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 Examiner)   Michael Barone tries to outdo Nate Silver; you already know where this is heading   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 119
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4195 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 3:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-03 06:27:03 PM

VictoryCabal: St_Francis_P: That, and I seriously doubt The Examiner pays its contributors. At least for their sake, I hope they don't.

EngineerAU: A friend use to write a dating column for the Examiner. She got paid something like a tenth of a penny per page view. Think she made about twenty five dollars for the entire year of writing articles.

I believe you're confusing The Examiner, which pays writers a fraction of a penny per page view, with The Washington Examiner, a DC newspaper given away for free in the Metro stations, and prized by the local homeless population for it's effectiveness as a blanket and as bum wipe.


They're owned by the same multi-billionaire and run basically the same tripe.

mrshowrules: Who wins is close to meaningless to the accuracy of Nate's predictions.

He called the odds of 50 States and the popular vote. That's 51 data points to determine his accuracy.


Looking at the odds is really not the best way to do an after-the-fact assessment of his performance, because the outputs are all 1's and 0's (and as he's noted, if he has the correct state winner on every single state, including all the ones he has as 60-40 propositions, that's not the optimal result). I think looking at his predicted margins is the better way to see if there's a bias.
 
2012-11-03 06:35:37 PM
What I really wonder, is when Republican pundits say things like this, do they know in their head it is a total lie but they have to toe the party line no matter what, or have they convinced themselves it's really true?
 
2012-11-03 06:38:41 PM
Republicans: Go back to 2008 and see what you were saying then.

Democrats: Go back to 2004 and see what you were saying then.

/Obama/Fartbongo is gonna win
//Be happy/get over it
 
2012-11-03 06:42:41 PM

NobleHam: Muta: jake_lex: The thing is that all this Republican butthurt over Nate Silver just makes him more and more credible, especially when your efforts to "refute" him are based on wishful thinking and total bullshiat.

It is stupid to write a column going all in for Romney at this point since it will be refuted within a couple days if your wrong. A credible author would included some type of disclaimer like "it is too early to know the impact of hurricane Sandy and that may help Obama".

Nah. If he's wrong, he goes in the big pile of people who were wrong and no one will remember in a few weeks, much less four years from now. On the off chance he's right, though, he gets hailed as a prophet and becomes trusted and respected for the next go round. People forget who was wrong, but the more absurd your prediction the more acclaim you'll get if it comes true.


He was embarrassingly wrong 4 years ago, predicting a McCain blowout. As you point out, that didn't mean dick. As long as he can get people to read and WANT to believe, he'll still keep making money for being an idiot.
 
2012-11-03 06:44:11 PM

RminusQ: Looking at the odds is really not the best way to do an after-the-fact assessment of his performance, because the outputs are all 1's and 0's (and as he's noted, if he has the correct state winner on every single state, including all the ones he has as 60-40 propositions, that's not the optimal result). I think looking at his predicted margins is the better way to see if there's a bias.


I said much the same thing in a thread yesterday, only more verbosely and less eloquently. It's also the only thing that informs about Nate's ability in the future to call other tight races. Another reason to hold Nate to this standard is that it's the same standard he holds pollsters to in evaluating their performance.

Incidentally, a popular right-wing talking point in the campaign to discredit Nate is to claim that "in 2008 anybody could have called the winner in nearly all the states", which of course -- probably deliberately -- misses the point.

By the way, in addition to the margins in the individual states, Nate (and PEC and others) are also forecasting the various Senate races, so that's another couple of handfuls of data points..
 
2012-11-03 06:50:57 PM

RminusQ: mrshowrules: Who wins is close to meaningless to the accuracy of Nate's predictions.

He called the odds of 50 States and the popular vote. That's 51 data points to determine his accuracy.

Looking at the odds is really not the best way to do an after-the-fact assessment of his performance, because the outputs are all 1's and 0's (and as he's noted, if he has the correct state winner on every single state, including all the ones he has as 60-40 propositions, that's not the optimal result). I think looking at his predicted margins is the better way to see if there's a bias.


His accuracy on the 51 data points is what I meant. Wins/losses are not really relevant. However, if your accuracy is close, you will get most of your wins/losses correct as well. He got 49/50 in the 2008 election. He also did really well in 2010.
 
2012-11-03 06:59:19 PM

vygramul: jso2897: vygramul: FlashHarry: dr_blasto: Even if Romney wins, Silver is still right.

well, yeah. an upset football game doesn't change the fact that the favored team was the probable winner. but if romney wins, it's an upset.

If the weather guy says there's a 20% chance of rain, and it rains, did that make him wrong and biased against rain?

Uh, actually, if it rains for roughly a fifth of the day, he's exactly right. Rain, unlike winning or losing an election, isn't an either/or proposition. The football analogy is better - someone wins, someone loses, and there are given probabilities of either of those things happening.

That's not how weather prediction works.


You are not allowed to say that without posting an image of Morbo chewing out the crying anchorwoman.,
 
2012-11-03 07:02:17 PM

Corvus: Who should you listen to:

A) Person who makes prediction model way before the election starts. Uses that prediction model without changing it no matter what it says.

B) person who after all the data is in then decides what he wants to pick and choose to be the important data to come up with a conclusion he already supported.


Trick question!

There is no way to judge the validity of their methods without knowing which one provides the answer I want.
 
