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.

(The New York Times)   Let's see what Nate Silver has to say as "most of the polls that we've seen over the past several days are the last ones that polling firms will be releasing into the field"   (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 254
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

6135 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 4:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-03 11:16:50 AM
Heh, "Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking."
 
2012-11-03 11:19:06 AM
Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is "too close to call." It isn't. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can't acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

Couldn't have called Scarborough (AND his editor!) out more plainly.
 
2012-11-03 11:44:00 AM
Isolated voters, overzealous pollster.
 
2012-11-03 11:52:12 AM
Friday's polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida.

Dammit, Nate. they are trying to sell a horse race narrative and your facts are not helping in that regard!

/Reveling in the power that is TF.
//Shoutout to Hammetman, TY 4 teh TF. [who'sawesome?.jpg]
///Now to lord it over teh filthy liters!!! 
 
2012-11-03 11:53:23 AM

Elandriel: Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is "too close to call." It isn't. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can't acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

Couldn't have called Scarborough (AND his editor!) out more plainly.


Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks. Not really surprising though, given that a pretty big part of the GOP have personally come after him for single-handedly stopping the myth of Mitt-mentum.

But that's an extraordinarily definitive polling day. Even if you accept, as I do, that Ohio will be stolen by fraudulent machines, if Romney can't win Florida he has no chance, and he still needs other swing states too. To be down in all of them is a sign he's done.
 
2012-11-03 11:55:11 AM

GAT_00: Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks


I don't call that "buckling," I call that "having a spine" which is not something that media people are generally known for.
 
2012-11-03 11:56:48 AM

cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks

I don't call that "buckling," I call that "having a spine" which is not something that media people are generally known for.


Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog. I don't think he would consider himself a media personality.
 
2012-11-03 11:59:07 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks

I don't call that "buckling," I call that "having a spine" which is not something that media people are generally known for.

Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog. I don't think he would consider himself a media personality.


He is one of the most important people to this election cycle. And just because you don't want to be a media person doesn't mean you aren't.
 
2012-11-03 12:00:29 PM

GAT_00: Uchiha_Cycliste: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks

I don't call that "buckling," I call that "having a spine" which is not something that media people are generally known for.

Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog. I don't think he would consider himself a media personality.

He is one of the most important people to this election cycle. And just because you don't want to be a media person doesn't mean you aren't.


I'm not sure I agree, his *results* are a crucial factor in this election cycle. He could or could not be there and it would all be the same.
 
2012-11-03 12:15:32 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog. I don't think he would consider himself a media personality.


If it is good enough for the Times, it is good enough for me.

It's also inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he's not a regular staff member.
 
2012-11-03 12:18:48 PM

vartian: Uchiha_Cycliste: Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog. I don't think he would consider himself a media personality.

If it is good enough for the Times, it is good enough for me.

It's also inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he's not a regular staff member.


Okie Dokie, you guys are right. And I've learned something... everyone wins!


\but Romney
 
2012-11-03 12:50:49 PM
We don't just want a horse race, we know in our gut that it is one.
 
2012-11-03 02:48:14 PM
I love how Silver shows how Obama's significant lead in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and Wisconsin are not sampling errors whereas Romney's thin lead in Florida could very well represent a sampling error. Sure could see how this would piss off Conservatives. KILL THE MESSENGER!

/to they crazies out there, it is an expression - please don't kill anyone
 
2012-11-03 02:51:25 PM

themindiswatching: We don't just want a horse race, we know in our gut that it is one.


If you want to think it is a horse race. It has 5 perfectly identical horses. Obama owns 4 and Romney owns 1. Place your bets.
 
2012-11-03 03:26:16 PM

mrshowrules: If you want to think it is a horse race. It has 5 perfectly identical horses. Obama owns 4 and Romney owns 1.


And Romney's is dancing.
 
2012-11-03 04:04:23 PM

Elandriel: mrshowrules: If you want to think it is a horse race. It has 5 perfectly identical horses. Obama owns 4 and Romney owns 1.

And Romney's is dancing.


Backwards.

/pretty impressive, though
//for a horse
 
2012-11-03 04:09:53 PM
Does anyone study the butterfly effect of polling?

There might be some PhD grade stuff to research on the effects of polls on future poll results.
 
2012-11-03 04:11:33 PM
The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.
 
2012-11-03 04:11:47 PM
No, he's not going to sleep with you.
 
2012-11-03 04:13:32 PM

Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.


And replaced with what?
 
2012-11-03 04:14:49 PM
Math has a well-known liberal bias.
 
2012-11-03 04:15:53 PM
yeah but a fat dood said he was girlie
 
2012-11-03 04:16:17 PM
But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.

That seems generous.
 
2012-11-03 04:18:01 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: And replaced with what?


The same thing, but with attractive female electors in lingerie instead of frumpy old party sycophants.
 
2012-11-03 04:18:34 PM

Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.


Would you feel that way if Romney was winning?
 
2012-11-03 04:18:43 PM
I truly cannot comprehend the amount of Republican butthurt that will exist starting about 8pm on Tuesday night.


In men, the researchers found, a Super Bowl loss was associated with a 15 percent increase in heart deaths compared to expected deaths, whereas in women, there was a 27 percent increase. The risks were greater in seniors than in younger folks. In terms of absolute risk, there were an extra 2.6 deaths per 100,000 people over age 65 each day during the two weeks following the loss; for those under 65, the increased death rate was 0.11 per 100,000 people each day.



I have to wonder, how many people Obama is going to kill just by being re-elected.

Think about it. I have never seen such vehement angst about an election before. It's even worse than 2008 for Thor's sake. It's not out of the realm of possibility to think that there will be a few people so pissed off about this that they'll have heart attacks.

/If there is a God, please let one of them be Rush Limbaugh
 
2012-11-03 04:21:15 PM
"For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024
 
2012-11-03 04:23:51 PM

Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024


My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.
 
2012-11-03 04:25:17 PM
Yes, it's hot, but it's a dead heat.
 
2012-11-03 04:25:46 PM

quatchi: Dammit, Nate. they are trying to sell a horse race narrative and your facts are not helping in that regard!


Interesting point. Usually when there is a large voter turnout, it helps the Dems, not the GOP.
Are the right wingers shooting themselves in the foot pushing this narrative or are they actually ham stringing Romney because his name doesn't end in Bush or something else more preferred?
However, if it's anywhere close to a tie like they say, you better get out and vote.
/has already voted early
 
2012-11-03 04:26:05 PM
It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016. We will have at least a couple more years of gridlock and a continued plodding recovery. Hopefully we will hit a point at which confidence returns in a major way and businesses start spending all that cash they are currently sitting on. Whomever wins will preside over a recovery regardless of their policies. President Obama will probably have a budget thats around 24% of GDP and Romney will probably have a budget around 20% of GDP. There is a difference but nothing huge. President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy. Their influence lies almost completely in how much they are trusted and in how much confidence they can instill into the people and businesses via the "bully pulpit". If everybody believes that things are getting better, things will get better much faster, if there is no hope, no enthusiasm and no stability we will have a much slower recovery. I hope that whomever is elected will inspire us but I'm not holding my breath.
 
2012-11-03 04:26:20 PM

PonceAlyosha: My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.


You mean like other serial campaigners like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?
 
2012-11-03 04:27:02 PM

Irregardless: President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy.


How anyone can say that after the Bush administration is goddamn beyond me.
 
2012-11-03 04:27:17 PM

Dull Cow Eyes: /Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024


I think he's pissed off enough of the party elite that he won't make it far in 2016. Someone with charisma will show up when they're not facing the prospect of running against Obama. They thought they had a chance in 2008, so they put up somebody who could have won (till they screwed it all up). Romney got in because everyone better than him realized this election was career suicide and found better things to do until 2016. There will be a MUCH better slate in the republican primaries next time around. The loonies will still be there, of course, but there will be a real contender or two as well.
 
2012-11-03 04:27:23 PM
Princeton Election Consortium is giving Obama a 98% chance of winning in one analysis, and 99.8% in another.
 
2012-11-03 04:27:40 PM
Maybe all of this polling information will show that the era of 2 parties isn't in the best monetary interest of the 24/7 media and they need to let a 3rd and 4th party in to play against the other 2. Look at the primaries, they filled a ton of time with all the flavor of the week candidates.

One can dream.
 
2012-11-03 04:27:43 PM

Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024


Doubtful. If he gets thrashed in this election I don't think he'll really have the momentum within his party to make it past the primary again. His entire campaign is just giving opponents outside and within his party ammunition.
 
2012-11-03 04:28:32 PM

PonceAlyosha: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.


That's a lot of HOPE.
 
2012-11-03 04:31:08 PM

tolallorti: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Doubtful. If he gets thrashed in this election I don't think he'll really have the momentum within his party to make it past the primary again. His entire campaign is just giving opponents outside and within his party ammunition.


The entire GOP establishment (including Fox News) will throw Romney completely under the bus. I figure we'll have about a week or two of whining about stolen votes or conspiracies. Once it's obvious they can't get the results changed through some legal challenges and accept the results, they'll turn on Romney completely.
 
2012-11-03 04:31:31 PM
i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-03 04:32:23 PM
Corrections: "that's", "Presidents" "the ability" "faster. If"

/ipad keyboard and correction software is not great
//I'm also very lazy about proofreading
 
2012-11-03 04:33:05 PM
FORWARD to CHANGE!
 
2012-11-03 04:33:36 PM
Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters
unskewedpolls.com

There will be a lot of crying libs this wednesday.
 
2012-11-03 04:34:13 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: And replaced with what?


A month-long post-election reality TV deathmatch between teams of electors, of course. The ratings would be fantastic.
 
2012-11-03 04:34:17 PM
He's purposely skewing everything for Obama because he's tired of being taken seriously and is hoping to screw things up so badly he not only loses his job, but is laughed at by women and children when he walks down the street.

or something.
 
2012-11-03 04:34:47 PM
Yes, the horserace claptrap is based on nothing. You won't hear any candidate on either side say so, though, because it suits their purpose to maintain the illusion of a competitive race as much as it suits the journalists' purpose. Everyone knows that the presidential race is done, so now all the focus is on downticket races. Both parties want their own voters to believe the presidential race is close because it will be key to winning House and Senate seats, statehouses, and state legislatures.
 
2012-11-03 04:36:07 PM
i566.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-03 04:38:57 PM

MithrandirBooga: I have to wonder, how many people Obama is going to kill just by being re-elected.


Maybe that's Obama's economic plan. Win the election, kill off all the Fox geezers and when Congress swings massively blue from it in the midterms actually get something done for the first time in almost six years.
 
2012-11-03 04:39:15 PM
Polls are a tool of propaganda, and nothing more.
 
2012-11-03 04:39:49 PM
I carpool with my coworker. The ride after the results are announced is going to be entertaining, because he's absolutely convinced himself of two things: 1) that the economy is the most important issue regarding election in this campaign, and 2) Romney's gonna win.

I told him that the critical issue is women's reproductive rights. The look on his face was priceless when he looked up the polling in swing states and found out I was right.
 
2012-11-03 04:40:08 PM

Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters


I know this is a joke, but no one will fall for it. Everyone knows that the correspondence between the 20% who are Teabaggers and the 20% who are Palin supporters is 1:1.
 
2012-11-03 04:40:11 PM
 
2012-11-03 04:40:43 PM

Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters
[unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

There will be a lot of crying libs this wednesday.


there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.

// 1 in 6 undecided
// clinton supporters for palin, etc...
 
2012-11-03 04:41:07 PM

NeoCortex42: tolallorti: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Doubtful. If he gets thrashed in this election I don't think he'll really have the momentum within his party to make it past the primary again. His entire campaign is just giving opponents outside and within his party ammunition.

The entire GOP establishment (including Fox News) will throw Romney completely under the bus. I figure we'll have about a week or two of whining about stolen votes or conspiracies. Once it's obvious they can't get the results changed through some legal challenges and accept the results, they'll turn on Romney completely.


They will never accept the results. At this point in this election, where most people are sure their guy is gonna win, the losing side will not accept the legitimacy of the winner.
 
2012-11-03 04:42:06 PM
i45.tinypic.com

"The race is tightening!"
 
2012-11-03 04:42:10 PM

pacified: there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.


www.madmann.com
 
2012-11-03 04:42:46 PM

PonceAlyosha: Irregardless: President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy.

How anyone can say that after the Bush administration is goddamn beyond me.


Do you really think that Bush single handedly caused the recession? A couple of bubbles burst that were a long time in the making. Do you think he planned it that way? He's not smart enough for that. Hell, he obviously didn't even see it coming. Presidents should receive neither credit or blame for how the economy does while they sit in the white house. If anything they may have one longer term effects that they can be held responsible for but most of those don't have a huge immediate effect. Think Obamacare - there are some good ideas but the devil will be in the details and in the execution. We will know if it's truly successful in about 15-20 years and the vast majority of the execution is completely out of president Obama's control.
 
2012-11-03 04:42:58 PM

wildcardjack: Does anyone study the butterfly effect of polling?

There might be some PhD grade stuff to research on the effects of polls on future poll results.


It's turtles all the way down.
 
2012-11-03 04:43:27 PM

12349876: pacified: there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]


a gentleman and a scholar! Thank you sir.
 
2012-11-03 04:44:26 PM

GAT_00: Elandriel: Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is "too close to call." It isn't. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can't acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

Couldn't have called Scarborough (AND his editor!) out more plainly.

Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks. Not really surprising though, given that a pretty big part of the GOP have personally come after him for single-handedly stopping the myth of Mitt-mentum.

But that's an extraordinarily definitive polling day. Even if you accept, as I do, that Ohio will be stolen by fraudulent machines, if Romney can't win Florida he has no chance, and he still needs other swing states too. To be down in all of them is a sign he's done.


Nate's model still has Romney slightly favored in Florida, but I think that might be wrong given the latest polls an the fact that the Democrats are leading the Republicans in early voting turnout.
 
2012-11-03 04:46:07 PM

Blue_Blazer: NeoCortex42: tolallorti: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Doubtful. If he gets thrashed in this election I don't think he'll really have the momentum within his party to make it past the primary again. His entire campaign is just giving opponents outside and within his party ammunition.

The entire GOP establishment (including Fox News) will throw Romney completely under the bus. I figure we'll have about a week or two of whining about stolen votes or conspiracies. Once it's obvious they can't get the results changed through some legal challenges and accept the results, they'll turn on Romney completely.

They will never accept the results. At this point in this election, where most people are sure their guy is gonna win, the losing side will not accept the legitimacy of the winner.


I have no doubt there will be conspiracy crap for a long time. Just look at how the birth certificate thing is still around. But I do think that it won't be headline news on Fox for more than a couple weeks. They'll need to move on to something else to get viewers. That something else will probably be analyzing how badly Romney screwed up and how Ryan should have been at the top of the ticket from the beginning.
 
2012-11-03 04:46:48 PM
Of course, Obama is leading in most of the swing-state polls. Because most of the last round of polls were done by pollsters that have been biased towards Obama this entire cycle (Marist, and to a lesser extent PPP).

Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about them. But that may very well be the case. Marist shows the Democrats with a bigger advantage in Ohio than they had in 2008 - but that seems highly unlikely. Mitt Romney had a rally with over 20,000 people last night. Obama was also in Ohio and had fewer people attend than McCain did in 2008! If the Ohio electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic - more so than it was in 2008, why don't we see other evidence of that. Why are the early voting totals in strongly Democratic counties like Cuyahoga less than the 2008 numbers? Why isn't Obama getting bigger-than-2008 crowds? Why are polls of voter enthusiasm not showing a bunch of highly motivated Democrats and dispirited Republicans?

What Nate Silver is doing is looking just at the toplines of the polls - but that doesn't tell the whole story.

So yes, in order for this race to be truly competitive, the polls have to be wrong. But I can say that Mitt Romney has his own internal polling, and it's showing a result dramatically different than what the public polls say. And I can also say that Barack Obama also has his internal polling, and that's showing a very different picture than the public polls (although much closer).

Silver's model will work perfectly assuming that the polls are working perfectly. But the problem isn't Silver's model, it's that the current system of public polling we have in this country is breaking down for reasons that are not yet clear.

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers are not that inexplicable. We will know in four days...
 
2012-11-03 04:47:20 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog.


He HAD a blog. He was so successful in calling the 2008 election that the Times co-opted him by giving him a place on their website, to add legitimacy to their fading brand.
 
2012-11-03 04:47:26 PM

Blue_Blazer: the losing side will not accept the legitimacy of the winner.


I think they'll accept by rewriting history...Rmoney wasn't conservative enough. like the financial collapse wasn't caused by deregulation, it was caused by not enough deregulation.

You'll hear a lot of "gossh, if only a real conservative like Ryan had been nominated"
 
2012-11-03 04:48:49 PM

NeoCortex42: tolallorti: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Doubtful. If he gets thrashed in this election I don't think he'll really have the momentum within his party to make it past the primary again. His entire campaign is just giving opponents outside and within his party ammunition.

The entire GOP establishment (including Fox News) will throw Romney completely under the bus. I figure we'll have about a week or two of whining about stolen votes or conspiracies. Once it's obvious they can't get the results changed through some legal challenges and accept the results, they'll turn on Romney completely.


Oh ya. Unless Romney loses by 2 EV's he's getting strapped to the ramp of a bus factory until 2016.
 
2012-11-03 04:48:54 PM
LOL @ WombatControl

There's one in every crowd.
 
2012-11-03 04:49:12 PM

WombatControl: Of course, Obama is leading in most of the swing-state polls. Because most of the last round of polls were done by pollsters that have been biased towards Obama this entire cycle (Marist, and to a lesser extent PPP).

Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about them. But that may very well be the case. Marist shows the Democrats with a bigger advantage in Ohio than they had in 2008 - but that seems highly unlikely. Mitt Romney had a rally with over 20,000 people last night. Obama was also in Ohio and had fewer people attend than McCain did in 2008! If the Ohio electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic - more so than it was in 2008, why don't we see other evidence of that. Why are the early voting totals in strongly Democratic counties like Cuyahoga less than the 2008 numbers? Why isn't Obama getting bigger-than-2008 crowds? Why are polls of voter enthusiasm not showing a bunch of highly motivated Democrats and dispirited Republicans?

What Nate Silver is doing is looking just at the toplines of the polls - but that doesn't tell the whole story.

So yes, in order for this race to be truly competitive, the polls have to be wrong. But I can say that Mitt Romney has his own internal polling, and it's showing a result dramatically different than what the public polls say. And I can also say that Barack Obama also has his internal polling, and that's showing a very different picture than the public polls (although much closer).

Silver's model will work perfectly assuming that the polls are working perfectly. But the problem isn't Silver's model, it's that the current system of public polling we have in this country is breaking down for reasons that are not yet clear.

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...


is this one of those "identify the songs by a band" post?
 
2012-11-03 04:49:27 PM

WombatControl: and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think


someones been hangin out at unskewed polls again.
 
2012-11-03 04:49:40 PM

Irregardless: It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016


Just the same, i will reserve shouting until the votes are in. With my luck I would jinx if for Obama if I shouted now.

Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"

See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.

/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024



Win or lose, this is it for Romney.

Either he just throws in the towel on running again by his own choice or he will be bounced away in future elections by republicans who never really liked him but found him to be less obnoxious than the other 10 or so GOP candidates this year. Mitt got the nod this year not because of his political ideology, but from the experience he gained as a losing candidate before. He knew when to shut up and let the rest of the field implode while he maintained a steady flight under the radar until there was nobody else left. He is a candidate via attrition, not popularity.

So either he wins this year and resigns in disgrace in a couple of years when all the hidden crap of his life comes out or he just fades away after his concession speech Tuesday night. 

Good riddance.
 
2012-11-03 04:50:59 PM

WombatControl: Of course, Obama is leading in most of the swing-state polls. Because most of the last round of polls were done by pollsters that have been biased towards Obama this entire cycle (Marist, and to a lesser extent PPP).

Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about them. But that may very well be the case. Marist shows the Democrats with a bigger advantage in Ohio than they had in 2008 - but that seems highly unlikely. Mitt Romney had a rally with over 20,000 people last night. Obama was also in Ohio and had fewer people attend than McCain did in 2008! If the Ohio electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic - more so than it was in 2008, why don't we see other evidence of that. Why are the early voting totals in strongly Democratic counties like Cuyahoga less than the 2008 numbers? Why isn't Obama getting bigger-than-2008 crowds? Why are polls of voter enthusiasm not showing a bunch of highly motivated Democrats and dispirited Republicans?

What Nate Silver is doing is looking just at the toplines of the polls - but that doesn't tell the whole story.

So yes, in order for this race to be truly competitive, the polls have to be wrong. But I can say that Mitt Romney has his own internal polling, and it's showing a result dramatically different than what the public polls say. And I can also say that Barack Obama also has his internal polling, and that's showing a very different picture than the public polls (although much closer).

Silver's model will work perfectly assuming that the polls are working perfectly. But the problem isn't Silver's model, it's that the current system of public polling we have in this country is breaking down for reasons that are not yet clear.

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...


I am frying up some crow pre-emptively for you.

What's really crazy is that you might be the only person who's right on all of FARK. Now, that's incredibly unlikely, but if you are I shall eat this crow myself.

In all likelihood though you are going to be proven hilariously incorrect.
 
2012-11-03 04:52:08 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: [i566.photobucket.com image 465x640]


I should not have laughed so hard at that image.

pacified: Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters
[unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

There will be a lot of crying libs this wednesday.

there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.


[thatsthejoke.jpg]
 
2012-11-03 04:53:18 PM
I hope you guys are right. Maybe the Rapepublicans will start a website, Shoveoff.org or something. At least my dad will have something different to talk about, because I'm sure he and my boss will talk about the "rigged election" at least thru Jan. 20, they may even openly state they hope somebody takes a shot at the phoney.
 
2012-11-03 04:55:06 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: WombatControl: and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think

someones been hangin out at unskewed polls again.


Um, no. The Unskewed Polls people are nuts - they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama), but they take that idea too far.

Although it would tickle the hell out of me if they turned out to be right... but the chances of that are about as slim as Anne Hathaway parachuting into my front yard and demanding I ravage her right then and there. Not going to happen...
 
2012-11-03 04:55:46 PM

Modguy: wildcardjack: Does anyone study the butterfly effect of polling?

There might be some PhD grade stuff to research on the effects of polls on future poll results.

It's turtles all the way down.


