If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   Unskewed Pollman: "Nate Silver can't be trusted because he's thin and might be gay, too"   (examiner.com) divider line 381
    More: Dumbass, Baseball Prospectus, career development, Fantasyland, swing vote, Dick Morris, swing states  
•       •       •

4749 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



381 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-27 03:22:31 AM
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.

His voice sounds like the voices of teenage boys who were ordered to be castrated by priests and popes, therefore, 4+4=9?

Seriously, GOP, you're just coming down off the rape high; do you really, really want to drag the long written history of conservative religious organizations surgically altering children to make them sound more pleasing? How 'bout you just go play with the vaginal ultrasound probe for the night and think it over, m'kay?
 
2012-10-27 03:23:49 AM
Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice

It's fun to watch the Right flailing like this.
 
2012-10-27 03:32:27 AM
Squeaky voiced people are never right. They can't help it. Their squeaky voices automatically shut down all reasonable Republican talking points when they feel threatened. Or, something.
 
2012-10-27 03:42:00 AM
I take everything Dean Chambers has to say with every bit of the seriousness it deserves.

/DNRTFA.
 
2012-10-27 03:54:11 AM
I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.
 
2012-10-27 03:58:07 AM
Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.
 
2012-10-27 03:58:14 AM

log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.


UnskewedPolls was always right. It's just that the damn liberal voter fraud was too great to overcome or something.

/awaits statisticals
 
2012-10-27 04:05:24 AM

Osomatic: They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.


I've noticed that too.

themindiswatching: log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.

UnskewedPolls was always right. It's just that the damn liberal voter fraud was too great to overcome or something.

/awaits statisticals


Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.
 
2012-10-27 04:12:05 AM
Chimneys are cozy,
Chimneys are warm.
I think of chimneys
As ports in a storm.
Warm and cozy or not,
I would give up the lot,
If I could only be a movie star!

That's kinda how it goes.
 
2012-10-27 04:13:22 AM

log_jammin:

Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.


That said, about 48% of the country is going to wake up the next day angry, I guess. We're all being lied to, at least a little bit. Some of us are being lied to about how "both sides are the same so why bother voting." And there are many, many other lies.

My goal is to be one of the people in power lying to you and yours and enjoying the fruits of my lies, which include gout-inducing foods and nubile maidens. Mostly the maidens.
 
2012-10-27 04:17:22 AM

log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.


It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.
 
2012-10-27 04:24:43 AM
Everyone lies to themselves to an extent, but not like this. The right has made it into an art form.

Don't like what the polls say? well head over to unskewedpolls.com where we skew the polls to make you feel better.
what's that? read an article with facts that make your opinion illogical and wrong? well just dismiss it as "biased" and go on with what you were doing!
Oh..The Harvard educated president who worked his way up in life to become exactly what the American dream is supposed to be about, has a few minor beliefs that you disagree with? that's too bad. well just call him a socialist and/or Nazi so you can ignore whatever he says!
 
2012-10-27 04:25:14 AM
Yesterday, my boss said, "Judy, we're just like the people in 'What's the Matter With Kansas.; By supporting the Democratic party, we're going against our own self-interests. Why is that?" Then he said, "Because we care about our country, not ourselves." I think I need a raise. He's not paying me enough to place me up there with him.
 
2012-10-27 04:27:08 AM

MorrisBird: Yesterday, my boss said, "Judy, we're just like the people in 'What's the Matter With Kansas.; By supporting the Democratic party, we're going against our own self-interests. Why is that?" Then he said, "Because we care about our country, not ourselves." I think I need a raise. He's not paying me enough to place me up there with him.


wow.
 
2012-10-27 04:30:01 AM

log_jammin: wow.


To be fair, he's on pain medication. His pelvis is broken in 6 places.
 
2012-10-27 04:30:55 AM

Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.


You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.
 
2012-10-27 04:35:01 AM

Osomatic: And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing?


With any luck, he won't believe in pop psychology. Your baby is fine. Medicine, especially psychological, is mostly shamanism.
 
2012-10-27 04:38:46 AM

MorrisBird: Osomatic: And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing?

With any luck, he won't believe in pop psychology. Your baby is fine. Medicine, especially psychological, is mostly shamanism.


That's fine, though my wondering was mostly about religion. And I'm going to disagree with you about medicine, at least as it is practiced in the place where I work: We do evidence-based medicine. Things that work are kept, things that don't are chucked.
 
2012-10-27 05:13:11 AM

Osomatic: Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.

You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.


When as a kid I began to question obvious flaws in the Christian bible and other seemingly bright kids around me were not, I made note of it. I never understood how they could reconcile logical flaws with religious dogma.

I was raised in a similar environment to your son. Both my parents grew up in the church and then had a falling out (mother = Italian Catholic / father = German Lutheran). Religion was always by my choice only. I attended a Christian bible school by choice, and quit going by my choice. I attended mass sometimes and youth group because I liked the kids who went to that church. Ultimately I chose to eschew religion and I claim agnostic.

But I can tell you there are cons to being agnostic or religiously void. I feel I am by nature a spiritual person, and I never found a satisfactory outlet for that spirituality. And the older I get the more I feel like I'm missing that outlet.

\I'm sure what I've said was less then helpful -sorry
 
2012-10-27 05:22:17 AM
i159.photobucket.com

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.
 
2012-10-27 05:57:37 AM

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.


ewww.
 
2012-10-27 07:35:29 AM
Wow.

This is a thing.

This guy actually said this.
 
2012-10-27 07:40:41 AM
"He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was. But it's highly unlikely his current methods and projections will have the level of accuracy unless he changes then quite a lot between now and election day. The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win. Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election."

Until the gay guy alters reality to show us what we want to hear, he's wrong.
 
2012-10-27 07:55:52 AM
Dean Chambers, you are a dumbass.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-27 08:24:26 AM
And this was worthy of publishing in someone's estimation.
 
2012-10-27 08:34:42 AM
For how much the right accuses the left of ignoring facts in favor of emotion there is no group on earth who more vigorously eschews solid evidence in favor of "it can't be that way because I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel in my heart of Jesus 'n' Reagan blessed hearts that it just ain't so" than the modern GOP.

For more evidence look at the debate over Voter ID. No matter how many studies are done saying in-person voter fraud is about as prevalent of sightings of Amelia Earhart giving Bigfoot an Albanian Otter Squat on the hood of Elvis' UFO the response from the GOP shills is "I *KNOW* voter fraud is happening! Didn't you see those black guys dressed up in camo??"
 
2012-10-27 08:41:25 AM

Endrick: The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win.


I'm not sure a statistical tie is a profound shift.
 
2012-10-27 08:48:40 AM
You don't like Nate Silver? Because of his physical size?
i291.photobucket.com

Oh, and good luck in the upcoming election.
i291.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-27 08:49:43 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Amelia Earhart giving Bigfoot an Albanian Otter Squat on the hood of Elvis' UFO


I was having trouble getting my girlfriend out of bed this morning so she can make me breakfast. When I read this, I laughed loud enough to wake her up. And, in a few moments now, I will be eating delicious pancakes and bacon.

Thank you, sir.
 
2012-10-27 08:53:34 AM

MorrisBird: log_jammin: wow.

To be fair, he's on pain medication. His pelvis is broken in 6 places.


Definitely a good time to hit him up for that raise, while he is still woozy from the drugs.
 
2012-10-27 09:00:07 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: No matter how many studies are done saying in-person voter fraud is about as prevalent of sightings of Amelia Earhart giving Bigfoot an Albanian Otter Squat on the hood of Elvis' UFO the response from the GOP shills is "I *KNOW* voter fraud is happening!


What is this I don't even... Do they even have otters in Albania?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-27 09:07:57 AM

Paris1127: Mr. Coffee Nerves: No matter how many studies are done saying in-person voter fraud is about as prevalent of sightings of Amelia Earhart giving Bigfoot an Albanian Otter Squat on the hood of Elvis' UFO the response from the GOP shills is "I *KNOW* voter fraud is happening!

What is this I don't even... Do they even have otters in Albania?


Probably not, it sounds like a hoxha to me.
 
2012-10-27 09:13:23 AM

Paris1127: What is this I don't even... Do they even have otters in Albania?

 
They even an otter stamp in Albania:
 
www.poppe-stamps.com
 
2012-10-27 09:22:15 AM
Regardless of the attack on Nate Silver, I am astounded that Dick Morris has any credibility with anyone.
 
2012-10-27 09:25:56 AM
While many conservatives look to former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris to understand the polls and political surveys on the elections, or even a site like UnSkewedPolls.com, those on the left look to New York Times blogger Nate Silver

Cross out "conservatives" and write in "morons".
Cross out "those on the left" and write in "those who are not".

NOW you've got something.
 
2012-10-27 09:28:12 AM
Thin people cannot be trusted.  This is McDonald's America people.  
 
2012-10-27 09:49:19 AM
Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?
 
2012-10-27 09:59:06 AM

Osomatic: log_jammin:

Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

That said, about 48% of the country is going to wake up the next day angry, I guess. We're all being lied to, at least a little bit. Some of us are being lied to about how "both sides are the same so why bother voting." And there are many, many other lies.


Basically this. November 7 is going to be absolutely unbearable for half this country. We just dont know which half.
 
2012-10-27 09:59:58 AM

simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?


Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
This is pretty awesome. Per http://unskwedpolls.com , I am "a thin and effeminate man" & therefore not to be trusted. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide! http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...
 
2012-10-27 10:02:10 AM

DamnYankees: simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
This is pretty awesome. Per http://unskwedpolls.com , I am "a thin and effeminate man" & therefore not to be trusted. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide! http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...


Thanks. Seems he has a good sense of humor.
 
2012-10-27 10:04:41 AM

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.


I sometimes entertain the possibility that he truly believes his method is more correct, and is just a fantastically crappy statistician, who incidentally is a blob of pus. Then I realize that nobody is that stupid.

The reality is that he's just an evil shill, serving the intellectual equivalent of greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays at the direction of his Republican masters.

Disingenuous bastards are destroying this country.
 
2012-10-27 10:08:25 AM

simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?


he tweeted the attack, which he thought was hilarious.
 
2012-10-27 10:30:13 AM
All this guy (and most of the media really) is doing is setting lots of people up for a huge fall.

There are people I know that had pretty much given up on Romney before the debates. They were ready to accept that they had an awful candidate and were in for another four years of the usurper. Now, I believe that riots and other forms of violence are an actual possibility when reality comes crashing down upon them around 9:30 PM on election night. And nothing changed other than the media wanting to make it look like a horse-race.

And if and when the violence comes, they will all be right there reporting it and wondering how such a terrible thing could happen.

It's really disgusting. I need to get off of this stinking rock.
 
2012-10-27 10:44:17 AM
On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

i49.tinypic.com 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.
 
2012-10-27 10:54:07 AM

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


But you are using the effeminate guys numbers, so your argument is invalid. And that guy that agrees with him is named Wang, so...
 
2012-10-27 10:54:35 AM

Winterlight: Paris1127: What is this I don't even... Do they even have otters in Albania?
 
They even an otter stamp in Albania:
 
[www.poppe-stamps.com image 555x471]


That right there is why the internet is awesome.
 
2012-10-27 10:57:04 AM

themindiswatching: log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.

UnskewedPolls was always right. It's just that the damn liberal voter fraud was too great to overcome or something.

/awaits statisticals


But will the statisticals be harmonized?
 
2012-10-27 10:57:15 AM
Oh man. WHEN Obama wins his second term, the WHARRGARBL from these rightards is gonna be downright Apocalyptic. I better stock up on paper towels and Jergens to enjoy that moment for as long as I can.
 
2012-10-27 10:59:30 AM
Maybe he's just hoping he has a chance with him?
 
2012-10-27 11:01:39 AM

Osomatic: Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.


its not just a close race, I listen to POTUS radio a lot (Politics Of The United States for the People Of The United States for people who dont pay attention to XM) a reasonably unbiased station over all and they werent just going with it was a close race but they were going over the gallup poll and talking to people on the ground reporting what they saw as a genuine swell of support for Mitt Romney, and were openly questioning whether Obama should try and fight it out or make some kind of grand last stand on his principles because he knew he was going to be beat and wanted to try and frame his legacy.


this was just a day or two mind, so after all the mitt-mentum had died out in the polls.
 
2012-10-27 11:02:31 AM
So he's saying trust me because I'm fat?
 
2012-10-27 11:03:28 AM
Nate Silver can't be trusted because when he talks, he kinda sounds gay. But Dick Morris can be trusted because in this guy's world, Dick Morris doesn't sound gay? I know he was busted for sucking a female hooker's toes, but that guy really sounds gay.
 
2012-10-27 11:03:55 AM

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


In my totally unprofessional opinion, during the Presidential Debates, I think Romney lost votes every time he said he agreed with the President. His abrupt turn to the center probably cost him some of the base.
 
2012-10-27 11:04:09 AM

theinsultabot9000: Osomatic: Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.

its not just a close race, I listen to POTUS radio a lot (Politics Of The United States for the People Of The United States for people who dont pay attention to XM) a reasonably unbiased station over all and they werent just going with it was a close race but they were going over the gallup poll and talking to people on the ground reporting what they saw as a genuine swell of support for Mitt Romney, and were openly questioning whether Obama should try and fight it out or make some kind of grand last stand on his principles because he knew he was going to be beat and wanted to try and frame his legacy.


this was just a day or two mind, so after all the mitt-mentum had died out in the polls.


I think its obviously a close race - the entire basis for saying its not is that Obama seems to have a firewall in certain swing states which is exceeding has national vote margin. Now, there's a very good reason to believe this is true - Obama is underperforming in solid blue states and getting killed in the solid red states, which could lead to a split in the popular vote and the electoral college. But any time you have a split in those metrics, I think its by definition a very tight race in which no candidate should feel very comfortable.
 
2012-10-27 11:04:48 AM

TV's Vinnie: Oh man. WHEN Obama wins his second term, the WHARRGARBL from these rightards is gonna be downright Apocalyptic. I better stock up on paper towels and Jergens to enjoy that moment for as long as I can.


I'm waiting for the violence. And there will be violence. I take solace in the fact that the people performing the violence are too stupid to do any real damage.
 
2012-10-27 11:05:04 AM
I read the article in this guy's voice.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-27 11:11:12 AM
never trust a thin man's statistics... or a chef with a gambling problem.
 
2012-10-27 11:12:17 AM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-27 11:16:14 AM
Ten more days. That's all. In ten days all will be revealed. Between now and then, I will enjoy the super-storm news coverage as it interrupts the campaign coverage. Clearly, even god is pissed at how long this whole campaign is taking.
 
2012-10-27 11:16:22 AM

log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.


I don't know. I thought the same thing about hillaryis44.com back in 2008, and yet they're still kicking around.
 
2012-10-27 11:17:30 AM
Oh, and Silver Wang. Say it. Silver Wang.
 
2012-10-27 11:17:33 AM
The guy who wrote that article sounds fat.
 
2012-10-27 11:17:43 AM
I do think its funny that people seem to put so much stock in Nate Silver because he... Predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008.

Anyone who was reasonably paying attention to the 2008 election could have told you 45 out of 50 and they also could have told you that the last 5 didn't matter because the first 45 would decide the election. It's also been sort of funny to watch liberals on this site who have repeatedly said "Rasmussen is unreliable. He changes his results to match everyone else when it gets close to the election which is why his results are so much more accurate close to the election!"

So liberals are saying Obama is going to lose in 2012? Because if Rasmussen is correct... Obama is finished.
 
2012-10-27 11:18:43 AM
Okay cons, pay attention. Below, you'll find links to Real Conservative Propaganda's "no swing state" electoral map, which distributes the map according to who they say is currently leading in each state's polls. And to Karl Rove's own electoral map.

You'll notice that Real Conservative Propaganda's map doesn't look all that different from Nate Silver's. And if you distributed Karl Rove's map according to who currently leads in each state, you'd see Obama wins it too.

Link

Link

Nate Silver really isn't spinning anything. He's just taking into account more data, and weighing it according to a wider variety of empirically demonstrable factors, than any of the other sites--which also say Obama is leading.
 
2012-10-27 11:19:13 AM

DamnYankees: theinsultabot9000: Osomatic: Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.

its not just a close race, I listen to POTUS radio a lot (Politics Of The United States for the People Of The United States for people who dont pay attention to XM) a reasonably unbiased station over all and they werent just going with it was a close race but they were going over the gallup poll and talking to people on the ground reporting what they saw as a genuine swell of support for Mitt Romney, and were openly questioning whether Obama should try and fight it out or make some kind of grand last stand on his principles because he knew he was going to be beat and wanted to try and frame his legacy.


this was just a day or two mind, so after all the mitt-mentum had died out in the polls.

I think its obviously a close race - the entire basis for saying its not is that Obama seems to have a firewall in certain swing states which is exceeding has national vote margin. Now, there's a very good reason to believe this is true - Obama is underperforming in solid blue states and getting killed in the solid red states, which could lead to a split in the popular vote and the electoral college. But any time you have a split in those metrics, I think its by definition a very tight race in which no candidate should feel very comfortable.



well, its not that this was a close race, was the narrative they have been going with and were still kind of on yesterday, it was Romney has managed to lock it pretty well down, that momentum is hard to shift far enough 11 days out to matter, so how should Obama spend his last 10 days in office. It kind of surprised me because generally I hold their journalistic integrity in fairly high regard. actually made me wonder if maybe I was allowing myself to be deluded. still, I also trust Nate Silver so...

Iuuno.
 
2012-10-27 11:20:09 AM

randomjsa: I do think its funny...


dnr;0content
 
2012-10-27 11:20:46 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Nate Silver can't be trusted because when he talks, he kinda sounds gay. But Dick Morris can be trusted because in this guy's world, Dick Morris doesn't sound gay? I know he was busted for sucking a female hooker's toes, but that guy really sounds gay.


Dick Morris has some of the weirdest, most effeminate mannerisms I've ever seen on an allegedly heterosexual man. I have honestly never understood why he was given such a prominent role in Fox News. He's not physically attractive, his voice is annoying, he doesn't say anything intelligent - it's all overblown belligerence, he's morally corrupt, and he has no credibility outside that Fox bubble. They could have found any number of superior personalities to fill his slot, so I'm assuming that he's entirely coasting on his past association with the Clintons, because he's got absolutely nothing else going for him. He's very repulsive.
 
2012-10-27 11:20:54 AM
Articles like this are the result of republicans pointing fingers at reality and scream "LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!"
 
2012-10-27 11:21:33 AM
I don't get it. All one has to do is wait until the election to see if Nate is correct or not. Why all the butthurt now?
 
2012-10-27 11:21:41 AM
So I read at the bottom that unskewed now has a section devoted to humor about Obama.

That totally seems like something I'd be looking for when I want unskewed and unbiased reporting on polls.
 
2012-10-27 11:22:37 AM
I read the article in these guys' voices.

news.techeye.net

/would like to meet someone of superior intelligence
 
2012-10-27 11:23:36 AM

RyogaM: Ten more days. That's all. In ten days all will be revealed. Between now and then, I will enjoy the super-storm news coverage as it interrupts the campaign coverage. Clearly, even god is pissed at how long this whole campaign is taking.


imgs.xkcd.com

That cartoon right there is America anymore.
 
2012-10-27 11:24:28 AM

gingerjet: I don't get it. All one has to do is wait until the election to see if Nate is correct or not. Why all the butthurt now?


It's that special brand of cognitive dissonance that manifests itself in the mind of someone who knows his guy/team/whatever is probably going to lose, but who has no ability to respond to a loss with any sort of honesty, let alone dignity.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-27 11:24:32 AM

DamnYankees: Osomatic: log_jammin:

Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

That said, about 48% of the country is going to wake up the next day angry, I guess. We're all being lied to, at least a little bit. Some of us are being lied to about how "both sides are the same so why bother voting." And there are many, many other lies.

Basically this. November 7 is going to be absolutely unbearable for half this country. We just dont know which half.


Either half or all. The right is going to get screwed wither way, except for the very wealthy.
 
2012-10-27 11:25:58 AM
The unskewed polls guy has a statistically significant higher number of chins than Nate Silver.
 
2012-10-27 11:26:11 AM

randomjsa: So liberals are saying Obama is going to lose in 2012? Because if Rasmussen is correct...


actually conservatives are saying Nate Silver isn't reliable because he's thin and not as manly as them.

I think if I were a conservative shill, and I saw that kind of pathetic BS I'd talk about something else.

how about you?
 
2012-10-27 11:26:29 AM
unskewedpolls makes the following prediction:

Minnesota: 51-47 Romney -- this will surprise many

This is so completely delusional I don't know where to begin.
 
2012-10-27 11:26:42 AM
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.

i236.photobucket.com

THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
 
2012-10-27 11:27:01 AM
To paraphrase Dick Cheney, I believe the GOP is in their last throes.
 
2012-10-27 11:27:15 AM

bugontherug: Okay cons, pay attention. Below, you'll find links to Real Conservative Propaganda's "no swing state" electoral map, which distributes the map according to who they say is currently leading in each state's polls. And to Karl Rove's own electoral map.

You'll notice that Real Conservative Propaganda's map doesn't look all that different from Nate Silver's. And if you distributed Karl Rove's map according to who currently leads in each state, you'd see Obama wins it too.

Link

Link

Nate Silver really isn't spinning anything. He's just taking into account more data, and weighing it according to a wider variety of empirically demonstrable factors, than any of the other sites--which also say Obama is leading.


Pretty much this.

Right the the 'groundswell' of support for Romney is the Republican base trying to make a half-hearted attempt to back their candidate. That way when Romney loses, they can deflect any questions that come back to their enthusiasm. The reality is that the Republican base had a few months to either back Romney or piss about, and they did the latter. It's on their hatred of Obama (and nonwhite people) that is really pushing this pathetic horserace narrative.
 
2012-10-27 11:27:33 AM

Frederick: Osomatic: Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.

You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.

When as a kid I began to question obvious flaws in the Christian bible and other seemingly bright kids around me were not, I made note of it. I never understood how they could reconcile logical flaws with religious dogma.

I was raised in a similar environment to your son. Both my parents grew up in the church and then had a falling out (mother = Italian Catholic / father = German Lutheran). Religion was always by my choice only. I attended a Christian bible school by choice, and quit going by my choice. I attended mass sometimes and youth group because I liked the kids who went to that church. Ultimately I chose to eschew religion and I claim agnostic.

But I can tell you there are cons to being agnostic or religiously void. I feel I am by nature a spiritual person, and I never found a satisfactory outlet for that spirituality. And the older I get the more I feel like I'm missing that outlet.

\I'm sure what I've said was less then helpful -sorry


Check out the Unitarian-Universalists. With them you get the church-like community and spirituality without the dogma.

Or look into Buddhism. You don't have to buy into the reincarnation or other stuff like that to benefit.
 
2012-10-27 11:27:34 AM
Wow, these guys really need to pick a stance on this issue, it's getting significantly more ridiculous than the rest of their new 'All Over the Place' platform.

One day they're writing dreck like this where Silver is every "liberal" that Ann Coulter sees hiding under her bed, rolled into one. The next, he points to a pro-Romney bump, and he's suddenly a 'political genius, the likes of which this world has never known'. I mean, I get it and all, 'flip-flopping' is the new 'consistent' for the Right, but this is taking it to a ridiculous extreme.

And implying that he's possibly a 'Secret Homersexsh'ull'? That's where you're going with this? Really?
 
2012-10-27 11:28:42 AM
Add "thin guys" to the List of people conspiring against GOP and therefore America
 
2012-10-27 11:28:57 AM

gingerjet: I don't get it. All one has to do is wait until the election to see if Nate is correct or not. Why all the butthurt now?


Because there is money to be made now selling derp to those who desperately want to be lied to in an attempt to validate their tragically flawed world view.
 
2012-10-27 11:29:40 AM

theinsultabot9000:
well, its not that this was a close race, was the narrative they have been going with and were still kind of on yesterday, it was Romney has managed to lock it pretty well down, that momentum is hard to shift far enough 11 days out to matter, so how should Obama spend his last 10 days in office. It kind of surprised me because generally I hold their journalistic integrity in fairly high regard. actually made me wonder if maybe I was allowing myself to be deluded. still, I also trust Nate Silver so...

well, its not that this was a close race, was the narrative they have been going with and were still kind of on yesterday, it wa ...


Even if Obama loses, he still has 3 1/2 months left in office, not 10 days. Plus, Obama 2016, after Romney screws up as much as he seems to want to.
 
2012-10-27 11:30:08 AM

gingerjet: I don't get it. All one has to do is wait until the election to see if Nate is correct or not. Why all the butthurt now?


Are you familiar with the term "lashing out in blind rage?"
 
2012-10-27 11:31:41 AM

simplicimus: theinsultabot9000:
well, its not that this was a close race, was the narrative they have been going with and were still kind of on yesterday, it was Romney has managed to lock it pretty well down, that momentum is hard to shift far enough 11 days out to matter, so how should Obama spend his last 10 days in office. It kind of surprised me because generally I hold their journalistic integrity in fairly high regard. actually made me wonder if maybe I was allowing myself to be deluded. still, I also trust Nate Silver so...

well, its not that this was a close race, was the narrative they have been going with and were still kind of on yesterday, it wa ...

Even if Obama loses, he still has 3 1/2 months left in office, not 10 days. Plus, Obama 2016, after Romney screws up as much as he seems to want to.


that was probably my poor phrasing, not theirs, the bigger idea being how should he spend is last 10 days of the fight for the white house.

also, Obama 2016 seems considerably less likely then Hillary 2016, even if Obama loses
 
2012-10-27 11:32:01 AM
When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.
 
2012-10-27 11:32:15 AM
Considering the typical projection of right wingnuts, I'm willing to bet that the unskewed polls guy wants to sit on a few unskewed poles.
 
2012-10-27 11:32:24 AM

SundaesChild: MorrisBird: log_jammin: wow.

To be fair, he's on pain medication. His pelvis is broken in 6 places.

Definitely a good time to hit him up for that raise, while he is still woozy from the drugs.


Probably a better time to nudge him down the stairs.....

/oops
 
2012-10-27 11:34:26 AM

theinsultabot9000: simplicimus: theinsultabot9000:
well, its not that this was a close race, was the narrative they have been going with and were still kind of on yesterday, it was Romney has managed to lock it pretty well down, that momentum is hard to shift far enough 11 days out to matter, so how should Obama spend his last 10 days in office. It kind of surprised me because generally I hold their journalistic integrity in fairly high regard. actually made me wonder if maybe I was allowing myself to be deluded. still, I also trust Nate Silver so...

well, its not that this was a close race, was the narrative they have been going with and were still kind of on yesterday, it wa ...

Even if Obama loses, he still has 3 1/2 months left in office, not 10 days. Plus, Obama 2016, after Romney screws up as much as he seems to want to.

that was probably my poor phrasing, not theirs, the bigger idea being how should he spend is last 10 days of the fight for the white house.

also, Obama 2016 seems considerably less likely then Hillary 2016, even if Obama loses


It's been done once before, where the incumbent lost and was re-elected 4 years later
 
2012-10-27 11:36:47 AM

Doc Daneeka: log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.

I don't know. I thought the same thing about hillaryis44.com back in 2008, and yet they're still kicking around.


Did they at least renamed to hilaryis45.com?

Autocorrect wants to change hilaryis to bipartisan. That's hilarious.
 
2012-10-27 11:36:56 AM
Check out the new Obama Humor pages at UnSkewedPolls.com.

Finally! Something funny on the Internet. I don't know someone hasn't done this before. Knowing conservatives like I do, I bet these pages are high-frickin' larious!
 
2012-10-27 11:38:10 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-27 11:38:50 AM
unskewedpolls.com?
Is this like Fox: "Fair and Balanced"

Or all the right wing posters I see online with names including the words "Truth" "Reality" "Objective"

Being "honest", "fair", and "balanced" is kinda like being in charge. If you have to constantly remind people of who you are, then you aren't who you think you are.
 
2012-10-27 11:39:04 AM
I know, I dont think he can beat Hillary again in a primary though.

Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.

her approval rating is said to be like, low 60s and from what I hear from redneck derpers who still love her I actually think that may be under representing her actual score.
 
2012-10-27 11:39:48 AM

simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?


Why would he bother? He's too busy working out new ways to throw the election to Obama, right?
 
2012-10-27 11:40:47 AM

miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as non-partisan.


Since neither us provide a shred of reasoning or data backing these conjectures, they cancel out perfectly let me tell you.
 
2012-10-27 11:41:34 AM

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-27 11:42:21 AM

theinsultabot9000: I know, I dont think he can beat Hillary again in a primary though.

Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.

her approval rating is said to be like, low 60s and from what I hear from redneck derpers who still love her I actually think that may be under representing her actual score.


"Hey guys, if Obama had to face off against Hilary again, he would LOSE!"

"What does that matter? Obama is already the farking president and is on his way to a second term. Are you just fading back into madness because Santorum got paid off and Romney bought his way into the candidacy, only to fark it up again and again?"

"Hilary would SOOOO WASTE HIM."
 
2012-10-27 11:43:50 AM

miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.


Can't tell if joking or just stupid.
 
2012-10-27 11:44:14 AM

Mr. Stitcha: To paraphrase Dick Cheney, I believe the GOP is in their last throes.


Good! I hope after Obama plants his shoe deep up the collective ass of every rightwinger out there on Nov. 6th, we drag the gop to a hospice and Kevorkian that b*tch.
 
2012-10-27 11:45:03 AM

Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 400x300]


I can trust that guy because he's obese and probably a virgin, too
 
2012-10-27 11:45:04 AM

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.
 
2012-10-27 11:45:15 AM
cdn2-b.examiner.com

Yeah, this lardass gets to criticize someone elses appearance.
 
2012-10-27 11:45:40 AM

Guntram Shatterhand: theinsultabot9000: I know, I dont think he can beat Hillary again in a primary though.

Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.

her approval rating is said to be like, low 60s and from what I hear from redneck derpers who still love her I actually think that may be under representing her actual score.

"Hey guys, if Obama had to face off against Hilary again, he would LOSE!"

"What does that matter? Obama is already the farking president and is on his way to a second term. Are you just fading back into madness because Santorum got paid off and Romney bought his way into the candidacy, only to fark it up again and again?"

"Hilary would SOOOO WASTE HIM."


I want to get on your case about this, but its probably my fault for not quoting the guy to keep the premise of that particular conversation going.

eh, what the hell, its the fark politics tab.


shut up, you cock.
 
2012-10-27 11:47:32 AM
I want to see a map like this. Early call in Ohio and Fox claim it's a lock for Romney, celebration starts early.... then they cry themselves to sleep.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-27 11:50:39 AM
Nate Silver is the one guy I trust to be statistically rigorous on the matter of electoral prediction. Everyone else just sort of dances around the questions of MOE and underlying assumptions, and the fact that he assigns probabilities to the outcomes shows that he understands the mathematics of uncertainty.

Who should we not trust? For starters, a festering pustule who judges Silver based on his appearance. And secondly, any moran who confuses predicting a lead with creating a lead. Having smoke blown up your arse appears to be tea party thing, most thinking people would rather have an accurate picture of the election even if it isn't so favorable for their chosen candidate.
 
2012-10-27 11:53:38 AM
we need all gay government
 
2012-10-27 11:54:29 AM
This clown apparently misses at least three things.

1) Nate's weighing mechanism isn't ultimately based on how much the polls disagree with "his own average", but on how their predictions differed from the election outcome in 2008. As happens, the polls on average were biased below the measurement threshold, but some pollsters consistently gave results further from the final outcome than others, and/or consistently gave results consistently biased D or biased R. Nate normalizes to cancel out this, based on past measurement from electoral outcome.

2) The odds he assigns are different from the polling percentages, because the odds are derived from the polls combined with their uncertainty measure. A poll running 60%R 40%D with the usual ±3 or so does not mean the Democratic candidate has a 40% chance of winning, it means he has a chance of winning less than a Powerball ticket.The ± is the 95% confidence interval, which is around two standard deviations either side of the mean; winning with a 20 point difference requires results results 13 sigma above the mean, which means "Ain't Happening" (without impact from new news not considered by those polled). However, if it was instead a R 50.7% D 49.2% race with the same uncertainty, a D win would only require a result about one sigma above the mean, yielding a circa 15% chance (vs 85% for the R), despite a race "inside the margin of error".

3) While Romney's chances have improved considerably from their nadir, they haven't improved to a clear win -- and Silver's odds reports reflected considerably improved chances. Furthermore, the poll results had pretty much stopped improving for Romney as of October 12. Though that may change some more...
 
2012-10-27 11:55:38 AM

eraser8: MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.

No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.


I wonder. If Rmoney had been the big underdog, his strategy would have been very different and there's no telling what would have happened. Voters are weird. At least the momentum is in the right direction right now, near the end.
 
2012-10-27 11:56:31 AM

Osomatic: You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.


I'm pretty ADD, and I'm currently a physics grad student.

While my parents did raise me with some degree of religion, it was in the UCC (which, I've joked, is "About as close to Unitarian Universalism as you can get while still only focusing on Jesus), and this a fairly open, affirming, civil-rights-for-all sort of church. And I think they did a good job. They never *pressured* me to join, either.

I think your kid will turn out fine.
 
2012-10-27 11:56:33 AM

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.


You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-27 11:57:19 AM
ronewsblog.files.wordpress.com 

www.northerntool.com 

do it yourself right wing "news"
 
2012-10-27 11:57:21 AM

theinsultabot9000: Guntram Shatterhand: theinsultabot9000: I know, I dont think he can beat Hillary again in a primary though.

Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.

her approval rating is said to be like, low 60s and from what I hear from redneck derpers who still love her I actually think that may be under representing her actual score.

"Hey guys, if Obama had to face off against Hilary again, he would LOSE!"

"What does that matter? Obama is already the farking president and is on his way to a second term. Are you just fading back into madness because Santorum got paid off and Romney bought his way into the candidacy, only to fark it up again and again?"

"Hilary would SOOOO WASTE HIM."

I want to get on your case about this, but its probably my fault for not quoting the guy to keep the premise of that particular conversation going.

eh, what the hell, its the fark politics tab.


shut up, you cock.


The premise was that even if Obama loses, he could pull a Grover Cleveland and win in 2016. As far as Hillary, I can't recall any Secretary of State lasting more that four years or considering a Presidential run.
 
2012-10-27 11:57:43 AM

eraser8: miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.

Can't tell if joking or just stupid.


Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet unfortunately... and I should know better than to make jokes pre-coffee.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:09 AM
You know who else was skinny and kinda gay?

michaelmurray.ca


//Girrrrrrlllllllllll
 
2012-10-27 11:59:14 AM
To give some idea of what offends this guy as grossly innacurate: Nate Silver projects Obama is up less than 2% in the popular vote, which he projects means Obama has a 75% chance of winning. Dean Chambers says that Romney is actually up over 4% in the popular vote, which will guarantee a landslide in the electoral college. Nate Silver has been made a living off doing sports and political statistical modeling for nearly a decade. Dean Chambers has no background in mathematics that I can fund, he just knows the numbers "don't feel right" so he's found ways to correct them. Clearly the guy with a long history in the field who says this will be close but one candidate has an advantage is a fool and the guy with no experience saying it will be a total shutout is the more reasonable party.

Oh, and if anyone hadn't noticed, he now says no pollster has accurate numbers: he originally was adjusting other polling firms to match the likely model of Rasmussen, but now he even believes Rasmussen's likely voter model is all wrong and gives Obama a 3 point advantage over what will happen on election day.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:25 AM

whatsupchuck: Nate Silver is the one guy I trust to be statistically rigorous on the matter of electoral prediction. Everyone else just sort of dances around the questions of MOE and underlying assumptions, and the fact that he assigns probabilities to the outcomes shows that he understands the mathematics of uncertainty.

Who should we not trust? For starters, a festering pustule who judges Silver based on his appearance. And secondly, any moran who confuses predicting a lead with creating a lead. Having smoke blown up your arse appears to be tea party thing, most thinking people would rather have an accurate picture of the election even if it isn't so favorable for their chosen candidate.


Very well stated. I couldn't agree more. Incidentally, he has POTUS up at a 74.4% chance of winning. Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?
 
2012-10-27 11:59:40 AM

miscreant: eraser8: miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.

Can't tell if joking or just stupid.

Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet unfortunately... and I should know better than to make jokes pre-coffee.


Point taken.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:43 AM
FTFA: "[Nate Silver is] 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. ~Dean Chambers"

i.imgur.com

Sounds to me like somebody really, REALLY needs to come out of the closet.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:58 AM

blastoh: unskewedpolls.com?
Is this like Fox: "Fair and Balanced"

Or all the right wing posters I see online with names including the words "Truth" "Reality" "Objective"

Being "honest", "fair", and "balanced" is kinda like being in charge. If you have to constantly remind people of who you are, then you aren't who you think you are.


Republicans are like skinemax films. Because those movies are all the same, they've found they may as well just switch the same 10 words around in their titles, no need to overthink it. Because every Republican argument is the same, why not just plug the same 10 words in as well?

For Skinemax, those words are Passion, Obsession, Sexual, Sensual, Forbidden, Games, Temptation, Secret, Island, Pleasure.

For Repubs: Freedom, Honor, Truth, Fair, Patriot, Liberty, America...yeah nevermind, they don't even have 10 words. But those 7 words combined with "We hate liberals" is everything they've ever written.

msnbcmedia.msn.com

Ever ever ever ever
 
2012-10-27 12:00:41 PM

d-fens99: Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.

You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 430x640]


You're forgetting to hook up the doll.
 
2012-10-27 12:02:41 PM

Waxing_Chewbacca: Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?


It peaked out at 86.1% on the forecast and 98.1% on the Nowcast.
 
2012-10-27 12:02:47 PM

abb3w: This clown apparently misses at least three things.




Dude, break that down for some conservatives and report your findings.
 
2012-10-27 12:04:12 PM
not that I

MrBallou: eraser8: MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.

No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.

I wonder. If Rmoney had been the big underdog, his strategy would have been very different and there's no telling what would have happened. Voters are weird. At least the momentum is in the right direction right now, near the end.



Let me preface the following with saying that I have no belief that Obama sleeping through the debate was some kind of long game, it was a disaster that caused severe damage to his presidential race, and even if he wins, will still have been the thing that damn near cost him the white house.

now, having said that, lets say Obama makes his odds and wins, if that happens, that craptastic debate may have been the single best thing to happen to team Obama this cycle. Romney's cash reserves are huge right now, he is on track for an October worth almost 220 million and that has a LOT to do with the debate showing he had a shot. if he spends all that money and still looses, that's a fortune that might have propped up republicans in the house and senate they didn't get. I mean, they might get some up ticket, but still, I bet they probably would have preferred having those millions themselves. And that ignores all the superpacs that might have otherwise gone balls deep into the house and senate that started putting their money back into the presidential election.

Think about the difference hundreds of millions going into the republican house and senate coffers for a moment, the house and senate landscape could look a lot different then dems picking up in the house and keeping the senate
 
2012-10-27 12:06:18 PM

Farker Soze: d-fens99: Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.

You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 430x640]

You're forgetting to hook up the doll.


What kind of bra are you wearing on your head? It's important.
 
2012-10-27 12:07:31 PM
So, Mr. Fatty Arbuckle Unskewed Polls attacks Nate Silver, not on his methodology but on his looks and mannerisms? Are there enough facepalms in the world for this?

i6.photobucket.com 

We're through the looking glass, people!
 
2012-10-27 12:07:54 PM
I love how the only actual comment on Nate Silver's ACTUAL results are "He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was"

haha, that's all you give us? "PERHAPS he was"? Aren't you supposed to be analyzing polls and stats? can't you tell us how accurate he was yourself?

Also, the article attacks Silver for weighing polls (based on their historical bias) and touts RCP, but RCP still shows Obama with a lead in electoral college and would project him the winner. (Obama leads in every swing state in RCP except FL, VA and NC. He wins comfortably if those are the only ones he loses)
 
2012-10-27 12:08:06 PM

you are a puppet: Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 400x300]

I can trust that guy because he's obese and probably a virgin, too


Like water is probably wet.
 
2012-10-27 12:08:58 PM

Waxing_Chewbacca: Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?


It peaked at 87.1% on Oct 4. There's a bit of a lag between the prediction and any underlying events. You can cursor over the graph and pick out the prediction for any given day.

Link
 
2012-10-27 12:09:03 PM

Osomatic: Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.


OMG THIS... Having a conversation with my normally sensible stepfather about the media after he went on a DERPfit over matt Lauer. Rattled off several examples of things the media was reporting about Obama, and more importantly what they weren't reporting about Romney.

I challenged him to refute that the media are run by giant (wealthy) corporations who probably skew Republican at the tops levels of management. I said is it a liberal media or is it just an attempt to get people to watch? He thought about it for a moment and finally agreed that I was probably right.

This race has been over for two weeks but they are going to try as hard as possible to keep it close in the minds of voters... er I mean, viewers.
 
2012-10-27 12:10:09 PM
Pudding the Hutt is my favorite new idiot of this election cycle.
 
2012-10-27 12:10:50 PM
i.imgur.comimages3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-27 12:11:53 PM

randomjsa: I do think its funny that people seem to put so much stock in Nate Silver because he... Predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008.


It is true that there are a lot of people who only learned about 538 during the general election or after, and these are the people who tend to cite this as their main justification for liking Silver.


Silver himself, however, would say that that is not the reason people should put stock in his site and his model. Silver's model *killed it* during the 2008 primaries; my favorite example was when consensus polls had Clinton winning NC, Silver's model had Obama winning by 17, and Obama won by 15 (or thereabouts). His model also drew the "Obama has basically clinched this" conclusion pretty early on, when other models were trying to still say the race was competitive (and this only a week or two after McCain had pulled ahead in Silver's model).

There's also a bit of non-politics awe from 2008 related to the fact that his proprietary baseball model predicted the Tampa Bay Rays would be a 90-win team in 2008 even though they'd sucked for their entire history to that point.
 
2012-10-27 12:12:13 PM
I just realized that my image macro is unwarranted. This guy is even fatter than a Pakled!
 
2012-10-27 12:13:15 PM

Bill Frist: I love how the only actual comment on Nate Silver's ACTUAL results are "He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was"

haha, that's all you give us? "PERHAPS he was"? Aren't you supposed to be analyzing polls and stats? can't you tell us how accurate he was yourself?

Also, the article attacks Silver for weighing polls (based on their historical bias) and touts RCP, but RCP still shows Obama with a lead in electoral college and would project him the winner. (Obama leads in every swing state in RCP except FL, VA and NC. He wins comfortably if those are the only ones he loses)


Accurately predicting the outcome of 49 of 50 states in 2008 is claiming to be highly accurate? OK, got it.
 
2012-10-27 12:13:52 PM

whatsupchuck: Waxing_Chewbacca: Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?

It peaked at 87.1% on Oct 4. There's a bit of a lag between the prediction and any underlying events. You can cursor over the graph and pick out the prediction for any given day.

Link


What a fall since the first debate. But he's climbing back. And as Slim said a few days ago, even a one point shift this late in the season would greatly improve a candidates chances. I take it to mean that Obama still has a chance to reach the mid 80s if he maintains the gains he's made since the last debate.

This means Colorado needs to stop being cute and figure it out as well as NOVA starting to show up in the polls.
 
2012-10-27 12:15:59 PM

TV's Vinnie: [i.imgur.com image 400x300][images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 650x328]


We look for things. Things to make us GOP.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:19 PM
Dean Chambers is a heavy man of wheezy stature and yellow fingers. He has never been right and will never be right, and so has a pathetic need to attract the love of particularly severe men and women.

His underwear doesn't fit, and he dresses like an old man with bad taste. His breath stinks.

His mind is addled by hate and self-denial.

His blog is bad and he should feel bad.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:42 PM
Headline: The far left turns to Nate Silver for wisdom on the polls

Jesus. Say what you want about the election, but anyone who thinks mainstream Democrats are "far left" by any standard must be choking on their own saliva.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:55 PM
I know its looking good for Obama and hopefully he wins.

but I still can't shack that nagging feeling that the america voter was dumb enough to reelect Bush and could be dumb enough to elect Rmoney.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:57 PM
i.imgur.comi1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-27 12:18:46 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: shack


or shake it even
 
2012-10-27 12:19:20 PM

randomjsa: I do think its funny that people seem to put so much stock in Nate Silver because he... Predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008.

Anyone who was reasonably paying attention to the 2008 election could have told you 45 out of 50 and they also could have told you that the last 5 didn't matter because the first 45 would decide the election. It's also been sort of funny to watch liberals on this site who have repeatedly said "Rasmussen is unreliable. He changes his results to match everyone else when it gets close to the election which is why his results are so much more accurate close to the election!"

So liberals are saying Obama is going to lose in 2012? Because if Rasmussen is correct... Obama is finished.


Nate Silver's predictions were better than almost anyone else s in both 2008 and 2010. Remember, there are more races than just the presidency. Nate was projecting house ans senate races too.

I'm not really sure what the Rasmussen comment means. Rasmussen has a Republican bias in their results. Their historical results have leaned to the GOP over what actually occured in the polls.

Anyway, Rasmussen doesn't have Obama down that much in the national polls and has him leading in a lot of swing state polls. So... not sure what you are getting at. THe Rasmussen national average will probably come down and its the swing states that matter anyway.
 
2012-10-27 12:19:23 PM

simplicimus: DamnYankees: simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
This is pretty awesome. Per http://unskwedpolls.com , I am "a thin and effeminate man" & therefore not to be trusted. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide! http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Thanks. Seems he has a good sense of humor.


He started as a writer for Baseball Prospectus. He's used to being mocked by anti-intellectuals for relying on data rather than "what you know to be true".
 
2012-10-27 12:19:55 PM

unexplained bacon: actually conservatives are saying Nate Silver isn't reliable because he's thin and not as manly as them.


So one person reflects the thoughts and feelings of all conservatives? Or just most? I'm just wondering how far we're going to go with "because one person of a particular political persuasion said something it is reflective of the entire group", because if we're taking that all the way then I have a laundry list of things liberals need to answer for here.

I think if I were a conservative shill, and I saw that kind of pathetic BS I'd talk about something else.

how about you?


The subject was Nate Silver, a pollster that liberals are currently having a slobbering love affair with because he's telling them what they want to hear. I point out, and accurately, that his major claim to fame was his ability to predict one of the most easily predicted presidential races in history in 49 out of 50 examples. That's nothing to sneeze of course but because this Fark and this is one of the "Rasmussen sucks... changes his predictions close to election..." places I have to point out if that's true, then Obama is finished.
 
2012-10-27 12:22:40 PM

randomjsa: e most easily predicted presidential races in history


[citation needed]

No, I don't expect to get one.
 
2012-10-27 12:23:30 PM

Endrick: "He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was. But it's highly unlikely his current methods and projections will have the level of accuracy unless he changes then quite a lot between now and election day. The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win. Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election."

Until the gay guy alters reality to show us what we want to hear, he's wrong.


HAHAHA
i235.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-27 12:23:31 PM

randomjsa: That's nothing to sneeze of course but because this Fark and this is one of the "Rasmussen sucks... changes his predictions close to election..." places I have to point out if that's true, then Obama is finished.


Oh and also, why would that follow?
 
2012-10-27 12:23:59 PM

eraser8: miscreant: eraser8: miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.

Can't tell if joking or just stupid.

Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet unfortunately... and I should know better than to make jokes pre-coffee.

Point taken.


Poe's Law claims a few more.
 
2012-10-27 12:24:28 PM

Waxing_Chewbacca: whatsupchuck: Nate Silver is the one guy I trust to be statistically rigorous on the matter of electoral prediction. Everyone else just sort of dances around the questions of MOE and underlying assumptions, and the fact that he assigns probabilities to the outcomes shows that he understands the mathematics of uncertainty.

Who should we not trust? For starters, a festering pustule who judges Silver based on his appearance. And secondly, any moran who confuses predicting a lead with creating a lead. Having smoke blown up your arse appears to be tea party thing, most thinking people would rather have an accurate picture of the election even if it isn't so favorable for their chosen candidate.

Very well stated. I couldn't agree more. Incidentally, he has POTUS up at a 74.4% chance of winning. Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?


The now-cast was about 98% before the first debate. So Obama hasn't come anywhere close to retaking the ground he lost.
 
2012-10-27 12:24:37 PM
Dude is going to need to get unskewered after that comments section. Good lord they let him have it.
 
2012-10-27 12:24:54 PM

simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?


He made fun of this guy on his twitter feed. Followers did the rest, lol.
 
2012-10-27 12:24:58 PM

randomjsa: The subject was Nate Silver

...

...being dismissed because he is thin and effeminate, by the RW site unskewed polls.

what do you think about this critique of Nate Silver by your fellow conservative?

pretty lame right?
 
2012-10-27 12:25:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: randomjsa: e most easily predicted presidential races in history

[citation needed]

No, I don't expect to get one.


Naw, it was over before it started, Still doesn't change anything, as nobody really predicted the near landslide it turned out to be.
 
2012-10-27 12:25:44 PM

randomjsa: I point out, and accurately, that his major claim to fame was his ability to predict one of the most easily predicted presidential races in history in 49 out of 50 examples.


as noted, you are compltely wrong here. Silver was far more accurate than anyone else in predicting the the primaries, house and senate races in 08 and 10. He didn't merely predict the Obama-McCain race.
 
2012-10-27 12:26:30 PM

DamnYankees: Basically this. November 7 is going to be absolutely unbearable for half this country. We just dont know which half.


