Official GOP Gloating Thread.

[SPC]

So as I stated in the other thread, the polls haven't been meaningfully biased in favor of Democrats since 2002. That seems like a trend to me.

[SPC]

So as I stated in the other thread, the polls haven't been meaningfully biased in favor of Democrats since 2002. That seems like a trend to me.

Huh? If you were going to quote one of my posts to mock, couldn't you have picked a better one than something that was literally a fact until tonight?

I am not taking partisan delight so much as delight in those with fallacious understanding of statistics eating it. Your attempts to extrapolate a trend from such a small sample size amuses me.

[SPC]

So as I stated in the other thread, the polls haven't been meaningfully biased in favor of Democrats since 2002. That seems like a trend to me.

Huh? If you were going to quote one of my posts to mock, couldn't you have picked a better one than something that was literally a fact until tonight?

I am not taking partisan delight so much as delight in those with fallacious understanding of statistics eating it. Your attempts to extrapolate a trend from such a small sample size amuses me.

That's what politics is about, buddy. Presidential elections as a whole are an extremely small sample size. Does that mean people should stop analyzing them?

If you call what Dean Chambers and yourself did "analysis," then yes.

[SPC]

This comes awfully close:

Either the polling is going to not have a Republican skew or it will, meaning the effect will be either neutral or favoring Democrats. Same for vote by mail, there's really no scenario in which one could imagine this benefitting Republicans, meaning the only possibilities are that it will be a neutral factor or will favor Democrats. There's the possibility that the polling average could favor Democrats, but it seems very slim considering the history of the state.

[SPC]

It really wasn't different from 2010. The difference is that the 2010 wave happened with Democrat drawn gerrymander districts and 2014 was the same vote with Republican drawn gerrymander districts. 2010 Senate was an election of completely inept GOP nominees trying to defend 2004 seats while 2014 Senate was more vetted GOP nominees knocking around 2008 seats.

In 2010, the GOP was attempting to pick up Delaware and Nevada. In 2014, they were targeting North Carolina and South Dakota. That's a big difference. The gains came much easier this time.

I'd really be shocked if the GOP margin in national popular vote ended up being more than 1% better in 2014 than 2010, if even 1% at all.

The landslide of this election was predictable outcome and the shock of it is an optical illusion.

Even in Delaware and Nevada the GOP did better though.

[SPC]

I am disappointed that some good opportunities to beat the Dem got away.  Like CT RI CO VT and even NH governor races along with NH and VA Senate race.  VA hurts especially since just like 2013 it was a Libertarian candidate that took down the GOP candidate AND the GOP failed in invest in a race that was in retrospect quite winnable.     

It would not sting as much if the Libertarian was actually an ideological libertarian, as opposed to Robert "mileage tax" Sarvis. On that note, I am glad that Sean "Medicaid expansion" Haugh did not hurt (or even helped) the GOP in North Carolina.