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.

(Washington Post)   Washington Post: Romney could still maybe win, who knows   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 65
    More: Obvious, Mitt Romney, Republican, Energy technology, New York Harbor  
•       •       •

1883 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 10:08:32 AM
"Please read our articles! We need the hits! This is exciting, right? You want to keep up to date and read more on our site, right?"
 
2012-11-02 10:09:09 AM
Whatever man.
 
2012-11-02 10:10:56 AM
Listen, there are 2 choices, like a coin flip. Obviously the odds are 50-50.
 
2012-11-02 10:11:16 AM
In other news, a meteor could slam into the Earth on Nov 6th.
 
2012-11-02 10:12:44 AM
and reports of the slow, anguishing response to Hurricane Sandy are not helping Obama, either. By Monday, the pictures could be horrific, and Obama's early grab for credit for a dramatic federal government response to Sandy could come back to haunt him.

Obama and FEMA were slow to react to Sandy? That's your angle?
 
2012-11-02 10:12:59 AM

impaler: Listen, there are 2 choices, like a coin flip. Obviously the odds are 50-50.


I wonder what percentage of the population never grasps the concept of probability beyond that level.
 
2012-11-02 10:13:27 AM

impaler: Listen, there are 2 choices, like a coin flip. Obviously the odds are 50-50.


I forgot to mention my credentials. I got a B+ in statistics in high-school, which is above average. It's safe to say I have a handle on these sorts of things.
 
2012-11-02 10:14:21 AM
I take the liberty of re-posting this analysis made by Lando Lincoln in a previous thread few weeks ago.

imageshack.us

I think I'll have a print copy of it and start scratching scenarios as the results come out on election night.
 
2012-11-02 10:14:58 AM

Imperialism: and reports of the slow, anguishing response to Hurricane Sandy are not helping Obama, either. By Monday, the pictures could be horrific, and Obama's early grab for credit for a dramatic federal government response to Sandy could come back to haunt him.

Obama and FEMA were slow to react to Sandy? That's your angle?


No no no. They reacted too quickly.

FEMA Former Boss Michael Brown Says Obama Reacted Too Quickly To Hurricane Sandy Plights
 
2012-11-02 10:15:02 AM

impaler: impaler: Listen, there are 2 choices, like a coin flip. Obviously the odds are 50-50.

I forgot to mention my credentials. I got a B+ in statistics in high-school, which is above average. It's safe to say I have a handle on these sorts of things.


You're doing a heck of a job, Impaler. :-)
 
2012-11-02 10:15:38 AM
You forgot Gary Johnson.

Obama only has a 33% chance of being reelected.

Also, when you consider the chance for write-ins, and how many people could receive votes, Obama's odds are practically zero in such a large field.
 
2012-11-02 10:17:55 AM

Imperialism: and reports of the slow, anguishing response to Hurricane Sandy are not helping Obama, either. By Monday, the pictures could be horrific, and Obama's early grab for credit for a dramatic federal government response to Sandy could come back to haunt him.

Obama and FEMA were slow to react to Sandy? That's your angle?


Since when? I mean, how does one react too quickly, then suddenly get bashed for going to slowly? Which is it?
 
2012-11-02 10:18:38 AM
static5.businessinsider.com

"Romney WILL win! No, I am not sweating mayonnaise, why do you ask?"
 
2012-11-02 10:21:03 AM

DeathBySmiley: You forgot Gary Johnson.

Obama only has a 33% chance of being reelected.

Also, when you consider the chance for write-ins, and how many people could receive votes, Obama's odds are practically zero in such a large field.


Do you have a third statistical you could cite?
 
2012-11-02 10:21:09 AM
I want a personal apology when Obama wins big.
 
2012-11-02 10:21:18 AM
Honestly, I think most "news" outlets would be better off saying that Obama's got it in the bag as that would generate more ratings, hits, etc. By now I figure a good deal of non-GOPers have exhausted trying to beat some logic into the opposition and won't waste their time with drivel. On the other hand, that sort of thing usually sends the teabaggers, freepers, et al into a fierce flagellated fatuous firey flatulent farktard frenzy.
 
2012-11-02 10:21:19 AM

Jairzinho: I take the liberty of re-posting this analysis made by Lando Lincoln in a previous thread few weeks ago.

[imageshack.us image 652x636]

I think I'll have a print copy of it and start scratching scenarios as the results come out on election night.