Eh, the bandwagon and underdog effects have already been very well studied. What's going to be interesting this election around is that after the first debate, the media created a bandwagon effect for Romney despite Romney actually being thoroughly behind in the election. That can't be portrayed legitimately as an underdog effect, given the media was portraying Romney as a "winner", and that support for Romney was not being generated out of sympathy.

That a bandwagon effect can be, and was, created for the loser is very interesting.
 
2012-11-03 04:56:01 PM

WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers


Care to elaborate?
 
2012-11-03 04:56:42 PM

Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.


If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.
 
2012-11-03 04:56:45 PM

Lunchlady: I am frying up some crow pre-emptively for you.


Frying? Crow is a delicate meat! It should be roasted with salt and pepper!

What's really crazy is that you might be the only person who's right on all of FARK. Now, that's incredibly unlikely, but if you are I shall eat this crow myself.

In all likelihood though you are going to be proven hilariously incorrect.


Being the only person to be right on FARK is about like being the very best hockey player in Burbank...
 
2012-11-03 04:56:50 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: GAT_00: Uchiha_Cycliste: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks

I don't call that "buckling," I call that "having a spine" which is not something that media people are generally known for.

Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog. I don't think he would consider himself a media personality.

He is one of the most important people to this election cycle. And just because you don't want to be a media person doesn't mean you aren't.

I'm not sure I agree, his *results* are a crucial factor in this election cycle. He could or could not be there and it would all be the same.


He's the one who developed the model, runs the simulations, and writes about the results. I suppose somebody else could have done the same, but to say he "could or could not be there" is kind of silly. Sure, he's not a reporter, he's a statistician, but he is also a writer and thus, a media figure.
 
2012-11-03 04:57:29 PM

Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?


They keep changing!
 
2012-11-03 04:57:45 PM
I read that piece earlier today. It's very poignant that Romney's chances of winning are basically equal to the likelihood that all the state polls are indeed 'skewed' in Obama's favor.

If I were a conservatives, I would not find that comforting.
 
2012-11-03 04:58:03 PM

Muta: Obama Disillusionists


Worst D&D class ever.
 
2012-11-03 04:59:07 PM

WombatControl: they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama


Prove it.
 
2012-11-03 04:59:11 PM

Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?


Wombat still can't comprehend the new Democratic lean to Ohio.

images2.dailykos.com

Its not too hard to figure out. Unless you're Wombat.
 
2012-11-03 05:00:19 PM

homelessdude: Irregardless: It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016

Just the same, i will reserve shouting until the votes are in. With my luck I would jinx if for Obama if I shouted now.Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"

See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.

/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Win or lose, this is it for Romney.

Either he just throws in the towel on running again by his own choice or he will be bounced away in future elections by republicans who never really liked him but found him to be less obnoxious than the other 10 or so GOP candidates this year. Mitt got the nod this year not because of his political ideology, but from the experience he gained as a losing candidate before. He knew when to shut up and let the rest of the field implode while he maintained a steady flight under the radar until there was nobody else left. He is a candidate via attrition, not popularity.

So either he wins this year and resigns in disgrace in a couple of years when all the hidden crap of his life comes out or he just fades away after his concession speech Tuesday night. 

Good riddance.


I concur especially about this "He is a candidate via attrition, not popularity." He was the lesser of 10 evils or maybe more appropriately the best funded of 10 evils.
 
2012-11-03 05:00:20 PM

Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?


The Ohio polls are showing a non-normal distribution, for one. I believe Jay Cost is the one who first noticed that.

We're also seeing a real disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Obama should not be winning in a swing state like Ohio by a bigger margin than he did in 2008 but somehow not winning nationally by as large a margin. Either Ohio has completely reversed its partisan orientation (which is possible, to be sure), or the numbers aren't adding up.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to be either slightly behind or only slightly ahead nationally, doing roughly the same in the safe red/blue states as he did in 2008, but dramatically ahead in the swing states. The demographics of the swing states aren't enough to move the numbers like that.

In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.
 
2012-11-03 05:00:41 PM

Peki: I carpool with my coworker. The ride after the results are announced is going to be entertaining, because he's absolutely convinced himself of two things: 1) that the economy is the most important issue regarding election in this campaign, and 2) Romney's gonna win.

I told him that the critical issue is women's reproductive rights. The look on his face was priceless when he looked up the polling in swing states and found out I was right.


Wait...he actually looked up something that had the potential to change his views on things?

There may be hope for your coworker yet.
 
2012-11-03 05:00:49 PM

Biological Ali: Muta: Obama Disillusionists

Worst D&D class ever.


I don't know, they get a nifty bonus to casting Social Justice spells that can be useful in the right circumstances. The Trolljuration bonus is nice too.
 
2012-11-03 05:02:05 PM
I think it's very interesting that we've reached the point where everything is "locked in" for the election. That is, no major political event, speech, disaster, etc., will alter the dynamics of the election any further.

This is reflected by that fact that Nate has essentially changed the prediction from "84% chance Obama wins" to "100% chance Obama wins, unless there is a systematic bias in ALL the polls -- and the chance this bias not only exists but is so prominent that Romney will win the election is 16%."
 
2012-11-03 05:02:55 PM
The Everett Golson Era
The Tommy Rees Era
 
2012-11-03 05:03:37 PM
Oops, wrong tab.
 
2012-11-03 05:04:24 PM

WombatControl: Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?

The Ohio polls are showing a non-normal distribution, for one. I believe Jay Cost is the one who first noticed that.

We're also seeing a real disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Obama should not be winning in a swing state like Ohio by a bigger margin than he did in 2008 but somehow not winning nationally by as large a margin. Either Ohio has completely reversed its partisan orientation (which is possible, to be sure), or the numbers aren't adding up.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to be either slightly behind or only slightly ahead nationally, doing roughly the same in the safe red/blue states as he did in 2008, but dramatically ahead in the swing states. The demographics of the swing states aren't enough to move the numbers like that.

In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.


What about the fact that Mr. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (which would have also bankrupted many in Ohio, especially in the north, near Michigan) is in the race? And unemployment in Ohio is below the national average? Aren't those two relevant factors that would explain why Ohio may show a larger lead for Obama than, say, Iowa or New Hampshire?
 
2012-11-03 05:04:56 PM
Willard is done.
Read em and weep and let the butthurt flow through you, conservitards.
 
2012-11-03 05:05:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WombatControl: they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama

Prove it.


Take the last Marist poll of Ohio. They have a partisan makeup of 38D/29R/32I (D+9). That's bigger than the D+5 advantage in 2008. If the Democrats are doing close to twice as well as they were in 2008, we should see early voting in strongly Democratic counties doubling. We should see a huge partisan advantage in early voting in Ohio. (And yes, I know how the early voting totals are calculated, but that should at least give us SOME idea of a Democratic wave forming). We should see Obama attracting huge crowds of motivated voters.

But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less. So those numbers don't match the reality of what we're seeing on the ground. The problem with someone like Nate Silver is that he's looking at the numbers only and not asking critical questions about how the numbers fit with the bigger picture.

That's the downside of statistical analysis - most of the time it works just fine, but sometimes it breaks horribly. The models that predicted that the housing market would never go down were highly advanced and done by people whose jobs depended on getting it right - and they were still horribly and tragically wrong.
 
2012-11-03 05:06:08 PM

Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters
[unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

There will be a lot of crying libs this wednesday.


Gary, is that you?
 
2012-11-03 05:06:15 PM
And the MSM is banging away on the statistical dead heat drum.
 
2012-11-03 05:06:24 PM
i.huffpost.com

I'm not celebrating, not dismissing a 'false horserace', not feeling one iota of comfort, until I hear a Rmoney concession speech. The odds are against him winning, but far stranger things have happened.

But if and when he does lose... oh sweet FSM I'm going to enjoy rubbing it in the face of every indignant piece of Teabagger scum I can.
 
