Curve for October 2010? Forum

[incompetentia]

And I thought I was bad with following polling data. (I'm mostly following races casually outside of places I live/have lived...)


But seriously, Drack, I don't think you've directly addressed this?

I see where you're coming from, but note that the only years where the NUMBER of questions increased were in 1992 (one of your 'outliers') and 2005 (raw for 170 steady). Even if a question gets tossed, the number of questions WILL increase.
Note that in these cases, there is no reason to expect that the raw score goes DOWN, and rather the evidence is slightly stronger that it goes UP.

[NJcollegestudent]

The problem with the enthusiasm gap is that well it just has not been consistent. Fluctuation do happen, however, when i see generic ballots that go +6 democrats to -10 democrats, there is either something severely wrong with the methodology of one of the pollsters, or the electorate is unpredictable. Knowing the way elections work, conservatives typically vote regardless of the climate, hence why democrats could not pick up more that 21 seats the last go around. What is to be said is the fact that the general trend is starting to bounce back in the democrats favor. Whether this makes +50 republican gains into +30 is to be seen, however, one point to note is that most of the undecided and stay at home voters are democrats, and as these candidates really step it up these last two weeks, along with massive union backed GOTV efforts, the gap should shrink.

See my home state gubernatorial election from last year and what happened with the gap. It was quite large in the spring and summer of 2009, however, it began to lessen as election season came around, bringing what should have been a blowout in favor of the republican to a mere four point victory, over an incumbent who was unpopular to be kind.

My predictions:

Senate: 56 democrats (pickup KY, and if AK then maybe 57).
House: It will be quite tricky, however, with a few surprise democrat wins in PA,KS, and CA we should keep the house by about 15 seats or so.

Again, i do agree that all of this hinges on the gap lessening in the next few weeks.

[albusdumbledore]

Unusual how? The recent precedent that one could get a raw score as low as 87 and still get 170 was reestablished on PT59.

PT59 had a satanic LR section.

Both 59 and 60 were pretty hard tests all around. 61 wan'st easy, but it also wasn't a cakewalk.

If Satan's name is Noguchi, then I would agree. I thought the RC for PT59 was ridiculously hard and single-handedly set the curve for that test.

But let's assume you're right about the LR section being unusually difficult on PT59. I know that one of PT61's real LR sections was an experimental from PT59 due to using the TLS search function. So how do you think someone (a good scorer, say) would have handled the two LR's on PT59 plus the experimental LR with the brick-houses and/or Rule of Law and other traps set up? PT61's RC was also tested as the experimental on PT55. I feel bad for those that had to juggle both the Talk-Story and Transnationalism. Admittedly, they were probably more pi$$ed when the latter didn't count, but it wasn't all that great. And although information from the boards on Feb 2009 is sketchy, our LG apparently got tested with another somewhat difficult LG that counted on the Feb 2009 LSAT, with most relieved that PT61's LG was fake for them.

I guess my point is the composition of PT61 got experimented on tests that would have probably had a strong mental affect on the test takers. I think RC comes in slightly easier from what it was tested against on PT55 because all four passages were not ambiguous, but the questions were still challenging. If I had to guess, I'd say our LG was somewhat harder than what the Feb 2009 takers faced as their real LG, but this is based primarily on thread posts and is not really meaningful. The Dec 2009 testers with a PT61 LR Experimental, well that would be tough, with the new question stems and what-not in addition to the real LR sections. True, maybe they caught on it was experimental. But some of us on PT61 thought the same.

That's the environment the scale for our test was set to. For the record, I haven't found the other LR section at all yet. My guess is that it was an experimental on one of the Sabbath tests.

I can give you an IRL answer to the question in bold, as this is exactly what happened when I took test 59. I started off with the experimental LR as my first section that you are talking about and was so flustered and thrown by how different it was that I panicked a little bit. It wasn't until halfway through my next section (LG) that there was no doubt in my mind that I had taken the experimental as the first section because it was so different. After that realization, I managed to make it through the real LR sections and the ridiculous RC, which did as you say, set the curve after that test. The LR were slightly harder then normal but not crazy. The RC was what everybody was complaining about after the test though, and it was obvious that it was difficult. Needless to say, I had my worst raw score ever (-18) but the curve at least let me escape with a 167. To all the people that say 59 was a gift test/curve, I beg to differ.

