Jon Ralston: the dems are in trouble in Nevada

[It’s so Joever]

He has the right answer but the wrong formula.

[It’s so Joever]

Wow at this rate I may not be the most annoying CO avatar soon

[It’s so Joever]

And I thought Ralston was viewed as the "Oracle of Nevada", yet it seems like there are still those insistent that Democrats will sweep Nevada next week, in spite of his warnings. They seem almost as confident about their prospects across the board as they were in 2018.

Can you please give it a rest? This whole schtick is very haughty, not to mention unnecessary; in this thread there are now 5 posts which emphasize R's chances compared to 3 that emphasize D's chances. Just say that you think Republicans are favored in Nevada; the fact that you think people who disagree with you are wrong is implied by the very fact that you disagree with them.

Of course I disagree with them, and as I said, I'm not conceding my ground as I've done before. There is a large segment of posters on this forum who believe that we are in for a decisive Democratic wave next week, and think Republicans are set to lose every or almost every competitive race. They're not going to allow some pundit or some pollster to deter them from that, even if they relied on said pundit and said pollster in the past.

OK. Who cares? Either they're right or they're wrong, and we'll see which one soon enough. However, gloating about how much smarter you are than them before the election is even held contributes no insights. At least if it was a week from today and we all saw that a red wave had just occurred, we could perhaps conclude that your method of analysis is superior to those you're criticizing, but for all we know now they could be right; I don't think they are, but I certainly can't begin to evaluate where they went wrong without results. You're definitely not the only offender here, but that's part of the problem; every thread on this board is full to bursting with premature derision to the point that it's crowding out actual analysis.

That's what I'm pushing against. You are all concerned when someone comes on here and presents an optimistic prediction for Republicans, but when they do it for Democrats, I don't hear the same kinds of complaints. Most people on here would be losing themselves if Ralston had said the exact opposite thing about Nevada, and most people would be losing themselves if the early data was unquestionably and undeniably good for Democrats.

The problem with people here is that they allow their bias to dictate how they perceive everything, whether it's how "legitimate" a pollster is when they show results they don't like, or if anecdotal data is posted that doesn't match "what they feel" or "believe" to be the reality. I'm tired of being given a sanctimonious lecture when no one's doing that for those who they think are correct.

You want an unscanctimonious post? Okay.

Let me put it this way. I agree with your post. I agree with the whole bias argument you make and the double standard point. My entire forum posting history for the past year has been talking about how Atlas is a hive mind and full of Dem optimists who aren’t grounded in reality. And yet even I am tempted to switch to a wbrocks level D hack when I read you arguing here. I don’t know why, but for all the talk about sanctimony, you seem like the sanctimonious one here. Take this how you want, but you aren’t helping your case.

[It’s so Joever]

Ralston basically is arguing this is a reverse 2018. Not a 2014 level apocalypse but still not good for Ds.

[It’s so Joever]

And I thought Ralston was viewed as the "Oracle of Nevada", yet it seems like there are still those insistent that Democrats will sweep Nevada next week, in spite of his warnings. They seem almost as confident about their prospects across the board as they were in 2018.

Can you please give it a rest? This whole schtick is very haughty, not to mention unnecessary; in this thread there are now 5 posts which emphasize R's chances compared to 3 that emphasize D's chances. Just say that you think Republicans are favored in Nevada; the fact that you think people who disagree with you are wrong is implied by the very fact that you disagree with them.

Of course I disagree with them, and as I said, I'm not conceding my ground as I've done before. There is a large segment of posters on this forum who believe that we are in for a decisive Democratic wave next week, and think Republicans are set to lose every or almost every competitive race. They're not going to allow some pundit or some pollster to deter them from that, even if they relied on said pundit and said pollster in the past.

OK. Who cares? Either they're right or they're wrong, and we'll see which one soon enough. However, gloating about how much smarter you are than them before the election is even held contributes no insights. At least if it was a week from today and we all saw that a red wave had just occurred, we could perhaps conclude that your method of analysis is superior to those you're criticizing, but for all we know now they could be right; I don't think they are, but I certainly can't begin to evaluate where they went wrong without results. You're definitely not the only offender here, but that's part of the problem; every thread on this board is full to bursting with premature derision to the point that it's crowding out actual analysis.

That's what I'm pushing against. You are all concerned when someone comes on here and presents an optimistic prediction for Republicans, but when they do it for Democrats, I don't hear the same kinds of complaints. Most people on here would be losing themselves if Ralston had said the exact opposite thing about Nevada, and most people would be losing themselves if the early data was unquestionably and undeniably good for Democrats.

The problem with people here is that they allow their bias to dictate how they perceive everything, whether it's how "legitimate" a pollster is when they show results they don't like, or if anecdotal data is posted that doesn't match "what they feel" or "believe" to be the reality. I'm tired of being given a sanctimonious lecture when no one's doing that for those who they think are correct.

You want an unscanctimonious post? Okay.

Let me put it this way. I agree with your post. I agree with the whole bias argument you make and the double standard point. My entire forum posting history for the past year has been talking about how Atlas is a hive mind and full of Dem optimists who aren’t grounded in reality. And yet even I am tempted to switch to a wbrocks level D hack when I read you arguing here. I don’t know why, but for all the talk about sanctimony, you seem like the sanctimonious one here. Take this how you want, but you aren’t helping your case.

Sanctimony ought to be met with sanctimony. I'm merely dealing out the medicine that many posters routinely deal out here, and in ways that are excessively hackish and irritating to read. They don't like when I do it, but they cheer each other on for doing the same. It is absolute hypocrisy on their part. I understand now why ElectionsGuy and other posters have gotten fed up with this place. I don't encounter this level of hackishness elsewhere but on this forum.

Okay so here is the thing, if you go on the attack you gotta expect to be attacked back. That’s how it works on here, and maybe I’m wrong but it seems like you want to be able to act high and mighty without being attacked back. Maybe not but those are the vibes I’m getting.
And yknow what lets enjoy mocking the posters who made such hacking decisions as the results come in, soon we will have our laugh, and he who laughs have the last laugh.