2012-11-03 05:07:12 PM

Blue_Blazer: What about the fact that Mr. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (which would have also bankrupted many in Ohio, especially in the north, near Michigan) is in the race? And unemployment in Ohio is below the national average? Aren't those two relevant factors that would explain why Ohio may show a larger lead for Obama than, say, Iowa or New Hampshire?


Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 5. You want to piss off working-class white voters? Take away their union rights.
 
2012-11-03 05:07:45 PM

WombatControl: but that seems highly unlikely


Translation: "I don't like it and I'm going to base an entire argument on a premise I can't support".
 
2012-11-03 05:07:59 PM

12349876: pacified: there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]


You know, after the beating that Gary took for his "Nixon was tossed" remark, I wonder if he and WombatControl might be the same person.
 
2012-11-03 05:08:21 PM

LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.


I said it before, and I'll say it again: the right won't try to get rid of the electoral college. They have too much of an advantage in the form of disproportional representation among low-population red states to give up. I'd fully expect them to try to amend the electoral college thus:

- 102 electoral votes go to the states and District of Columbia, to be pledged as winner-take-all.
- 436 electoral votes are pledged proportionally on a state-by-state basis.

That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states. For example, under this system in 2008 Obama would have only won 34 electoral votes in California, McCain would have won 20, and Nader would have won 1.
 
2012-11-03 05:08:48 PM

WombatControl: It doesn't make sense for Obama to be either slightly behind or only slightly ahead nationally, doing roughly the same in the safe red/blue states as he did in 2008, but dramatically ahead in the swing states. The demographics of the swing states aren't enough to move the numbers like that.


Wa Huh? Dude, you are REALLY reaching.
 
2012-11-03 05:09:49 PM
Erm...siphon votes from Dems in high-population blue states. Oops, FTFM.
 
2012-11-03 05:10:16 PM

anfrind: You know, after the beating that Gary took for his "Nixon was tossed" remark, I wonder if he and WombatControl might be the same person.


not enough rage and drunken rambling.
 
2012-11-03 05:10:22 PM

WombatControl: But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less.


Again, wa huh? The early voting numbers showed MORE Democrats voting, not less.
 
2012-11-03 05:10:30 PM

WombatControl: That's bigger than the D+5 advantage in 2008. If the Democrats are doing close to twice as well as they were in 2008, we should see early voting in strongly Democratic counties doubling


Why? What history suggests that a doubling of party ID leads to doubling of early-voting numbers?
 
2012-11-03 05:11:26 PM

that bosnian sniper: That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states.


That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.
 
2012-11-03 05:11:40 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Blue_Blazer: What about the fact that Mr. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (which would have also bankrupted many in Ohio, especially in the north, near Michigan) is in the race? And unemployment in Ohio is below the national average? Aren't those two relevant factors that would explain why Ohio may show a larger lead for Obama than, say, Iowa or New Hampshire?

Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 5. You want to piss off working-class white voters? Take away their union rights.


Sorry Mr. Buckeye, I did forget that.
 
2012-11-03 05:11:45 PM

mediablitz: WombatControl: But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less.

Again, wa huh? The early voting numbers showed MORE Democrats voting, not less.


Just saw this tweet:

Ari Berman @AriBerman
3,125 people voted early in Cuyahoga County OH today, compared to 2,923 early voters Sat before election in 2008. So much for enthusiasm gap

So...yep, basically.
 
2012-11-03 05:11:50 PM

WombatControl: Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?

The Ohio polls are showing a non-normal distribution, for one. I believe Jay Cost is the one who first noticed that.

We're also seeing a real disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Obama should not be winning in a swing state like Ohio by a bigger margin than he did in 2008 but somehow not winning nationally by as large a margin. Either Ohio has completely reversed its partisan orientation (which is possible, to be sure), or the numbers aren't adding up.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to be either slightly behind or only slightly ahead nationally, doing roughly the same in the safe red/blue states as he did in 2008, but dramatically ahead in the swing states. The demographics of the swing states aren't enough to move the numbers like that.

In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.


Well with Ohio in particular the unemployment rate is well below the national average (mainly thanks to the bailout of the auto industry *coughObamacough*) and demographic trends in the midwest are that older Republican voters continue to leave and retire elsewhere. This is why sunbelt states gain more and more EV's. Not to mention the national polls include the South where Obama is losing by an average of about 12% if you don't include Florida.

Look when you say what's happening with the polls is "inexplicable" you've already conceded the point. You're arguing based on "feelings" and can't give actual numbers. I understand your larger point, really I do. I don't think you're right, but I can follow your point. But I'm gonna go with the people who do this professionally and focus on numbers and trends instead of pundits who have something to gain by saying one thing or another and people who follow their gut.
 
2012-11-03 05:12:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WombatControl: That's bigger than the D+5 advantage in 2008. If the Democrats are doing close to twice as well as they were in 2008, we should see early voting in strongly Democratic counties doubling

Why? What history suggests that a doubling of party ID leads to doubling of early-voting numbers?


Not history so much as a strong feeling in the statisticles.
 
2012-11-03 05:12:14 PM

LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.


Their 2012 platform specifically is against it. I don't disagree with you, but to try and get rid of it would require an overnight 180 degree flip that I'm not even sure the GOP is capable of.

Plus an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and that will never happen.
 
2012-11-03 05:12:31 PM

WombatControl:

In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.


My theory - The red states are getting redder faster than the blue states are getting bluer, throwing off the national average.
 
2012-11-03 05:12:55 PM

WombatControl: Of course, Obama is leading in most of the swing-state polls. Because most of the last round of polls were done by pollsters that have been biased towards Obama this entire cycle (Marist, and to a lesser extent PPP).... (etc)


Fair enough, but you're logic means Scarborough, Rasmussen and the right-wing echo chamber have the clear, unbiased view of what is going on in the electorate, something I highly doubt. I actually buy the horse-race narrative - not only nationally, but within most swing states, I think we are looking at a dead-heat and it will probably come down to a few thousand votes in Ohio to determine a winner, just like in 2004. If conventional wisdom holds, that scenario favors the incumbent 9 times out of 10.
 
2012-11-03 05:13:32 PM

Dull Cow Eyes: /Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024


The only reason he won *this* time was from the ineptitude of the other candidates, none of the serious contenders bothered to start running in 2011 when it was obvious unseating a popular incumbent candidate in a (slowly) improving economy would be a very difficult battle to win. Mitt winning the nomination says less about Mitt and more about Santorum, Bachmann, and Gingrich. Hell, the conservative base was so desperate for someone other than Mitt that they had *Cain* ahead in the polls for a month.

2016 will lack an incumbent and I kinda suspect Biden will be willing to retire in 2016 at the age of 74, national campaigns are just too tiring. The big guns of the GOP will be looking to take the White House and Romney wouldn't survive the primaries to see St Patricks Day let alone earn the nom again. Romney is surely and rightly done in the world of politics.
 
2012-11-03 05:14:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: mediablitz: WombatControl: But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less.

Again, wa huh? The early voting numbers showed MORE Democrats voting, not less.

Just saw this tweet:

Ari Berman @AriBerman
3,125 people voted early in Cuyahoga County OH today, compared to 2,923 early voters Sat before election in 2008. So much for enthusiasm gap

So...yep, basically.


It's similar in Florida--the last I saw, Romney has to win 55% of the vote on election day to break even given the early voting figures.
 
2012-11-03 05:18:55 PM
He should throw $100k on InTrade.
 
2012-11-03 05:22:13 PM

Richard Roma: [i.huffpost.com image 285x209]

I'm not celebrating, not dismissing a 'false horserace', not feeling one iota of comfort, until I hear a Rmoney concession speech. The odds are against him winning, but far stranger things have happened.

