That Romney hype of him actually winning is just that

[InRareForm]

Despite a Strong Debate Campaign, Romney's Path to 270 Remains Steep

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/despite-a-strong-debate-campaign-romneys-path-to-270-remains-steep/263999/#

[BRHornet45]

son its quite comical how you pick and choose what to read and post.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

son its quite comical how you pick and choose what to read and post.

Hypocrisy your name is Bob.

[Riddler]

son its quite comical how you pick and choose what to read and post.

It's quite comical that you have a reading comprehension limit.

[JoeChalupa]

Saw report this morning that shows this race is as tight as can be. Si se puede!!

[boutons_deux]

Saw report this morning that shows this race is as tight as can be. Si se puede!!

popular vote polls are all over the place, but electoral votes are the only ones that count.

[JoeChalupa]

popular vote polls are all over the place, but electoral votes are the only ones that count.

It was about electoral votes. Obama just edging out Romney but just one State could change all that.
The Washington Post , not that it really matters, endorsed Obama today.

[boutons_deux]

It was about electoral votes. Obama just edging out Romney but just one State could change all that.
The Washington Post , not that it really matters, endorsed Obama today.

Silver's predicting Barry 290 vs 247

[InRareForm]

Currently 61.3% chance at intrade for obama

[Joe the plumber]

FoxNews is already planning the celebration.

[boutons_deux]

FoxNews is already planning the celebration.

Parade route down Wall St!

[Jacob1983]

Will Obama and Romney both wear Goldman Sachs t shirts at the celebration?

[boutons_deux]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

Gecko trending in the right direction.

[ErnestLynch]

It will be unfortunate for american people if this happen. I read this article about bob woodward book on Obama. It make Obama look bad.

Which gets us to Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn't received the attention it deserves. Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president's key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn't know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.

He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory he would have effectively undercut them, and kept them from uniting. (If he'd been large-spirited with Mr. Romney, he would have undercut him, too.) Instead he was toughly partisan, he shut them out, and positions hardened. In time Republicans came to think he doesn't really listen, doesn't really hear. So did some Democrats. Business leaders and mighty CEOs felt patronized: After inviting them to meet with him, the president read from a teleprompter and included the press. They felt like "window dressing." One spoke of Obama's surface polish and essential remoteness. In negotiation he did not cajole, seduce, muscle or win sympathy. He instructed. He claimed deep understanding of his adversaries and their motives but was often incorrect. He told staffers that John Boehner, one of 11 children of a small-town bar owner, was a "country club Republican." He was often patronizing, which in the old and accomplished is irritating but in the young and inexperienced is infuriating. "Boehner said he hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures," Mr. Woodward writes.

[DJ Mbenga]

its funny cause romney is using the momentum narrative trying for a self fulfilling prophecy and obama is saying sure go ahead ill use it to scare my base into voting. somebody is bluffing about being ahead, we will find out who

[boutons_deux]

Gecko still trending in the Good-for-USA direction:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

Nate Silver has such a wide, strong reputation for accuracy that many desperate right-wingers and Repugs have become "Nate Silver Truthers", just like AGW deniers. :lol

I read a couple rumors that Rove spending is abandoning Gecko as a lost cause and switching his C-U $10Ms to close House and Senate races.

[mercos]

Romney got a tremendous boost from his post debate press coverage. I think the press coverage in the week after the first debate was more important than the debate itself. Obama was slammed in the media all the way until the next debate. After Obama won the second debate, the coverage flipped against Romney and his momentum stopped.

[Mikesatx]

Did some research on pollsters and the two most consistent over the past two elections were Rasmussen and Pew. Pew doesn't put out as much as Rasmussen so if you just look at Rasmussen and assign electoral votes, Romney needs to take either Wisconsin or Ohio to win it. In the Rasmussen poll he also has Iowa tied but with Romney ahead in New Hampshire, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado he wouldn't need Iowa. If he wins all the states Rasmussen has him ahead in and takes Wisconsin but loses Ohio and Iowa (All three Rasmussen has as tied) he finishes with 271 electoral votes.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Rasmussen

You do realize Rasmussen is THE biggest GOP shill poll there is, right?

[Mikesatx]

:lol Rasmussen

You do realize Rasmussen is THE biggest GOP shill poll there is, right?

