Should we put their pictures on the backs of milk cartons? Something really important 😉 must be keeping them away.
Should we put their pictures on the backs of milk cartons? Something really important 😉 must be keeping them away.
Tom and Boiler have been missing certain essential cognitive functions for some time now.
Or is that what you meant?
Boiler is just waiting for someone with extra melanin in the skin to behave badly. Then he'll of course blame Democrats. So he'll be back.
But Tom, who just loves polls, will now learn to trust the NY Times polls and the 538 analysis, and learn to disrespect the totally disgraced Real Clear Politics "polls." That is, if he has any sense. So what are the chances.
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
Boiler is just waiting for someone with extra melanin in the skin to behave badly. Then he'll of course blame Democrats. So he'll be back.
But Tom, who just loves polls, will now learn to trust the NY Times polls and the 538 analysis, and learn to disrespect the totally disgraced Real Clear Politics "polls." That is, if he has any sense. So what are the chances.
So speaking of 'missing' didn't you bet Charles Higgins (Under penalty of never coming back):
"1. That the Democrats maintain control of the Senate.
AND
2. That the TOTAL votes received by Democratic nominees for the House exceed the TOTAL votes received by Republican nominees for the House."
Kitchen Sink - So who wants to bet on the mid-term elections? (lasvegasadvisor.com)
Maybe I'm not looking in the right place or maybe this isn't the statistic you were betting on or maybe this link is BS, but it looks to me like GOP House Candidates are sitting at 6 million more votes than Democrat ones. Is that right? What do your numbers show?
2022 National House Vote Tracker | Cook Political Report
Originally posted by: Charles
So speaking of 'missing' didn't you bet Charles Higgins (Under penalty of never coming back):
"1. That the Democrats maintain control of the Senate.
AND
2. That the TOTAL votes received by Democratic nominees for the House exceed the TOTAL votes received by Republican nominees for the House."
Kitchen Sink - So who wants to bet on the mid-term elections? (lasvegasadvisor.com)
Maybe I'm not looking in the right place or maybe this isn't the statistic you were betting on or maybe this link is BS, but it looks to me like GOP House Candidates are sitting at 6 million more votes than Democrat ones. Is that right? What do your numbers show?
2022 National House Vote Tracker | Cook Political Report
That can't possibly be right. That would be a nationwide numeric advantage of over 4%, which neither party has.
Also, a lot of votes remain to be counted. And it looks like the Senate won't be resolved until next month.
I can't see their reasoning, as the article is behind a paywall.
Originally posted by: Charles
So speaking of 'missing' didn't you bet Charles Higgins (Under penalty of never coming back):
"1. That the Democrats maintain control of the Senate.
AND
2. That the TOTAL votes received by Democratic nominees for the House exceed the TOTAL votes received by Republican nominees for the House."
Kitchen Sink - So who wants to bet on the mid-term elections? (lasvegasadvisor.com)
Maybe I'm not looking in the right place or maybe this isn't the statistic you were betting on or maybe this link is BS, but it looks to me like GOP House Candidates are sitting at 6 million more votes than Democrat ones. Is that right? What do your numbers show?
2022 National House Vote Tracker | Cook Political Report
Yep, and I'll probably lose. But I'll lose for the worst of all reasons: I made a mistake phrasing the bet - and I did this screw-up on a site dedicated largely to gambling. I should go away just on that basis regardless of the outcome.
Because of gerrymandering, I've still convinced that Democratic candidates in competitive races will overall get more votes than Republican candidates. But I failed to say "competitive," didn't I? And there are several Republican districts, largely in places no sentient human being would ever want to live or visit, that had only a Republican on the ballot. So they get 100%.
So yeah, the time is near, and I must face the final curtain. And like I said, if I win I lose, and if I lose I win.
And probable congrats to Charles Higgins, for not only winning the bet but for having the balls to stand behind his claims. You didn't qualify for that last thing, did you, Charles?
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
Boiler is just waiting for someone with extra melanin in the skin to behave badly. Then he'll of course blame Democrats. So he'll be back.
But Tom, who just loves polls, will now learn to trust the NY Times polls and the 538 analysis, and learn to disrespect the totally disgraced Real Clear Politics "polls." That is, if he has any sense. So what are the chances.
Tom? Learn??
He'll just cherry-pick, spin, and deny until he reaches the "conclusion" he wants.
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
Yep, and I'll probably lose. But I'll lose for the worst of all reasons: I made a mistake phrasing the bet - and I did this screw-up on a site dedicated largely to gambling. I should go away just on that basis regardless of the outcome.
Because of gerrymandering, I've still convinced that Democratic candidates in competitive races will overall get more votes than Republican candidates. But I failed to say "competitive," didn't I? And there are several Republican districts, largely in places no sentient human being would ever want to live or visit, that had only a Republican on the ballot. So they get 100%.
So yeah, the time is near, and I must face the final curtain. And like I said, if I win I lose, and if I lose I win.
And probable congrats to Charles Higgins, for not only winning the bet but for having the balls to stand behind his claims. You didn't qualify for that last thing, did you, Charles?
Kind of an interesting way to justify losing by 6 million votes. "Oh...there were all these races where no one lives who all voted for the only candidate on the ballot who is always Republican..I was only talking about 'competitive' races where there was more than one candidate."
I personally didn't feel strongly about it one way or the other. I thought Republicans would win the House and Senate but had no clue about popular vote. And why would you expect multiple Republicans to take you up on your bet if no other Democrats have to balls to stand behind your claims too? Kind reminds me of the old ruse "I won't vote for my guy if you don't vote for yours" and then make that agreement with 10 people. But you wouldn't try to do something sleezy like that, would you MP?
Originally posted by: Charles
Kind of an interesting way to justify losing by 6 million votes. "Oh...there were all these races where no one lives who all voted for the only candidate on the ballot who is always Republican..I was only talking about 'competitive' races where there was more than one candidate."
I personally didn't feel strongly about it one way or the other. I thought Republicans would win the House and Senate but had no clue about popular vote. And why would you expect multiple Republicans to take you up on your bet if no other Democrats have to balls to stand behind your claims too? Kind reminds me of the old ruse "I won't vote for my guy if you don't vote for yours" and then make that agreement with 10 people. But you wouldn't try to do something sleezy like that, would you MP?
Actually Charles, Nate Silver of 538 - you know, the guy who got the polls right this time - says that the uncontested races are worth 2-3% in the overall vote total, which would put it at even. And your link doesn't include the Senate.
So yeah, if it's contested contests and includes the Senate (you know, they are part of Congress), I think I made a smart bet. Alas...