But if and when he does lose... oh sweet FSM I'm going to enjoy rubbing it in the face of every indignant piece of Teabagger scum I can.



heh heh....I am holding off on the celebrating too, but am fully prepared to lose a few so-called friends on Wednesday morning. I have been listening to their falsehoods for a year now and cannot wait to drive the final spike into the coffin of these less than honest "friendships". I learned quite a few shocking things about certain people who I thought I knew before this election year. Now that i see their true colors, it is time to cut them loose.

I do not have time for bigoted morons who cannot spend even 15 seconds reading up on a candidate's position before spewing racial hatred.

I do not have time for bigoted morons period.
 
2012-11-03 05:22:40 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

Their 2012 platform specifically is against it. I don't disagree with you, but to try and get rid of it would require an overnight 180 degree flip that I'm not even sure the GOP is capable of.

Plus an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and that will never happen.


FTFPlatform:
The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.

I know they flip-flop more than John Kerry, but I think they understand changing demographics, and that their only hope is with the Electoral College, if not now, then certainly in the near future.
 
2012-11-03 05:23:13 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

And replaced with what?


Democracy!
 
2012-11-03 05:25:18 PM

theknuckler_33: I read that piece earlier today. It's very poignant that Romney's chances of winning are basically equal to the likelihood that all the state polls are indeed 'skewed' in Obama's favor.

If I were a conservatives, I would not find that comforting.



So one thing I've been wondering about is the "cell phone effect".

For the past 2 election cycles there's been talk about the supposed effect where young people are never polled because they have cell phones and no landlines. And since young people usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, supposedly this means that polls are actually "skewed" towards Republicans.


Problem being? The last two elections have not shown this to be true, but I've never seen anyone explain why. Is the theory faulty to begin with? Do pollsters somehow take this into account?
 
2012-11-03 05:25:50 PM

homelessdude: Irregardless: It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016

Just the same, i will reserve shouting until the votes are in. With my luck I would jinx if for Obama if I shouted now.Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"

See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.

/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Win or lose, this is it for Romney.

Either he just throws in the towel on running again by his own choice or he will be bounced away in future elections by republicans who never really liked him but found him to be less obnoxious than the other 10 or so GOP candidates this year. Mitt got the nod this year not because of his political ideology, but from the experience he gained as a losing candidate before. He knew when to shut up and let the rest of the field implode while he maintained a steady flight under the radar until there was nobody else left. He is a candidate via attrition, not popularity.

So either he wins this year and resigns in disgrace in a couple of years when all the hidden crap of his life comes out or he just fades away after his concession speech Tuesday night. 

Good riddance.


According to Slate the runner-up from this primary will be the nominee in 2016.  So it looks like Santorum will be spilling out all over again in 2016.
 
2012-11-03 05:26:26 PM
seriously look at the nation poll break down by region. The South is just farked up. But it don't matter how much AL and GA and MS hate obama.
 
2012-11-03 05:26:45 PM

that bosnian sniper: LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: the right won't try to get rid of the electoral college. They have too much of an advantage in the form of disproportional representation among low-population red states to give up. I'd fully expect them to try to amend the electoral college thus:

- 102 electoral votes go to the states and District of Columbia, to be pledged as winner-take-all.
- 436 electoral votes are pledged proportionally on a state-by-state basis.

That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states. For example, under this system in 2008 Obama would have only won 34 electoral votes in California, McCain would have won 20, and Nader would have won 1.


if they don't remove the Electoral College entirely, I at least expect them to drop their defense of it from their official party platform if Obama wins the EV but not the popular vote.
 
2012-11-03 05:28:14 PM
Hmmmmm Rasmussen no longer has Romney leading in Ohio. Wouldn't it be weird if Rasmussen started matching the other polls in the next couple of days and start having Obama in the lead?

/just like in 2008
 
2012-11-03 05:29:45 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: that bosnian sniper: That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states.

That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.


Not as much as you'd think.

Texas, with 34 electoral votes in 2008, under the system I'd propose if I were a Republican, would have awarded 20 EV's for McCain and 14 to Obama. Florida, which Obama won in 2008, would have awarded Obama 15, and McCain 12. Georgia would have awarded 9 to McCain and 6 to Obama.

New York, on the other hand, would have awarded 20 electoral votes to Obama, 10 to McCain, and 1 to Nader.

Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.
 
2012-11-03 05:35:15 PM
Rasmussen Reports 10/31 - 11/2 1500 LV 3.0 48 48 Tie

Rasmussen Reports for Ohio 11/1 - 11/1 750 LV 4.0 49 49 Tie

Rasmussen is finally seeing that if they don't "readjust" their polls they would be backing the wrong horse on Tuesday. This is exactly what everyone has been predicting they would do.
 
2012-11-03 05:36:49 PM
Where'd Wombat go? I thought we were having a polite conversation

that bosnian sniper: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: that bosnian sniper: That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states.

That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.

Not as much as you'd think.

Texas, with 34 electoral votes in 2008, under the system I'd propose if I were a Republican, would have awarded 20 EV's for McCain and 14 to Obama. Florida, which Obama won in 2008, would have awarded Obama 15, and McCain 12. Georgia would have awarded 9 to McCain and 6 to Obama.

New York, on the other hand, would have awarded 20 electoral votes to Obama, 10 to McCain, and 1 to Nader.

Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.


Yo Dawg, I heard you like proportional voting, so I put proportional voting in your proportional voting so you can not be represented while you're not being represented.

/or something
//I support the EC
///but not this shiat
 
2012-11-03 05:37:03 PM

Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024


He is done if he loses this. The GOP have a group of reasonably popular, with one side or overall, politicians (Rubio, Christie, Ryan, etc) getting ready to run in 2016. Mittens only got his shot this year because the field was disgustingly bad.

Kurmudgeon: quatchi: Dammit, Nate. they are trying to sell a horse race narrative and your facts are not helping in that regard!

Interesting point. Usually when there is a large voter turnout, it helps the Dems, not the GOP.
Are the right wingers shooting themselves in the foot pushing this narrative or are they actually ham stringing Romney because his name doesn't end in Bush or something else more preferred?
However, if it's anywhere close to a tie like they say, you better get out and vote.
/has already voted early


The tight race narrative encourages people to give them more money to fight the campaign. If they said there was no chance or that they had an easy win, there would be no need to give them money,
 
2012-11-03 05:37:29 PM

MithrandirBooga: theknuckler_33: I read that piece earlier today. It's very poignant that Romney's chances of winning are basically equal to the likelihood that all the state polls are indeed 'skewed' in Obama's favor.

If I were a conservatives, I would not find that comforting.


So one thing I've been wondering about is the "cell phone effect".

For the past 2 election cycles there's been talk about the supposed effect where young people are never polled because they have cell phones and no landlines. And since young people usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, supposedly this means that polls are actually "skewed" towards Republicans.


Problem being? The last two elections have not shown this to be true, but I've never seen anyone explain why. Is the theory faulty to begin with? Do pollsters somehow take this into account?


It was my understanding that many polls do call cell phones. I read somewhere (I think on Silver's blog as a matter of fact) that robo-polls cannot legally call cell phones and I think some states outlaw polls from calling cell phones, but other than that, I think cell phones are now generally well represented in many polls. It would be interesting to see a detailed analysis of your question though, but I imagine the effect would be on the order of tenths of a percent. Just an 'out of my ass' guess, though.
 
2012-11-03 05:38:45 PM

Aldon: Hmmmmm Rasmussen no longer has Romney leading in Ohio. Wouldn't it be weird if Rasmussen started matching the other polls in the next couple of days and start having Obama in the lead?

