Reply With Quote
Nate Silver is my kind of dude. Very good at his statistical analysis in pretty much every arena.
Five Thirty Eight is widely regarded as the best.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Nate Silver is my kind of dude. Very good at his statistical analysis in pretty much every arena.
I have about as much faith in polling as I do in faith healing...which is to say, about zero.
However, an aggregate approach normalizes outliers. I like 538 alot.
Agree. I peek at polls but don't really put a major stock on them.
Polls can be fine. Series of polls have proven very accurate - even when only coming from a single pollster - at predicting the outcome of a race. Of course the closer to the election date the better the quality is.
That being said, an aggregate is always better because its more data and more data always gives you a better fix on the actual value.
But you shouldn't discount polls out of hand. Any pole that gives you all the methodology is likely valuable if not perfect.
George needs to read this. God bless
I hate to break it to you but Romney is a very long shot to win. Americans don't normally replace a sitting president. Without a strong left leaning independent on the ticket we are probably looking at 4 more years for Obama.
Which really won't be bad as long as republicans take the senate. Actually that is probably the best scenario given the history of either party when they have control of both branches.
At this point I agree with you. Ryan was a pretty bold choice and for better or worse it will force both sides to lay out a vision for improving the economy short term and ensuring our solvency long term. The next couple of months could really change things though. I don't see Obama getting through this election cycle with teleprompter scripted pla udes of "hope and change". We all want to "see the beef".
I'd forgotten this.
Thank you.
Yep, that's pretty damn stupid.I'd forgotten this.
I can see Barry winning with just "I'm not Romney" and "They're selling trickle down again"... Conversely, I expect to see very little "beef" from RR, and a lot of "we have nothing to do with that negative ad from PAC/non-profit/SPAC (but what they're saying is probably true, wink wink)".
No, Biden isn't very smart, but like most other elected positions, he's there mostly because of his life story, not because of his ability to govern. I think that's a great flaw in the human race that they value personal tragedy as if it were somehow an indication of leadership.
Imagine we did the same thing in medicine:
"I need a good cardiologist"
"Get Mike Johnson"
"He's not a doctor"
"His family was killed in a car crash, he's a great guy".
If Obama joined forces with Hilary, he will officially seal up a 4th term of Bush probably before rush hour on election day. Willard will have no ing chance if Obama and Hilary are on the same ticket.
Prabably, women would flock to her. I would vote dem if she were running for president over mitt. God bless
Biden is your weird strange uncle. Hillary is the anti-Christess, and may be the only way the GOP could get the religious vote out with a Morman and an Objectivist on their ticket.
Obama already has a 4th term of Bush sealed up when you think about it. Romney is a weak candidate and picking the cheesehead pretty much is a white flag. Gary Johnson will also take a lot of votes from both Obama and Romney but probably more from Romney. A lot of Ron Paul supporters will vote for Gary Johnson because they sure as won't vote for Obama or Romney. I wouldn't be surprised if Gary Johnson gets 2 or 3 percent of the vote and will probably get 5 percent to 8 percent in certain liberal leaning states.
Conservative PAC gives Joe Biden a boost...
Yoni in full paranoid conspiracy Drudge/Beck mode, yawn.
Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent piece on our esteemed Vice President, back in May of this year:
Big &#%!ing Joker
...Biden also seems driven in no small part by a staggering intellectual insecurity. The figurative evidence room is full of examples. The most notorious comes from Biden’s 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. He had been hounded about his law-school record and plagiarism problems (among other things, he copied five pages from a law journal for a 15-page paper and then claimed it was a footnoting error), and he was asked a question about his academic record by a resident of New Hampshire.
He responded: “I think I have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect.” He went on:
Most of these statements were outright lies. Biden graduated from college with just one degree, not three. Yes, he did win a moot-court compe ion, but he graduated 76th in his class of 85. He wasn’t the outstanding political-science student. And why is he still talking about how many credits he graduated with? Who does that?I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship. In the first year in the law, I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class and then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school, and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot-court compe ion. I was the outstanding student in the political-science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits — only needed 123 credits. And I would be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours.
Biden’s intellectual insecurity can be found in his relentless (mis)use of brainy quotations from Internet sites. His speeches are often a rhetorical version of The Love Boat with special guest appearances from Aristotle, Milton, Yeats, Plato, and various unnamed poets who, we are nonetheless assured, are famous. As Meghan Clyne do ented in The Weekly Standard, he often misses the point of the lines he delivers, as when in a nod to Milton he called soldiers slain on the battlefield “fallen angels” — which, strictly speaking, would suggest that the U.S. military is in open rebellion against God. Sometimes he just doesn’t quite get his audience, as when he dropped a truth-bomb from G. K. Chesterton: “It’s not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it’s been found difficult and left untried.” He was speaking to AIPAC, the Jewish pro-Israel lobby. He also has been caught repeatedly using a fake quote from Virgil. But that’s forgivable. We’ve all been burned that way at some point. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “Some quotes on the Internet are not reliable.”
The best example of his incessant need to work the refs of history, however, remains his penchant for the grandiose exaggeration. This is a real problem for the White House because his hyperbole has the unintended consequence of opening legitimate accomplishments to ridicule. The most famous recent example is his declaration that the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound puts all other military operations to shame. “You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan. Never knowing for certain. We never had more than a 48 percent probability that he was there.” He went on: “Do any one of you have a doubt that if that raid failed that this guy would be a one-term president?#…#I’m telling you, man, this guy is not only smart as , he is absolutely ready to make the decision and stand back and live with it. No whining.”
The Normandy invasion, the raid on Entebbe, the Inchon landing, Gallipoli, the capture of Adolf Eichmann? Cakewalks! My favorite part is the “48 percent certainty” bit. Where does this number come from? Do people in the White House actually believe they can predict the future (never mind military operations in Pakistan) with that kind of granular precision? These are the same people, recall, who had to discover on the job that there’s no such thing as shovel-ready jobs. Where was their supercomputer crystal ball for that stuff?
UnlessRon Paul da gawd
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions