Shooting Craps

March 17, 2016 By: Juanita Jean Herownself Category: Uncategorized

If you’re a betting person, Nate Silver has some numbers for you before you roll the dice and lose your $2.

In taking back the Senate, Silver says

 

Republicans are vulnerable because a number of their blue- and purple-state senators who won election in the Republican wave year of 2010 are now on the ballot again. Furthermore, Trump could have a negative effect on down-ballot races; so could Ted Cruz, or someone nominated after a contested convention.

In what Silver calls back-of-an-envelope math, he comes up with this.

A 40 percent chance of President Clinton with a Democratic Senate.
A 30 percent chance of Clinton with a Republican Senate.
A 20 percent chance of President Trump (probably with a Republican Senate).
A 10 percent chance of Cruz, John Kasich or some other Republican.

Of course, these numbers mean something gooey and sticky to Republican senators.  If they don’t allow a hearing on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, will Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Senate nominate Bernie Sanders for the Supreme Court?  Okay, so not Bernie but likely someone far more liberal than Merrick Garland.

Polling suggests that a majority of the public wants the Senate to hold hearings on the next justice. Thus, blocking the appointment of Garland could hurt Republicans at the margin and further reduce their chances of keeping the Senate.

Silver also argues that the Republican base isn’t near as big as we thought it was.

Yeah, but it’s just as dumb and mean as we always suspected.

 

Be social and share!

0 Comments to “Shooting Craps”


  1. UmptyDump says:

    Yesss! I’ve been waiting to hear someone else thinking that!

    This fall, electing Hillary will be one thing, but almost as important will be making Republican senatorial nominees wear the jacket for being on the ticket with Trump. Senate races are statewide, not limited to House districts, and if a state can take down Trump in November, those voters can vanquish the Republican senatorial contender as well.

    1
  2. UmptyDump says:

    In Illinois, I’m gonna love the irony of seeing Mark Kirk stand on a campaign rally podium in the shadow of The Donald. He’ll look more pathetic than the Jersey Whale.

    2
  3. Polite Kool Marxist says:

    Whether it be Hair Drumpf the self-proclaimed ‘uniter,’ Loathsome Ted Crooze the Repulse Reflex, or ALEC Ksuchasheis the phony Koch ‘moderate,’ the snacilbupeR have a huge problem. Coalescing their basest elements rises to the level of a magic feat, and that’s only 40% of their electorate. Then blending that unmanageable 40 with the remaining 60% comprised of the elite, the greedy, the war hawks and the corporatists (to name a few of the elements). The 14 of the 17 who are no longer with them went down in flames because they either represented only one element or offended one or more elements. The remaining 3 are not any better in terms of “appeal.” They were just sneakier, and snakier than the losers. Nate Silver says the group is smaller. I would add that “small” is further complicated by being fractured into itty bitty bits.

    Without a doubt any snacilbupeR candidate can be beaten in the general. However, that requires we vote in extraordinary numbers. Because, as we all know that between gerrymandering, voter suppression, dirty tricks and yet to be imagined forms of cheating, “Karl Rove” isn’t dead yet.

    Plus we do have a handicap in the form of Debbie WTF Schultz. In the general, we cannot depend on her for any reasonable help. It’s on us to register voters, find them IDs, get them to the polls and keep the Party united behind our nominee. And, if you cannot convince some among your circle of friends to vote for our nominee, then please try your best to stress to them the importance of voting for the down ballot candidates.

    3
  4. Prup (aka Jim Benton) says:

    Umpty, I have been saying this from the beginning — he – err ck — I’ve been saying the equivalent, without Trump, since about July 2010, hen I realized how badly we were blowing it by ignoring down-ballot candidates — not just Senator, but House Members, Governors, and even state legislators, all of whom should have been attacked for being part of the racist, obstructionist Republicans. Trump only makes the attack easier.

    But Nate Silver’s numbers only convince me once again that his reputation far exceeds his achievements. Trump does NOT have anything like 20% chance of winning — and if he does, the likelihood of him having a Republican Senate are almost 100%. But America is not that racist, that insane, and even Republicans aren’t. He still has never reached 50% of Republicans anywhere except the Northern Marianas.

    But — and all of these are ‘barring a catastrophe, disaster, or world-changing event’ as are Silver’s — while the chance of another Republican wresting the nomination from Trump might, just barely, be 10% — I’d put it below 1% — the chance of that person being elected is almost non-existent unless Trump has dropped out voluntarily. Thee Trump forces will be so lined up against the vanquisher of their hero that he won’t haave a chance — okay, if it is Ryan, maybe a 2% chance, any one else well below 1.

    Sure, gerrymandering is hard to overcome, yet, but the Republicans are likely to look like a diamond that someone tried to cut with a hammer. This is one election where our possible gains are only limited by our imaginations and the filing deadlines in some states. (Though getting rid of Debbie WS would be an additional help.)

    But every single Republican above the level of city government MUST be asked if they defend or denounce Trump, and watching them choose which is the least bad is also going to be fun.

    4
  5. RepubAnon says:

    On a side note: the current batch of Republicans feel that compromising is immoral, and shows weakness. What if there’s a contested Republican convention where nobody’s willing to compromise? What if there isn’t a Republican nominee?