/just like in 2008


Keep there site's traffic/revenue up for the entire election and at the lest minute adjust their predictions to protect their credibility in advance of the next election? It would be pretty depraved and it only work if the people standing behind the Rasmussen poll numbers were complete idiots.
 
2012-11-03 05:40:12 PM

Blue_Blazer: ignatius_crumbcake: LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

Their 2012 platform specifically is against it. I don't disagree with you, but to try and get rid of it would require an overnight 180 degree flip that I'm not even sure the GOP is capable of.

Plus an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and that will never happen.

FTFPlatform:
The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.

I know they flip-flop more than John Kerry, but I think they understand changing demographics, and that their only hope is with the Electoral College, if not now, then certainly in the near future.



They'll never support disposing of the Electoral College. If there's no Electoral College, then campaigns will focus almost entirely on the largest cities in the country, due to the cost-benefit of targeting high population density areas.

This will make it infinitely more difficult for Republicans to campaign for president since they almost never win urban areas, and it would immediately remove the Republican party from ever being a presidential contender ever again.


This is similar to how they want to remove popular voting of senators as well. When faced with a popular vote situation where they cannot gerrymander districts to their favor, Republicans generally lose, which is why they are unable to take back the Senate, despite having an overwhelming majority in the House. In general, popular votes simply do not favor Republicans; or rather, they don't give them the advantage they want.


Here's an article about how the Republicans have used Gerrymandering to permanently conquer the House.

www.washingtonpost.com

Basically there's a nearly 50/50 split of Democrats and Republicans in the country, but because of redistricting tricks they've managed to make it so that they always have 195 safe seats vs Democrats 166 safe seats. That gives them a 20% advantage right off the bat.


Republicans know that the more people learn about them, the less they want to vote for them, so they must continually fight for ways to game the system.
 
2012-11-03 05:41:44 PM
Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?
 
2012-11-03 05:44:22 PM

joonyer: Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner?


because the superbowl isn't an election?

high on analogy is no way to go thru life, son.
 
2012-11-03 05:46:09 PM

joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?


I'm sorry you're upset that Mitt Romney isn't going to win.
 
2012-11-03 05:46:10 PM
everyone is forgetting about the reluctance of traditional republicans who when called by a pollster, will tell them to f**k off they are busy trying to fix supper etc. on the other hand, libs will gladly sit down and answer the pollsters questions because they feel that their answers might swing the election.

this happened to me when Gallup called me. i told them "sorry, don't have time." yeah, i was nice.
 
2012-11-03 05:46:25 PM

that bosnian sniper: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: that bosnian sniper: That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states.

That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.

Not as much as you'd think.

Texas, with 34 electoral votes in 2008, under the system I'd propose if I were a Republican, would have awarded 20 EV's for McCain and 14 to Obama. Florida, which Obama won in 2008, would have awarded Obama 15, and McCain 12. Georgia would have awarded 9 to McCain and 6 to Obama.

New York, on the other hand, would have awarded 20 electoral votes to Obama, 10 to McCain, and 1 to Nader.

Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.


out of curiosity, if you're going to dole out EVs proportionately, why not just go straight popular vote as the deciding vote?
 
2012-11-03 05:47:43 PM

pacified: seriously look at the nation poll break down by region. The South is just farked up. But it don't matter how much AL and GA and MS hate obama.


ehh....I have zero faith in 2016 predictions at this point. So much can happen in 4 years that it is highly unlikely that any predictions from this week will resemble reality in the next election cycle. I am sure we will see some of the same players next time around, but there is a whole corral of GOP potentials who will be in the mix. And this next group will have actual, real potential as opposed to the GOP Clown Car Passengers of the last year. I also think Ryan will not be part of the mix or a serious contender. While he has some chops, I just don't seem him as viable unless he undergoes a major ideology and image tune-up.

Besides, I tend to think these 2016 predictions are more about filling dead air time for less than knowledgeable pundits than actual intelligent predictions.
 
2012-11-03 05:48:19 PM

FeedTheCollapse: that bosnian sniper: LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: the right won't try to get rid of the electoral college. They have too much of an advantage in the form of disproportional representation among low-population red states to give up. I'd fully expect them to try to amend the electoral college thus:

- 102 electoral votes go to the states and District of Columbia, to be pledged as winner-take-all.
- 436 electoral votes are pledged proportionally on a state-by-state basis.

That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states. For example, under this system in 2008 Obama would have only won 34 electoral votes in California, McCain would have won 20, and Nader would have won 1.

if they don't remove the Electoral College entirely, I at least expect them to drop their defense of it from their official party platform if Obama wins the EV but not the popular vote.


Sam Wang at the Princeton Electoral Consortium presents the best argument for the Electoral College that I've heard to date:./a>

Basically, he argues that with the EC, any count or recount issues are compartmentalized. Without it, any close calls or errors in the popular vote mean Bush v Gore type lawsuits everywhere, and long-running-heavily-argued recounts like Minnesota's Senatorial race in 08 could be the norm rather than the exception.

There's a certain amount of logic there. If you get rid of the EC, what do you replace it with? A single vote for each state, weighted to population? That just duplicates the EC. A truly national Popular vote? How do you deal with discrepancies? 300,000,000 people producing 120,000,000 votes is a truly weighty system. Yes, the EC may be a problem, but I can't see how the alternative that most people propose would be any sort of improvement.
 
2012-11-03 05:48:29 PM

FeedTheCollapse: that bosnian sniper: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: that bosnian sniper: That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states.

That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.

Not as much as you'd think.

Texas, with 34 electoral votes in 2008, under the system I'd propose if I were a Republican, would have awarded 20 EV's for McCain and 14 to Obama. Florida, which Obama won in 2008, would have awarded Obama 15, and McCain 12. Georgia would have awarded 9 to McCain and 6 to Obama.

New York, on the other hand, would have awarded 20 electoral votes to Obama, 10 to McCain, and 1 to Nader.

Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.

out of curiosity, if you're going to dole out EVs proportionately, why not just go straight popular vote as the deciding vote?


Because a compact like that between the states wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, and thus is slightly more feasible.
 
2012-11-03 05:50:13 PM

pion: homelessdude: Irregardless: It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016
According to Slate the runner-up from this primary will be the nominee in 2016.  So it looks like Santorum will be spilling out all over again in 2016.


(weird...that last comment was supposed to be a response to pion)
 
2012-11-03 05:51:09 PM

heap: joonyer: Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner?

because the superbowl isn't an election?

high on analogy is no way to go thru life, son.


Yeah well fark you. It was a bad analogy, I know.

PonceAlyosha: joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?

I'm sorry you're upset that Mitt Romney isn't going to win.


Had your big bowl of paint chips this morning I see?
 
2012-11-03 05:51:45 PM

that bosnian sniper: Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.


But you're using straight up comparisons to an election under our current system. A new system means campaigns and GOTV efforts get re-directed. The Obama campaign shows up in force in Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix. The Romney campaign starts showing up in Orange County and upstate New York. Its a whole new ballgame.
 
2012-11-03 05:52:20 PM

theknuckler_33: MithrandirBooga: theknuckler_33: I read that piece earlier today. It's very poignant that Romney's chances of winning are basically equal to the likelihood that all the state polls are indeed 'skewed' in Obama's favor.

If I were a conservatives, I would not find that comforting.


So one thing I've been wondering about is the "cell phone effect".

For the past 2 election cycles there's been talk about the supposed effect where young people are never polled because they have cell phones and no landlines. And since young people usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, supposedly this means that polls are actually "skewed" towards Republicans.