2012-11-03 07:23:29 PM

Kevin72: dr_blasto: The simple fact is that unless the polls are statistically biased toward Obama, Romney has zero chance of winning.

I would guess final tally will have O winning 50.5 to 48% nationally. I expect Romney to win FL and possibly CO. OH and VA won't be called till very late, I expect OH to have some problems and I expect VA to have several reported irregularities that may drag out the call for longer than usual. The only way Romney wins the popular vote is if he overperforms in every one of his states like TX and the turnout in NYC is seriously affected by Sandy, making NY much closer than it would normally be.

Nate would say 16.3% chance for Romney. 1: 6. Not zero. Romney has chances, and it's 1: 6.


And Nate would be correct.

IF the polls are right, Romney cannot win. That 16.3% probability represents the probability that the polls are incorrect; Obama leads in every one today. Those polls would have to all have critical errors for Romney to win.
 
2012-11-03 07:24:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ilambiquated: whistleridge: With the sole exception of Ryan being somewhat more competent than Palin

He totally disappeared after being booed by AARP

You'll notice that he hasn't been to very many swing states this past week. I find that very telling. He isn't going to Ohio at all. He'd probably be strung up.


Never have I seen a Presidential candidate so reluctant to have his VP choice campaign for him. Even McCain had Palin on the road and conducting rallies right to election day. Ryan has been not in the spotlight for weeks now.
 
2012-11-03 07:48:19 PM

eddiesocket: To be fair, I'm sure there were plenty of articles crowing about a Kerry win in 2004.


To be fair, I remember being optimistic about my state in 04 and depressed about the overall - particularly when I was watching Stewart pleading for people to get to the polls the day before the election. Somehow I remember the undertone of desperation there that matched my own perfectly. And I was right, sadly enough.

Oh, except my state voted for Kerry and also voted to ban gay marriage. That actually *shouldn't* have surprised me, but I lived in a nice college bubble, so it kinda did.
 
2012-11-03 07:54:26 PM
Seriously I am getting damned tired of Republican bald facing lying trying to put the results of their congressional stone walling slowing the recovery to a crawl on Obama when they own it 100% .
 
2012-11-03 07:55:38 PM

Corvus: Who should you listen to:

A) Person who makes prediction model way before the election starts. Uses that prediction model without changing it no matter what it says.

B) person who after all the data is in then decides what he wants to pick and choose to be the important data to come up with a conclusion he already supported.



So, what saying is that the person A above, is very much like a Republican, who steadfastly refuses to budge from their original theories....and person B is a Democrat, who deals with mo nuanced replies to the current and ever-changing situations?
 
2012-11-03 09:32:57 PM
So he will resign as senior political analyst if Obama wins?

/Of course not. Talking head never hide their faces in shame no matter how wrong they are.
 
2012-11-03 10:45:16 PM

syrynxx: California (55) - Although most polls show this state comfortably in the Obama column, we all know the hippies will be home smoking their medical marijuana and forget to even vote. Romney.

New York (29) - All the bleeding-heart liberals in New York City are out of gas to drive to a polling station, and would be too busy recharging their iPhones to vote anyway. Upstate New York is all Republican. Romney.

Illinois (20) - I can't think of any way Romney could possibly win this state, but what about those four Americans who died in Benghazi? I bet there are enough corn farmers hoppin' mad over Benghazi to swing this state red. Romney.


OK, the first two was somewhat predictable. But Kudos for the 3rd one.

Good job.
 
2012-11-03 10:53:53 PM
blog.eogn.comhealth.usnews.com

The above pictures read Romney, therefore he wins.

/A better logic than TFA.
 
2012-11-04 02:09:52 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Talk is cheap. Show me a GOP cheer-leader who is willing to back up his prediction with a substantial bet on intrade. Put your money where your mouth is. Until you do, I'll pay attention to what the guy who made a living off of his predictions has to say.


At this point I'm just sick and tired of Republicans in general. How long have they been running for the presidency, again? How long have they been campaigning instead of fixing problems they created? At this point, I simply don't care what their lying shills say anyway. We all know that nobody really supports Republican policies or even Republicans themselves, it's all just repetition from narrow-minded people who don't even know what the Republicans stand for anyway. At this point it's not even a real conversation, it's just voting against ignorance and bigotry. Everything a Republican says is a farking lie. You don't even have to look it up anymore. They're all a bunch of liars who don't deserve to be walking free on the streets, much less with any degree of actual power.

I'm not even angry about it, I just realize that the only thing elections should be about is throwing Republicans and their sycophants out of power and it's going to take a few cycles. Once everybody realizes this, America will be a better place. We don't need the Republican Party anymore. Nobody does. It stands for nothing but obstruction and everybody involved is a waste of flesh, time, and effort.
 
2012-11-04 05:05:24 AM
Someone where I work always puts on Fox News in the break room.

While I was trying to eat, I semi-watched this tool Barone being interviewed with his "prediction."

I wonder if he turns out wrong if Fox News will have him back... Probably. But to call him on his crap? Probably not.
 
2012-11-04 07:57:47 AM
FTFA:
Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue-collar voters for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

Sorry, dude, they shot their wad on the "Let's screw over the gheys!" amendment to the Ohio Constitution in 2004. They don't have any similar ballot initiatives to get out the evangelical voters.

Certainly nothing that will make them hold their noses and vote for a Mormon.

(Officially the only up side to having my state vote heavily for intolerance... 8 years ago.)
 
Displayed 19 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report