    5
  6. Cheryl Ann says:

    RepubAnon, what if there are TWO Republican nominees? If Trump isn’t the nominee, I think he will run as a third party. His ego is just too big to go home.

    6
  7. Fenway Fran says:

    I am more hopeful than ever for the down ballot races. Considering the prospect of Hillary at the top of the ticket, add in a wise VP pick (I have my preferences) and people like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren and others in the Senate ready to move things forward, along with those we will elect to help them. Throw in the Supreme Court pick (after all the GOP Senators abdicate their responsibilities) and we have fantastic motivation to get people to the polls. My fantasy, anyway. I’m excited for the general. Wish this circus of a primary season was over. It’s causing me too much indigestion and disappointment in peoples’ ignorance. This has all been way too ugly. I know politics is tough, but this has been a real test of skin depth!!! I admire the bravery of anyone running for office these days. You can’t even make an reasoned observation without getting hate spammed. Thank Juanita, there is a safe place to hang out in the Salon.

    7
  8. two crows says:

    “If they don’t allow a hearing on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, will Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Senate nominate Bernie Sanders for the Supreme Court? Okay, so not Bernie but likely someone far more liberal than Merrick Garland.”

    Which is why they hedged their bets. If a Democrat wins, they’ll rush Garland’s approval through in a hurry. Thereby proving that all their rhetoric about “letting the president the American people choose” pick the next Supreme Court justice is the bunch of hooey we all know it is.

    8
  9. charles r. phillips says:

    Okay, okay, I like Nate Silver. A lot. He’s been right more often than anyone else, except 2014 and 2016. These are the telling truths;
    1. It is impossible for math to accurately predict an election if there is election fraud on a grand scale.
    2. The polls he relies on are useless if enough people lie.
    3. Once the RWNJs know and understand his methodology, they can use 1. and 2. above to defeat his predictions.

    9
  10. RepubAnon says:

    @ Cheryl Ann: I prefer the vision of October 31 arriving, and the Republican delegates still yelling at each other, demanding unconditional surrender by the other candidates. If the Republicans nominate someone else, The Donald will go third party – but what if they can’t reach a compromise? The first one to start a 3rd Party bid would have to leave the Republican Party. The Donald won’t do that unless he loses the nomination, and none of the others want to leave the gravy train.

    On the other hand, I could see the Tea Party nominating Trump – he wouldn’t mind being nominated by more than one party.

    11
  11. UmptyDump says:

    @charles r. phillips – Nate made what he calls a back-of-an-envelope calculation about an election more than seven months away, and 40-30-20-10 percent scenarios at this point are sure to change. But what he’s discussing what amounts to an opportunity for Democrats – no sure thing. But its an opportunity they need to pursue.

    12
  12. maryelle says:

    Wow! epo, that article by David Newquist is tremendous.
    His summary statement is that the party of fools has chosen the “most flamboyant fool” of all in Trump. I love the Flamboyant Fool moniker and am sure I will have ample opportunity to use it.

    13
  13. Marge Wood says:

    Somebody has to write a novel about all this–or make a movie or even a TV show.

    14
  14. Marge Wood says:

    What are we going to do for entertainment once the campaigns are over? People are forgetting how to think. What’s going on that “they” don’t want us to think about? TPP? Bees dying, cost of prescriptions….
    There is a huge huge rally about to happen. Bunch of orgs together working on it. Anyone remember details? I know that Public Citizen and MoveOn are involved.

    15
  15. “Silver also argues that the Republican base isn’t near as big as we thought it was.”

    I agree. Volume is not the same as numbers.

    I commented on the previous post that if Garland has not been heard, after Hillary wins in November and Democrats take the Senate, Obama ought to withdraw his nominee and allow ‘the people’s choice’ to make the decision.

    F**k you snacilbupeR!

    16
  16. NicaBrian says:

    Maybe the base is not so big but I was curious about how close the Missouri vote was in both parties. For 2016 the Dems had about 620,000 votes, the Republicans about 950,000. But it’s Missouri, right?

    Except that in 2008 The Dems got about 800,000 and the Republicans about 550,000.

    Desire for change is speaking loudly. We can’t get complacent.

    17
  17. I know we should be charitable and warn them about going over this edge. I’m just not going to holler too loudly. They made this monster and I’m ok with them taking the hit.

    18
  18. Elise Von Holten says:

    Everything in life is a crapshoot, no?
    I am not here as much as I’d like to be–my eyes are saying no more small print and my iPad won’t go much bigger for print…
    You have all been such a support in my journey, it’s lonely, out here in the snow. Really a hot weather type girl…
    We did it, he’s matched and the residency will be in Long Island. Nice to finish that part of the project–would have felt bad if I had failed him partway through.
    This new thing though…I’m so “visual” and do most of my feeling through my eyes…the RA meds steal away touch, I’m in too much pain, and I lost my sense of smell from a bad surgery–they call it “empty head syndrome” good for a laugh…
    My vision is changing faster than I can keep the $400 a pop shifts
    I will check in every time I can see–sometimes oddly more than others–you are all so very lovely…keep up turning Texas bloe, and anywhere else you might be a beautiful blue bit of brain power…this next part has me terriffied, I’m already clumsy from my joints misalignment…blind is a whole different ball game…

    19