Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Dumbass, Baseball Prospectus, career development, Fantasyland, swing vote, Dick Morris, swing states  
•       •       •

4757 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:51 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 381 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report