Both halves.

Because Romney is going to lose which means the R's are going to cry like the babies they have been for the last 4 years only 10x louder.

The rest of us because we'll have to listen to it.
 
2012-10-27 12:26:35 PM
Rcp is not that different at all. How do you explain that?
 
2012-10-27 12:26:47 PM
Interesting tweet from Silver yesterday.

His forecast is EXACTLY the same now (state by state for President) as it was in June when he put out his first prediction.

So, BILLIONS of dollars spent to move... nowhere.
 
2012-10-27 12:27:40 PM
But it's highly unlikely his current methods and projections will have the level of accuracy unless he changes then quite a lot between now and election day. The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win. Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election.

Forget the cookiness of it, does anyone on the right work with an editor? Who writes this garbage?
 
2012-10-27 12:27:58 PM

mayIFark: Rcp is not that different at all. How do you explain that?


The polls are obviously gay.
 
2012-10-27 12:29:15 PM

randomjsa: unexplained bacon: actually conservatives are saying Nate Silver isn't reliable because he's thin and not as manly as them.

So one person reflects the thoughts and feelings of all conservatives? Or just most? I'm just wondering how far we're going to go with "because one person of a particular political persuasion said something it is reflective of the entire group", because if we're taking that all the way then I have a laundry list of things liberals need to answer for here.

I think if I were a conservative shill, and I saw that kind of pathetic BS I'd talk about something else.

how about you?

The subject was Nate Silver, a pollster that liberals are currently having a slobbering love affair with because he's telling them what they want to hear. I point out, and accurately, that his major claim to fame was his ability to predict one of the most easily predicted presidential races in history in 49 out of 50 examples. That's nothing to sneeze of course but because this Fark and this is one of the "Rasmussen sucks... changes his predictions close to election..." places I have to point out if that's true, then Obama is finished.


As no doubt you're aware, the cumulative probability of guessing 49 out of 50 coin tosses correctly, which is what you're saying Silver's 2008 prediction was, is 1/8.881784197001E-16.
 
2012-10-27 12:29:16 PM

austin_millbarge: This race has been over for two weeks but they are going to try as hard as possible to keep it close in the minds of voters... er I mean, viewers.


Agreed - combine the current polling in Ohio plus the early voting stats, and I'm pretty sure that Ohio is now mathematically impossible for Romney.

My guess is that Unskewed was created to be a self-fulfilling "prediction". I'd wager that there are a lot of fat-ass Republicans that won't bother to get themselves off the couch on Election Day, that are jumping on every poll call, and insisting that they're likely voters. So as to "correct the record".

Not that my theory entirely makes sense, but neither does Unskewed - if the True Believers are following it, why show up at the polls at all? Unskewed shows Romney walking away with it!
 
2012-10-27 12:29:40 PM
In an odd way Nate Silver and Dean Chambers personify this entire overly long electoral cycle.

On one side, facts, rationality and an honest search for truth from a guy who's famous for getting his facts straight, on the other side we have lies and derp from a guy who's not only obviously biased but who wouldn't know a fact if it popped outta his bag of Cheezie Poofs and punched him in his fat, stupid face with no apparent qualifications.

Gee, I wonder where the smart money is betting here.

/No, not really.
 
2012-10-27 12:31:22 PM

mksmith: simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?

Why would he bother? He's too busy working out new ways to throw the election to Obama, right?


Indirectly, he did. He kind of show how pretty much all reputed sources are same, even though they uses different methods. As he showed it, only 3 calls are different.
 
2012-10-27 12:35:11 PM
fivethirtyeight and realclearpolitics seem to both get it right most of the time, and are pretty close in their estimates.

unskewedpolls just smells like desperation, and bacon flavored cheezy poofs.
 
2012-10-27 12:35:12 PM

mayIFark: mksmith: simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?

Why would he bother? He's too busy working out new ways to throw the election to Obama, right?

Indirectly, he did. He kind of show how pretty much all reputed sources are same, even though they uses different methods. As he showed it, only 3 calls are different.


I honestly don't know which, if any party, Nate belongs to. It doesn't really matter, he's a good statistician with a proven record.
 
2012-10-27 12:37:39 PM
Wondering why the author is so obsessed with Nate Silver's physical attributes...
 
2012-10-27 12:37:40 PM

El Pachuco: randomjsa: unexplained bacon: actually conservatives are saying Nate Silver isn't reliable because he's thin and not as manly as them.

So one person reflects the thoughts and feelings of all conservatives? Or just most? I'm just wondering how far we're going to go with "because one person of a particular political persuasion said something it is reflective of the entire group", because if we're taking that all the way then I have a laundry list of things liberals need to answer for here.

I think if I were a conservative shill, and I saw that kind of pathetic BS I'd talk about something else.

how about you?

The subject was Nate Silver, a pollster that liberals are currently having a slobbering love affair with because he's telling them what they want to hear. I point out, and accurately, that his major claim to fame was his ability to predict one of the most easily predicted presidential races in history in 49 out of 50 examples. That's nothing to sneeze of course but because this Fark and this is one of the "Rasmussen sucks... changes his predictions close to election..." places I have to point out if that's true, then Obama is finished.

As no doubt you're aware, the cumulative probability of guessing 49 out of 50 coin tosses correctly, which is what you're saying Silver's 2008 prediction was, is 1/8.881784197001E-16.


Well to be fair, there are only about 2-5 states one can consider to be a coin toss, cumulative probability = .25-.03. But don't get me wrong, randomjsa is still just a GOP troll who wouldn't be impressed if Nate Silver predicted the apocalypse.
 
2012-10-27 12:39:09 PM

simplicimus: Regardless of the attack on Nate Silver, I am astounded that Dick Morris has any credibility with anyone.


AS long as he tells Republican what they want to hear the Republicans will listen to him.
 
2012-10-27 12:39:34 PM

Larry Mahnken: simplicimus: DamnYankees: simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
This is pretty awesome. Per http://unskwedpolls.com , I am "a thin and effeminate man" & therefore not to be trusted. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide! http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Thanks. Seems he has a good sense of humor.

He started as a writer for Baseball Prospectus. He's used to being mocked by anti-intellectuals for relying on data rather than "what you know to be true".


Pretty much. Sports and politics have way too much similarity, and at the end of the day reporters in both fields are very used to going with how things "feel" over what things look like on paper. Obama's campaign is not behaving the way that they expect someone with a clear lead would behave (they are pushing a tight race to GOTV from those who aren't as motivated) and Romney's campaign is pushing that they are looking at a landslide (to try to convince undecided voters that the consensus opinion is that they should vote for him so they can have picked the winner.) If the politicians want to make an argument that doesn't reflect the data they have available, surely it means they know more about what's going on, right?
 
2012-10-27 12:39:51 PM

tarkus1980: Silver himself, however, would say that that is not the reason people should put stock in his site and his model. Silver's model *killed it* during the 2008 primaries; my favorite example was when consensus polls had Clinton winning NC, Silver's model had Obama winning by 17, and Obama won by 15 (or thereabouts). His model also drew the "Obama has basically clinched this" conclusion pretty early on, when other models were trying to still say the race was competitive (and this only a week or two after McCain had pulled ahead in Silver's model).

There's also a bit of non-politics awe from 2008 related to the fact that his proprietary baseball model predicted the Tampa Bay Rays would be a 90-win team in 2008 even though they'd sucked for their entire history to that point.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carol i na_democratic_primary-275.html#polls

Your memory needs refreshing. All the major polls show Obama walking away with it. I live in NC everyone here knew Obama would get this state during the primary. On the other hand if you said you "knew" Obama would win it in the general election you were out of your mind and just guessing.
 
2012-10-27 12:40:59 PM

Huggermugger: Dick Morris has some of the weirdest, most effeminate mannerisms I've ever seen on an allegedly heterosexual man. I have honestly never understood why he was given such a prominent role in Fox News. He's not physically attractive, his voice is annoying, he doesn't say anything intelligent - it's all overblown belligerence, he's morally corrupt, and he has no credibility outside that Fox bubble. They could have found any number of superior personalities to fill his slot, so I'm assuming that he's entirely coasting on his past association with the Clintons, because he's got absolutely nothing else going for him. He's very repulsive.


It's easy to understand once you realize that Dick Morris is Fox News' Geronimo's Skull.
 
2012-10-27 12:42:19 PM

randomjsa: Your memory needs refreshing. All the major polls show Obama walking away with it. I live in NC everyone here knew Obama would get this state during the primary.


Strange. I'm probably thinking of a different state. Admittedly 2008 was a long time ago.
 
2012-10-27 12:42:28 PM
Anyone posted this yet?

static5.businessinsider.com
 
2012-10-27 12:42:48 PM

insano: randomjsa is still just a GOP troll who wouldn't be impressed if Nate Silver predicted the apocalypse.


From randomjsa's perspective, Nate Silver did successfully predict the apocalypse in November, 2008.
 
2012-10-27 12:42:48 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: I know its looking good for Obama and hopefully he wins.

but I still can't shack that nagging feeling that the america voter was dumb enough to reelect Bush and could be dumb enough to elect Rmoney.


Well, they weren't dumb enough to elect John McCain and Caribou Barbie, so maybe there's some hope.
 
2012-10-27 12:43:06 PM
The Right Wing is going to have a collective shiat fit on Election Night...

Reality is going to be a biatch for these people. They interviewed some jackass at a Romney rally on NPR earlier this week... He was convinced it was going to be a "Romney Landslide victory" because the polls are all wrong and under sample Republicans.

I don't usually like to kick people when they're down, but...
 
2012-10-27 12:43:58 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-27 12:45:20 PM

qorkfiend: Spanky_McFarksalot: I know its looking good for Obama and hopefully he wins.

but I still can't shack that nagging feeling that the america voter was dumb enough to reelect Bush and could be dumb enough to elect Rmoney.

Well, they weren't dumb enough to elect John McCain and Caribou Barbie, so maybe there's some hope.


Frankly John McCain no where near as bad as Romney/Ryan (OK Palin is in the same league).
 
2012-10-27 12:45:28 PM

BMulligan: insano: randomjsa is still just a GOP troll who wouldn't be impressed if Nate Silver predicted the apocalypse.

From randomjsa's perspective, Nate Silver did successfully predict the apocalypse in November, 2008.


Haha. This is true.
 
2012-10-27 12:45:56 PM

Empty Matchbook: Wondering why the author is so obsessed with Nate Silver's physical attributes...


Reminds him of the twink sites he regularly visits?
 
2012-10-27 12:47:05 PM
Unskewedpolls.com is going to disappear after the election. The owner of the site will walk away with the satisfaction of not only trolling diehard republicans, but sucking plenty of money out of them as well.
/359-179 EV's for Romney?
//no rational person would believe this
 
2012-10-27 12:48:24 PM

simplicimus: I honestly don't know which, if any party, Nate belongs to. It doesn't really matter, he's a good statistician with a proven record.


I heard an interview on NPR and he said he was libertarian leaning, but between the 2 parties, he sides most with the Democrats. Interestingly enough, he said he got into political prognostication around 2005 or so because he was making a living off online poker and Congress made that illegal. He wanted to know which of those bastards was going to get voted out.
 
2012-10-27 12:48:30 PM

simplicimus: MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.

In my totally unprofessional opinion, during the Presidential Debates, I think Romney lost votes every time he said he agreed with the President. His abrupt turn to the center probably cost him some of the base.



Doubt it. The Republican base is extremely Machiavellian, they accept all manner of dishonesty, just as long as they win. So when Romney tells them that he's severely conservative and then does a NASCAR-like turn to the left, they rationalize it by saying "well we know he's severely conservative, so he's just lying to the liberals to get their votes, and I'm ok with that."

The 'true believers' of the Republican party are all about lying, cheating, stealing, and raping, just as long as they win.
 
2012-10-27 12:49:07 PM
This is as simple as I can make it:

Party ID isn't constant. It's part of what's being surveyed. To "unskew" a poll by adjusting party identification proportions makes a poll less accurate.

This is simple math and statistics. 101 level stuff, actually.

I suspect Chambers and other hyperpartisans are simply reflecting their confirmation biases. Since party ID, for them, is as constant as sports team allegiances, they can't imagine anyone thinking differently.

Guys like Silver, who put the numbers first, may have their own biases. But they make a conscious effort to keep them out of their data, since accuracy is the goal.

Chambers specifically puts his bias in his data, since confirmation is his goal.

Pity guys like that, Farkers. They probably don't even realize what they're doing. They are intellectually lost.
 
2012-10-27 12:52:18 PM

themindiswatching: log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.

UnskewedPolls was always right. It's just that the damn liberal voter fraud was too great to overcome or something.

/awaits statisticals


well there is another article where they report this: "Today's release of the QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll shows a 52 percent to 41 percent lead for Mitt Romney."

and if you can't trust QStarNews well then who can you trust.
 
2012-10-27 12:52:27 PM
FTFA:

He gives Obama a 73.4 percent chance of winning Ohio, which is downright absurd, as Rasmussen has the candidate tied in Ohio, which really means the undecided voters tip the state of Ohio to Romney if the election were held today. So much for that fantasy-land 73.4 percent chance of Obama winning Ohio.

It's incredible that the person is accusing Silver of distorting reality and is using Rasmussen as evidence.

Of six major polls conducted in Ohio between 10/20 and 10/25, only Rasmussen has it tied. The five other polls all of Obama in the lead by 2 to 5 points, and the poll with the smallest MoE has Obama at +5. The simplest explanation of this is that Rasmussen is undersampling younger voters who lean Democratic because they do not call homes that only have cell phones (that is, not a landline). That could easily account for a 2 point variance, which would put Rasmussen in line with the other polls.

And on top of that, Obama is winning big in early voting.

The GOP is simply in deep denial that Romney's "let the auto industry die" mantra has come back to bite them in the ass.
 
2012-10-27 12:53:04 PM

phritz: [24.media.tumblr.com image 400x300]


I think he looks like Baron Harkonnen, and I doubt the lithe body confuses him.
 
2012-10-27 12:53:20 PM

keylock71: The Right Wing is going to have a collective shiat fit on Election Night...


My major concerns at this point are:

1) Democratic turnout, and

2) the integrity of the system.

The "Romney is winning" coverage actually has one unintended benefit, I think: it erases progressive complacency. Progressives are more likely to show up at the polls for a race they can plausibly lose than for one they think is in the bag.

But it's pretty clear by now that Republicans at all levels have convinced themselves that they're victims of massive decades long Democratic voter fraud. People who've decided they're persecuted often decide the normal rules don't apply to them. If the Republican secretary of state in Ohio, for example, decides that a little Republican election fraud is needed to counter Democratic voter fraud, there could be problems. And unlike 2008, 2012 is close enough that they can get away with it.
 
2012-10-27 12:54:16 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-27 12:54:22 PM

tarkus1980: randomjsa: Your memory needs refreshing. All the major polls show Obama walking away with it. I live in NC everyone here knew Obama would get this state during the primary.

Strange. I'm probably thinking of a different state. Admittedly 2008 was a long time ago.


You're thinking of South Carolina.
 
2012-10-27 12:55:10 PM

randomjsa: The subject was Nate Silver, a pollster that liberals are currently having a slobbering love affair with because he's telling them what they want to hear.


There were an awful lot of Republicans circle-jerking over his predictions around Oct 12th. But go ahead and keep living in this fantasy world of IM SMARTER THAN FRIGGIN MATH.
 
2012-10-27 12:55:14 PM

randomjsa: I do think its funny that people seem to put so much stock in Nate Silver because he predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008.


Ah, I needed that laugh. Thanks random.
 
2012-10-27 12:56:59 PM
I wonder if this is Chambers' retaliation for him becoming a new meme that represents a derpy, reichwing turd?
 
2012-10-27 12:57:09 PM
A slander piece on a man that is mathematically proving that the GOP is tanking in 2012. Is anyone shocked? I didn't think so.
 
2012-10-27 12:57:16 PM

thornhill: And on top of that, Obama is winning big in early voting.


Unfortunately, this also means Republican election workers who've decided they're being persecuted know which ballots have to mysteriously "go missing" in order to increase Romney's chances.

Which just makes it all the more important for Obama voters to get their asses to the polls.
 
2012-10-27 12:58:29 PM

The Great EZE: whatsupchuck: Waxing_Chewbacca: Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?

It peaked at 87.1% on Oct 4. There's a bit of a lag between the prediction and any underlying events. You can cursor over the graph and pick out the prediction for any given day.

Link

What a fall since the first debate. But he's climbing back. And as Slim said a few days ago, even a one point shift this late in the season would greatly improve a candidates chances. I take it to mean that Obama still has a chance to reach the mid 80s if he maintains the gains he's made since the last debate.

