When have the "experts" been wrong?

[pstokely]

Weren't they wrong in 94 and 98? Can GOTV beat math?

[Milo_Bloom]

1. They were right in 94, but not in 98.

98 they had no conception of the amount of anger being levelled against the gop for their impeachment stunt.

[pstokely]

2. Who was wrong in 98?

What makes people think they're wrong now? Even some now admit they might be wrong

[Milo_Bloom]

7. The media consensus.

They expected GOP pickups.. and they were surprised that the democrats held their own.

They THOUGHT that having a president impeached wouldn't bode well for that party.. however, the reaction was the opposite as the vast majority of people felt that the GOP was on a wild witch hunt and should have been focused ont he country's business instead of chasing their boogieman. People went out and voted AGAINST the GOP because they were seen as abusing the power they were given.

The problem is right now it is democrats who are on the unhappy side of disappointment.

[FBaggins]

10. That's actually backwards.

There was hardly anyone in 1994 that even came close to predicting the carnage that resulted.

1998 wasn't nearly as far off. Charlie Cook, for instance, was off by about 6-7 House seats. He had essentially a "no significant change" prediction all through 1998.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/sites/default/files/dec211998ratings.pdf

In 1994, I think he was looking for a 15-20 seat republican gain.

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Guess you were listening to different people.

The people I listened to and read at the time all predicted huge republican gains in 1994. It was actually expeced to be bigger.

[bemildred]

15. Yeah, that's what I remember too.

The MSM was right that time, but not as right as they wanted to be.

The problem was that Newt and his minions paid not the slightest attention to their promises once they got power.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Lots Os Tsunami Talk In 94

~

[FBaggins]

26. Can you provide a single example?

I remember reading the Washington Post on the morning of November 8th, 1994. They had a chart with predictions from at least a couple dozen analysts. Nobody predicted gains as large as what we actually saw. I only remember two who even thought that one house would fall.

Yes, almost all expected republican gains, but nothing of the magnitude of what we saw. If "it was actually expected to be bigger" then you should be able to provide an example (as I have).

1998, OTOH, wasn't a shocker because the analysts had it wrong... many were pretty close. It was a shocker because the opposition party is supposed to pick up seats in an off-year election and republicans lost a handful. But that's not an analyst prediction... that's just historical expectation. As I pointed out, Charlie Cook had the race essentially tied all year long and his final chart was about 6-7 seats off.

[pstokely]

29. So they could be overestimating or underestimating Repuke gains this year?

I think they're all overestimating gains.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. Don't care to.

It would take a lot of time and energy to prove somethng that doesn't mean diddly.

You remember what you remember, I remember what I remember. My opinion will not change based on a single reference of yours and yours will not change based on a single reference of mine.

None of it changes what will happen on Tuesday.

[FBaggins]

31. You mean "can't"

Because you aren't capable of performing the impossible.

There were no analyst predictions from 1994 that expected worse results than what we saw. I can't even remember a partisan republican position that came anywhere close.

and yours will not change based on a single reference of mine.

Since I'm saying that there weren't any at all... my opinion would have to change if you provide a single example.

None of it changes what will happen on Tuesday.

That's true enough. I wish there was something that we could do to change it at this point... but I'm out of ideas.

[Milo_Bloom]

32. No, I mean, don't care to.

[Vincardog]

3. They were wrong about WMDs/Chimp's lies to get us into VietnIraqAstan

[DJ13]

4. It would be a shorter list to quote the few times they are right

[pstokely]

5. This guy has been right since 78

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

[bemildred]

9. Random variation will lead to a few "predicters" having long strings of good predictions.

That is what the various kinds of psychic predicters rely on, being right enough to have some credibility. So the fact that one guy has been right since 1978, even if true, means squat. It is also worth considering what "being right" means. What exactly was he right about? The fuzzier the description of "being right" the less it means.

[FrenchieCat]

6. They were wrong to not question the SCOTUS decision that

the vote Counting should stop in Florida....

and they were wrong that the "Tea Party" reflected the will of America,
back during the Health Care propaganda that they generated.