I read that hear before and was curious so I checked who was the closest in the last two elections. In '08 Rasmussen was closest. In '04 they were 4th or 5th.

Here is the link to check out: http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php#reportcard





Overall







Poll

Score

Grade



Accuracy

Consistency



Rasmussen Reports

91%

A-


92%

86%



Ipsos/McClatchy

89%

B+


92%

79%



CNN/Opinion Research

88%

B+


92%

77%



Fox News

84%

B


92%

61%



Pew

83%

B-


92%

56%



GWU/Battleground

79%

C+


92%

41%



Diageo/Hotline

77%

C+


77%

79%



NBC News / Wall St. Journal

76%

C


77%

75%



Gallup Traditional

73%

C-


77%

63%



Marist

67%

D+


62%

82%



ABC News / Wash Post

67%

D+


62%

82%



IBD/TIPP

66%

D


77%

34%



Gallup Expanded

66%

D


62%

78%



CBS News / NYT

60%

D-


62%

56%



Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby

35%

F


31%

48%

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It will be unfortunate for american people if this happen. I read this article about bob woodward book on Obama. It make Obama look bad.

While Bob Woodward is one of the best journalists to ever grace this Earth, he did not write the hit piece you are quoting. Peggy Noonan did. Peggy Noonan is a GOP speechwriter and trustee of the Manhattan Institute. That place is about as politically neutral as the Heritage Foundation.

I am buying that book on Kindle right now though. Came out last month. I am slacking.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451651104

[FuzzyLumpkins]

eye reed gut

[Riddler]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/rasmussen.html

Truth about Rasmussen poll

[Mikesatx]

Has Rasmussen changed their polling techniques? Assuming that Rasmussen is off because he appears on Fox would be the same as assuming Silver is biased because he is affiliated with the NY Times. We will know in about 10 days! I hope they are accurate because it would make for a very entertaining election day.

[ElNono]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/30/independent-pollster-scott-rasmussen-headlines/186270

[Mikesatx]

I'll try and remember to write down his final swing state polls along with the National poll. If he repeats his performance of '08 and '04 wouldn't that discredit Silver and Media Mattters? I have no doubt his vote is for Romney but as a businessman his job is to be accurate with his polling data. Fox, Drudge or any other conservative outlet would have no use for a pollster that simply told them what they want to hear yet be wrong.

[ElNono]

I'll try and remember to write down his final swing state polls along with the National poll. If he repeats his performance of '08 and '04 wouldn't that discredit Silver and Media Mattters? I have no doubt his vote is for Romney but as a businessman his job is to be accurate with his polling data. Fox, Drudge or any other conservative outlet would have no use for a pollster that simply told them what they want to hear yet be wrong.

IIRC, Silver actually defender Rasmussen for a while, because all pollsters have some sort of house effect. Silver also is on record that Rasmussen has shown very little (about 1.3) house effect this year. In other words, their GOP bias seems to be a little smaller than other times. Another thing to keep in mind: Rasmussen was pretty good in 2008, they were also not that good in the 2010 elections.

Every pollster is criticized for bias, their methodology, and even how they pose questions. This isn't necessarily new or exclusive to Rasmussen. Polling in general has become harder and harder to do (a good article about it here (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/politics/political-pollsters-struggle-to-get-the-right-cell-number.html?pagewanted=all)).

If anything, Nate Silver and his 538 methodology has done better than any pollster in the last 2 elections. That doesn't mean he knows what the secret sauce is either. The thing is, relying on a single pollster isn't a good idea anyways.

[Libtard]

Rasmussen's (and any poll that has Romney in front) has been proven to be inaccurate because their formula doesn't account for voter fraud and the fact that after all that black people have been through in this country, their votes now count 2 and sometimes 3 times and the voices of all our dead voters who somehow still continue to come to the polls. They also ask stupid questions like "are you a US citizen?" and don't count the vote if the person says no.

[Mikesatx]

IIRC, Silver actually defender Rasmussen for a while, because all pollsters have some sort of house effect. Silver also is on record that Rasmussen has shown very little (about 1.3) house effect this year. In other words, their GOP bias seems to be a little smaller than other times. Another thing to keep in mind: Rasmussen was pretty good in 2008, they were also not that good in the 2010 elections.