That is fantastic look at things and I'm stealing that
 
2012-11-02 10:23:31 AM
"Ahh, but the strawberries polls that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic..."
Dick Morris
 
2012-11-02 10:24:21 AM
When the picture of Reagan popped up, I knew that this was not going to be an article that based its conclusion on facts or logic.
 
2012-11-02 10:25:08 AM

DeathBySmiley: You forgot Gary Johnson.

Obama only has a 33% chance of being reelected.

Also, when you consider the chance for write-ins, and how many people could receive votes, Obama's odds are practically zero in such a large field.


And to think, you didn't even unSKEW The POLLs yet!

media.tumblr.com

My goodness! It sez here Romney already WON the election, STOLE 0bama's magical time machine, RETROACTIVELY put US economy in recovery.

ROMNEY is the reason for this better-than-predicted jobs number and and unemployment below 8%

www.artroulette.co
 
2012-11-02 10:25:33 AM
Intrade has obama at 67% and romney at 33%
 
2012-11-02 10:25:37 AM

impaler: Imperialism: and reports of the slow, anguishing response to Hurricane Sandy are not helping Obama, either. By Monday, the pictures could be horrific, and Obama's early grab for credit for a dramatic federal government response to Sandy could come back to haunt him.

Obama and FEMA were slow to react to Sandy? That's your angle?

No no no. They reacted too quickly.

FEMA Former Boss Michael Brown Says Obama Reacted Too Quickly To Hurricane Sandy Plights


When "Heckuvajerb" Brownie says you're farking up, you're doing something right.
 
2012-11-02 10:26:49 AM
rasmussen's latest national poll had a 48-48 tie. rasmussen.

My hopes of a Romney win are not high.
 
2012-11-02 10:26:55 AM
This and the Moonie article seem to be making the same argument: enthusiasm sky high for Romney, everyone tepid on Obama. In fact, everyone is SO tepid on Obama, that his campaign doth protest too much. He's showing STRESS. He's CONCERNED. Therefore, Romney landslide, despite what the statisticals say.

"He's slipping and sliding, we're rocking and rolling." -Michael Dukakis, in reference to George H.W. Bush, November 6, 1988

www.c-span.org
 
2012-11-02 10:28:33 AM
Well that article cited Dick Morris. I'm sold.
 
2012-11-02 10:28:35 AM

blahpers: impaler: Listen, there are 2 choices, like a coin flip. Obviously the odds are 50-50.

I wonder what percentage of the population never grasps the concept of probability beyond that level.


Well, 50%, right? Because there are only two choices; the either grasp probability beyond that level or they don't.
 
2012-11-02 10:28:36 AM

SlothB77: rasmussen's latest national poll had a 48-48 tie. rasmussen.

My hopes of a Romney win are not high.


Why did you have to mention R? Now the trolls are gonna come in here and say how R------- was the most accurate poll (ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION) in 2008.
 
2012-11-02 10:40:35 AM

Imperialism: and reports of the slow, anguishing response to Hurricane Sandy are not helping Obama, either. By Monday, the pictures could be horrific, and Obama's early grab for credit for a dramatic federal government response to Sandy could come back to haunt him.

Obama and FEMA were slow to react to Sandy? That's your angle?


The patheticism continues to know no bounds.
 
2012-11-02 10:44:43 AM

redmond24: DeathBySmiley: You forgot Gary Johnson.

Obama only has a 33% chance of being reelected.

Also, when you consider the chance for write-ins, and how many people could receive votes, Obama's odds are practically zero in such a large field.

And to think, you didn't even unSKEW The POLLs yet!

[media.tumblr.com image 500x300]

My goodness! It sez here Romney already WON the election, STOLE 0bama's magical time machine, RETROACTIVELY put US economy in recovery.

ROMNEY is the reason for this better-than-predicted jobs number and and unemployment below 8%

[www.artroulette.co image 200x200]


Aaaaaand...scene
 
2012-11-02 11:26:18 AM
It's interesting watching the groupthink in this election. Silver, Wang, etc. are all staking their claims based on the toplines of the polls. And under normal circumstances, they'd be exactly right. In 2008, that approach worked exactly right.

This ain't 2008.

I've been looking over the numbers, and there's a clear breakdown in the polling. It makes little sense for Romney to win Republicans by the traditional margins, win independents by 5-10%, and yet lose the election. What most Farkers forget is that the national polls and the swing-state polls are highly correlated. It doesn't make sense for Romney to have a narrow national lead but lose a state like Ohio with a PVI of R+2. What the polls are saying is that despite all the lack of solid evidence for it, the electorate has made an even more dramatic shift to the Democrats than they did in 2008.

Now, I know why Democratic partisans want that to be true, and I know the whole host of self-aggrandizement arguments for why they think it is true. But if it were true, we'd see evidence for it. If Democratic turnout was going to exceed 2008 level, then we'd see Democratic early voting exceeding 2008 level. It isn't - early voting is down from 2008, and in states like Ohio we're seeing evidence of less Democratic early voting and fewer early votes from key Democratic counties like Cuyahuga. If Democratic enthusiasm were up from 2008 we'd see evidence of that in polls - but none of them show that, and many of them show Republicans being more energized.

So something has to be wrong. The polls showing a strong Obama lead are based entirely on the assumption that Obama will build on his 2008 numbers. But we're not getting the hard evidence to suggest that is going to be remotely true. So what gives?

And if you want to know what's really going on, watch the campaigns. You have Axelrod out there assuring everyone that PA, MN, and MI are not really in play -- but you have Paul Ryan going to Minneapolis and Mitt Romney going to PA on Sunday. You have early voting figures favorable to the Republicans. You get the sense that the Romney campaign is very cautiously optimistic and you get the sense that the Obama campaign is in damage control mode. If the polls were right, you'd see the opposite. The Romney camp is serious about "expanding the map" which only makes sense if they see themselves with a viable path to 270. Meanwhile, you have Obama trying to preserve his electoral firewall. If Nate Silver and Sam Wang are right, then we should not be seeing what we're seeing from either side.

The problem with Silver and PEC is that they're trying to fit a non-mathematical process into a mathematical model. Most of the time, that's a safe bet. By some of the time, things utterly escape the models and all hell breaks loose. That's exactly what happened with the economy in 2008 - and I get the sense that's what's happening with the election predictions in 2012.

If the state polls are off, then all the models are off too, even if they're "correct" analytically. The right model taking in bad data will still be wrong, and the people looking at this stuff see a lot of signs that there's something very off about the data we're getting.
 
2012-11-02 11:28:30 AM
The Washington Post actually moved their Ohio on their electoral map from Lean Obama to Tossup because "Romney has to win Ohio".

Sounds scientific.
 
2012-11-02 11:42:07 AM

WombatControl: It's interesting watching the groupthink in this election. Silver, Wang, etc. are all staking their claims based on the toplines of the polls. And under normal circumstances, they'd be exactly right. In 2008, that approach worked exactly right.

This ain't 2008.

I've been looking over the numbers, and there's a clear breakdown in the polling. It makes little sense for Romney to win Republicans by the traditional margins, win independents by 5-10%, and yet lose the election. What most Farkers forget is that the national polls and the swing-state polls are highly correlated. It doesn't make sense for Romney to have a narrow national lead but lose a state like Ohio with a PVI of R+2. What the polls are saying is that despite all the lack of solid evidence for it, the electorate has made an even more dramatic shift to the Democrats than they did in 2008.

Now, I know why Democratic partisans want that to be true, and I know the whole host of self-aggrandizement arguments for why they think it is true. But if it were true, we'd see evidence for it. If Democratic turnout was going to exceed 2008 level, then we'd see Democratic early voting exceeding 2008 level. It isn't - early voting is down from 2008, and in states like Ohio we're seeing evidence of less Democratic early voting and fewer early votes from key Democratic counties like Cuyahuga. If Democratic enthusiasm were up from 2008 we'd see evidence of that in polls - but none of them show that, and many of them show Republicans being more energized.

So something has to be wrong. The polls showing a strong Obama lead are based entirely on the assumption that Obama will build on his 2008 numbers. But we're not getting the hard evidence to suggest that is going to be remotely true. So what gives?

And if you want to know what's really going on, watch the campaigns. You have Axelrod out there assuring everyone that PA, MN, and MI are not really in play -- but you have Paul Ryan going to Minneapolis and Mitt Romney goi ...


Hey Wombat, long time no see. Did you ever find any proof of the $10,000 building permit to construct a single shower?
 
2012-11-02 11:54:14 AM

WombatControl: It's interesting watching the groupthink in this election. Silver, Wang, etc. are all staking their claims based on the toplines of the polls. And under normal circumstances, they'd be exactly right. In 2008, that approach worked exactly right.

This ain't 2008.

I've been looking over the numbers, and there's a clear breakdown in the polling. It makes little sense for Romney to win Republicans by the traditional margins, win independents by 5-10%, and yet lose the election. What most Farkers forget is that the national polls and the swing-state polls are highly correlated. It doesn't make sense for Romney to have a narrow national lead but lose a state like Ohio with a PVI of R+2. What the polls are saying is that despite all the lack of solid evidence for it, the electorate has made an even more dramatic shift to the Democrats than they did in 2008.

Now, I know why Democratic partisans want that to be true, and I know the whole host of self-aggrandizement arguments for why they think it is true. But if it were true, we'd see evidence for it. If Democratic turnout was going to exceed 2008 level, then we'd see Democratic early voting exceeding 2008 level. It isn't - early voting is down from 2008, and in states like Ohio we're seeing evidence of less Democratic early voting and fewer early votes from key Democratic counties like Cuyahuga. If Democratic enthusiasm were up from 2008 we'd see evidence of that in polls - but none of them show that, and many of them show Republicans being more energized.

So something has to be wrong. The polls showing a strong Obama lead are based entirely on the assumption that Obama will build on his 2008 numbers. But we're not getting the hard evidence to suggest that is going to be remotely true. So what gives?

And if you want to know what's really going on, watch the campaigns. You have Axelrod out there assuring everyone that PA, MN, and MI are not really in play -- but you have Paul Ryan going to Minneapolis and Mitt Romney goi ...


What I like about your posts is that they are always wrong about everything (my favorites being when you take on your favorite topic of macroeconomics), but yet they are SO farkING detailed.
 
2012-11-02 11:55:45 AM

WombatControl: It makes little sense for Romney to win Republicans by the traditional margins, win independents by 5-10%, and yet lose the election.


i.imgur.com

Makes pretty good sense once you realize that many "Independents" currently are simply straight party Republican voters who in late 2010 became embarrassed to admit that they voted for Bush (twice) and McCain and decided to rebrand themselves as a "Tea Partier who has no affiliation with any party".
 
2012-11-02 11:57:29 AM
honest and possibly stupid question: when polling "likely voters," what do polling companies do when they call somebody who's already voted? is their vote included in the sample or are they thrown out?
 
2012-11-02 12:00:21 PM

FlashHarry: honest and possibly stupid question: when polling "likely voters," what do polling companies do when they call somebody who's already voted? is their vote included in the sample or are they thrown out?


They're included, and often times they're broken out into a separate sub sample in the cross tabs.
 
2012-11-02 12:02:51 PM

InmanRoshi: FlashHarry: honest and possibly stupid question: when polling "likely voters," what do polling companies do when they call somebody who's already voted? is their vote included in the sample or are they thrown out?

They're included, and often times they're broken out into a separate sub sample in the cross tabs.


ah, thanks.
 
2012-11-02 12:03:41 PM

WombatControl: Herpity Derpity derpity DOOOOoooo!


Let me guess, you're a contortionist in a freak show for a living.
 
2012-11-02 12:12:47 PM

InmanRoshi: Makes pretty good sense once you realize that many "Independents" currently are simply straight party Republican voters who in late 2010 became embarrassed to admit that they voted for Bush (twice) and McCain and decided to rebrand themselves as a "Tea Partier who has no affiliation with any party".


That's pretty funny. I've never seen that in a chart before. It's almost like they came right out and said, Yes, we know our party sucks and we aren't going to claim it, but we're still going to vote for OUR SIDE every single time.
 
2012-11-02 12:16:50 PM
Romney is winning because of these three numbers:

Palin supporter: 27%
+ disallusioned Dems: 40%
+ Teaparty activists: 30%
-------------------------------
Romney support 72%
 
2012-11-02 12:17:32 PM
New daily tracking numbers from Rasmussen: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rasmussen-tracking-obama-t ies-romney

Surprisingly in the last week of polling Rasmussen moves toward every other pollster. I mean it's like clockwork!
 
2012-11-02 12:31:52 PM

WombatControl: You get the sense that the Romney campaign is very cautiously optimistic and you get the sense that the Obama campaign is in damage control mode. If the polls were right, you'd see the opposite.


No, you do. Don't project.

Silver's "model" is "looking at polls." He also weighs them based on their dependability. The five latest polls in PA have Obama up 3, 5,5,6, and 4 points. There is no "model" here. Obama is winning PA.
 