This means Colorado needs to stop being cute and figure it out as well as NOVA starting to show up in the polls.


The high watermark was likely a bit too based off the convention. I'd say you're right though, he has a shot at 80. Wonder how long it took to build his model. It takes so many different things into account its really incredible.
 
2012-10-27 12:59:00 PM

eraser8: miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.

Can't tell if joking or just stupid.


There is a point where it doesn't matter anymore.
 
2012-10-27 12:59:11 PM

MorrisBird: Osomatic: And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing?

With any luck, he won't believe in pop psychology. Your baby is fine. Medicine, especially psychological, is mostly shamanism.


Shamanism is just ancient medicine. Where do you think most of our medicines come from? As a neuroscientist, the destruction of the amazon troubles me greatly because of the pharmacological treasures it holds. Psychological medicine is the best we have to treat various disorders, typically in conjunction with types of talk-therapies (CBT, etc.).
 
2012-10-27 12:59:29 PM

The Why Not Guy: randomjsa: I do think its funny that people seem to put so much stock in Nate Silver because he predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008.

Ah, I needed that laugh. Thanks random.


It's a good point though. I remember people used to say Reggie Miller was a great free throw shooter because he would make 49 out of 50 free throws. So? Free throws are easy, even I could make most of my free throws. Call me when he makes 49/50 three pointers. Also, Miller is thin, and might be gay too. So vote Chris Dudley! (to shoot the technical)
 
2012-10-27 01:00:26 PM

keylock71: I don't usually like to kick people when they're down, but...


When evil people lose, they deserve to be kicked when they're down.
 
2012-10-27 01:01:11 PM

crab66: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]


I was just thinking the same thing.
 
2012-10-27 01:02:23 PM
WOW that article was just full of "Freedom Facts".
 
2012-10-27 01:03:27 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Uh, sorry dude, but you are the last one who should be bringing up someone's appearance as an indicator of credibility.
 
2012-10-27 01:05:07 PM

TV's Vinnie: [i.imgur.com image 400x300][images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 650x328]


WINNAR!
WINNAR!
WINNAR!!!!
 
2012-10-27 01:09:33 PM

StoneColdAtheist: FTFA: "[Nate Silver is] 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. ~Dean Chambers"

[i.imgur.com image 400x300]

Sounds to me like somebody really, REALLY needs to come out of the closet.


somebody has to be the bear in that relationship.
 
2012-10-27 01:10:10 PM

Riche: Frederick: Osomatic: Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.

You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.

When as a kid I began to question obvious flaws in the Christian bible and other seemingly bright kids around me were not, I made note of it. I never understood how they could reconcile logical flaws with religious dogma.

I was raised in a similar environment to your son. Both my parents grew up in the church and then had a falling out (mother = Italian Catholic / father = German Lutheran). Religion was always by my choice only. I attended a Christian bible school by choice, and quit going by my choice. I attended mass sometimes and youth group because I liked the kids who went to that church. Ultimately I chose to eschew religion and I claim agnostic.

But I can tell you there are cons to being agnostic or religiously void. I feel I am by nature a spiritual person, and I never found a satisfactory outlet for that spirituality. And the older I get the more I feel like I'm missing that outlet.

\I'm sure what I've said was less then helpful -sorry

Check out the Unitarian-Universalists. With them you get the church-like community and spirituality without the dogma.

Or look into Buddhism. You don't have to buy into the reincarnation or other stuff like that to benefit.


I'm a Buddhist. The reincarnation is my favorite bit.
 
2012-10-27 01:11:57 PM

mediablitz: Empty Matchbook: Wondering why the author is so obsessed with Nate Silver's physical attributes...

Reminds him of the twink sites he regularly visits?


Ah-heh, he likes 'em pretty.
 
2012-10-27 01:15:32 PM

The Flexecutioner: StoneColdAtheist: FTFA: "[Nate Silver is] 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. ~Dean Chambers"

[i.imgur.com image 400x300]

Sounds to me like somebody really, REALLY needs to come out of the closet.

somebody has to be the bear in that relationship.


Stop it...you're scaring me. ;^)
 
2012-10-27 01:16:33 PM

TV's Vinnie: Oh man. WHEN Obama wins his second term, the WHARRGARBL from these rightards is gonna be downright Apocalyptic. I better stock up on paper towels and Jergens to enjoy that moment for as long as I can.


Dude, vegetable oil lasts for longer sessions and is cheaper.
 
2012-10-27 01:18:22 PM
That's it. If there is ANY possibility he might be gay, then there's a chance he's a Republican. Throw him out.*

*The above statement should not be construed as trolling, actual opinion held by poster, a slam against gay people, or a slam against Republicans. It is merely a poor attempt at humor.**

**That bit about not being a slam against Republicans might be a tiny bit untruthful
 
2012-10-27 01:21:13 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Everyone is a lithe temptress next to that dude. I love that double chin.
 
2012-10-27 01:21:17 PM
If Nate Silver was listed in Out magazine's 2010 Out 100, my guess is that he's actually gay. With which, as we all know, there is nothing wrong.
 
2012-10-27 01:22:25 PM

log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.


Wrong. Right wing trolls and true believer derpers are going to quote their post-election essays "proving" democratic voter fraud. The birther brigade is dying so the need this to replace the "I'm being patriotic by talking about killing people and sabotaging the economy in the name of democracy" rationale of an illegitimate president. Bonus points when tea party congressmen quote it to prove why you need extra ID to vote.
 
2012-10-27 01:26:05 PM

aaronx: If Nate Silver was listed in Out magazine's 2010 Out 100, my guess is that he's actually gay. With which, as we all know, there is nothing wrong.


Better to imply he is gay. Makes is seem... dirtier. He could have just inferred it, and pointed to the evidence, but let's just act like it is a secret.
 
2012-10-27 01:26:55 PM

aaronx: If Nate Silver was listed in Out magazine's 2010 Out 100, my guess is that he's actually gay. With which, as we all know, there is nothing wrong.


Well that just adds to my Dean Chambers is a Baron Harkonnen wannabe theory.
 
2012-10-27 01:27:08 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice

It's fun to watch the Right flailing like this.


Especially since their deity on all things taxes (Grover Norquist) fits this description to a T.
 
2012-10-27 01:27:22 PM
I'm ridiculously excited for the Unskewed Polls presentation at the next CPAC.
 
2012-10-27 01:31:01 PM
If gay equals thin does that mean Ryan is gay?

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-27 01:31:38 PM

aaronx: If Nate Silver was listed in Out magazine's 2010 Out 100, my guess is that he's actually gay. With which, as we all know, there is nothing wrong.


1.bp.blogspot.com
He's not even closeted? You mean, he's going out, having all sorts of sexy man-sex, and doesn't even feel bad about it afterwards? IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!
 
2012-10-27 01:33:06 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Waxing_Chewbacca: Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?

It peaked out at 86.1% on the forecast and 98.1% on the Nowcast.


Sounds right. Here are the debates dates, for reference....

img20.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-27 01:33:57 PM

simplicimus: Regardless of the attack on Nate Silver, I am astounded that Dick Morris has any credibility with anyone.


i got an email from an old gf citing morris as a reputable authority. she also mentioned she was going to see 2016. never got a reply to my "are you farking serious?".
 
2012-10-27 01:36:38 PM

Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.


Describes my Dad-in-law to a T.

Dad's a Catholic guy. So that was my husband's indoctrination, too. He refused confirmation, though. But, we got married in the church, but broke our vow that we'd raise them up Catholic. I changed my mind. So did hubby. Back when I believed in a 'god' such as that, I still asked for forgiveness but told god I wasn't raising them in the church.

I was raised up that there was a god, said prayers every night, bargained when grades were due to come out, but no church, no grace before dinner, nothing.

I couldn't see putting my kids' sanity on the line like that. All Christianity starts with 'you are flawed, you're not good enough as is,' and I think original sin is bullschnit.
Realizing that we are prone to make mistakes and have the power within ourselves to choose between right and wrong is ok.
But not the idea that one is an unworthy POS from the get-go, and you must do A, B, andC to escape it is very psychologically damaging. And when it starts young, you beat yourself up for the rest of your life, or denounce your upbringing, both of which hurts.

Hardest thing about being an agnostic parent is having to tell your kids there's no fairy tales to tuck them in with at night, or to allay their fears of dying, or exsisting without clear purpose.

All you can do is show them how utterly amazing and lovely the universe is, and how, for a brief bit of time, you get to share in it. After that, it's unknown, no matter what anyone says.
Just enjoy. Your day will come, and either that's it, or it won't be. Worrying about it hampers your ability to enjoy your life. Feel lucky you're even here, much less not fighting in a war, or starving to death. Do what you can to lift others up, and life is that much sweeter.

Oops. I went off again.

/rant ovah
 
2012-10-27 01:37:12 PM
But wait. Dick Morris has an effeminate voice. So does Michele Bachman's husband, whatever his name is. But neither of them are thin. So it's the thinness that Hates Republicans And Therefor America. The gawp has plenty of gheys, but very few thin people. Nate Silver is leading the left's War on Fat People, people!
 
2012-10-27 01:39:19 PM
I should also add that even though Obama's chances aren't rising now as quickly as they fell during the time between the two first debates, they've certainly been on cruise control ever since the second debate. If you extrapolated, he would be nearly back at 87% on election day. I doubt it will actually get that high, but after this week's Republican Rape Show I don't think the lines are going to plateau anytime soon.
 
2012-10-27 01:42:39 PM
So, Nate talks like a queer and his shiat's all retarded?

/ Low hanging fruit
// Took long enough
 
2012-10-27 01:43:39 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: So, Nate talks like a queer and his shiat's all retarded?

/ Low hanging fruit
// Took long enough


You were already preempted in image form.
 
2012-10-27 01:44:01 PM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-27 01:45:16 PM

insano: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: So, Nate talks like a queer and his shiat's all retarded?

/ Low hanging fruit
// Took long enough

You were already preempted in image form.


Damn, guess I'm all retarded.

/ Did a text search but didn't read the whole thread.
 
2012-10-27 01:45:45 PM
www.firstshowing.net 

Nate silver is teh ghey and I am delicious.
 
2012-10-27 01:45:48 PM
static4.businessinsider.com

That bottom-right statistic always reminds me that half the population is of below average intelligence.
 
2012-10-27 01:45:59 PM
My headline was better...

[/welcometofark.jpg]

I bet they're linked above somewhere, but here's SIlver tweeting about this piece:
Link 1 Link 2
 
2012-10-27 01:46:55 PM

fqhollis: [i47.tinypic.com image 400x300]


t7ak.roblox.com
 
2012-10-27 01:50:55 PM

aaronx: If Nate Silver was listed in Out magazine's 2010 Out 100, my guess is that he's actually gay. With which, as we all know, there is nothing wrong.


Is Chambers the first Republican to attack Nate for his sexual orientation? Maybe the country is making progress after all.
 
2012-10-27 01:50:59 PM

log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.


We will hear about how far off they were. And maybe in terms of 'proving' democratic voter fraud. And about how terrible and misleading statistics and polls are.
 
2012-10-27 01:51:45 PM
Haha... that guy was a "young Republican" in college and even started his own "conservative" college newspaper.

Almost nobody likes "young Republicans"... it's no wonder that he's such a bitter little man.
 
2012-10-27 01:52:00 PM

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


I was wondering what the ratio was at by this point. Hopefully Mourdock will drag down Romney's lead in Indiana.
 
2012-10-27 01:52:25 PM

TabASlotB: My headline was better...

[/welcometofark.jpg]

I bet they're linked above somewhere, but here's SIlver tweeting about this piece:
Link 1 Link 2


Ha! Nice
 
2012-10-27 01:53:06 PM
 
2012-10-27 01:56:19 PM

platedlizard: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x383]

Everyone is a lithe temptress next to that dude. I love that double chin.


It's that hair and doughy face that screams "GIANT TODDLER!" about him.
 
2012-10-27 01:57:58 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x383]

Uh, sorry dude, but you are the last one who should be bringing up someone's appearance as an indicator of credibility.


This guy is the embodiment of Eric Cartman...
 
2012-10-27 02:00:58 PM
He's thin, late 30s, neat 

www.sonotaprincess.com.au
 
2012-10-27 02:13:18 PM
www.unskewedpolls.com

How is this not posted in an unskewed thread?
 
2012-10-27 02:19:15 PM

d-fens99: Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.

You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 430x640]


I got mine; are you wearing the bra on your head right?
 
2012-10-27 02:19:36 PM
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com

/q&d
 
2012-10-27 02:22:12 PM

Frozboz: Forget the cookiness of it, does anyone on the right work with an editor? Who writes this garbage?


Editing would be a socialist subversion of the will of the individual.

From today's write-up:

"An incumbent not polling at least 50 percent right now is highly unlikely of winning, because the undecided voters are undecided because they have decided not to vote for the incumbent, but haven't been fully sold on voting for the challenging."
 
2012-10-27 02:24:30 PM
Deal with it, libs!

www.unskewedpolls.com

No skinny, maybe gay guy will save you from this unskewed reality in two weeks!
 
2012-10-27 02:24:56 PM

theinsultabot9000: not that I MrBallou: eraser8: MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.

No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.

I wonder. If Rmoney had been the big underdog, his strategy would have been very different and there's no telling what would have happened. Voters are weird. At least the momentum is in the right direction right now, near the end.


Let me preface the following with saying that I have no belief that Obama sleeping through the debate was some kind of long game, it was a disaster that caused severe damage to his presidential race, and even if he wins, will still have been the thing that damn near cost him the white house.

now, having said that, lets say Obama makes his odds and wins, if that happens, that craptastic debate may have been the single best thing to happen to team Obama this cycle. Romney's cash reserves are huge right now, he is on track for an October worth almost 220 million and that has a LOT to do with the debate showing he had a shot. if he spends all that money and still looses, that's a fortune that might have propped up republicans in the house and senate they didn't get. I mean, they might get some up ticket, but still, I bet they probably would have preferred having those millions themselves. And that ignores all the superpacs that might have otherwise gone balls deep into the house and senate that started putting their money back into the presidential election.

Think about the difference hundreds of millions going into the republican house and senate coffers for a moment, the house and senate landscape could look a lot different then dems picking up in the house and keeping the senate


I think the argument can be made that all the first debate did was help push undecided voters who were leaning Romney to finally commit.

If you look at the swing states, in most of them Obama was at 47 in August and Romney at 45. After the convention Obama got a bounce and Romney lost a percent or two. After the first debate Obama returned to 47 percent, and Romney finally broke through the mid-40s, approaching 47 to 48 by getting likely supporters to finally commit, and winning back people he lost in September.

So the only people Obama lost from the first debate where the bandwagon people from the conventions, and historically, convention bounces never last.
 
2012-10-27 02:25:46 PM
This guy really seems to have issues about weight
Link
 
2012-10-27 02:26:12 PM

Osomatic: Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.

You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.


Whatever makes the most sense to him. ADD\ADHD isn't going to affect that. And yes, he might turn out to be a fundie, but he might turn out to be an atheist or even some eclectic religion you've never heard of. No matter what, as long as you love and support him, he's got the best chance you could offer him.
 
2012-10-27 02:27:04 PM
i1125.photobucket.com

/He sounds fat.
 
2012-10-27 02:27:46 PM

robsul82: Deal with it, libs!

[www.unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

No skinny, maybe gay guy will save you from this unskewed reality in two weeks!


Anyone have an idea which states are not winner takes all in electoral votes?
 
2012-10-27 02:30:15 PM

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


I'm honestly confused about how he keeps showing Obama going up in the popular vote probability, when Romney's polling nationwide is as strong as ever.

Meanwhile Romney's state polling isn't doing any worse than it was in the wake of the first debate.

It'll be interesting to see who's more accurate: RCP's poll average or Nate Silver's math. IIRC in 2008 they were both very good. One of them is looking to be wrong this time.
 
2012-10-27 02:30:25 PM

simplicimus: robsul82: Deal with it, libs!

[www.unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

No skinny, maybe gay guy will save you from this unskewed reality in two weeks!

Anyone have an idea which states are not winner takes all in electoral votes?


Maine and Nebraska.
 
2012-10-27 02:31:16 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: For how much the right accuses the left of ignoring facts in favor of emotion there is no group on earth who more vigorously eschews solid evidence in favor of "it can't be that way because I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel in my heart of Jesus 'n' Reagan blessed hearts that it just ain't so" than the modern GOP.

For more evidence look at the debate over Voter ID. No matter how many studies are done saying in-person voter fraud is about as prevalent of sightings of Amelia Earhart giving Bigfoot an Albanian Otter Squat on the hood of Elvis' UFO the response from the GOP shills is "I *KNOW* voter fraud is happening! Didn't you see those black guys dressed up in camo??"