[niederbomb]

Senate: 56 democrats (pickup KY, and if AK then maybe 57).
House: It will be quite tricky, however, with a few surprise democrat wins in PA,KS, and CA we should keep the house by about 15 seats or so.

Again, i do agree that all of this hinges on the gap lessening in the next few weeks.

Wishful thinking. The close Senate seats, with the exception of 1 or 2, usually break for the party whom the political climate favors (See 2004, 2006, 2008).

That is GOP: 49
Dems: 51

House: 233 GOP, 202 Dem (electionprojection.com).

The fact is, things suck really bad, and the Democrats are the ones who control the government. Therefore, the GOP will win big by default. If things only sucked a little, then the GOP would make small gains. If things still suck really bad in a few years, then the Democrats will win big.

Such is U.S. politics. Cyclical and predictable.

The problem with the enthusiasm gap is that well it just has not been consistent.

See cell phones and caller ID. Polls aren't worth much anymore and getting more worthless all the time. I rarely answer numbers I don't know. Do any of these polls release the percentage of people they called on mobile phones and the percentage they called who didn't answer or who hung up?

[grover23]

I took both tests, and I think it's harder to determine which one was actually more difficult. The TLS consensus seems to be that the June test was harder.

However, the only people who would know this are the people who have taken both, and they would naturally have an easier overall experience (because it's their second time taking it).

Overall, I think this test was slightly easier (but once again, it might be because it was my second time). I don't think it was much easier though. They were hard in different areas.

I wouldn't be surprised with anything between a -10 and a -12. I would be super surprised by anything more or less than that. I'm predicting a -11.

i took both tests also (June and Oct), and i would be really surprised if the curve in oct is more forgiving then in June. in my opinion, june was a harder test across the board - particularly in the LR sections, and the zoning/chicano theater RC in June were combined tougher than the one hard RC passage in Oct. i'm putting my money on a -10 or -11, likely -11 due to the increase in questions, but much higher than that would be suprising. the mitigating factor, in my mind, is that there were many LR's that were uncharacteristic of the traditional LSAT and maybe this will account for a slightly more forgiving curve. still though, i'd be really surprised with anything higher than -12

[NJcollegestudent]

Senate: 56 democrats (pickup KY, and if AK then maybe 57).
House: It will be quite tricky, however, with a few surprise democrat wins in PA,KS, and CA we should keep the house by about 15 seats or so.

Again, i do agree that all of this hinges on the gap lessening in the next few weeks.

Wishful thinking. The close Senate seats, with the exception of 1 or 2, usually break for the party whom the political climate favors (See 2004, 2006, 2008).

That is GOP: 49
Dems: 51

House: 233 GOP, 202 Dem (electionprojection.com).

The fact is, things suck really bad, and the Democrats are the ones who control the government. Therefore, the GOP will win big by default. If things only sucked a little, then the GOP would make small gains. If things still suck really bad in a few years, then the Democrats will win big.

Such is U.S. politics. Cyclical and predictable.

The problem with the enthusiasm gap is that well it just has not been consistent.

See cell phones and caller ID. Polls aren't worth much anymore and getting more worthless all the time. I rarely answer numbers I don't know. Do any of these polls release the percentage of people they called on mobile phones and the percentage they called who didn't answer or who hung up?

I agree about the cellphones, in fact Pew research had a great piece just a week ago on cell phones and polling. They found on average about 3-5 percent of the poll is biased in the republicans favor generally when cell phones are excluded.

I will disagree with you on one point, Democrats do not control the government, and by Democrats i mean progressives, its the Blue Dogs who really run things with their swing vote bloc.

Also it is nice to see someone else who is interested in politics on the board.

[incompetentia]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

[Patriot1208]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

I think it's pretty clear Dems will keep the senate, probably between 53-55 seats. But I'd be pretty surprised if they kept the House.

