intelligence -- by definition.
But it is really unfortunate, this time by design, that almost all of those people claim the same party home.
19
Krish, your snotty intellectual arrogance is exactly why Trump is president and the Republican Party controls Congress. Keep at it and see how little changes in November....
4
In November 2016 the New York Times predicted that the chance of Secretary Clinton winning the presidency was 92%. That gave President Trump an 8% chance of winning. But the President won.
Now the headline to this particular Times’ article states that there are “Hints of Democratic Strength”. That means the Democrats are going to be soundly thrashed.
8
@John Murray - I'm not sure that means anything. Comey released his letter about having found Clinton emails on a totally different computer, which would have to be investigated. That took place on October 28. The polls then changed drastically after that. So I don't think that at any time in November polls were using a 92% figure. They certainly were before.
3
"In Kentucky’s Sixth, for instance, Republicans have begun to attack Ms. McGrath for saying she’s a feminist."
Attacking a woman for being a feminist is like attacking a 10-year-old for being a kid. If this is the best the GOP has, Mr. Barr can start sending out his resume.
41
If the Democrats regain the House it will mean the left was rewarded for the longest and loudest hissy fit ever thrown after losing an election. The chances of that happening are slim to none no matter what your slanted polls end up saying. Over sampling democrats will give you the result you want every single time.
7
Sadly, I remember the point spreads up until election day 2016 which predicted we would not have an incompetent idiot in office.
I do not trust polls and I do not trust that Americans will not sit on their.... hands.... instead of voting to improve their own lot and the nation.
19
Polls do not predict! They simply give a sample at the time they’re taken, and Trump was always within the margin of error. They’re only a tool to help understand elections at any given time. If you believe they’re job is to predict outcomes then of course you’ll hate them. M
19
Yep. I understand that right-wingers have this whole MSM conspiracy thingie going, but polls do not predict is precisely correct.
Good point, and two other points: 1st for the dems to win a 3rd mandate in a row (after 2 Obama mandates) was pretty much unprecedented. How many democrat mandates in a row do you reasonably expect? 2nd, Hillary just had too much baggage to be elected. Too many sloppy email problems which look amateur if not downright criminal, insisting on engaging in a nuclear-provocative contest over Syrian air space, and of course letting Bill back into the White House. The Dems possibly rigged their own convention to remove Bernie in favor of Hillary, at the cost of the election. If the Dems hadn't let the Clintons put Hillary before Bernie then Bernie would have handily won POTUS over Trump, because Trump was always toxic. Hillary made Trump look REASONABLE on several issues, which is a bloody miracle.
Anyway what I don't understand is what is the democratic platform today. What are you voting for? If it's a mystery box, it might not be what you like.
After the 2016 New York Times polling "analysis" fiasco: Why would anyone treat what the NYT publishes on the subject seriously?
Need a 2018 example? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
16
The polls we conduct in the coming weeks should give us a clearer idea of whether one party holds an edge.
Only if things start looking bad for Democrats, Nate, could you maybe keep it too yourself?
5
One factor the article leaves out is the caliber and life experience of some of these candidates. McGrath, for instance, seems to have plenty of good sense, and her campaign ad about taking her preschoolers to a medical clinic for checkups was hilarious. What a breath of fresh air! It makes me smile just to think of it.
We desperately need some talented public officials, at all levels, but particularly at the Federal level -- many septuagenarians (Schumer, Pelosi, a cadre of GOP Senators) and octogenarians (Grassley, Hatch, Feinstein) need to step aside and retire gracefully. They have ossified our national discourse.
Watching the humorless, schlerotic GOP Senators at Kavanaugh's hearing, has been depressing beyond words. These guys have been obsessing on Roberts Rules for 40 years, while inequality has escalated and health care costs have risen exponentially.
What a contrast they are with a candidate like McGrath -- hauling three preschoolers off in the family minivan to get their vaccinations! It's not a task for the faint of heart, but I doubt the GOP Senators understand how much work it is.
What I hope for this election is that we get some new public servants, not because of political party, but because they have broad life experience, plus a great sense of humor. A little more hearty laughter might do a lot to restore our national health.
14
Here is how I see it as of now imo.
If the Congressional elections were held today, the democrats would almost certainly take the House.
The Senate is a different story since so many more democrats then Republicans are up for re election.
A Senate election today would favor the republicans but if the dems could do what Obama did with the Senate circa 2008 and sweep the undecided, they could take the Senate too.
