After reading you article it occurs to me – you say they simply require this extra time to come to correct conclusion. I don’t have any real problem with that. But couldn’t we test that theory by moving the election day without notice to like Sept 21, 2008 so they would have had to decide sooner? Force them to either use the information they have to make a choice or not.

There’s actually a fourth threshold for action–67 votes, required to 1) impeach 2) pass a constitutional amendment and 3) overturn a veto.

The U.S. Senate has three thresholds for action: a simple majority (51 votes), a three-fifths majority (60 votes), and unanimity (100 votes). Various forms of action may be blocked by one, 41, or 51 Senators. The point of reaching 60 votes is to increase the likelihood of getting major legislation passed at all without fear of obstruction.

Also, the Senate is an institution naturally inclined toward compromise and bipartisanship. The U.S. Congress is often likened to teacup resting on a saucer. They felt that hot passions in the majoritarian chamber (House/teacup) could be cooled when they spilled over into the consensus-requiring chamber (Senate/saucer). Majority and minority Senators alike offer amendments, which are often considered.

Finally, there is a dynamic specific to the U.S. situation. Congressional Republicans are rather recent sufferers of the malady you mention. I saw this in person when I worked for a year as a member of House staff, then Senate staff. Congressional traditions of consultation and bipartisanship went out the window when they came into power in 1995, the year I arrived. The older traditions need to be restored. Also, the Republican Party has lost touch with its avowed basic principles. Some purifying time in the wilderness will improve their prospects in the future – and eventually help the entire nation by making them a more positive force for pushing back against Democrats. To put it another way, my country needs partisanship in the good sense. We don’t have it now.

Finally, my local Congressman, Rush Holt, points out that bipartisanship is easier when the majority is not under threat of losing its status in the near future.

To reiterate, if readers here want the maximum leverage over next year’s legislative action, they can achieve this by contributing to Senate races. For Democrats, go to ActBlue. For Republicans, the NRSC is appropriate.

And, because I am a pedant, to whoever was misquoting Acton:
It is ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.’ Even if Acton was correct, a president with a filibuster-proof majority isn’t bound to go bad.

So Democrats, be careful. If everything does come up Milhouse for you in this election, the Republican party will be able to wash their hands of any unpopular or ultra-partisan policies enacted during the reign of Barack and perhaps deliver an unexpected ass kicking next time around.

Regarding the 30% estimate, here is how he (or anyone) would make such an estimate: start with today’s Senate polls, then take a guess about how much the polls may be off, or may change, by Election Day. As it turns out, it would take a rather large swing of opinion, >5%, to make the distribution broad enough to get to 30% for 60 votes. This is why I am skeptical. I don’t believe the assumption, and I suspect that it’s a case of Silver saying something exciting for the gallery – kind of like what all those hated TV pundits do. Most people don’t know enough about statistics to judge these statements, and simply accept the absurdity.

gprimos1 – Are you kidding? A “wild” swing? That fluctuation is rather small. It only looks large compared to the steadiness of the overall estimate over time.

The answer to one of your statistical questions is that the median is more resistant to swings due to its ability to reject outliers. However, it is a less efficient statistic, meaning that it gives error bars that tend to be somewhat larger. Using it is basically my version of guarding against unknown problems in pollster methodologies.

You have also conflated your median/mean question with another question, whether to weight data. There is such a thing as a weighted median, but I decided it didn’t add that much to the analysis.

One course of action you did not describe is to use data over a longer time scale than one week. This would require identification of the appropriate time scale. I may go down this road on Election Eve. But it involves another layer of algorithm development. I’ll wait and see if it’s needed.

Instead of basing our support strictly on the closeness of the race and party ID, shouldn’t we also research and factor in the candidates’ positions?

Some Senate races feature a much starker contrast between the candidates than others.