I've been following Poblano since before Super Tuesday, and he's really good.

OK, nicely done, but that's not "why blogging matters."

(hint: blogging doesn't matter)

A broken clock is right twice a day.

So if he hadn't predicted it, it wouldn't have happened?
I read the results in the paper the next day - I've never felt disadvantaged by that.

Hey everyone, post your predictions for the next couple months on anything and if they come true we'll tout them endlessly on THE FARKOSPHERE as proof that a Fark thread is the new media and if they don't then we'll just move on to the next thread. Who cares if we have a one to one thousand threads ratio of accuracy, don't they know we are inexorable as the new media? Go forth FARKOSPHERE and bombard the old media comment sections!

Would be nice, if there weren't fourteen bajillion other bloggers who also predicted stuff with math and models and got it wildly wrong.

In an infinite number of monkeys armed with typewriters, one is going to write Hamlet, many will write, "To be, or not to majsuwlt."

oldebayer: In an infinite number of monkeys armed with typewriters, one is going to write Hamlet, many will write, "To be, or not to majsuwlt."

Hee hee I totally see what you did there and thank you for it!

Chuck Todd has a blog? I wonder what kind of tunes he listened to on his iPod as he trudged to work every day for months thinking, "Goddamn it, why won't anyone listen to me that this is already over?"

oldebayer: In an infinite number of monkeys armed with typewriters, one is going to write Hamlet, many will write, "To be, or not to majsuwlt."

it was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times?!?

Poblano takes stepwise regression and changes it to MAGIC.

He/she Rocks.

I've heard it mentioned on the news a few times, but my googlefu eluded me. They were talking about a list of predictions put out somewhere around Feb. by the Obama campaign that predicted the outcomes on all the future races and that they have been pretty accurately. Anyone have a link to that list?

burndtdan: oldebayer: In an infinite number of monkeys armed with typewriters, one is going to write Hamlet, many will write, "To be, or not to majsuwlt."

it was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times?!?

A sale of two titties?!

Zalan: I've heard it mentioned on the news a few times, but my googlefu eluded me. They were talking about a list of predictions put out somewhere around Feb. by the Obama campaign that predicted the outcomes on all the future races and that they have been pretty accurately. Anyone have a link to that list?

Here. (new window)

From TFA:

Over the course of the primary season, especially since early February, the preferences of Democratic primary voters have been mostly stable. As my colleague Ronald Brownstein put it last week, Clinton has consistently prevailed among a "beer track" coalition of blue-collar whites, Latinos and seniors. Obama consistently dominates Clinton among blacks and younger white voters, and he draws additional strength from a "wine track" coalition of independents and well-educated white voters. What varies from primary to primary is less about the shifting allegiances of voters within these groups and more about differences in the demographic composition of each state.

Consider some specific examples. The outcome of the North Carolina primary was wildly different than Ohio or Pennsylvania, yet non-college white voters favored Clinton by virtually identical margins in each state (+44 in Ohio, +41 in Pennsylvania, and +45 in North Carolina, according to the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool exit polls provided by NBC and ABC News). Clinton's margin was far narrower among college-educated whites in each state (+7 in Ohio, +10 in Pennsylvania and +7 in North Carolina). And Obama won near monolithic support from blacks in all three states (87 percent in Ohio, 90 percent in Pennsylvania, 91 percent in North Carolina).

The different overall outcomes owed mostly to the varying demographic composition of each state.

Many Farkers may hate to hear it, but this bolsters Hillary's argument that she's better equipped for the general election. Obama has shown no ability to win over the elderly or those white, "beer track" voters. They will almost certainly go to McCain.

Younger voters and the "wine track" aren't enough to win a general election.

/found this article extremely interesting
//I'm a geek.

oldebayer: Would be nice, if there weren't fourteen bajillion other bloggers who also predicted stuff with math and models and got it wildly wrong.

In an infinite number of monkeys armed with typewriters, one is going to write Hamlet, many will write, "To be, or not to majsuwlt."

As it happens, one of the Kos Kids spontaneously typed the first 12 pages of East of Eden just last week. And in January one of the LGF regulars almost typed out the script to an old Bugs Bunny cartoon, but kept substituting "Muslim" for "wabbit."

Zalan link to that list

Link (new window)

Look for the link within. You can download the excel sheet for your own comparisons.

Neeek:
Here. (new window)

Thank you, been interested in looking at those for a while, I understand that his predictions have been for the most part very accurate.

This is interesting. Someone cue "interesting cat."

But seriously, this article made a point I've been thinking for a few weeks now. "Over the last three months or so, for better or worse, the underlying coalitions of support for Obama and Clinton have remained largely constant."

This primary has gotten past the point of helping people make up their minds (and this guy's model shows that they're basically made up before we even know who the candidates are). Even more reason, IMHO, that Clinton needs to go ahead and drop out. All she's doing is protracting the inevitable. She's already made herself look like a douche, destroyed any shred of credibility the Clinton legacy had, and pretty much driven working class whites into the arms of McCain come the general election. She can't cause more harm by staying in than she already has since Obama is basically starting his GE campaign and finishing out the primary as a token gesture to the remaining voters and the fact he easily has the resources to do so.

Bloggers exposed the Lewinsky scandal
Bloggers exposed Dan Rather as a fabricating, biased boob

SockMonkeyHolocaust 2008-05-08 01:35:42 PM
A broken clock is right twice a day.


But he was right almost every time...

And another thing.

From TFA:

All of which brings us to the underlying story of the Democratic presidential primaries. Since Super Tuesday, it has mostly been the story of what hasn't happened. Over the last three months or so, for better or worse, the underlying coalitions of support for Obama and Clinton have remained largely constant.

I attribute this to the early start and hyper acceleration of the campaigning this year (which is ironic, given that getting a nominee is proving longer than usual).

Generally speaking, nobody's winning anybody over anymore. Everybody's made their choice, and won't be swayed from it.

I don't suspect there will be much movement in a direct Obama-McCain race, either -- other than a sizeable chunk of Hillary's elderly, white, Latino and blue-collar voters crossing over to McCain.

Il Douchey: Bloggers exposed the Lewinsky scandal
Bloggers exposed Dan Rather as a fabricating, biased boob

Just because I'm that guy...

It's not that Dan Rather is a fabricating, biased boob. Rather it is that he is a biased boob who accepted a fabrication without due diligence. It is an important distinction.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: A broken clock is right twice a day.

Do you need a hug?

FishingWithFredo: I don't suspect there will be much movement in a direct Obama-McCain race, either -- other than a sizeable chunk of Hillary's elderly, white, Latino and blue-collar voters crossing over to McCain.

Elderly-yes (OMGZ He's a secret Muslim!)
White-maybe a small percentage (I think people for get how unpopular the Republicans in Washington really are these days)
Latino-will vote Dem in the fall if they voted Dem in the primary, plain and simple
Blue-collar-Would be crazy to vote for McCain if they truly value a livable wage and not losing their job.

All in all, the only Hilldog supporters that will be going to McCain are the ones who participated in Project Chaos and those dixiecrats that really are racist/crazy enough to believe if Obama is elected president he'll make all us white folk call him "Massah" and worship Allah while we listen to Rev. Wright sing "God Damn America" before every sporting event.

FishingWithFredo: Many Farkers may hate to hear it, but this bolsters Hillary's argument that she's better equipped for the general election. Obama has shown no ability to win over the elderly or those white, "beer track" voters. They will almost certainly go to McCain.

That's the part of your argument you forgot to support in any fashion whatsoever.

Zalan
Neeek:
Here. (new window)

Thank you, been interested in looking at those for a while, I understand that his predictions have been for the most part very accurate.

Oy! How come only Neek gets the thanks for giving you a link and I don't?

You are obviously a misogynist who never appreciates women. SNIFF

/Snark label for the impaired.

Running a-puck: It's not that Dan Rather is a fabricating, biased boob. Rather it is that he is a biased boob who accepted a fabrication without due diligence. It is an important distinction.

Why is it an important distinction?

/And, what's the frequency Kenneth?

HillbillyBubba: destroyed any shred of credibility the Clinton legacy had,

This.

Honestly, Bill Clinton was going to be remember one of the greatest presidents and his wife came in and farked it up.

FishingWithFredo:
The different overall outcomes owed mostly to the varying demographic composition of each state.

Many Farkers may hate to hear it, but this bolsters Hillary's argument that she's better equipped for the general election. Obama has shown no ability to win over the elderly or those white, "beer track" voters. They will almost certainly go to McCain.

ummm, no. This shows that a particular demographic model determined the Primary election outcomes. It was based on regression of previous primaries. Attempting to apply the same model to the general election makes no sense.

That's like taking 10 kids and offering them the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Suppose for the sake of argument that there is a correlation that the likelihood of a kid choosing vanilla over chocolate increases with age. Great, you can now pull another random kid and make a good guess which of the two flavors he will choose.

