This guy got it wrong on the first sentence:
The much-vaunted Democratic turnout machine didn’t fail Tuesday.
…The Democrats lost seven, soon to be nine Senate seats; at least a dozen House seats (I haven’t looked up the running total); dropped a net three governorships; and got likewise wrecked on the state level. The much-vaunted Democratic turnout machine failed Tuesday. It doesn’t particularly matter why it failed, either: which I know is a controversial statement to make, but I have a reason for saying that. Basically, the problem here really is that the Democrats had no way of telling ahead of time that their machine wasn’t working properly. Of course there was a flaw in the turnout models. There’s always a flaw in the model. The trick is being able to figure that out before the whole thing explodes.
Oh, well. Somebody Else’s Problem.
Via
So a flaw in their model may have cost Dems seats in 3 states. http://t.co/xSibNSwW3e
— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) November 11, 2014
I remember in the aftermath of the 1984 election it came out that the Mondale campaign revealed that their strategy had been to win certain key demographics. This surprised the Reagan campaign greatly; their strategy on the other hand had been first and foremost to win key states. History tells us which of these plans worked better.
I’ll say this – maybe they were able to turn out extra voters, but they have no way of knowing who those voters pulled the lever for once they entered the booth….
.
.
🙂
that’s where the “calibration error” machines came into play. who cares how they vote as long as it registers a vote for a democrat?
“as long as i count the votes, what are you going to do about it?
I do wonder though, if voter ID was the reason that Virginia was unexpectedly close, and that Texas was such a blowout. Maybe the models all had a particular level of fraud built in that couldn’t be achieved?