2012-11-02 12:32:39 PM

amiable: New daily tracking numbers from Rasmussen: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rasmussen-tracking-obama-t ies-romney

Surprisingly in the last week of polling Rasmussen moves toward every other pollster. I mean it's like clockwork!


Indeed: I mean, its so crazy no one could have predicted this sudden consensus of the poles. Its not like there isn't more than a decade of historical evidence to back it up or anything.
 
2012-11-02 12:40:26 PM

InmanRoshi: WombatControl: It makes little sense for Romney to win Republicans by the traditional margins, win independents by 5-10%, and yet lose the election.



Makes pretty good sense once you realize that many "Independents" currently are simply straight party Republican voters who in late 2010 became embarrassed to admit that they voted for Bush (twice) and McCain and decided to rebrand themselves as a "Tea Partier who has no affiliation with any party".


That's the popular theory, but there's no support for it. Look at actual party registrations in swing states: you see an increase in Republicans, an increase in independents, and either slow growth or a decrease in Democrats. If the "independents are really Republican" theory were true, we'd see the opposite.

That is one of those self-serving narratives I alluded to earlier. Democrats may want to believe that's the case, but the evidence is not there.

Again, assuming that 2012 will be a bigger pro-D wave than 2008 is just not a viable assumption based on the evidence we have. If that were true, we'd see it in early voting and voter enthusiasm - and we'd see it in the national polls as well.

Mathematically it makes no sense to argue that Democratic turnout in 2012 (where the race is a statistical dead heat) will match or exceed 2008 (where Obama led by 7 points) and yet Obama when we know:

1. Republican turnout is looking to exceed 2008 in swing states.
2. Romney is consistently winning independents. (McCain lost independents by 8% in 2008 - right about his loss margin nationally.)
3. Preliminary early voting shows the Democrats not hitting their 2008 numbers.

Something isn't adding up, and what's not adding up are the turnout assumptions. If this is a bigger pro-D year than 2008, Obama narrowly wins. If this is a year where the PVI is at its typical D+3.2 or less, there's a good chance Obama loses.

From what I'm seeing, both campaigns are acting like it's the latter.
 
2012-11-02 12:49:45 PM

Frosty_Icehole: Honestly, I think most "news" outlets would be better off saying that Obama's got it in the bag as that would generate more ratings, hits, etc. By now I figure a good deal of non-GOPers have exhausted trying to beat some logic into the opposition and won't waste their time with drivel. On the other hand, that sort of thing usually sends the teabaggers, freepers, et al into a fierce flagellated fatuous firey flatulent farktard frenzy.


The F you say!
 
2012-11-02 12:50:33 PM

WombatControl: Lots of words that make little sense when you actually analyze them.


Just for you, Nate silver wrote a response completely debunking your bogus talking points: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nov-1-the-simple-c ase-for-saying-obama-is-the-favorite/
 
2012-11-02 12:56:31 PM

WombatControl: 1. Republican turnout is looking to exceed 2008 in swing states.
2. Romney is consistently winning independents. (McCain lost independents by 8% in 2008 - right about his loss margin nationally.)
3. Preliminary early voting shows the Democrats not hitting their 2008 numbers.



These are some amazing statisticals. Again, a nice screen capture for future meming on November 7th.
 
2012-11-02 01:12:09 PM

somedude210: Jairzinho: I take the liberty of re-posting this analysis made by Lando Lincoln in a previous thread few weeks ago.

[imageshack.us image 652x636]

I think I'll have a print copy of it and start scratching scenarios as the results come out on election night.

That is fantastic look at things and I'm stealing that


FL & OH are going to take forever to count, but...

Early to bed:

If Romney loses NH, that's 15 scenarios out.
If Romney loses NH & VA, that gets rid of another 10.
If NC also swings back to Obama, you could be pushing Zzz's by 11pm EST.
 
2012-11-02 02:05:43 PM

WombatControl: You get the sense that the Romney campaign is very cautiously optimistic and you get the sense that the Obama campaign is in damage control mode.


So, would you care to make a bet on Romney over Obama in the Electoral College, if over even money I give you a bookie's edge -- say, five for four? I'll even count a tie in the College as a Romney win for the bet.
 
2012-11-02 02:06:34 PM
Has anyone mentioned "statisticals" yet?


//statisticals
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report