I'm almost afraid to ask what an Albanian Otter Squat could possibly be, but damn, that split my sides!


/guffaw
 
2012-10-27 02:32:09 PM

simplicimus: robsul82: Deal with it, libs!

[www.unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

No skinny, maybe gay guy will save you from this unskewed reality in two weeks!

Anyone have an idea which states are not winner takes all in electoral votes?


Nebraska and Maine.
 
2012-10-27 02:32:16 PM

simplicimus: robsul82: Deal with it, libs!

[www.unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

No skinny, maybe gay guy will save you from this unskewed reality in two weeks!

Anyone have an idea which states are not winner takes all in electoral votes?

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.


Link
 
2012-10-27 02:33:47 PM

flux: Frozboz: Forget the cookiness of it, does anyone on the right work with an editor? Who writes this garbage?

Editing would be a socialist subversion of the will of the individual.

From today's write-up:

"An incumbent not polling at least 50 percent right now is highly unlikely of winning, because the undecided voters are undecided because they have decided not to vote for the incumbent, but haven't been fully sold on voting for the challenging."


That is perfectly grammared because the challenging is what he was highly unlikely of pointing to the defeat of.

dumbass
 
2012-10-27 02:33:50 PM
Dean Chambers:

An Internet journalist and commentator, launched his writing career by creating an alternative conservative student newspaper while in college. Dean grew up in what James A. Baker called "the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" and has experienced first-hand the fruits of progressive public policy. Look to Dean's writings to find a uniquely individualist point of view focusing on limited government, individual liberty, and conservative values.

In 2010 Chambers predicted Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, Dino Rossi, John Raese, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck would win...incredibly accurate; especially O'donnell. She lost by double digit numbers.


Nice Jerb.
 
2012-10-27 02:34:13 PM

unexplained bacon: simplicimus: robsul82: Deal with it, libs!

[www.unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

No skinny, maybe gay guy will save you from this unskewed reality in two weeks!

Anyone have an idea which states are not winner takes all in electoral votes?

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.

Link


I personally like the way Alabama did it in the 1960 election.
 
2012-10-27 02:35:46 PM
Wow, this guy is a real moron. From his latest derp-post...

Let's start with looking at Ohio. Not a single recent, and credible, poll of Ohio shows Obama at or above 50 percent. An incumbent not polling at least 50 percent right now is highly unlikely of winning, because the undecided voters are undecided because they have decided not to vote for the incumbent, but haven't been fully sold on voting for the challenging. Between now and election day, they will either be sold on voting for Romney or they might otherwise decide to not vote. Yes some undecided voters will do that.

The latest Rasmussen poll of Ohio shows the race tied at 48 percent. That means Romney will get almost 52 percent in Ohio. The latest polls by Purple Strategies shows the race in Ohio Obama 46 percent, Romney 44 percent. That means Romney wins at least 52 percent when the undecided voters decide how to vote. The latest ARG poll in Ohio shows Obama leading 49 percent to 47 percent. Again, that would mean Romney wins by almost 51 percent with undecided voters. In reality, Romney is going to win Ohio.


He appears to be hanging his entire "Romney will win" derp on the theory that even though Romney is behind in the polls he's really ahead.
 
2012-10-27 02:36:08 PM

TV's Vinnie: Oh man. WHEN Obama wins his second term, the WHARRGARBL from these rightards is gonna be downright Apocalyptic. I better stock up on paper towels and Jergens to enjoy that moment for as long as I can.


I'm a lady (disputed by some, mind you)
but aren't paper towels...kind of chafe-y? I mean, do you develop a thicker skin?
Or do ya just like it rrrrough?

/jergens. Never can see that on the supermarket shelves without giggling
//see why 'lady' is in dispute?
 
2012-10-27 02:37:27 PM

qorkfiend: unexplained bacon: simplicimus: robsul82: Deal with it, libs!

[www.unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

No skinny, maybe gay guy will save you from this unskewed reality in two weeks!

Anyone have an idea which states are not winner takes all in electoral votes?

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.

Link

I personally like the way Alabama did it in the 1960 election.


just looked that up...that shouldn't be possible
 
2012-10-27 02:39:47 PM
i.imgur.com
"You look tasty."
 
2012-10-27 02:39:56 PM
Thanks to all for the Maine and Nebraska responses. I think it would be more fun if the other 48 used the same method. Would be way better for the corporate media ratings.
 
2012-10-27 02:41:04 PM

theinsultabot9000: Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.


They're lying to you. If they're really Limbaugh listeners, then they remember how Hillary was History's Greatest Monster™ in the '90s.
 
2012-10-27 02:46:53 PM
Is Nate Silver Jewish? Couldn't he have worked that in somehow? Or is effeminate supposed to connote 'Jew' as well?
 
2012-10-27 02:47:46 PM
The simplest way to determine which polls know what the hell they are talking about and which ones don't is to look at the results. That's plain common sense. If someone tells you it's going to rain 45 times and it rains 2 times, they are stupid. If they say it will rain 45 times and it rains 45 times, the next time they say it's going to rain, you should listen.

Look at the results from the polling during the last election. Nate Silver was closer to the actual outcome than any of the major polls. Only Sam Wang, with the Princeton Election Consortium I think was closer, but his analysis was practically in line with Nate's. Both of these polls have shown Obama with a lead in Electoral Votes throughout the election cycle. They reported the plunge after the first debate, just like the other polls. Conservatives are flailing because it's becoming apparent they are going to lose again and are creating a narrative that forestalls the inevitable.

This happened with the last election too. Conservatives, especially the hard right, only exist in very tight echo chambers that effectively seal them off entirely from reality. Hence the gigantic letdown and unbelievability that ensues when they lose. The tea party was a direct result of this disillusionment, yet they didn't come any closer to reality, they moved further from it.

One day the conservatives are going to have to leave the echo chamber, set down the bibles and the hate and come make nice with the rest of the country. I have no idea if or when this will ever happen.
 
2012-10-27 02:49:48 PM

Blowmonkey: One day the conservatives are going to have to leave the echo chamber, set down the bibles and the hate and come make nice with the rest of the country. I have no idea if or when this will ever happen.


It's never happened in the past. In fact, they tend to get violent when faced with the prospect.
 
2012-10-27 02:50:09 PM

TheMysticS: TV's Vinnie: Oh man. WHEN Obama wins his second term, the WHARRGARBL from these rightards is gonna be downright Apocalyptic. I better stock up on paper towels and Jergens to enjoy that moment for as long as I can.

I'm a lady (disputed by some, mind you)
but aren't paper towels...kind of chafe-y? I mean, do you develop a thicker skin?
Or do ya just like it rrrrough?

/jergens. Never can see that on the supermarket shelves without giggling
//see why 'lady' is in dispute?


I'm gonna let some of our more vulgar Farkers answer your query if they wish. I've found it not polite to spoo in front of a lady.

/All over her back Hell yeah. But not in front of her you uncouth pigs!
 
2012-10-27 02:50:24 PM

Riche: Frederick: Osomatic: Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.

You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.

When as a kid I began to question obvious flaws in the Christian bible and other seemingly bright kids around me were not, I made note of it. I never understood how they could reconcile logical flaws with religious dogma.

I was raised in a similar environment to your son. Both my parents grew up in the church and then had a falling out (mother = Italian Catholic / father = German Lutheran). Religion was always by my choice only. I attended a Christian bible school by choice, and quit going by my choice. I attended mass sometimes and youth group because I liked the kids who went to that church. Ultimately I chose to eschew religion and I claim agnostic.

But I can tell you there are cons to being agnostic or religiously void. I feel I am by nature a spiritual person, and I never found a satisfactory outlet for that spirituality. And the older I get the more I feel like I'm missing that outlet.

\I'm sure what I've said was less then helpful -sorry

Check out the Unitarian-Universalists. With them you get the church-like community and spirituality without the dogma.

Or look into Buddhism. You don't have to buy into the reincarnation or other stuff like that to benefit.


Yep. Buddhism has many things to offer the thinking spiritualist.
Which I consider myself. We westerners can approach this without the religious dogma of Buddhism as practiced in the east.
And lots of Buddhism here in the US, for me, I've found unsatisfactory. Lots of cult of personality. Teachings are based on having a guru to follow and help you understand- but finding someone like that is really hard.

Basically, I'm saying that unless you go UU, organized religion of any sort has its troubles.

I'd also recommend checking out the Tao. Those teachings have given me solace when I feel spiritually left out. Sure, there's dogma in that one, too- like the stories of the immortals, etc.
But the basics make sense.
The Tao does not seek to name the source of all things, so much as acknowledge that it is there- and is basically unknowable, or at least does not conform to human labels.
Water. It follows the easiest path. It can give life as well as destroy. If you flow with the Tao, things will go smoothly. If you find something worth swimming upstream for, you may find the journey worth the hardship.
 
2012-10-27 02:51:07 PM
You know, there was a TED talk a while back where a guy was saying that instead of teaching kids geometry and calculus, we should first teach them statistics and probability, as those are much more useful for the average person to know. Things like unskewedpolls just shows how much that is true.
 
2012-10-27 02:51:39 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Is Nate Silver Jewish? Couldn't he have worked that in somehow? Or is effeminate supposed to connote 'Jew' as well?


I don't care if Nate is a lizard person. What matters is his predictions are pretty damn good.
 
2012-10-27 02:57:35 PM
Meanwhile, deep inside the unbiased, non-partisan, trust us unskewed hidden bunker....

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-27 02:59:52 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Is Nate Silver Jewish? Couldn't he have worked that in somehow? Or is effeminate supposed to connote 'Jew' as well?


I think conservatives like the Jews this election cycle. It changes so often it's hard to keep up.
 
2012-10-27 03:00:24 PM
Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that this Unskewed Polls business is really just some clever satire, like Conservapedia?
 
2012-10-27 03:03:47 PM
That David Frost guy wears Italian loafers. They're a little effeminate. I prefer shoes with laces, President Nixon.
 
2012-10-27 03:05:47 PM

Biological Ali: Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that this Unskewed Polls business is really just some clever satire, like Conservapedia?


Maybe, but look in his eyes and tell me he's capable of writing satire.
 
2012-10-27 03:06:37 PM
can't trust him to sneak up behind ya.
 
2012-10-27 03:07:38 PM

Biological Ali: Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that this Unskewed Polls business is really just some clever satire, like Conservapedia?


I think that for a second but then I look at the guy's pic again and immediately discount the notion.
 
2012-10-27 03:07:53 PM

Biological Ali: Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that this Unskewed Polls business is really just some clever satire, like Conservapedia?


Hmmm, you managed to make me nestle this image into itself...
www.wheninmanila.com
 
2012-10-27 03:10:45 PM
Oh dear, I just found this: Link (Pops. Well, more likely opens a new tab for you.)
 
2012-10-27 03:15:10 PM

mediablitz: Interesting tweet from Silver yesterday.

His forecast is EXACTLY the same now (state by state for President) as it was in June when he put out his first prediction.

So, BILLIONS of dollars spent to move... nowhere.


This is why I think it might be a good idea to move to federal funding for elections- state elections get money from the state they're running in.

No outside influences, no corporations are people, no super pacs. If one wants to whine about government spending money in a socialist fashion, etc.- just look at all of the money the private sector would still have, were it not spent on election junk. Jobs could be created.
Anyway, it would kill all the cash money that goes into our politics, and the money would be spent in lobbying. Which comes with its own set of problems, but does now, anyway.


/blahblahblah
 
2012-10-27 03:16:31 PM

Frozboz: But it's highly unlikely his current methods and projections will have the level of accuracy unless he changes then quite a lot between now and election day. The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win. Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election.

Forget the cookiness of it, does anyone on the right work with an editor? Who writes this garbage?


mmm. cookies.
 
2012-10-27 03:17:09 PM

FurbyGoneFubar: Oh dear, I just found this: Link (Pops. Well, more likely opens a new tab for you.)


They just forgot to label their examples.
 
2012-10-27 03:22:45 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Is Nate Silver Jewish? Couldn't he have worked that in somehow? Or is effeminate supposed to connote 'Jew' as well?

I think conservatives like the Jews this election cycle. It changes so often it's hard to keep up.


The rightards are pro-Israel for right now (so long as Shelden Adelson's money is good). They're counting on them to launch the first waves into Iran so the US has an excuse to back them up.

Hell, I'll bet a good deal of those guys are pumped that this might be the Armageddon they have been hoping for.
 
2012-10-27 03:26:38 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Is Nate Silver Jewish? Couldn't he have worked that in somehow? Or is effeminate supposed to connote 'Jew' as well?

I think conservatives like the Jews this election cycle. It changes so often it's hard to keep up.

The rightards are pro-Israel for right now (so long as Shelden Adelson's money is good). They're counting on them to launch the first waves into Iran so the US has an excuse to back them up.

Hell, I'll bet a good deal of those guys are pumped that this might be the Armageddon they have been hoping for.


Nope, for Armageddon, they still have to build something worthwhile at Megiddo to fight about. Maybe have a fund raiser or something. Only thing nearby is a Kibbutz five miles away.
 
2012-10-27 03:30:42 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Is Nate Silver Jewish? Couldn't he have worked that in somehow? Or is effeminate supposed to connote 'Jew' as well?

I think conservatives like the Jews this election cycle. It changes so often it's hard to keep up.


Jews are way more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. Of course they can't have Rush saying how the Jews are conspiring to destroy America by voting for Obama. They'll trying to look pro-Israel which only satisfies the more religious orthodox Jews to vote for them.
 
2012-10-27 03:33:38 PM

unexplained bacon: qorkfiend: unexplained bacon: simplicimus: robsul82: Deal with it, libs!

[www.unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

No skinny, maybe gay guy will save you from this unskewed reality in two weeks!

Anyone have an idea which states are not winner takes all in electoral votes?

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.

Link

I personally like the way Alabama did it in the 1960 election.

just looked that up...that shouldn't be possible


And yet according to Ann Coulter's new book, the Southern Strategy never happened.
 
2012-10-27 03:34:51 PM

bugontherug: Okay cons, pay attention. Below, you'll find links to Real Conservative Propaganda's "no swing state" electoral map, which distributes the map according to who they say is currently leading in each state's polls. And to Karl Rove's own electoral map.

You'll notice that Real Conservative Propaganda's map doesn't look all that different from Nate Silver's. And if you distributed Karl Rove's map according to who currently leads in each state, you'd see Obama wins it too.

Link

Link

Nate Silver really isn't spinning anything. He's just taking into account more data, and weighing it according to a wider variety of empirically demonstrable factors, than any of the other sites--which also say Obama is leading.


And while they complain about Nate being "biased" somehow, they are the ones that strangely have had states like Arizona, Tennessee, Montana and South Carolina as not "Solid GOP" states. I mean, other than maybe AZ (maybe 8-10%), does anyone really think there is even a 1% chance of Obama winning any of those?
 
2012-10-27 03:39:05 PM

dletter: bugontherug: Okay cons, pay attention. Below, you'll find links to Real Conservative Propaganda's "no swing state" electoral map, which distributes the map according to who they say is currently leading in each state's polls. And to Karl Rove's own electoral map.

You'll notice that Real Conservative Propaganda's map doesn't look all that different from Nate Silver's. And if you distributed Karl Rove's map according to who currently leads in each state, you'd see Obama wins it too.

Link

Link

Nate Silver really isn't spinning anything. He's just taking into account more data, and weighing it according to a wider variety of empirically demonstrable factors, than any of the other sites--which also say Obama is leading.

And while they complain about Nate being "biased" somehow, they are the ones that strangely have had states like Arizona, Tennessee, Montana and South Carolina as not "Solid GOP" states. I mean, other than maybe AZ (maybe 8-10%), does anyone really think there is even a 1% chance of Obama winning any of those?


Depends on who shows up to vote. Sure, the Geico Gecko is funny, but who wants a chameleon as President?
 
2012-10-27 03:43:18 PM

TV's Vinnie: TheMysticS: TV's Vinnie: Oh man. WHEN Obama wins his second term, the WHARRGARBL from these rightards is gonna be downright Apocalyptic. I better stock up on paper towels and Jergens to enjoy that moment for as long as I can.

I'm a lady (disputed by some, mind you)
but aren't paper towels...kind of chafe-y? I mean, do you develop a thicker skin?
Or do ya just like it rrrrough?

/jergens. Never can see that on the supermarket shelves without giggling
//see why 'lady' is in dispute?

I'm gonna let some of our more vulgar Farkers answer your query if they wish. I've found it not polite to spoo in front of a lady.

/All over her back Hell yeah. But not in front of her you uncouth pigs!