They have been telling us for the past 16 months that Republicans were going to win,
and I guess what they say "goes".

We, as Americans, are a weak people.....who does whatever we are told to do
by the media.........and this time may be no exceptions, cause we are suckers.

[Arugula Latte]

8. One wild card that gets wilder every election: lack of cell phone polling.

We didn't have that so much in the 90s.

[depakid]

11. In the last Australian election, Labor was predicted to hold on to government by a few seats

and also win the two party preferred by a comfortable margin.

Unfortunately, Labor- like the Democrats, spent six months pandering to the right and annoying key constituencies.

The result was a Greenslide and a hung Parliament, with Labor's future to be determined by its ability to work with the Greens on key legislation. Without Green support, nothing gets through the Senate OR the lower house.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

35. Not quite with the new Parliament...

The Greens only have one MP in the House of Representatives. Labor has 72 seats and it needed 76 seats to form a government. Labor is in government now not because of the Greens but because of the three non-aligned Independents who decided to vote with Labor to give it a parliamentary majority. If the three Independents were to side with the Coalition, Labor could have the support of the Green'MP and it still wouldn't have the numbers to form a government. So, while they do have to work with the Greens in the House of Representatives, they also have to work with the Independents if they want to get the legislation through. Indeed, there have already been votes in the new Parliament where the Greens have voted with Labor and they have still not had the numbers to get parliamentary motions through

In the Senate, from next July, you're right -they will have to work with the Greens as they hold the balance of power

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. New Hampshire, 2008

Just sayin'...

Glad to see you're still spamming the board with doom and gloom after you're despicable "Would it really be that bad if GOP took over the house" crap got locked, though.

Which side are you on, son?

[depakid]

16. Seems like a pretty reasonable topic to me

and hardly spam (although there have been a whole lot of head in the sand posts that would probably qualify).

and btw: It's not "you're despicable" but "your despicable." Depending of course on what you're trying to say.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Not surprised

...

[depakid]

18. We will be if the pollsters are off as far as they were in New Hampshire

As Nate Silver noted in his analysis, there's a lot of uncertainty in the model(s) this go around.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. It's been obvious for quite a while

that you deeply desire a big Dem loss in order to "prove" whatever point you think you have.

I have no particular interest in dealing with such people. So good luck to you, but I don't have any need to interact with you past this.

Cheers.

[depakid]

20. There's a big difference

between noting that certain courses of action or strategies will lead to election losses- as they have in the past, based on astute observation, and experience - and "wanting" them to occur to "prove some point."

Most people who predict poor results from one policy or strategy or another hope that they're wrong. Krugman (and a whole lot of us) surely did re: the poorly targeted, half measure stimulus. Unfortunately, the results speak for themselves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. That Wasn't Stokely .That Was Another Guy

It's a violation of DU rules to name him.

Stokely's M O is just to ask questions and make random observations.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Whatevs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9411406

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I'm Sorry. You Are Correct

But in Stokley's defense he's been posting random observations and questions since he's been here.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. depends on whether they fix the voting machines?

[Skittles]

21. EXPERTS ARE NEVER WRONG

THEY'RE NOT

[rasputin1952]

23. There ar very few "experts", but a huge # of pundits that swear they

have some expertise in political matters.

Take "polls", hundreds of them almost every day...people are "polled out"; (just for the hell of it, I once did a mini-"study" on "polling" and after asking over 350 people if they had ever been "polled", two admitted to it...where they hell do they get these #'s?).

The GOP/Teabaggers are using nothing but fear, they have nothing else. Almost everyone I've met in this country is a hard working individual that generally don't like thir jobs, but work to help their families. Bad thing is, fear works far too often...:(

[Honeycombe8]

25. The expert "history" is never wrong. nt

[Valienteman]

33. I don't think Larry Sabato has ever been wrong

He's always been very accurate as far as i know.

[Golden Raisin]

34. "Dewey Defeats Truman" [Nov. 3, 1948]