Every pollster is criticized for bias, their methodology, and even how they pose questions. This isn't necessarily new or exclusive to Rasmussen. Polling in general has become harder and harder to do (a good article about it here (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/politics/political-pollsters-struggle-to-get-the-right-cell-number.html?pagewanted=all)).

If anything, Nate Silver and his 538 methodology has done better than any pollster in the last 2 elections. That doesn't mean he knows what the secret sauce is either. The thing is, relying on a single pollster isn't a good idea anyways.

I have never paid as much attention to polls as I have this election. On this site there are posters that regardless of facts or evidence will believe everything one side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong. Others slant one way or the other and few are simply looking for the truth. This seems to me to be one opportunity to get to black and white.

[ElNono]

I have never paid as much attention to polls as I have this election. On this site there are posters that regardless of facts or evidence will believe everything one side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong. Others slant one way or the other and few are simply looking for the truth. This seems to me to be one opportunity to get to black and white.

If you want the truth, wait until Nov 7... polling is, to put it in simple terms, just a highly educated form of guessing... with this election likely being a much closer one than in 2008, it's just simply more difficult to guess.

One other thing to remember is that overall popular vote numbers carry less weight when they're relatively close (as we're seeing now). The reason obviously being that what really matters is electoral votes, and so keeping an eye on polls in swing states is probably a better indicator at this point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you want the truth, wait until Nov 7... polling is, to put it in simple terms, just a highly educated form of guessing... with this election likely being a much closer one than in 2008, it's just simply more difficult to guess.

One other thing to remember is that overall popular vote numbers carry less weight when they're relatively close (as we're seeing now). The reason obviously being that what really matters is electoral votes, and so keeping an eye on polls in swing states is probably a better indicator at this point.

What I am hoping for is that Romney wins the popular vote by a good margin but Obama takes the electoral college. Anything that undermines the 2 party single member district is a win in my book.

[Mikesatx]

No I know. Just a lot of bullshit out there on both sides. My theory is that Rasmussen is less full of shit compared to the others. We will see election day. If they come in more accurate than the others that would be three presidential elections in a row they have been one of the most accurate.

[ploto]

I read that hear before and was curious so I checked who was the closest in the last two elections. In '08 Rasmussen was closest.

In 2008, Nate Silver nailed 49 of 50 states, got every Senate race right and predicted the popular vote within a percentage point.

[ElNono]

No I know. Just a lot of bullshit out there on both sides. My theory is that Rasmussen is less full of shit compared to the others. We will see election day. If they come in more accurate than the others that would be three presidential elections in a row they have been one of the most accurate.

Well, there's going to be a lot of winners in this election when it comes to pollsters unless one of the candidates mysteriously runs the table. Basically, most pollsters have the race within basically the margin of error.

Rasmussen is no different: they have almost every poll in swing states within 2% (and mostly leaning Republican).

BTW, Rasmussen was pretty accurate in the national numbers in 2008, but in state polls it's more debatable. Namely, with a week to go in 2008, they had McCain tied in Ohio and winning Florida, Indiana and North Carolina. He lost all of them.

Personally, I normally look at the final numbers Rasmussen posts. At that point you're probably getting the most honest numbers because those will be used to compare their hit/miss ratio.

[Mikesatx]

Googled Nate Silver and this came up: http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/why-nate-silvers-cozy-insider-status-with-obama-for-america-in-2008-matters-in-2012/

Your right the final numbers will be the ones to watch. It will be interesting to see how much deviation there is.

[ElNono]

Googled Nate Silver and this came up: http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/why-nate-silvers-cozy-insider-status-with-obama-for-america-in-2008-matters-in-2012/

Silver is an actual statistician, who is also a writer. He was actually doing all these statistical metrics for MLB players (sabermetrics) way before he moved to track elections starting in 2008. And he was doing the whole election thing before he became a NYTimes feature.

The other thing to point out, is that Silver simply applies a model (his own) that tracks much more than just polls, but also include things such as economic data, all of which get weighted over time. Obviously, if you take predictions from a year out, then it's likely not to be too accurate, but that's the reason the model data gets updated daily (and the model itself has changed over time), to track the movements not just on people's political opinion, but how does the economic data at any given time influence those moves.

While not new (psephologists exist since the 1950's), I think it's an interesting approach. Now, obviously, his model could be all wrong and his track record of estimation based on that model just a stroke of luck. But he's been pretty lucky so far. We'll see if that continues or not.

