FiveThirtyEight: Republicans have a 2 in 3 chance of keeping the Senate.

Forecasting the race for the Senate.

Just released model from Nate Silver & Co. gives Republicans a 2 in 3 chance of retaining the Senate in the 2018 midterms.

Tough map for Democrats this cycle. But if enthusiasm is truly behind Dems them perhaps there is some undercurrent of support that polls and the model aren't capturing?

Anyways, I guess Ruth Bader Ginsburg better keep eating her Wheaties for at least 2 more years.

So how are you feeling about the Republican's chances of keeping the Senate in November?

The math is with the Republicans in the Senate this cycle. Still, this cycle and the next are critical for building state level support ahead of the census.

Given the math, the fact that the Senate is even in play bodes well for the Democrats' chances of getting off to a strong start on that state level support this cycle.

The Senate was never really in the Dems favor for winning back. I wouldn't bet money on it. If there is anything to come of it, let's have Cruz lose his spot. That would be worth it for the lulz.

Im for republicans not controlling everything. Let democrars have the house or senate. Checks and balances.

I mean, yeah. The senate election math is just terrible for the democrats through no fault of their own as far as I can tell. They have three projected republican seats that are considered "tossups" and a ton of democrat tossups. Even one win on the republican side against a dem incumbant will essentially nullify their chances of taking the senate.

Didn't Trump have like a 1 in 5 chance though to win 2016 according to 538?

Basically 538 came under A LOT of criticism during the election because they still gave Trump a chance unlike other sites like The Huffington Post and The New York Times which both had Clinton with a 99% chance of winning. So while still being wrong Nate Silver came ahead in the minds of many not only by being the one "less wrong" but for actually defending his model and statistical analysis, "the numbers are the numbers".

Not nailing was is probably the biggest upset in 230+ years of US electoral history isn't enough to sway my trust. That and Silver's highly successful record of prediction for the House and the Senate since 2008 plus the Presidency (besides Trump).

@Master_Live: "So while still being wrong "

You were doing so well until this point.

Liberals should just start joining the republican party.

Forget about partisanship.

@mattbbpl: Well, wrong he was.

But if the model gets 9 out of 10 right then that's good on my book. Point is that the process is sound. Unlike, lets say, The Huffington Post which seemed to be fitting their stuff to a narrative, Nate is a true statistician who lets the chip fall where they may.

lol, you would think I worked at 538 by how much I defend them :P

@Master_Live: But he wasn't wrong. Stats aren't predictions, they're likelihood.

Edit: If I had a bag of 4 marbles - 1 red and 3 black - and said, "There is only a 1 in four chance of me pulling out a red marble," but then I pulled out a red marble nonetheless, was I wrong?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't like letting Silver of the hook completely. Nate created a model. The model uses polls and modifiers selected by Silver (whether to un-skew polls, the using of "fundamentals" and which fundamentals to use plus how each of those fundamentals and "extras" are weighted in model).

That's is to say, his models does not only aggregates polls and create a prediction out of that, that's more akin to what Real Clear Politics does. His model is polls + stuff selected by Silver out of research he and he team has done. If his model was "just the polls" then, yeah, he could say "the polls were wrong". But since part of the model/equations includes modifications made by him (and these modifications is, in part, what has brought him great success) there is some responsibility that lies at Nate's feet.

Seems like that is what is happening on both sides.