But offer the original group of 10 kids the choice between chocolate ice cream and the generic pistachio that has been neglected in the back of the supermarket freezer for, say, 71 years, and they're all going to choose the chocolate irrespective of age. The old regression model is not appropriate for the new situation.

In summation: fail.

Il Douchey: Why is it an important distinction?

In the first, Rather is an evil genius trying to throw the election toward his favorite candidate. It would be wrong, but at least the people filtering our news would be smart. In the second scenario, which is what I believe happened, Rather is actually a profoundly stupid man, he has always been stupid, and people have been accepting this idiot as the arbiter of what's "true" for over a generation.

fivethirtyeight.com is an election junkie's dream. I love it.

GradStudentForLife: FishingWithFredo:
The different overall outcomes owed mostly to the varying demographic composition of each state.

Many Farkers may hate to hear it, but this bolsters Hillary's argument that she's better equipped for the general election. Obama has shown no ability to win over the elderly or those white, "beer track" voters. They will almost certainly go to McCain.

ummm, no. This shows that a particular demographic model determined the Primary election outcomes. It was based on regression of previous primaries. Attempting to apply the same model to the general election makes no sense.

That's like taking 10 kids and offering them the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Suppose for the sake of argument that there is a correlation that the likelihood of a kid choosing vanilla over chocolate increases with age. Great, you can now pull another random kid and make a good guess which of the two flavors he will choose.

But offer the original group of 10 kids the choice between chocolate ice cream and the generic pistachio that has been neglected in the back of the supermarket freezer for, say, 71 years, and they're all going to choose the chocolate irrespective of age. The old regression model is not appropriate for the new situation.

In summation: fail.

THIS.

some more food for thought:

When women -including the Hillaryis44 crowd- realize that there are 5 SCOTUS justices over 70 and McCain promises to appoint anti-Row v Wade people...they'll get back on the Obama bandwagon real quick

When Seniors hear McCain talk about his Social Security privatization schemes...a significant number will come to Obama

When "working class whites" see McCain offering 4 more years of GWB economics, they'll come right over to B. Hussein Obama

Also, Obama doesn't galvanize the GOP base to come out and vote, and neither does McCain. That's why the GOP was counting on Hillary to win. People hate her enough to come out to vote against her and she loses independents to McCain.

Against Obama, McCain gets KILLED in fund raising. He, at best, ties for independents. He loses a lot of young and educated republicans. And he faces the most energized dem base in decades.

So, no Mcain cannot and will not win.

/unless a video of Bin Laden and Obama having gay sex is found

Obama has shown no ability to win over the elderly or those white, "beer track" voters. They will almost certainly go to McCain.

Obdicut: That's the part of your argument you forgot to support in any fashion whatsoever.

Oh, OK.

Better?

GradStudentforLife: See above.

Hint: You're looking for the poll data under the heading "Democratic Defections Rise in Obama-McCain Matchup."

Further Hint: Pay special attention to the poll results under the following Democratic subgroups - white, female, aged 50-64, aged 65+, high school education or less, income under $30,000.

Further Hint: Pay special attention to the poll results of Democrats who have a more McCain-ish, Lieberman-ish view of the War in Iraq and foreign policy in general. The bolt to the Republican side if Obama is the nominee rather than Hillary in that category is of the "fire in a crowded theater" variety.

Over the course of the primary season, especially since early February, the preferences of Democratic primary voters have been mostly stable. As my colleague Ronald Brownstein put it last week, Clinton has consistently prevailed among a "beer track" coalition of blue-collar whites, Latinos and seniors.

Yes, because there's no beer or blue collar people in Wisconsin, there's no latinos in New Mexico (he lost by less then 2000 votes, and John Edwards was still in the race at the time). And of course, there are no old people in North Carolina or Georgia.

J. Walter Weatherman: /unless a video of Bin Laden and Obama having gay sex is found

Quiet, you might give Uwe Boll ideas.

So what about the thousands of other bloggers that got it wrong? Is that why blogging doesn't matter?

FishingWithFredo: FishingWithFredo: Oh, OK.

Better?

GradStudentforLife: See above.

Hint: You're looking for the poll data under the heading "Democratic Defections Rise in Obama-McCain Matchup."

Further Hint: Pay special attention to the poll results under the following Democratic subgroups - white, female, aged 50-64, aged 65+, high school education or less, income under $30,000.

There is some support for this argument, but Obama still has time to win these voters back. Either way, this statement...

