Desipio Message Board

Quote from: Wheezer on October 29, 2012, 08:07:36 PM

Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 29, 2012, 08:01:45 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2012, 03:59:45 PM

Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING, unskewed political predictions too?!

Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."

Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."

QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.

Post your (small) picture, Romeo.

The final author in question:

Really?  You hoopleheads bolded the wizard part and didn't go with this?

Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 29, 2012, 08:01:45 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2012, 03:59:45 PM

Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING, unskewed political predictions too?!

Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."

Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."

QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.

Post your (small) picture, Romeo.

The final author in question:

Really?  You hoopleheads bolded the wizard part and didn't go with this?

Quote from: Brownie on October 29, 2012, 04:40:26 PM
I'm optimistic for Romney, and I think projecting this election is problematic as patterns of people have changed significantly over the past 12, 8 and even 4 years. For example, just 1 in 10 people respond to pollsters. It used to be 1 in 3. We all know about cellphones vs. landlines. I've been getting Congressional pollsters polling me on people outside my district. I tell them these candidates are not going to be on my ballot, and they continue polling anyway. Thus, I think Nate's going to have a more difficult time than before.

Quote from: Brownie on October 29, 2012, 04:40:26 PMHowever, he was dead-on in 2008. And while he has his biases, etc., he's very transparent about them and very transparent about his methodology.

Quote from: Brownie on October 29, 2012, 04:40:26 PMQuestion I'd have for Silver -- is there any way to research polling numbers from 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992 and project what the projections would have been at that time? I think it would be interesting and shine a clearer light on how good his model is.

QuotePolls on FiveThirtyEight.com are weighted using a half-life of thirty days using the formula 0.5P/30 where 'P' is the number of days transpired since the median date that the poll was in the field. The formula is based on an analysis of 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008 state-by-state polling data

Quote from: Tonker on October 30, 2012, 10:11:27 AM
Psst... Republicans.  If you think that Nate Silver's prediction is bollocks, good for you.  When he's subsequently proven wrong you can have a really, really good laugh at his expense.  If you think that Nate Silver's prediction might actually be right, making everybody else think that he's wrong ISN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ELECTION.

It's a fucking prediction, and it is what it is.  What a fucking waste of time.

Quote from: Tonker on October 30, 2012, 10:11:27 AM
Psst... Republicans.  If you think that Nate Silver's prediction is bollocks, good for you.  When he's subsequently proven wrong you can have a really, really good laugh at his expense.  If you think that Nate Silver's prediction might actually be right, making everybody else think that he's wrong ISN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ELECTION.

It's a fucking prediction, and it is what it is.  What a fucking waste of time.

QuoteIn recent days, the vibe emanating from Mitt Romney's campaign has grown downright giddy. Despite a lack of any evident positive momentum over the last week — indeed, in the face of a slight decline from its post-Denver high — the Romney camp is suddenly bursting with talk that it will not only win but win handily. ("We're going to win," said one of the former Massachusetts governor's closest advisers. "Seriously, 305 electoral votes.")

This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

...

Karl Rove employed exactly this strategy in 2000. As we now know, the race was excruciatingly close, and Al Gore won the national vote by half a percentage point. But at the time, Bush projected a jaunty air of confidence. Rove publicly predicted Bush would win 320 electoral votes. Bush even spent the final days stumping in California, supposedly because he was so sure of victory he wanted an icing-on-the-cake win in a deep blue state. Campaign reporters generally fell for Bush's spin, portraying him as riding the winds of momentum and likewise presenting Al Gore as desperate.

QuoteThe enthusiasm gathering around Mr. Romney came into view on Wednesday as he traveled through Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, appearing before thousands of supporters as he fought to keep alive the sense that he had gained stature and credibility as an alternative to Mr. Obama at the debates and was on an upward trajectory.

Cultivating the image that he is a winner, his aides say, could be Mr. Romney's best strategy for actually winning.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 10:44:41 AM

Quote from: Tonker on October 30, 2012, 10:11:27 AM
Psst... Republicans.  If you think that Nate Silver's prediction is bollocks, good for you.  When he's subsequently proven wrong you can have a really, really good laugh at his expense.  If you think that Nate Silver's prediction might actually be right, making everybody else think that he's wrong ISN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ELECTION.

It's a fucking prediction, and it is what it is.  What a fucking waste of time.

For the most part, you're right. That said...

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-says-hes-winning-its-a-bluff.html

QuoteIn recent days, the vibe emanating from Mitt Romney's campaign has grown downright giddy. Despite a lack of any evident positive momentum over the last week — indeed, in the face of a slight decline from its post-Denver high — the Romney camp is suddenly bursting with talk that it will not only win but win handily. ("We're going to win," said one of the former Massachusetts governor's closest advisers. "Seriously, 305 electoral votes.")

This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

...

Karl Rove employed exactly this strategy in 2000. As we now know, the race was excruciatingly close, and Al Gore won the national vote by half a percentage point. But at the time, Bush projected a jaunty air of confidence. Rove publicly predicted Bush would win 320 electoral votes. Bush even spent the final days stumping in California, supposedly because he was so sure of victory he wanted an icing-on-the-cake win in a deep blue state. Campaign reporters generally fell for Bush's spin, portraying him as riding the winds of momentum and likewise presenting Al Gore as desperate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/politics/romney-campaign-fights-for-electoral-votes.html

QuoteThe enthusiasm gathering around Mr. Romney came into view on Wednesday as he traveled through Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, appearing before thousands of supporters as he fought to keep alive the sense that he had gained stature and credibility as an alternative to Mr. Obama at the debates and was on an upward trajectory.

Cultivating the image that he is a winner, his aides say, could be Mr. Romney's best strategy for actually winning.

Maybe you think that's retarded, too. Maybe it is.

But there is something to be said for the voter enthusiasm factor in this election.

I'm willing to bet a good part of Romney's post-debate polling bump can be chalked up to enthusiasm. Likewise Obama's post-convention bounce.

Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM

Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.

Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.

Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.

Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.

Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.

Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.

Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.

Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.

Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.

Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.

MITTMENTUM!

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM

Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.

Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.

Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.

Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.

Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.

Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.

Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.

Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.

Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.

Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.

MITTMENTUM!

Quote from: Internet Apex on October 30, 2012, 04:42:15 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM

Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.

Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.

Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.

Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.

Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.

Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.

Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.

Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.

Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.

Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.

MITTMENTUM!

Wouldn't be ROMENTUM?

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM

Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.

Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.

Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.

Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.

Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.

Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.

Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.

Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.

Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.

Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.

MITTMENTUM!

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 31, 2012, 11:38:14 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM

Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.

Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.

Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.

Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.

Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.

Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.

Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.

Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.

Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.

Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.

MITTMENTUM!

And now back up again to 77.4%

Quote from: Eli on October 31, 2012, 12:04:44 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 31, 2012, 11:38:14 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM

Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.

Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.

Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.

Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.

Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.

Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.

Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.

Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.

Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.

Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.

MITTMENTUM!

And now back up again to 77.4%

We have movement.