[Jacob1983]

It's going to be a lot closer in 2012 no matter who wins. Barry's coronation started at around 10pm in Chicago in 2008 on election night. I'm thinking that it's going to be around midnight or 1am when we find out this time.

[z0sa]

I think its gonna come down to turnout. If a bunch of Romney supporters hit the booth while Democrats stay home, Romney is the president elect. If its relatively equal then Obama should win pretty handily. Because of this question of voter turnout I'm not sure any poll can truly be accurate.

[Jacob1983]

We won't see the 2008 turnout again for a long long time. Earth hyped the shit out of Obama and painted McCain as the anti-Christ.

[boutons_deux]

Rasumussen/Gallup

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs8/8038_voting_booths_flag_101412_article1.jpg

Everbody else:


http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs8/8038_voting_booths_flag_101412_article2.jpg

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/rasmussen-and-gallup-vs-the-rest.html

[dbestpro]

The polls seem to be quite different. One might argue that one group is for the right while the other is for the left.

The one thing I do know is business will use Rasmussen and Gallup for customer and employee surveys in regards to money making decisions. Their reliability is widely accepted by businesses who rely on them to make money making decisions. ABC,NBC, MSNBC,and CBS not so much.

[Th'Pusher]

The polls seem to be quite different. One might argue that one group is for the right while the other is for the left.

The one thing I do know is business will use Rasmussen and Gallup for customer and employee surveys in regards to money making decisions. Their reliability is widely accepted by businesses who rely on them to make money making decisions. ABC,NBC, MSNBC,and CBS not so much.

Rasmussen is straight up garbage.

[Mikesatx]

As mentioned before a lot of folks here would agree with you. I did my own research an at least with presidential polls he seems to be more consistent than most. I'll post on this thread his last polls before the election in the swing states and the national.

[ElNono]

Rasmussen is just another pollster. Like Gallup, SurveyUSA, PPP, etc. They're as important as any other. They've been right and wrong as any other.

[Nbadan]

How right was Nate Silver in 2008?

[DJ Mbenga]

the polls sure do favor Obama and the electoral college. his prospects have gotten better in Virginia which started to look like a southern sweep by Romney. Ohio has been unmoved for a while i wonder if this is gonna be the number we see next week. the only other thing coming up that will probably cant be polled since its gonna be too late to do so is the next jobs report. it would only have an impact if its a dramatic change, positive or negative. with that said it looks to be a whole of meh more jobs than last time uptick by .1 still below 8.

[Nbadan]

In the final update of his presidential forecast model at midday of November 4, 2008, Silver projected a popular vote victory by 6.1 percentage points for Barack Obama and electoral vote totals of 349 (based on a probabilistic projection) or 353 (based on fixed projections of each state).[27] Silver's predictions matched the actual results everywhere except in Indiana and the 2nd congressional district of Nebraska, which awards an electoral vote separately from the rest of the state. His projected national popular vote differential was below the actual figure of 7.2 points.

The forecasts for the Senate proved to be correct for every race. But the near stalemate in Minnesota led to a recount that was settled only on June 30, 2009. In Alaska, after a protracted counting of ballots, on November 19 Republican incumbent Ted Stevens conceded the seat to Democrat Mark Begich, an outcome that Silver had forecast on election day.[28] And in Georgia, a run-off election on December 2 led to the re-election of Republican Saxby Chambliss, a result that was also consistent with Silver's original projection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

This is important because Silver has Obama win percentage chances at almost 75%

[ElNono]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

This is important because Silver has Obama win percentage chances at almost 75%

It isn't important, because you could simply argue it's a small sample size. And you would be right.

Arguing about polls with about one week to the general election is kinda pointless though. The main even is upon us, and that's what is important: actual votes, not polls, decide the election.

[Nbadan]

It isn't important, because you could simply argue it's a small sample size. And you would be right.



Silver isn't a pollster...he's a statistician....a good one at predicting political outcomes...

[ElNono]

Silver isn't a pollster...he's a statistician....a good one at predicting political outcomes...

small sample sizes have everything to do with statistics... smh

[Jacob1983]

None of these polls are even close to accurate for a million reasons. These polls have a small sample of less than a 1,000 people and are usually done by phone. The polls usually don't include the names of 3rd party candidates too.

[ElNono]

Actually, a good amount of polls turn out to be surprisingly accurate. What I was pointing out was something else: Does 1 or 2 fairly correct predictions indicate an infallible track record? I would say the sample is too low.

[Mikesatx]

The one question I didn't ask was if Silver's numbers are included in the Real Clear Politics numbers?

[boutons_deux]

Obama Extends Narrow Lead Over Mitt Romney


WASHINGTON, Oct 28 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has extended his narrow lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney among likely voters in a race that remains statistically tied nine days before the election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll released on Sunday.

Obama has a 49 percent to 46 percent edge over Romney, marking a 1 point increase from Saturday but still within the daily online survey's 4 percentage-point credibility interval for likely voters.

Swings could be possible in the remaining days of the campaign, however. Fifteen percent of registered voters say they could still change their minds and vote for a different candidate.

The precision of Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.0 percentage points for likely voters. (Editing by Alistair Bell and Eric Beech)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/obama-romney-poll_n_2034863.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=102912&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Gecko now 30 electoral votes short of 270

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

[ElNono]

The one question I didn't ask was if Silver's numbers are included in the Real Clear Politics numbers?

Nope. RCP is a poll aggregation site much like Silver's 538. Neither site does polls, they simply take the ones available and weigh them depending on their methodology, which is clearly different. They're basically competitors.

AFAIK, RCP doesn't use historical data or economic data to weigh their numbers, while 538 does.

[Homeland Security]

Nate Silver's methodology is a Rube Goldberg machine. Most of his numbers are so much hand-waving. In other words, he's a fraud.

RCP's "poll of polls" is totally invalid. By aggregating polls the way they do, they simply amplify the sample error. So Romney has a 0.7% edge or whatever, but the MoE is like 10%. It's meaningless.

Virtually all the people you trust to give you a barometer of the race are fucking idiots and you trust them because you too are fucking idiots. Just pull a number out of your ass based upon your own biases and be done with it; that's all the journalists are doing once you get past the smoke and mirrors.

[ElNono]

Nate Silver's methodology is a Rube Goldberg machine. Most of his numbers are so much hand-waving. In other words, he's a fraud.

Could be. Results come up sooner or later and that's what gives/removes credibility from any of these outfits.

[Homeland Security]

Could be. Results come up sooner or later and that's what gives/removes credibility from any of these outfits.

It's way too easy for Silver to massage his multiple layers of numbers to get results that look like other pollsters, and then take credit for the results. Even if he gets close, he's still a fraud.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you give an example of how he weights things that amounts to 'hand waving?' Empirically speaking the method was successful for all of your 'hand waving.'

[ElNono]

It's way too easy for Silver to massage his multiple layers of numbers to get results that look like other pollsters, and then take credit for the results. Even if he gets close, he's still a fraud.

Well, the massaging certainly uses other people's polls. What would be weird is if it wouldn't look anything like the other pollsters. After all, polling from many different outfits aren't all that different either. If he's indeed close, he should certainly take credit for it.

[ploto]

The conventional wisdom about this year’s presidential race is that it has broken out of stasis to become wildly unpredictable.

And yet, after a period of polling turmoil following President Obama’s convention in Charlotte, N.C., and Mitt Romney’s sharp rebound after the first presidential debate in Denver, the polling in most swing states now looks very similar to the way it did for much of the late spring and summer.

When we introduced this year’s FiveThirtyEight forecast model on June 7, the closest states were Colorado, Ohio and Virginia, each of which slightly favored Mr. Obama. In Florida and North Carolina, meanwhile, we had Mitt Romney listed as a modest favorite.

Pretty much the same could be said about the race today. In fact, our projected leader in all 50 states is the same as it was at our launch of the forecast in June...

The states where Mr. Obama has made gains since the June forecast are fewer in number (although the fact that Ohio is among them makes Mr. Obama’s electoral math stronger)...

In blue states, Mr. Obama’s numbers are little changed on average from the June forecast...

It’s in deeply red states where the forecast has shifted more. On average, Mr. Romney has gained two percentage points since June between the red states you see in the chart below...

Of the remaining gains that Mr. Romney has made in national polls, much of it may have come from his improved performance in deeply red states; that is where our state-by-state forecasts show his numbers improving the most...

There is a pretty good possibility, however, that our forecast in every state on Nov. 6 will be the same as it was on June 7. Colorado, Virginia and Florida, being the closest states in the forecast now, are the most likely to switch sides...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/

[Cry Havoc]

If Romney doesn't take Ohio AND Florida, nothing else that he does will matter. Even if he wins both, he could still lose, but if he loses either, it's lights out.

[DMC]

Actually, a good amount of polls turn out to be surprisingly accurate. What I was pointing out was something else: Does 1 or 2 fairly correct predictions indicate an infallible track record? I would say the sample is too low.

It's a 50/50 game. Of course some polls will turn out to reflect the outcome. Some won't.

[DMC]

son its quite comical how you pick and choose what to read and post.

So...? Aren't we free to pick and choose what we read and post?

[Homeland Security]

Can you give an example of how he weights things that amounts to 'hand waving?' Empirically speaking the method was successful for all of your 'hand waving.'
The state "fundamentals" and the poll weighting are completely subjective.
Like most polls, Silver is only held accountable for his final prediction before the election. This leaves several months to push-poll before taking a final gander before the election of where the polls are and making a prediction somewhere in the middle.

Anybody could do that. Anybody who looks at multiple polls on the eve of the election can make a halfway decent prediction. Silver is no different than you or I or anybody else doing that, but he adds all these layers of fake statistical bullshit allegedly "backing" his prediction in order to impress the innumerate. He makes a living off of your credulity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The state "fundamentals" and the poll weighting are completely subjective.
Like most polls, Silver is only held accountable for his final prediction before the election. This leaves several months to push-poll before taking a final gander before the election of where the polls are and making a prediction somewhere in the middle.

Anybody could do that. Anybody who looks at multiple polls on the eve of the election can make a halfway decent prediction. Silver is no different than you or I or anybody else doing that, but he adds all these layers of fake statistical bullshit allegedly "backing" his prediction in order to impress the innumerate. He makes a living off of your credulity.

How can you be certain that they are 'subjective' and not tied to something empirical? For example, if he were to take the accuracy or bias of particular polls then how is that not 'objective.' I asked for examples not generalizations that amount to hand waving.

So you are saying that he makes his weighting up and bases them off of nothing objective? Or do you have no idea what he bases them off of and instead are literally parroting what he says about Rasmussen and others in regards to polling. I say the last because what you are saying is literally what he said about Rasmussen bias relative to their final prediction.

And all forecasting makes a living off of 'credulity' at the same time his forecasting was spot on last time around as has been documented. I give credence because of a shockingly accurate prediction from the last time around.

[InRareForm]

62% at intrade

[ploto]

Silver does not just look at polls. He actually factors in all types of economic data, past voting records... when he makes his projections. He discusses on his site what he does for states that don't have very good polling.

[Nbadan]

Sam Wang predicts an electoral total of:


Obama: 305
Romney: 233

And he predicts the probability of Obama re-election: Random Drift 93%, Bayesian Prediction 98%. The key difference is that Sam Wang argues that Nate introduces other factors that Sam does not believe have any predictive relevance:

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/10/29/nerds-under-attack/#more-8151

I believe Silver doesn’t extract all the information and tends to add unnecessary factors, which leads to blurry probabilities and poor time resolution. However, his intuitions about the data are excellent and he is very concerned with getting things right. For purposes of popular consumption, he is a fine and honest nerd.

[ploto]

Ipsos/Reuters Daily Election Tracking: Obama 47% - Romney 46%

Thursday, November 01, 2012

Washington, D.C. - Today’s Reuters/Ipsos Daily National Poll shows that - for the third day in a row - there has been no change in the headline numbers, with 47% of likely voters saying they will vote for Obama and 46% for Romney.

With around a quarter (26%) of registered voters saying they have already voted, Obama leads Romney by 52%-43% of those who have already cast a vote...

http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5868

[ploto]

For an in-depth explanation of Nate Silver's process of analysis:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/#more-37099

[boutons_deux]

Silver has the Dems holding the Sentate 53 - 47.

With the destructive Repugs holding the House, they will continue to obstruct all Dem initiative, will gut and/or defund any and all regulations and regulatory agencies, plus the Senate Repugs will filibuster everything, if they can' kill it in committe.

