Polling guru Nate Silver has upgraded Democrats’ chances of winning control of the U.S. Senate in November’s midterm elections, with his forecast now giving the party a 75 percent probability of victory.

Silver’s FLIPR 2026 midterm election forecast, published by Silver Bulletin, previously classified Democrats’ chances as “Lean D” as their prospects of retaking the chamber improved. The forecast has now moved into the “Likely D” category, marking a further shift in the model’s outlook.

Silver’s model uses polling data and other indicators to estimate the likelihood of different election outcomes. Its probabilities are estimates rather than guarantees, and the outlook can change as new polling and other information become available, but the latest upgrade suggests the model increasingly favors Democrats in the battle for the chamber.

  • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    And that again misunderstands statistics going on here.

    The prediction was who won, not by how much they won. In fact, his prediction was that it was a 60% chance that one or the other of them would win six out of the seven close races.

    This stuff IS difficult to understand. Some of it is pretty intuitive, and some of it really is not.

    edit: Fucking go LEARN before you fucking downvote. I am correct. So feel free to try and prove me wrong. But if you’re just going to downvote, fuck you and fuck off. Stop being willfully ignorant. Jesus christ.

      • SippyCup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        That is not how statistics works.

        You’re thinking of statistical prediction as divination. That an 80% chance of something happening means it’s going to happen.

        Statistical predictions are a combination of two statements.

        1. There is an X% chance of event A occurring

        AND

        1. There is a Y% chance of event B occurring.

        In order to be accurate, event B must occur Y% of the time, event A X%. There may be dozens of ways either even can unfold, but the ultimate outcome should fall in to one of those two possibilities, roughly as often as predicted.

        I’m hot being hyperbolic when I say this, saying “60% of the time it works every time” is literally a more accurate way of looking at it than what you’re saying.

      • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Incorrect. You can fucking look this stuff up and learn instead of being aggressively ignorant.

        Analogy: Flipping a single coin has a 50% chance of “winning”. Flip one coin, however, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of ALL COINS FLIPPED are HEADS (or TAILS), and yet it was a 50% chance of winning.

        Please. Please go fucking learn how this works, or just accept that it is the case. Google it. Talk to an LLM if you want - they are great at explaining this sort of thing. Do something. Please don’t continue to make ignorant replies.

        • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Don’t talk to an LLM, it will end up telling you what you want to hear.

          Do actual research