Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

List Labeled Incorrectly- Major Error

"These races were added to the DCCC's "frontline" list of defensive targets in February 2019." is the final list that it says are targeted by Democrats. They should be Republicans, but it's a list of Democrats. EvanJ35 (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niskanen Ratings

Niskanen ratings are disqualified due to lack of professionalism shown with their ratings. For example some Safe R seats are being called as either tossups or gains for the opposite party without stating reasons or factors. It is also a Think Tank that has hired a new person who does the ratings who barely has experience in the field of punditry. Wollers14 (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can charge someone with a lack of professionalism simply for using a different methodology. Bitecofer predicted the midterms better than almost anyone else.^[1]^[2] I cannot see the reason why they should not be included here, especially if it is included in the elections page for senate and POTUS. If you want a short summery of her methodology, watch her interview with Bill Maher. For consistency with the other races I will put it back in.Playlet (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should stick to using the same set of ratings as the 2018 page did: Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato's Crystal Ball, RealClearPolitics, DailyKos, and (when they are released) FiveThirtyEight. Politico's ratings are clearly not up to the same standards as the more established sites that mainly focus on prediction, and they don't update anywhere near as frequently (they haven't issued new ratings in over two months) even when massive changes in races occur, such as Steve King losing renomination. I'm also kinda iffy on Niskanen, although I'm not entirely opposed to including their ratings: the Bitecofer profiles specifically say that she doesn't focus on predicting specific seats, although that is also true for 538's model. Sbb618 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playlet: You do realize that She's calling very safe districts into competitive situations like TX-25 which is as red as the blood you bleed. She's saying that Steve Chabot is a Lean R while Warren Davidson's district up north of Chabot's is a Tossup. That's Boehner's old seat. She says she used Virgina's results as a test result. This is typical of pundits using previous results. She is calling races in ruby red seats without providing explanations which is what the big three do. So the ratings will be removed again because of this factor. Do not put them back in or we will be in an edit war. I will also remove them from the state's pages in due time. The Senate ratings are being discussed in a separate talk page. They might be removed as well but we do not know yet.Wollers14 (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with removing them pending the decision on the senate page, but we are either comfortable with her predictions across the board or not at all. If you look at interviews she has given she has a clear methodology that differs from others giving ratings. You can disagree with her conclusions, but just because her conclusions differ from the mainstream does not make her wrong. She was more accurate than most in the midterms. But like I said, I am happy to leave this discussion here and abide by the conclusion of the discussion on the senate page.Playlet (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wollers14: Having reviewed the discussion on the senate page, it would seem that the consensus is to keep them in not withstanding your objection, until other projections come online, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. There are several reasons to keep it as well. a) 270 to win include them b) she proved the accuracy of her predictions in the midterms, even if she differs from the mainstream pundits and even if she is wrong this time Bitecofer has proven that she belongs in the discussion c) this is one data point among others, which is all this table is, it is a collection of data d) you claim that she is calling red districts are tossups or vice versa, but big unexpected swings do happen in every election, she is just predicting them ahead of the election. I think that calling an editing war when you are bucking the consensus that appears on the senate page is not entirely intellectually honest, but I will bring it up there.Playlet (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not bucking the consensus on the Senate page. They are open to removal but have not come to a positive decision yet. I might remove them on the Senate page just to get them to talk but I don't think I'll do that. Also listen to me. She is predicting without explaining her predictions. There are more factors that go into making predictions and she clearly isn't doing it. She also has not proven that she is part of the discussion because she wasn't included on the previous pages. She needs to look at the past voting histories and realize that some of these districts will not budge whatsoever. You also should know that this is the House page not the Senate page that talk is not this talk also I reviewed her ratings for 2018 and you are mostly correct about her predictions however she could not predict others correctly I think Sabato got more right than she did and out of the big 3 He's wrong the most. That says something and I'm sorry we disagree but this methodology does not seem professional whatsoever.Wollers14 (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take it out on the senate page. Just so I can enjoy how long it will take for others to put it back in. They are open to removal once more ratings come in, but they have suggested keeping it for the moment. You disagree with Niskanen ratings, and that is your right, but there are many who have looked at her ratings and seen enough to include them, including 270towin and the senate and POTUS races on Wikipedia. They have a clear methodology that appears in articles on their website, which you seem to have not read. I will be reincluding it, and it is you who are engaging in an edit war against the consensus on the senate page. I fail to understand your animosity towards Niskanen.Playlet (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing against Nishkanen until I saw the House ratings and was shocked by the map and the lack of in depth analysis she makes. Also 270towin lets you make your own maps and for some reason is the top reason people like you are saying that it can be included because a website that lets you make your own maps. That is not a reason for inclusion and as long as there are people who disagree with it it can and will be removed. I am not engaging in an edit war because there is no damn consensus on THIS page. I will repeat myself this is the HOUSE page NOT THE SENATE PAGE. Now, I will remove them again because I am not the one who is doing this edit war it is you because you want to make a point which is not what Wikipedia is for. You don't want an admin to have to come in and block us for edit warring do you? Wollers14 (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Playlet I urge you to stand down for the time being. I have asked an admin to help us prevent an edit war. Hopefully we can come to some kind of arrangement.Wollers14 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you are disagree enough to discount the work of a PhD in political science. Her methodology is either worthy of being included on Wikipedia or not. Your disagreement and shock is not the point here. The point is that there is a PhD in political science giving her analysis, and you are dismissing it out of hand because you disagree with it. Your hurt feelings and unwillingness to accept a difference of opinion not withstanding the only other reason for rejecting her analysis is that the methodology is not on the page. But it is. Your failure to find those articles is not my fault. The information was on the page, you then came in and removed the information starting the edit war, and you have the gall to claim that I am the one to have started the war?Playlet (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think having an admin involved is probably the right way to go at the moment Playlet (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright this is not about a difference of opinion it’s about actually looking at these races and determining their competitiveness she’s just thrown those out there without explaining in in depth analysis. Also don’t flaunt her PhD in my face like you are suggesting I’m stupid. I’m raising legitimate concerns and you are being rude with me about this. Try to be nice and understand where I’m coming from here when I look at these races instead of saying stuff like that. Now if you’ll excuse me I need to sleep. We can talk once the admin arrives. Good day. Wollers14 (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wollers14: Glad we could sort this disagreement out. I have been thinking about another compromise down the track where we can have a second table to summarize all the ratings, and the seat by seat ratings to contain only the 'reputable' agencies. Once it is clear in my head I will put that table up and we can amend the main table accordinglyPlaylet (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playlet: When you finish this little project post it here in the talk page and ping me. I need to see the table because I'm more of a visual person. I hope you understand my need to see the thing so that we don't have disagreements yet.