If the economy starts to boom, Trump starts a made up war, etc., look for republicans to keep the Senate and have a shot of keeping the House between no and Nov.
Vice Versa, if the economy tanks, in Nov. we will have a democratic Senate and House.
2
@Paul
Well, see Paul, the NYT posits the US economy booming.
Laughable I know, unless you work for Facebook-Google.
1
@MF- thank you for your reply. Yes it does seem something like that except life and death decisions were made by unknown oracles back then, that were unseen, usually elderly women.
My predictions or better worded what history has taught us is what I stated.
Mine are more like those from the fathers of history in Ancient Greece, true historians, than oracles, Nostra., and/or the Bible etc.
@Yaj--thank you for your reply...yes I agree with you, the economy is not booming, it just has its head over water. By booming, I mean the faux boom in the 1990s that gave us the Great Depression.
Here in Maine's 2nd congressional, the largest by size east of the Mississippi and covers most of the state, I'm one of many volunteers passionately working to help Jared Golden defeat the Republican incumbent. Jared is a 36-year-old Marine combat veteran and assistant majority leader in the Maine House, who's running strong against a Trump-funded PAC pouring negative ads into our state in a desperate effort to save a very unpopular incumbent. Your live polling last night showed Golden up by 2 points, which, although preliminary, is what we are feeling as we canvass around the district. It'll be hard, but taking back this seat is doable. Check out jaredgoldenforcongress.com to learn more about this terrific candidate.
31
@judyb
Which illegal war did Jared Golden serve in?
Yep, I see he served in that illegal Iraq war.
1
The war may have been “ illegal”, sadly for those who got consigned to it, that makes no difference, when politicians make war, soldiers are expected to” do and die” However misguided their masters are. So what exactly was your point
6
Go, Jared Golden, who neither pled heel spurs not shirked, unlike many one might mention.
Since this seems hard for Trumpists to get, let me add: when we're wrong, the real heroes try to think it though and do better.
2
"In the seven tossup races, the result was within one point in five of them..."
If they're within one point, then the Democrats will lose. It takes about 7 or 8 points to even out the sides, because of the Republican gerrymandering and trying to stop legitimate voters from casting votes. In 2012 in Pennsylvania the Democrats had more votes than did the Republicans: 50.3% against 48.8% (2,793,538 votes to 2,710,070) in the election for US House of Representatives.
But due to the above factors, the Republicans ended up with 13 representatives while the Democrats had 5. So a close poll will always favor the Republicans. Why? Easy: they cheat.
49
@Sam D You are confusing two things: nationwide generic Congressional ballot polls and House-district specific polls. It is true that the Dems need a 7-8 point advantage nationwide to win the House. That is because the nationwide polls include districts that are heavily gerrymandered or just naturally tilted toward one of the parties.
But, district-specific polls are just that, they are district-specific. Whoever gets the most votes wins. If you think about it for a second, you realize that of course the Dems don't need a 7-8 point advantage in the district-wide polls because they only need 1 more vote to win that district. Obviously it can't be the case that a Dem candidate would get e.g. 5 % more votes in a district but still lose - how would that work?
6
These polls are within the districts, gerrymandered as they may be.
5
@Sam D
In regard to PA, you may have noticed early this year that the state's Supreme Court "struck down the state’s congressional map, saying that it 'clearly, plainly, and palpably' violated the state’s Constitution" (https://nyti.ms/2GIrwwU). The upshot (pun intended) was that the court drew its own map, which is demonstrably more fair and is in effect for the 2018 election. That augurs well for the Democrats' picking up in PA some of the seats they need for a House majority.
4
2016 suggested to me that polls may well be useless as a tool to predict elections. If polls were accurate, Hillary would be president. So I'll watch the midterms closely with the polls taken just before election day in mind. And if they are as inaccurate as 2016, I'll never look at another one.
9
@RWilson
They are absolutely not useless, but they do only give probability. The polls had Trump at about a 33% chance to win, which was up significantly right before the election because of Comey stating that Clinton was back under investigation. The polls did not indicate a clear landslide victory for Clinton like many claimed they did.
25
@RWilson Your confusion is because people (and a lot of the media) misundertand the nature of the polls. It's all about probabilities. 538 had Trump at around 1/3 chance of winning. That's fairly significant. And it's not like Trump won in a landslide, he won a few key states by less than 100,000 votes. So that 1/3 of a chance scenario happened in real life.