[kamikazi_player]

I thought this was funny

cPgfzknYd20

[Jacob1983]

I will laugh if Gary Johnson and klan member Virgil Goode screw Obama or Romney out of winning Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado. Gary Johnson could screw Obama out of winning Colorado and Romney out of winning Ohio and Florida. Virgil Goode could fuck Romney up in Virginia since he has connections to the hillbilly folks there in certain areas of the state.

[DJ Mbenga]

the fringe canddiates have always screwed up races, thats how bill clinton got in. obama gets compared to carter alot, i think he is more like HW bush. except int his case the roles are reversed, romney was the one running like an idiot.

[ErnestLynch]

Romney will win Florida. He won't win Pennsylvania. Romney must win either Wisconsin or Ohio. He wins either one of those, he is the next president.

[Bartleby]

Romney will win Florida. He won't win Pennsylvania. Romney must win either Wisconsin or Ohio. He wins either one of those, he is the next president.

Most polls have Obama with a slim lead in Wisconsin and Ohio and have Romney with a only a slight edge in Florida. Unless nearly all the polls are wrong, Romney is screwed.

[boutons_deux]

Rasmussen is just another pollster. Like Gallup, SurveyUSA, PPP, etc. They're as important as any other. They've been right and wrong as any other.

:lol

A few weeks before Nov 2008, Rasmussen guaranteed a McLiar/pitbull bitch landslide. :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I will laugh if Gary Johnson and klan member Virgil Goode screw Obama or Romney out of winning Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado. Gary Johnson could screw Obama out of winning Colorado and Romney out of winning Ohio and Florida. Virgil Goode could fuck Romney up in Virginia since he has connections to the hillbilly folks there in certain areas of the state.

How the hell could Gary Johnson screw Obama in any state at all? He's not gonna steal nearly as many Obama votes as he will Romney voters who are pissed off about how Ron Paul was disenfranchised at the RNC.

[boutons_deux]

Dude, could pot smokers decide the election – for Mitt Romney?

A marijuana legalization measure on the Colorado ballot – promoted by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson – could be very important in this close presidential race.

The Jewish vote, women, Hispanics, even the Scandinavian vote have all been pegged by prognosticators as key swing constituencies in Tuesday’s electoral showdown between President Obama (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama) and Mitt Romney (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Mitt+Romney).
But what if it’s really pot smokers who decide the next US (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States) president, specifically psychedelia enthusiasts in the battleground state of Colorado (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Colorado) (9 electoral votes) where pot legalization and dark horse candidate Gary Johnson (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Gary+Johnson) are both on the ballot?

Far out, right? Maybe not.

Polls suggest that Colorado’s Amendment 64, which would legalize and regulate marijuana much like alcohol, may pass on Tuesday, so legalization will be foremost on the minds of voters in a state now in a statistical deadlock between Obama and Romney. (Washington (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Washington%2c+DC) and Oregon (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Oregon) also have pot legalization referendums on the ballot, but Romney stands little chance in those liberal northwestern enclaves.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/1103/Dude-could-pot-smokers-decide-the-election-for-Mitt-Romney?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29 (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/1103/Dude-could-pot-smokers-decide-the-election-for-Mitt-Romney?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29)

[Trainwreck2100]

How the hell could Gary Johnson screw Obama in any state at all? He's not gonna steal nearly as many Obama votes as he will Romney voters who are pissed off about how Ron Paul was disenfranchised at the RNC.

I hope johnson screws mitt out of the election cause maybe then the Republicans will wise up and boot the radicals out of their party

[boutons_deux]

Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased

Friday’s polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage.

There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday.

Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie.

Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/

[boutons_deux]

I hope johnson screws mitt out of the election cause maybe then the Republicans will wise up and boot the radicals out of their party

Typical take of Libertarian fantasist.

The Repug radicals, who are really paid tools of the Kock Bros, the UCA, 1%, the "Christian" Taliban OWN the Repug party. It's the Repug radicals who are kicking out the Repug moderates.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I hope johnson screws mitt out of the election cause maybe then the Republicans will wise up and boot the radicals out of their party
Tbh my longterm goal for party structure would be 4 party system. The Democratic party, Republican party, and these two parties:

1) A party dedicated mainly to the religious right and Jews who believe in the Islamic Boogeyman. Their main platform involves abortion, gay marriage, pandering to Israel, taking away civil liberties, and a Christian-Jewish theocracy. By getting their own political party and candidate on the ballot, the other political parties feel no need to pander to them and can focus on real issues and don't feel the need to take irrational views. I'd like both Obama and Romney a lot more if they didn't pander to these people.
2) A party dedicated to people who feel entitled to stuff like Obamaphones, high paying labor jobs that don't require any specialized skill, benefits for having more kids than they can afford, free scooters to cater to obesity, teachers who think they deserve higher salaries but don't deserve to have their performance evaluated, etc. This party would have a lot of minorities, a lot of fat people, people on welfare, and people who don't value education at all. Like the other party described above, they would get their candidate on a ballot who they'd all vote for, so the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't pander to them and would be able to care more about people who actually matter.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans would be a much more efficient group if it didn't feel the need to pander to these two groups mentioned above. I'd actually be in favor of 1 combined political party for these people as there is a lot of overlap between these groups. I'd also do away with the electoral college so these people would matter less. The electoral college makes these people matter a lot more than they should because you need them for states like Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, etc. to matter at all. The fact Republicans need to win Southern States to have a chance cripples it as a party. The fact Democrats need the Jew vote and the vote of people who feel entitled to manufacturing jobs that give ridiculous benefits for the low-skill jobs they are cripples it as a party.

[Trainwreck2100]

Tbh my longterm goal for party structure would be 4 party system. The Democratic party, Republican party, and these two parties:

1) A party dedicated mainly to the religious right and Jews who believe in the Islamic Boogeyman. Their main platform involves abortion, gay marriage, pandering to Israel, taking away civil liberties, and a Christian-Jewish theocracy. By getting their own political party and candidate on the ballot, the other political parties feel no need to pander to them and can focus on real issues and don't feel the need to take irrational views. I'd like both Obama and Romney a lot more if they didn't pander to these people.
2) A party dedicated to people who feel entitled to stuff like Obamaphones, high paying labor jobs that don't require any specialized skill, benefits for having more kids than they can afford, free scooters to cater to obesity, teachers who think they deserve higher salaries but don't deserve to have their performance evaluated, etc. This party would have a lot of minorities, a lot of fat people, people on welfare, and people who don't value education at all. Like the other party described above, they would get their candidate on a ballot who they'd all vote for, so the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't pander to them and would be able to care more about people who actually matter.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans would be a much more efficient group if it didn't feel the need to pander to these two groups mentioned above. I'd actually be in favor of 1 combined political party for these people as there is a lot of overlap between these groups. I'd also do away with the electoral college so these people would matter less. The electoral college makes these people matter a lot more than they should because you need them for states like Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, etc. to matter at all. The fact Republicans need to win Southern States to have a chance cripples it as a party. The fact Democrats need the Jew vote and the vote of people who feel entitled to manufacturing jobs that give ridiculous benefits for the low-skill jobs they are cripples it as a party.

This is what I don't get, why doesn't the republican party call those state's bluff. Since his nomination Mitt Romney has gone out of his way to say and do stupid shit to get votes he already had, and polarize the moderates, the votes he doesn't.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

This is what I don't get, why doesn't the republican party call those state's bluff. Since his nomination Mitt Romney has gone out of his way to say and do stupid shit to get votes he already had, and polarize the moderates, the votes he doesn't.

Because while he had those states in his pocket regardless he still needs the bible thumpers in certain swing states (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc.) to win. They're never gonna vote for Obama, but if the alternative is a Mormon former governor of Massachusetts who supports gay marriage, they wouldn't show up at all. Romney's only chance in Florida is if the backwater hicks in the Northern part of the state come out to vote for him while he also steals enough of the Miami Beach Jew vote by pandering to Netanyahu. He has a very slim chance in Pennsylvania as it is, but he wouldn't have any chance at all if central Pennsylvania didn't cast enough votes.

Basically, enough people in this country know trickle down economics and deregulation is fuckin retarded and doesn't work, so the only way the Republicans can keep that platform and have a chance is if they get enough votes based off religion. Furthermore, bible thumpers are also similar to black people, if their political party doesn't give them enough of a selfish, narcissistic reason to vote, they don't care enough about the country to vote at all.

[Jacob1983]

If I'm being honest, I would want Gary Johnson to screw Romney out of the presidency mainly because of how the GOP shat on Ron Paul during the primaries and at the convention. They treated Ron Paul like a piece of shit and deserve to lose the election in my opinion.