Ah, that's why you show up in purty cyan 2.

/vapors
 
2012-10-27 03:44:13 PM
Ok which one of you Farkettes is Megan Mills from the comment section? I want to marry you.
 
2012-10-27 03:48:54 PM

Curious: simplicimus: Regardless of the attack on Nate Silver, I am astounded that Dick Morris has any credibility with anyone.

i got an email from an old gf citing morris as a reputable authority. she also mentioned she was going to see 2016. never got a reply to my "are you farking serious?".


Jeez was she this derpy when you were dating?
 
2012-10-27 03:50:26 PM
One of her gems:

"Deans so fat than on Halloween he says "Trick or Meatloaf". Speaking of Meatloaf, are they related somehow?"
 
2012-10-27 03:50:41 PM

d-fens99: You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?


If it's anything like the map app, her boobs will be on her forehead.
 
2012-10-27 03:56:40 PM

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: One of her gems:

"Deans so fat than on Halloween he says "Trick or Meatloaf". Speaking of Meatloaf, are they related somehow?"


Ok, thats funny.
 
2012-10-27 03:58:53 PM

elchip: I'm honestly confused about how he keeps showing Obama going up in the popular vote probability, when Romney's polling nationwide is as strong as ever.



I'm not 100% certain of this, and I'll admit I have a kind of naïve understanding of the underlying principle, but I think his model uses something very much like the 'time premium' portion of options contract valuations -- the less time there is between *now* and the option expiration/election day/whatever, there is increasingly less possibility of something, anything happening that could move the numbers significantly.

Hypothetically, if (let's say) poll results were all at a completely steady state from July through October with one candidate leading the other by 2.5%, you would expect the leader's probability of a win to increase even though the underlying poll data didn't change at all.

Ponder for a moment the fact that he has both an election day forecast and a "Now-cast", and observe how they've differed over time. Once you get very close to election day they should converge.

I'm sure he's explained this at great length somewhere, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
 
2012-10-27 03:59:06 PM

themindiswatching: /awaits statisticals


Hi There!
 
2012-10-27 04:00:44 PM

HeartBurnKid: theinsultabot9000: Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.

They're lying to you. If they're really Limbaugh listeners, then they remember how Hillary was History's Greatest Monster™ in the '90s.


Yeah, it's completely ridiculous. It's like all the conservatives that went the entire primary season bashing Romney. Now, all of the sudden, he's their Messiah*.

*Actually used correctly in this case since they think he will save them from something.
 
2012-10-27 04:00:59 PM
BTW am I the only one who thinks Dean Chambers looks like Torg's Brother?

Does he count to Potato too?
 
2012-10-27 04:05:49 PM

statisticals: themindiswatching: /awaits statisticals

Hi There!


Awesome username, btw :D
 
2012-10-27 04:06:32 PM
Wow the entire comment section is gold. Dean the Hutt himself pops in and is quickly eviscerated
 
2012-10-27 04:15:46 PM

simplicimus: dletter: bugontherug: Okay cons, pay attention. Below, you'll find links to Real Conservative Propaganda's "no swing state" electoral map, which distributes the map according to who they say is currently leading in each state's polls. And to Karl Rove's own electoral map.

You'll notice that Real Conservative Propaganda's map doesn't look all that different from Nate Silver's. And if you distributed Karl Rove's map according to who currently leads in each state, you'd see Obama wins it too.

Link

Link

Nate Silver really isn't spinning anything. He's just taking into account more data, and weighing it according to a wider variety of empirically demonstrable factors, than any of the other sites--which also say Obama is leading.

And while they complain about Nate being "biased" somehow, they are the ones that strangely have had states like Arizona, Tennessee, Montana and South Carolina as not "Solid GOP" states. I mean, other than maybe AZ (maybe 8-10%), does anyone really think there is even a 1% chance of Obama winning any of those?

Depends on who shows up to vote. Sure, the Geico Gecko is funny, but who wants a chameleon as President?


Really, I mean, South Carolina? I'll give you $1:$10,000 odds Romney:Obama if you want to take Obama in South Carolina... I could use a dollar ;)
 
2012-10-27 04:17:37 PM
LMAO

"You don't live in a bubble. You are one."

That one owes me a new keyboard
 
2012-10-27 04:21:39 PM

simplicimus: dletter: bugontherug: Okay cons, pay attention. Below, you'll find links to Real Conservative Propaganda's "no swing state" electoral map, which distributes the map according to who they say is currently leading in each state's polls. And to Karl Rove's own electoral map.

You'll notice that Real Conservative Propaganda's map doesn't look all that different from Nate Silver's. And if you distributed Karl Rove's map according to who currently leads in each state, you'd see Obama wins it too.

Link

Link

Nate Silver really isn't spinning anything. He's just taking into account more data, and weighing it according to a wider variety of empirically demonstrable factors, than any of the other sites--which also say Obama is leading.

And while they complain about Nate being "biased" somehow, they are the ones that strangely have had states like Arizona, Tennessee, Montana and South Carolina as not "Solid GOP" states. I mean, other than maybe AZ (maybe 8-10%), does anyone really think there is even a 1% chance of Obama winning any of those?

Depends on who shows up to vote. Sure, the Geico Gecko is funny, but who wants a chameleon as President?


This guy....

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-27 04:36:05 PM
Fat Stupid and Republican is no way to go through life son
 
2012-10-27 04:36:09 PM
i1199.photobucket.com

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-27 04:42:00 PM
Not sure if hideous
 
2012-10-27 04:44:18 PM

Fista-Phobia: [i1199.photobucket.com image 831x143]

[i.imgur.com image 400x300]


Well, Rush Limbaugh is a little slimmer, and still an idiot. And Nate is a math guy, but Republicans aren't exactly the pro-math party.
 
2012-10-27 04:50:34 PM

simplicimus: Fista-Phobia: [i1199.photobucket.com image 831x143]

[i.imgur.com image 400x300]

Well, Rush Limbaugh is a little slimmer, and still an idiot. And Nate is a math guy, but Republicans aren't exactly the pro-math party.


=============

Nope Republicans are the now the party of medieval ignorance.

BTW, Intrade is calling it for Obama. Intrade is capitalism in it's purest form, so that has to be especially galling for the Randoids.
 
2012-10-27 04:51:22 PM

Fista-Phobia: [i1199.photobucket.com image 831x143]

[i.imgur.com image 400x300]


Is that a real post?
 
2012-10-27 04:52:43 PM

DamnYankees: Fista-Phobia: [i1199.photobucket.com image 831x143]

[i.imgur.com image 400x300]

Is that a real post?


Yep, he actually posted that in the comments
 
2012-10-27 04:58:39 PM

simplicimus: Well, Rush Limbaugh is a little slimmer, and still an idiot. And Nate is a math guy, but Republicans aren't exactly the pro-math party.


Pure, uncut projection.QStar News? Sounds legit.

I think a pack of hotdogs fell out of the back of that guy's neck.
 
2012-10-27 05:02:19 PM
I suggest everyone answer this douche's poll and provide him the answers he wants to hear. Say you're from Ohio.
 
2012-10-27 05:06:17 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Is Nate Silver Jewish? Couldn't he have worked that in somehow? Or is effeminate supposed to connote 'Jew' as well?


I believe he is, yes. It's a small sample size I know, but everyone I've ever met with the last name "Silver" has been Jewish. So I wouldn't be surprised if he is as well.
 
2012-10-27 05:24:10 PM

Fissile:
Nope Republicans are the now the party of medieval ignorance.

Just because the party consists of mystics, jesters and magicians (we'll cut the deficit, but won't tell you how) doesn't make it medieval.
/Well, maybe it does.
 
2012-10-27 05:28:40 PM

simplicimus: Fissile:
Nope Republicans are the now the party of medieval ignorance.
Just because the party consists of mystics, jesters and magicians (we'll cut the deficit, but won't tell you how) evil viziers, Inquisition priests and thieving noblemen doesn't make it medieval.
/Well, maybe it does.


FTFAccuracy
 
2012-10-27 05:30:17 PM
Routinely he assigns percentage odds of a candidate (usually his beloved Obama) winning a state far higher and disproportionate any reasonable odds of that candidate winning a state as indicated by the polls.

Let me guess, if a poll says Obama is leading 52% to Romney's 48%, and the poll says there is +-4% margin of error, you don't think Obama has an 80% chance of winning because "it's within the margin of error!"

Derp.
 
2012-10-27 05:42:06 PM

vpb: And this was worthy of publishing in someone's estimation.


He did give us a screen shot of Nate Silver's web page.
 
2012-10-27 05:50:37 PM

Fista-Phobia: I suggest everyone answer this douche's poll and provide him the answers he wants to hear. Say you're from Ohio.


I just tried. Got an error message.

Error Occurred While Processing Request
Element VOTE is undefined in FORM.


I like how convenient he made it for White Christian Males to answer, though. 

Very thoughtful.
 
2012-10-27 06:01:56 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: simplicimus: Fissile:
Nope Republicans are the now the party of medieval ignorance.
Just because the party consists of mystics, jesters and magicians (we'll cut the deficit, but won't tell you how) evil viziers, Inquisition priests and thieving noblemen doesn't make it medieval.
/Well, maybe it does.

FTFAccuracy


You could have left in the mystics, jesters and magicians and just added to it.
 
2012-10-27 06:03:56 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

What a thin man with a high pitched voice might look like.
 
2012-10-27 06:15:57 PM
This is right-wing 'tards turning on the smarter, more competent guy because they can't understand how he does it.

It's exactly the same impulse as raging Muslims in Middle-East shiatholes saying the west is evil and will succumb to Allah's wrath. Or fundie Christians rejecting science and evolution.

I don't know if they understand that Nate Silver isn't saying Obama WILL win--just that he has a better chance of it (at the moment). Romney can win without Silver being wrong.
 
2012-10-27 06:22:21 PM
Examiner.com doesn't take much pride in its content, does it?
 
2012-10-27 06:32:12 PM

Yankees Team Gynecologist: This is right-wing 'tards turning on the smarter, more competent guy because they can't understand how he does it.

It's exactly the same impulse as raging Muslims in Middle-East shiatholes saying the west is evil and will succumb to Allah's wrath. Or fundie Christians rejecting science and evolution.

I don't know if they understand that Nate Silver isn't saying Obama WILL win--just that he has a better chance of it (at the moment). Romney can win without Silver being wrong.


That's way too much nuance for these kinds of people.
 
2012-10-27 06:39:04 PM

evil saltine: Examiner.com doesn't take much pride in its content, does it?


Really. I should just make a bunch of inflammatory derp to generate clicks and make a few extra bucks. Too bad I have a pesky conscience.
 
2012-10-27 07:01:12 PM

Gyrfalcon: Yankees Team Gynecologist: This is right-wing 'tards turning on the smarter, more competent guy because they can't understand how he does it.

It's exactly the same impulse as raging Muslims in Middle-East shiatholes saying the west is evil and will succumb to Allah's wrath. Or fundie Christians rejecting science and evolution.

I don't know if they understand that Nate Silver isn't saying Obama WILL win--just that he has a better chance of it (at the moment). Romney can win without Silver being wrong.

That's way too much nuance for these kinds of people.


Yep. If Romney does win I don't want to imagine the mass circlejerk that will occur under the banner STUPID LIB GOD NATE SILVER WAS WRONG HAHAHAHAHA, not at all.
 
2012-10-27 07:13:12 PM

robsul82: Yep. If Romney does win I don't want to imagine the mass circlejerk that will occur under the banner STUPID LIB GOD NATE SILVER WAS WRONG HAHAHAHAHA, not at all.


If Romney does win, that's the least of the world's worries.
 
2012-10-27 07:17:41 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels:
I heard an interview on NPR and he said he was libertarian leaning, but between the 2 parties, he sides most with the Democrats. Interestingly enough, he said he got into political prognostication around 2005 or so because he was making a living off online poker and Congress made that illegal. He wanted to know which of those bastards was going to get voted out.


'Signal' And 'Noise': Prediction As Art And Science
 
2012-10-27 07:26:51 PM
of course its some fat fark
 
2012-10-27 07:30:33 PM

Yankees Team Gynecologist: This is right-wing 'tards turning on the smarter, more competent guy because they can't understand how he does it.

It's exactly the same impulse as raging Muslims in Middle-East shiatholes saying the west is evil and will succumb to Allah's wrath. Or fundie Christians rejecting science and evolution.

I don't know if they understand that Nate Silver isn't saying Obama WILL win--just that he has a better chance of it (at the moment). Romney can win without Silver being wrong.


==================

You think this guy passed his statistics 101 final? You're wasting your time trying to explain it.


evans-politics.com
 
2012-10-27 07:30:50 PM

The Gentleman Caller: Maybe, but look in his eyes and tell me he's capable of writing satire.


quatchi: I think that for a second but then I look at the guy's pic again and immediately discount the notion.


True, but he could be like a Sacha Baron Cohen character - that may all justl be part of the act. I mean I know that's probably a tad optimistic on my part, but this is one of the rare guys whose derpings are actually hilarious (as opposed to merely stupid or offensive).
 
2012-10-27 07:42:41 PM

thamike: [upload.wikimedia.org image 225x281]

What a thin man with a high pitched voice might look like.


Come on, nobody would make a giant statue out of somebody unless they had a deep, booming voice, so it doesn't seem silly in case the statue comes to life.
 
2012-10-27 07:45:30 PM

Empty Matchbook: Wondering why the author is so obsessed with Nate Silver's physical attributes...


The odd part is that Nate doesn't come off as gay. He comes off as a big geek. One wonders if this guy is missing his high school days of torturing the math team.

/gay geek
 
2012-10-27 07:51:46 PM

gingerjet: Empty Matchbook: Wondering why the author is so obsessed with Nate Silver's physical attributes...

The odd part is that Nate doesn't come off as gay. He comes off as a big geek. One wonders if this guy is missing his high school days of torturing the math team.

/gay geek


FWIW, IIRC Nate is actually gay. Not that it matters.
 
2012-10-27 08:03:34 PM

DamnYankees: gingerjet: Empty Matchbook: Wondering why the author is so obsessed with Nate Silver's physical attributes...

The odd part is that Nate doesn't come off as gay. He comes off as a big geek. One wonders if this guy is missing his high school days of torturing the math team.

/gay geek

FWIW, IIRC Nate is actually gay. Not that it matters.


I was going after the perception of Nates mannerisms by the right wing stooge. The fact that he is gay doesn't change that.
 
2012-10-27 08:05:47 PM

simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?


He responded on Twitter something like Skinny+Possibly gay=ROMNEY LANDSLIDE!!!!!!?!!!?!
 
2012-10-27 08:13:43 PM
Ad hom from desperate losers? GOP much?
 
2012-10-27 08:17:01 PM

Fista-Phobia: I suggest everyone answer this douche's poll and provide him the answers he wants to hear. Say you're from Ohio.


Did and done.
"wealthy female vet repub ohio"
 
2012-10-27 08:18:26 PM

MorrisBird: log_jammin: wow.

To be fair, he's on pain medication. His pelvis is broken in 6 places.


Sounds like he needs to take a few days vacation.
 
2012-10-27 08:23:29 PM

simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?


His book just got published. He's done tons of interviews so it's likely someone asked him about that.
 
2012-10-27 08:30:58 PM
FWIW, during the 2008 runup, Silver was obvious about his being Dem. During the 2010 midterms he was sometimes very vocal about his leanings. However, since the NYT took over the 538 hosting, he hasn't much commented on it any more.

I like the "Unskewed" guy and his site, at least he has the (ample) guts to publicly post his "scientific methodology", and for that I commend him. Putting your point of view out there like that does deserve some respect.

However, as a well published science-type, I find his lack of objectivity a little disturbing...

538 works very hard to be objective, and that's where its credibility comes from among the "statisticals" in the group.

And for them as what can't stand the Ivory Tower approach, try the Vegas approach: but what happens in Vegas, won't be staying in Vegas.

Vegas should be easy money for the R&R crowd, don't understand why they're not buying up all the easy bets, and trying to keep the odds IN their favor by chatting up the O&B stats...
 
2012-10-27 08:32:38 PM

bemused outsider: FWIW, during the 2008 runup, Silver was obvious about his being Dem. During the 2010 midterms he was sometimes very vocal about his leanings. However, since the NYT took over the 538 hosting, he hasn't much commented on it any more.


Silver started doing this stuff just as a commenter at Daily Kos. He would break down the 2008 Dem Primaries in the very early stages, going state by state. He just put up his thoughts as comments. It was really impressive.
 
2012-10-27 08:37:22 PM

DamnYankees: bemused outsider: FWIW, during the 2008 runup, Silver was obvious about his being Dem. During the 2010 midterms he was sometimes very vocal about his leanings. However, since the NYT took over the 538 hosting, he hasn't much commented on it any more.