The average of the nationwide horse race polls pretty much nailed the end result (Hillary winning the popular vote by a small but clear margin).
There is always a chance there is a systemic bias in the polls due to the pollsters estimating the electorate incorrectly, but the polls are more often than not a very useful measurement to estimate the different probabilities of the outcome. 2016 polls were clearly wrong in a few key states, but they weren't nearly as disastrous as people think they were.
12
As you mention in the article, many voters have not tuned in yet to the elections. October is the month where the polls should give a much stronger indicator. That is of course, if the polls have any accuracy. Ever since the 2016 Presidential election, i along with millions of others have been skeptical with the polling .
10
Educate yourself about polling at www.fivethirtyeight.com. I’ve dive so myself and understand and can appreciate polling much more now.
2
Please add a table listing each district and the names of the candidates -- with the latest polling results.
Truly surprised by such a glaring omission!
It hides key data and information. It also undercuts democracy, especially as many of us would like to contribute to the Democrats who are only marginally ahead!
34
@Stephanie Bradley
I agree, it would be helpful to have a table listing all these races with the polling results.
I do know that in Minnesota, Democrat Joe Radinovich (8th District) is one point ahead of his Republican opponent in the latest poll. Fivethirtyeight is projecting that Radinovich will win 50.0% of the vote, and his opponent will win 49.8%. That may be one of the closest races in the country.
6
@Stephanie Bradley Really, NYT is "undercutting Democracy" because it isn't listing every poll by district? You know there are websites that do just that, right? RealClearPolitics and 538 come to mind and they do a great job. There really is no reason for NYT to become a polling aggregator.
What they are doing with these polls (and how they are presenting them correctly with nuanced analysis) is very valuable in itself.
2
@Stephanie Bradley-Yes, and we need that table now. I have noted, for example, that Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, running for a seat in the house has studiously been ignored by the Times, even in a report on "people of color", a designation I do not like.
Ilhan Omar has her roots in Somalia, which I mention in connection with that note on color for the following reason. We have here in Linköping SE, a very large population of people who came here as asylum seekers from Somalia. I have known hundreds of them as a volunteer at the Red Cross. In Sweden they are not put in a race box and as Swedish citizens are registered in the citizen data base according to the country in which they were born, most often Somalia but with many born in Kenya. They do not see themselves as belonging to any "race" other than the human.
You, Stephanie Bradley, and I need to find the right person at the Times to whom we can direct our request for the table you describe. I will try one possible contact and perhaps even send the idea to Ilham Omar.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com (my Gmail there)
Citizen US SE
This article was based on very little scientific polling data. Rather, it featured a few cherry-picked anecdotes illustrating the popular notion of a "democratic" advantage for democrats' taking over the House in November. The article was no more than a "page filler."
6
@Barry Leshowitz
"This article was based on very little scientific polling data."
Actually, it is based on a series of polls that the New York Times and Siena College just did, which were published in this newspaper. And I see a link to those polls in the middle of the article.
6
Whoever's in charge of digital engagement over there will be happy to know that I'm finding your live polls quite addictive.
I suppose that's better than being addicted to Angry Birds or some such...
19
It's amazing many races are so close given that if Democrats don't regain the House this country will be toast. Trump and the Republicans will be so emboldened there will be no stopping them in taking America one further step into becoming a full blown fascist dictatorship. Be very afraid.
83
We are about to discover the collective IQ of the American public.
70
@62Down
American public rejects a legacy candidate and that means the IQ is low? We don't have to wait to know what the left thinks about the rest of the Country do we? You scorn shines through loud and clear wonder why you think that makes me want to vote for a democrat?
1
We found that out in 2016.
1
Why does this feel like deja vu?
Remember 2016? The Times and just about every other media outlet were predicting a surefire Democratic victory. So much so that the party pulled resources from safe states like Pennsylvania to go after red states like Texas and Georgia.
That sure worked out well, diidn't it?
4
@rlschles Where in this article do you see NYT claiming "a surefire Democratic victory"? People need to get more educated about polls and what they mean. They are just one tool to estimate the probabilities of the election outcome, and nowhere in this article do I see NYT making erroneous claims or predictions about the election.
A lot of the facts we use to predict election outcomes point toward the Dems having a very good chance at winning the House, but it is not set in stone and every semi-decent media outlet in the country is saying so. People need to get over their shock and outrage over the 2016 election result and not take it out on the pollsters.
8