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about removal of Niskanen as a reliable rating agency.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on 2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

This is not a response to Wollers14's request for administrator attention, it is merely a third opinion.

I reviewed Niskanen Ratings, and find them suitable for inclusion. As Playlet opines, they merely have a different methodology. The argumentum ad antiquitatem is unconvincing; as Playlet showed, this ratings provider really only started getting mainstream attention that would make them suitable in 2020. I think that putting this new agency way at the end of the table is right, and no WP:UNDUE weight is being given to Ms. Bitecofer's opinion, and we're not saying it's somehow better than the others. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Your kinda late on this reply we already came to an agreement. But thanks for your input anyways. Wollers14 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

RealClearPolitics - North Carolina

RealClearPolitics currently still uses the old districts in North Carolina for their map and therefore doesn't actually show Districts 2 and 6 flipping. I contacted them, but should we remove them until they change it or should we show Districts 2 and 6 remaining Republican? Rogl94 (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DCCC Targeting CA-25

It says the DCCC is targeting CA-25 Republican Mike Garcia with a source from January 16, 2020. However, Garcia couldn't have been targeted then because he won a special election later. The only Republican named in the source is Steve Knight, who lost to Katie Hill in 2018. The link to the source doesn't work because there's a slash that doesn't belong after the .pdf and I deleted the slash and that made the URL work. EvanJ35 (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many ratings

This page has way too many ratings. At a certain point, more is not better - it's overwhelming and redundant. The Economist includes too many as competitive; Politico does as well. Many of Niskanen's are irrational, not to mention that it hasn't been updated in months. I see no reason why we shouldn't just include the five organizations from the 2018 page that have produced ratings for this cycle (Cook, Sabato, IE, RCP, Daily Kos), plus one other to replace FiveThirtyEight. At the very least I feel we should remove Economist and Niskanen from this list. Just because there are tons of organizations out there that make predictions doesn't mean we have to include them on this list. We have to have some basic standards.--Skm989898 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Niskanen's are irrational, and the person who did them left after making another discredited model. The Economist's ratings are odd as well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These rating agencies are all still up on the pages for the senate and presidential races (there are 13 ratings on the presidential page). I see no reason why they should be there and not here. We are not including a rating agency because of accuracy, but rather to give a snapshot of the race.Playlet (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FiveThirtyEight Model

What is the rationale for using the Classic model instead of Deluxe? FiveThirtyEight's website defaults to Deluxe, so isn't that what we should go with? I get that it incorporates other ratings, but why is that a reason not to use it? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was pushing for using the Classic model, I'll be the first to admit I mixed something up. In an article explaining their 2018 model, FiveThirtyEight wrote, in large bold letters, "You should think of Classic as the preferred or default version of FiveThirtyEight’s forecast unless we otherwise specify." I assumed this would be true for the 2020 model as well. However, in an explainer for the 2020 edition, they say "We consider the Deluxe version to be the default version of our congressional forecast", despite no fundamental changes in the last two years. I still lean towards using Classic just because it provides more information (how 538 alone sees the race seems more valuable to know in this context as opposed to how 538 and also all the other predictors see the race: if you wanted to know how the other predictors see it, just move over a couple columns), but I'd be fine with either one on the page.Sbb618 (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that we should be using what FiveThirtyEight wants their users to see first. Once we deviate from the website's default, then it becomes us determining whether Classic or Lite is "better" and thus worth including in the article. The other ratings sites don't explain their methodology, but it's possible they factor in other ratings as well. I don't know that FiveThirtyEight's Deluxe model is unique in that respect, and because I don't know that, that's a further reason I think we should go with FiveThirtyEight's default. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just from a practical editing standpoint, the fact that Deluxe is the default could lead to confusion when readers come to the site or edit the site. I almost made a "correction" thinking the article was wrong because it didn't match what was displayed on the main FiveThirtyEight forecast page. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since there hasn't been any objection to switching to Deluxe, I'm going to make the switch. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

[2] ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/can-woman-predict-outcome-2020-presidential-election/

[1]

[2]