Silver started doing this stuff just as a commenter at Daily Kos. He would break down the 2008 Dem Primaries in the very early stages, going state by state. He just put up his thoughts as comments. It was really impressive.



Not being a Kos fan (too over-the-top, seems to bind up my browser too often), I only knew his views from his 538 site. His correct use of stats was refreshing, and appreciated.
 
2012-10-27 08:41:41 PM
Hmm, so "not fat" is finally starting to be something worthy of insult in this country.
I was wondering when it was going to arrive, all the signs were already there.
 
2012-10-27 09:14:31 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice

It's fun to watch the Right flailing like this.


That's not flailing, sadly. You're seeing the same anti-intellectual arguments we used early in this country's history. The "milksop" image is one traditionally invoked to demonstrate an anti-intellectual argument - "well, that man's not robust, tall, or demonstrating any real experience at working with his hands - he's obviously bookish, an egghead who believes that his education and training is somehow better than my provincial wisdom and life experience. I can't trust that man."

Combine that with the upswing of homophobia pushed by religious conservatives, and, yes, this is a lovely, calculated attack on Nate Silver as a person. They have to attack him, you see, as they can't attack his figures - his methodology, data, and results are open and readily understood.

They're not flailing. They're doing their best to undermine what could be a devastating election not just for the GOP's Presidential candidate, but also for their moronic Congressional candidates busily making fools of themselves in the real world. If the GOP loses their ability to grind legislative practice to a halt, we'd actually be, y'know, successful - and the GOP can't have the country successful under the obviously tyrannical rule of a half-black secret Muslim socialist Kenyan Manchurian Candidate intellectual Democrat, now, can they?

If they can undermine the process, even just a little bit, well, wiggle room is all a roach needs to nest, and the GOP loves their wiggle room. Cast enough aspersion, and perhaps the Supreme Court will decide this Presidency, too.
 
2012-10-27 09:24:32 PM

Nem Wan: thamike: [upload.wikimedia.org image 225x281]

What a thin man with a high pitched voice might look like.

Come on, nobody would make a giant statue out of somebody unless they had a deep, booming voice, so it doesn't seem silly in case the statue comes to life.


Uh....

What?
 
2012-10-27 09:31:07 PM

FormlessOne: the GOP can't have the country successful under the obviously tyrannical rule of a half-black secret Muslim socialist Kenyan Manchurian Candidate intellectual Democrat, now, can they?


This attitude is so prevalent in the republican party and it's absolutely despicable. IMO it's the biggest difference between the two party's supporters. You dont see this kind of obstructionism* among the Democrats.

*obstructionism for the purpose of avoiding success, as opposed to obstructionism due to political idealogy
 
2012-10-27 09:38:11 PM
He doesn't look gay. he looks like a Jewish math nerd.
 
2012-10-27 09:38:44 PM

abb3w: This clown apparently misses at least three things.

1) Nate's weighing mechanism isn't ultimately based on how much the polls disagree with "his own average", but on how their predictions differed from the election outcome in 2008. As happens, the polls on average were biased below the measurement threshold, but some pollsters consistently gave results further from the final outcome than others, and/or consistently gave results consistently biased D or biased R. Nate normalizes to cancel out this, based on past measurement from electoral outcome.

2) The odds he assigns are different from the polling percentages, because the odds are derived from the polls combined with their uncertainty measure. A poll running 60%R 40%D with the usual ±3 or so does not mean the Democratic candidate has a 40% chance of winning, it means he has a chance of winning less than a Powerball ticket.The ± is the 95% confidence interval, which is around two standard deviations either side of the mean; winning with a 20 point difference requires results results 13 sigma above the mean, which means "Ain't Happening" (without impact from new news not considered by those polled). However, if it was instead a R 50.7% D 49.2% race with the same uncertainty, a D win would only require a result about one sigma above the mean, yielding a circa 15% chance (vs 85% for the R), despite a race "inside the margin of error".


Could I perhaps trouble you to rephrase this second point in plainer English?
 
2012-10-27 09:47:44 PM
My favorite Nate Silver picture

www.details.com

Details Magazine. Hmmm....
 
2012-10-27 09:56:43 PM

Fista-Phobia: [i1199.photobucket.com image 831x143]


i1199.photobucket.com
i49.tinypic.com
fim.413chan.net
 
2012-10-27 09:57:00 PM

Huggermugger: Three Crooked Squirrels: Nate Silver can't be trusted because when he talks, he kinda sounds gay. But Dick Morris can be trusted because in this guy's world, Dick Morris doesn't sound gay? I know he was busted for sucking a female hooker's toes, but that guy really sounds gay.

Dick Morris has some of the weirdest, most effeminate mannerisms I've ever seen on an allegedly heterosexual man. I have honestly never understood why he was given such a prominent role in Fox News. He's not physically attractive, his voice is annoying, he doesn't say anything intelligent - it's all overblown belligerence, he's morally corrupt, and he has no credibility outside that Fox bubble. They could have found any number of superior personalities to fill his slot, so I'm assuming that he's entirely coasting on his past association with the Clintons, because he's got absolutely nothing else going for him. He's very repulsive.


I remember right after Bush gave that prime time speech from New Orleans after Katrina, Morris declared that Bush's popularity "Would SOAR."
 
2012-10-27 09:58:01 PM

Fista-Phobia: [i1199.photobucket.com image 831x143]

[i.imgur.com image 400x300]


My favorite comment to his post: ...Hey fatass, unskew your weight
 
2012-10-27 10:19:34 PM

cloud_van_dame: My favorite Nate Silver picture

[www.details.com image 620x430]

Details Magazine. Hmmm....


Heh.
 
2012-10-27 10:28:04 PM
Oh geeze, I'm almost crying from laughing so much with all the posts with the pictures of the Unscewed Polls fool and the accomponing comments with them. 😂Thanks Farkers.
 
2012-10-27 10:34:46 PM

Altitude5280: Oh geeze, I'm almost crying from laughing so much with all the posts with the pictures of the Unscewed Polls fool and the accomponing comments with them. 😂Thanks Farkers.


Read through the comments in TFA, they had me rolling too
 
2012-10-27 10:49:15 PM

log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.


I'll be sure to submit something in December.
 
2012-10-27 11:39:26 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
would be gay, but just can't get into that kinda shape.
 
2012-10-27 11:55:13 PM
I just reread the article in Louis Anderson's voice. could really take that on the road.

www.starscolor.com
 
2012-10-28 12:02:07 AM

Altitude5280: Huggermugger: Three Crooked Squirrels: Nate Silver can't be trusted because when he talks, he kinda sounds gay. But Dick Morris can be trusted because in this guy's world, Dick Morris doesn't sound gay? I know he was busted for sucking a female hooker's toes, but that guy really sounds gay.

Dick Morris has some of the weirdest, most effeminate mannerisms I've ever seen on an allegedly heterosexual man. I have honestly never understood why he was given such a prominent role in Fox News. He's not physically attractive, his voice is annoying, he doesn't say anything intelligent - it's all overblown belligerence, he's morally corrupt, and he has no credibility outside that Fox bubble. They could have found any number of superior personalities to fill his slot, so I'm assuming that he's entirely coasting on his past association with the Clintons, because he's got absolutely nothing else going for him. He's very repulsive.

I remember right after Bush gave that prime time speech from New Orleans after Katrina, Morris declared that Bush's popularity "Would SOAR."


LOLWUT?
 
2012-10-28 12:23:37 AM

PsiChick: he might turn out to be an atheist or even some eclectic religion you've never heard of.


Great. Hipster religions.
 
2012-10-28 12:29:06 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-28 12:35:48 AM

Cuthbert Allgood: Dude, break that down for some conservatives and report your findings.


Sorry, I don't speak moron. The best I can do is post to Fark, and hope someone with a troll alt can provide a translation.
 
2012-10-28 01:02:31 AM

abb3w: However, if it was instead a R 50.7% D 49.2% race with the same uncertainty, a D win would only require a result about one sigma above the mean, yielding a circa 15% chance (vs 85% for the R), despite a race "inside the margin of error".


Do you have that right? Because if one goes up 1% the other usually goes down 1%. Meaning the +- error should be treated as double (basically). My calculations give a 50.7% to 49.2% with a 3% margin of error about a 66% 33% chance. (I can post my R code if you want it - the results are pretty close to Silver's)

Still, your point is valid.
 
2012-10-28 01:23:53 AM

mistersnark: Could I perhaps trouble you to rephrase this second point in plainer English?


Probably in the morning, anyway.

impaler: Do you have that right? Because if one goes up 1% the other usually goes down 1%.


I think so; the ± is usually for the value of any candidate, not the margin between.
Contrariwise, it seems incidental to the basic point of "candidate polling percentages are not election victory odds"; nohow, a simple factor-of-two math mistake at some step is well within my ability to screw up.
 
2012-10-28 01:49:33 AM

d-fens99: Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.

You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 430x640]


I have the Weirdest Science boner right now.
 
2012-10-28 01:57:10 AM

crab66: Anyone posted this yet?

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-28 02:04:18 AM

Blowmonkey: Conservatives are flailing because it's becoming apparent they are going to lose again and are creating a narrative that forestalls the inevitable.


What I think you really mean is that they're creating a narrative that allows them to delegitimize the President. *Especially* if he manages to lose the popular vote but still win the EV vote. That's pretty much been their MO from Day One. If he wins, it's because the American people saw through the bullshiat, realized he's a failure, and voted Romney. If Obama loses, it's because either (a) The American people are stupid, easily fooled Takers, or (b) The election was stolen by ACORN and illegal Mexicans voting. 

You can see it everywhere - he's a Marxist! He's not a citizen! Voter Fraud!

In either case, he's not really a legitimate President. They did it with Bill Clinton, too.

/loved Digging Your Scene, btw.
 
2012-10-28 03:49:53 AM

entitygm: I want to see a map like this. Early call in Ohio and Fox claim it's a lock for Romney, celebration starts early.... then they cry themselves to sleep.

[i46.tinypic.com image 755x493]


Naw, won't happen. Obama has Ohio pretty well sewn up and out of the remaining toss-ups, the only state where it's likely Romney will pull off a win is Florida. Still leaves him like 40 EV short on the night.
 
2012-10-28 06:45:30 AM

log_jammin: I have a feeling we will never hear anything else about "UnSkewedPolls.com" after November.


Until 2016
 
2012-10-28 07:57:17 AM
Mommy! The gay man is looking at me again! He's giving me certain urges that I don't understand! Mommy! Make him stop!

Moooommmmmmmmmy!
 
2012-10-28 11:00:02 AM

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Ok which one of you Farkettes is Megan Mills from the comment section? I want to marry you.


FTFCMy dog ate 2lbs of crisco and took a dump that looked remarkably similar to Dean, then my dog got hungry and re-ate it. Second time around was a real charm, thanks for the memories Dean.
 
2012-10-28 02:12:52 PM
Today I was bored so I did something unscientific, but interesting to me. I took the recent state-by-state polls, and chose those that were least favorable to Obama, and plugged them into each state. I used the 2008 results to project a vote total for each state, and for the states that didn't have polls, I downgraded Obama's votes (and upgraded Romney's votes) by the average change from 2008 in the states that did have polls, and then calculated a national vote total.

The result is that Romney wins the popular vote 50.4%-48.5%, and leads the electoral college 267-227, with Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin tied (all of which could break for Obama). Remember, that's the *worst* recent polls for Obama. (The "best" polls has Obama winning 51.5%-47.2%, and winning the electoral college 343-180 with NC tied).

So I think Nate's percentage seems right-on to me.
 
2012-10-28 03:26:28 PM

abb3w: 2) The odds he assigns are different from the polling percentages, because the odds are derived from the polls combined with their uncertainty measure. A poll running 60%R 40%D with the usual ±3 or so does not mean the Democratic candidate has a 40% chance of winning, it means he has a chance of winning less than a Powerball ticket.The ± is the 95% confidence interval, which is around two standard deviations either side of the mean; winning with a 20 point difference requires results results 13 sigma above the mean, which means "Ain't Happening" (without impact from new news not considered by those polled). However, if it was instead a R 50.7% D 49.2% race with the same uncertainty, a D win would only require a result about one sigma above the mean, yielding a circa 15% chance (vs 85% for the R), despite a race "inside the margin of error".

mistersnark: Could I perhaps trouble you to rephrase this second point in plainer English?


So, the ± refers to the confidence interval; it's a function of sample size. There's a decent entry in wikipedia on it. Most polls report one based at the 95% confidence standard, so a poll showing a race of 60%R 40%D and ±3% means that there's statistically about a 47.5% chance of the republican getting 60.0-63.0% of the vote, and 47.5% chance of the republican getting 57.0-60.0% of the vote. The ±3% is typical for polls asking on the order of 1000 people randomly sampled from the whole population.

One of the most common curves in statistics is the Gaussian distribution; one of the parameters of the usual expression of the distribution function is the standard deviation, denoted by a lower case sigma, which effectively scales the axis. The distribution is symmetric, but decreases with distance; about 34% of the distribution falls within zero and one sigma above the midpoint, but only about 13.6 between one and two.

upload.wikimedia.org


Conveniently for rule-of-thumb work, within two sigma on either side of the mean gives 95.4% of the distribution. The actual distribution for polling results isn't exactly a Gaussian (which trails off to infinity, whereas a vote outcome of 107% for one candidate is a bit hinky), but it's something similar enough for rule-of-thumb work in polling where the race isn't worse than 2:1.

So, cut the ±3% in half, and you get 1.5% is the standard deviation "sigma".

Which brings up...

impaler: My calculations give a 50.7% to 49.2% with a 3% margin of error about a 66% 33% chance.


Yeah, in the cold grey light of afternoon and sobriety, sounds right.

For a (60:40)±3 race, anything 50.001% or more for the underdog is 10 percent off from survey, which is 6.6 sigma out -- which is not 13ish, but still one-in-ten-billion Powerball territory. (Lucky me for understating how bad that was the first time.) For a (50.7:49.2)±3 race, that victory threshold is only 0.8ish off from the poll, which is about 0.5 times the sigma distance of 1.5%, which is (yes) somewhere about 30-40% chance for the underdog. Using a statistics package like R will give more precise answers and allow more exact calculations; but knowing a few points on the gaussian cumulative distribution (and not slipping in a careless factor of two) gets to rule-of-thumb understanding that Nate Silver is not pulling these numbers out of his backside.

There's other factors -- the odds of how undecideds break, the flexibility of the electorate's attitudes with time and new news, and so on. Nate's worked most of those into his model, and written up explanations on what he's done, for the curious to read if they care to improve their understanding.

However, political conservatives tend not to value curiosity. Maybe it's just too hard for them.
 
2012-10-28 03:42:44 PM
OK - he's chubby, but honestly Dean Chambers sends out LOTS of gay vibes. He looks the type that DESPERATELY wants to be dominated by a "daddy" type, who then likes to "loan" his boy out to his buddies.
 
2012-10-29 12:54:59 AM

Frederick: Osomatic: Frederick: log_jammin: Yeah. If Obama wins, they'll wake up the next day angry at the world but will never consider the possibility they were lied to and lied to them selves. I don't get how people go through life like that.

It's a baffling phenomenon to me; the people who can successfully lie to themselves. In my experience there is a correlation between those people and early life religious indoctrination.

You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.

When as a kid I began to question obvious flaws in the Christian bible and other seemingly bright kids around me were not, I made note of it. I never understood how they could reconcile logical flaws with religious dogma.

I was raised in a similar environment to your son. Both my parents grew up in the church and then had a ...


Not necessarily, but... I still don't know what this kid is going to end up being.
 
2012-10-29 09:32:55 AM

abb3w: abb3w: 2) The odds he assigns are different from the polling percentages, because the odds are derived from the polls combined with their uncertainty measure. A poll running 60%R 40%D with the usual ±3 or so does not mean the Democratic candidate has a 40% chance of winning, it means he has a chance of winning less than a Powerball ticket.The ± is the 95% confidence interval, which is around two standard deviations either side of the mean; winning with a 20 point difference requires results results 13 sigma above the mean, which means "Ain't Happening" (without impact from new news not considered by those polled). However, if it was instead a R 50.7% D 49.2% race with the same uncertainty, a D win would only require a result about one sigma above the mean, yielding a circa 15% chance (vs 85% for the R), despite a race "inside the margin of error".
mistersnark: Could I perhaps trouble you to rephrase this second point in plainer English?

So, the ± refers to the confidence interval; it's a function of sample size.


Wow. Thanks for putting it in terms even a History major can understand.
 
Displayed 381 of 381 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report