Many Farkers may hate to hear it, but this bolsters Hillary's argument that she's better equipped for the general election.

...is unsupported because Obama's better numbers with independent voters overcomes her strength with Democrats. Notice that in the poll you posted, Obama has a larger lead.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Hey everyone, post your predictions for the next couple months on anything and if they come true we'll tout them endlessly on THE FARKOSPHERE as proof that a Fark thread is the new media and if they don't then we'll just move on to the next thread. Who cares if we have a one to one thousand threads ratio of accuracy, don't they know we are inexorable as the new media? Go forth FARKOSPHERE and bombard the old media comment sections!

Wow, you're kind of a jackass. This guy worked pretty damn hard to manage all this data and had no claims to being THE NEXT BIG MEDIA PHENOMENON, but the barest suggestion of such from a Fark thread submitter and you lunge with frothing hostility at the guy as if he was being the biggest elitist snob ever.

And in this case I would say what he did was pretty extraordinary, as to my knowledge no one in the news media has ever tried to manage this much data in an attempt to get a more accurate result. You're gonna viciously insult that effort for perceived self-importance you've pulled completely out of your ass? Really? Did bloggers kill your parents or something?

What's most impressive about Poblano is that his predictions are completely blind to policy, scandals, and polling numbers. It's all from census data and historical political leanings.

FishingWithFredo: From TFA:

Over the course of the primary season, especially since early February, the preferences of Democratic primary voters have been mostly stable. As my colleague Ronald Brownstein put it last week, Clinton has consistently prevailed among a "beer track" coalition of blue-collar whites, Latinos and seniors. Obama consistently dominates Clinton among blacks and younger white voters, and he draws additional strength from a "wine track" coalition of independents and well-educated white voters. What varies from primary to primary is less about the shifting allegiances of voters within these groups and more about differences in the demographic composition of each state.

Consider some specific examples. The outcome of the North Carolina primary was wildly different than Ohio or Pennsylvania, yet non-college white voters favored Clinton by virtually identical margins in each state (+44 in Ohio, +41 in Pennsylvania, and +45 in North Carolina, according to the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool exit polls provided by NBC and ABC News). Clinton's margin was far narrower among college-educated whites in each state (+7 in Ohio, +10 in Pennsylvania and +7 in North Carolina). And Obama won near monolithic support from blacks in all three states (87 percent in Ohio, 90 percent in Pennsylvania, 91 percent in North Carolina).

The different overall outcomes owed mostly to the varying demographic composition of each state.

Many Farkers may hate to hear it, but this bolsters Hillary's argument that she's better equipped for the general election. Obama has shown no ability to win over the elderly or those white, "beer track" voters. They will almost certainly go to McCain.

Younger voters and the "wine track" aren't enough to win a general election.

/found this article extremely interesting
//I'm a geek.

Someone needs to explain this argument better to me, because thus far I'm failing to see where the conclusion comes from. In the primary season, people have a choice between Clinton and Obama. Her faction of support may be behind her in the primaries, but that doesn't mean they will immediately turn to McCain in the general. In fact, the data from the present, taking in consideration data from the past, would seem to indicate that most of these people will vote Democrat regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is nominee. So, I really can't see how this bolsters Clinton's argument that she is the more electable candidate, especially since she is having trouble courting people outside the Democratic base, which is really where it seems one would want to make inroads.

oldebayer: Would be nice, if there weren't fourteen bajillion other bloggers who also predicted stuff with math and models and got it wildly wrong.

In an infinite number of monkeys armed with typewriters, one is going to write Hamlet, many will write, "To be, or not to majsuwlt."

I know you're just making a joke but there's nothing inherent in infinity that makes every possibility occur eventually.

And the 70-year-old secretary who never watched a minute of basketball in her life sometimes wins the NCAA pool. So?

FishingWithFredo: Further Hint: Pay special attention to the poll results of Democrats who have a more McCain-ish, Lieberman-ish view of the War in Iraq and foreign policy in general. The bolt to the Republican side if Obama is the nominee rather than Hillary in that category is of the "fire in a crowded theater" variety.

This is only 1/3 of the electorate.

That how unpopular Iraqnam has become.

Don't expect McCain to win if he keeps supporting endless quagmires.

Il Douchey: Bloggers exposed the Lewinsky scandal
Bloggers exposed Dan Rather as a fabricating, biased boob

The original story was older than Rather's. They foolishly ended up with bad sources, but the story was true.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html