[OrdinarilySkilled]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

If this is true, which i do not doubt, how the eff can we expect to ever get out of the rut. The fixes needed take commitment, something that the immediacy required by the majority of Americans will not allow.

[minnbills]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

I think it's pretty clear Dems will keep the senate, probably between 53-55 seats. But I'd be pretty surprised if they kept the House.

The house will go to the republicans- pretty much every pollster has taken that position.

But the senate will stay Democrat- especially with O'donnell and possibly Angle.

[incompetentia]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

If this is true, which i do not doubt, how the eff can we expect to ever get out of the rut. The fixes needed take commitment, something that the immediacy required by the majority of Americans will not allow.

I think to some extent, the economic model that we have necessarily implies a cyclical trend, and that the economy will eventually appear to fix itself regardless of immediate policy...the question is when. (Depending on this, one party or another usually will get a boost even if it was the other party's policy that happened to help the recovery most.)

Still, people need to somehow be better-informed or better-educated or something. I was trying to argue with somebody recently who claimed that since Obama was elected in November 2008, he should be held responsible for the change in unemployment since October 2008.

[Flips88]

Thank God for Christine O'Donnell.

Who else caught that she didn't know the establishment clause of the first amendment?

Apparently she missed that at her "Graduate Fellowship" in "Constitutional Government" at the Claremont "Institute".

[Patriot1208]

Thank God for Christine O'Donnell.

Who else caught that she didn't know the establishment clause of the first amendment?

Apparently she missed that at her "Graduate Fellowship" in "Constitutional Government" at the Claremont "Institute".

TBF, she should have known her audience and she is in a position where she should know some of these things, but a lot of very intelligent people can't tell you what the establishment clause is.

[niederbomb]

Thank God for Christine O'Donnell.

Who else caught that she didn't know the establishment clause of the first amendment?

Apparently she missed that at her "Graduate Fellowship" in "Constitutional Government" at the Claremont "Institute".

Or maybe she just got it mixed up with British law (with its state funding of churches) from her "studies" at "Oxford."

But f it all. I'm currently "undecided" between Madame Davis and the "Rent Is Too Damn High" Party.

[AverageTutoring]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

If this is true, which i do not doubt, how the eff can we expect to ever get out of the rut. The fixes needed take commitment, something that the immediacy required by the majority of Americans will not allow.

"In 1936 John Keynes postulated that depression and high unemployment were a direct corollary of insufficient private spending, and that the universal “cure” was an influx of expenditure by the government.....But Keynes acknowledged his “cure” focused solely on the short term and that the long-term consequences of such government action carry a much greater, and longer lasting impact then the short term benefits.

In the long run, after the injection of funds into the economy has brought it to regular levels, the problems of inflation and slow economic growth return. An economy with a slowing growth rate produces less and less jobs, and as the government enacts policy to lower unemployment in the short run, it unintentionally ends up increasing it in the long run."

Stimulus packages will quench the thirst for immediate relief (as they already have to some degree) but will bring the economy down in the long run. In the end we are doomed to die. But doomed people spend more. So it is in fact our impending doom that will save the economy. Havent you ever seen South Park?

[ralph_pootawn]

Wow. this thread got derailed. moved the political talk to the waiting thread or something.

[niederbomb]

Stimulus packages will quench the thirst for immediate relief (as they already have to some degree) but will bring the economy down in the long run.

Exactly, ask Japan, Argentina, and Canada in the early 90's about this.

[Flips88]

Thank God for Christine O'Donnell.

Who else caught that she didn't know the establishment clause of the first amendment?

Apparently she missed that at her "Graduate Fellowship" in "Constitutional Government" at the Claremont "Institute".

Or maybe she just got it mixed up with British law (with its state funding of churches) from her "studies" at "Oxford."

But f it all. I'm currently "undecided" between Madame Davis and the "Rent Is Too Damn High" Party.

Have you seen that guy's website? It. is. awesome.

http://jimmymcmillan.org/id24.html

I hope that song turns into a club dance hit.

[incompetentia]

I would attend a Rent is Too Damn High Party.

Oh wait

[niederbomb]

Have you seen that guy's website? It. is. awesome.

http://jimmymcmillan.org/id24.html

I hope that song turns into a club dance hit.

I'll see what I can do. The clubs in Shenyang's Open Zone haven't changed their music since "Single Ladies" came out.

Anyway, if you believe in responsible government, Vote Kristen Davis for New York Governor, the only candidate with a proven record of managing a successful business with happy customers.

[OrdinarilySkilled]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

If this is true, which i do not doubt, how the eff can we expect to ever get out of the rut. The fixes needed take commitment, something that the immediacy required by the majority of Americans will not allow.

"In 1936 John Keynes postulated that depression and high unemployment were a direct corollary of insufficient private spending, and that the universal “cure” was an influx of expenditure by the government.....But Keynes acknowledged his “cure” focused solely on the short term and that the long-term consequences of such government action carry a much greater, and longer lasting impact then the short term benefits.

In the long run, after the injection of funds into the economy has brought it to regular levels, the problems of inflation and slow economic growth return. An economy with a slowing growth rate produces less and less jobs, and as the government enacts policy to lower unemployment in the short run, it unintentionally ends up increasing it in the long run."

Stimulus packages will quench the thirst for immediate relief (as they already have to some degree) but will bring the economy down in the long run. In the end we are doomed to die. But doomed people spend more. So it is in fact our impending doom that will save the economy. Havent you ever seen South Park?

I was basically saying this effect is magnified by today's standards.

[jarofsoup]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

If this is true, which i do not doubt, how the eff can we expect to ever get out of the rut. The fixes needed take commitment, something that the immediacy required by the majority of Americans will not allow.

"In 1936 John Keynes postulated that depression and high unemployment were a direct corollary of insufficient private spending, and that the universal “cure” was an influx of expenditure by the government.....But Keynes acknowledged his “cure” focused solely on the short term and that the long-term consequences of such government action carry a much greater, and longer lasting impact then the short term benefits.

In the long run, after the injection of funds into the economy has brought it to regular levels, the problems of inflation and slow economic growth return. An economy with a slowing growth rate produces less and less jobs, and as the government enacts policy to lower unemployment in the short run, it unintentionally ends up increasing it in the long run."

Stimulus packages will quench the thirst for immediate relief (as they already have to some degree) but will bring the economy down in the long run. In the end we are doomed to die. But doomed people spend more. So it is in fact our impending doom that will save the economy. Havent you ever seen South Park?

I was basically saying this effect is magnified by today's standards.

American politics. It will swing to the right and in 2012 it will be back to the left, 2014 back to the right...etc.

I don't think the stimulus will bring the economy down in the long run. I think it "may" bring it down in the long run.

[am060459]

so how about that curve?

[Blumpbeef]

It's not whether it's progressives or Blue Dogs at this point; it's about the name of the party in power.

The voters in general don't care about the intraparty ideological differences, they just see the economy stuck in a rut and want out.

I'd say 52-53 Dems are left in the Senate at this point (CO and NV are difficult for my gut to predict), with about 222-225 Reps for the GOP (although if that number went up to 240 I wouldn't be too surprised).

I think it's pretty clear Dems will keep the senate, probably between 53-55 seats. But I'd be pretty surprised if they kept the House.

The thing about the senate is that with no Republicans willing to vote for anything the democrats propose, the difference between 51 and 59 seats won't have as big of an impact as it might seem. They could never get up to 60 votes anyway. Hell, even during the times when they did have 60 seats they still couldn't get much passed. But the 51 seats give the democrats control of the committees and stuff(I really should read up about how all this works before I start law school).

As for the House, it seems like it will be going to the Republicans, although it is far from being a certainty.

American politics. It will swing to the right and in 2012 it will be back to the left, 2014 back to the right...etc.

People are rightly dissatisfied with Washington, but there seems to be a bit of amnesia, and people will, like you said, just go back and forth between the two evils. The Republicans were pretty soundly rejected after Bush but just two years later, the same platform and politicians are successful again with very little actual change.

so how about that curve?

Elections are easier to predict. Also, less depressing.

[3|ink]

Anyway, completely off topic of this thread, what do you all think of that October 2010 curve?