Problem being? The last two elections have not shown this to be true, but I've never seen anyone explain why. Is the theory faulty to begin with? Do pollsters somehow take this into account?

It was my understanding that many polls do call cell phones. I read somewhere (I think on Silver's blog as a matter of fact) that robo-polls cannot legally call cell phones and I think some states outlaw polls from calling cell phones, but other than that, I think cell phones are now generally well represented in many polls. It would be interesting to see a detailed analysis of your question though, but I imagine the effect would be on the order of tenths of a percent. Just an 'out of my ass' guess, though.


I recall this as well. As for why it may not be bearing out: Young People. They just do not vote in large numbers (2008 excepted) to be a massive enough demographic. On the other hand, I seem to recall that Rasmussen does NOT poll cell phone users, so it's possible some of their slant comes from that oversight.
 
2012-11-03 05:53:07 PM

munko: everyone is forgetting about the reluctance of traditional republicans who when called by a pollster, will tell them to f**k off they are busy trying to fix supper etc. on the other hand, libs will gladly sit down and answer the pollsters questions because they feel that their answers might swing the election.

this happened to me when Gallup called me. i told them "sorry, don't have time." yeah, i was nice.


That's why polls are random or skewed to liberals the majority of the time, and we can never rely on them.

Except that they aren't and we do.


/I too told a pollster this year that I was busy, and I never answer my cell when it is a number I don't know. Voted for Obama (you would call me a Liberal)
//But don't let me get reality mixed up with what you think.... please proceed Poster.
 
2012-11-03 05:55:26 PM

Blue_Blazer: ignatius_crumbcake: LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

Their 2012 platform specifically is against it. I don't disagree with you, but to try and get rid of it would require an overnight 180 degree flip that I'm not even sure the GOP is capable of.

Plus an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and that will never happen.

FTFPlatform:
The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.

I know they flip-flop more than John Kerry, but I think they understand changing demographics, and that their only hope is with the Electoral College, if not now, then certainly in the near future.


I suggest someone reads the constitution. The State legislatures can decide to select electors in any manner they choose. National popular vote is a manner they can choose.
 
2012-11-03 05:56:42 PM

12349876: pacified: there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]


Haven't seen Gary around much lately.
 
2012-11-03 05:57:22 PM

joonyer: Yeah well fark you.


well, you asked a silly question, what point is there in a serious answer.

people take polls on everything from favorite yogurt to amateur singers - why wouldn't there be polls on elections, policies, campaigns, or any of a litany of other political matters?
 
2012-11-03 06:00:49 PM
Well, we've seen the build up for years now.

The hyping of Romney as the 'great hope'....

The in-fighting and feuding with the Tea Partiers..

The betrayal of The Paulites at the RNC..

Romney's anointing and then his subsequent slow-motion self-destruction over the course of six months of campaigning.

Do you wonder if he sits up at night, thinking to himself..."This is why I got thrashed and harassed and insulted by morons on my OWN SIDE for a year and a half? To be thrown under the bus by Chris Christie at the last minute? To be a sacrifice to a President that we couldn't beat?"

Has he come to terms with the hard numbers yet? Has he faced up to the reality that he's about to lose the race of his life, a race he had no real chance of winning, but convinced himself that he 'deserved'?

Does he realize yet that he was the chosen lamb to be slaughtered on the altar of necessity? That he was 'given' that shot knowing that he was meant to fail, to lose spectacularly so that his own party could purge the crazies and fringe idiots that they themselves courted in 2010?

Would his ego let him grasp that reality?

And does he realize yet that when he loses, as he was destined to lose, he's going to be viciously torn apart by that very party that chose him to fail...for daring to fail?

He'll be harassed and insulted by men and women like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. He'll be mocked by the movers and shakers in his party, ridiculed as a loser by a core group of people who would NEVER dare take the chance to run themselves, the shock jocks and talking heads...

It's like watching the last leg of a marathon, with one guy way out in front, just cruising, and the other guy is behind...Painfully behind...and you can 'see' it on his face, he knows he's going to lose, and he wants to quit so bad, he wants to stop, but you can't.

You can't stop and walk away. You 'have' to finish, even knowing that you've failed, you have to 'finish' failing before you can walk off the field.

It's almost enough to feel bad for him. And then you remember the comments about 'the 47%'. And then you just grin and set the DVR to record his concession speech.
 
2012-11-03 06:02:49 PM

HeartBurnKid: Uchiha_Cycliste: GAT_00: Uchiha_Cycliste: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks

I don't call that "buckling," I call that "having a spine" which is not something that media people are generally known for.

Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog. I don't think he would consider himself a media personality.

He is one of the most important people to this election cycle. And just because you don't want to be a media person doesn't mean you aren't.

I'm not sure I agree, his *results* are a crucial factor in this election cycle. He could or could not be there and it would all be the same.

He's the one who developed the model, runs the simulations, and writes about the results. I suppose somebody else could have done the same, but to say he "could or could not be there" is kind of silly. Sure, he's not a reporter, he's a statistician, but he is also a writer and thus, a media figure.


Yeah, in retrospect I agree. Earlier I was linked to places where Nate speaks of himself that way, which I hadn't thought he had. So I was wrong.
 
2012-11-03 06:04:38 PM

WombatControl: Silver's model will work perfectly assuming that the polls are working perfectly. But the problem isn't Silver's model, it's that the current system of public polling we have in this country is breaking down for reasons that are not yet clear.


Actually Nate Silver as about a 16% chance that the polls are biased systematically towards Obama built in to his model. That is why he give Romney a 16% chance of winning. Otherwise he would be at 99.8% like Wang.
 
2012-11-03 06:04:39 PM

joonyer: heap: joonyer: Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner?

because the superbowl isn't an election?

high on analogy is no way to go thru life, son.

Yeah well fark you. It was a bad analogy, I know.

PonceAlyosha: joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?

I'm sorry you're upset that Mitt Romney isn't going to win.

Had your big bowl of paint chips this morning I see?


No I had bacon this morning, but it was turkey bacon so it is automatically suspicious.
 
2012-11-03 06:05:27 PM

incendi: 3_Butt_Cheeks: And replaced with what?

The same thing, but with attractive female electors in lingerie instead of frumpy old party sycophants.


fierceandnerdy.com
 
2012-11-03 06:05:30 PM
i309.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-03 06:07:11 PM
I actually agree with this article.
 
2012-11-03 06:07:22 PM

joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?


Bro,

there is a thing called college football and for over 100 years the winner or national champion has been determined by a poll.

Only since the BCS have we even come close to a on the field winner.

In 2014 maybe with the 4 team playoff we'll have a true NC, but where have you been to not think of College Football Top 25 polls?

^
Actually this question goes to all that have replied to you.
 
2012-11-03 06:11:31 PM

Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.


You know what, I thought the same way until Sandy hit. The electoral college prevents those states who were hardest hit from suffering a reduced influence on the final outcome because of conditions. I think Sandy is the best argument I've ever seen heard for keeping the electoral college. And I hate that fact.
 
2012-11-03 06:14:37 PM

munko: everyone is forgetting about the reluctance of traditional republicans who when called by a pollster, will tell them to f**k off they are busy trying to fix supper etc. on the other hand, libs will gladly sit down and answer the pollsters questions because they feel that their answers might swing the election.

this happened to me when Gallup called me. i told them "sorry, don't have time." yeah, i was nice.



Yes, that explains why polls consistently get it wrong when actual election time comes around. But bless their hearts, they keep trying.
 
2012-11-03 06:14:55 PM

PonceAlyosha: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.


Becomes a phrase "pulling a romney" or just romneying it
 
2012-11-03 06:16:39 PM

anfrind: There may be hope for your coworker yet.


I dunno. A bus driver can save the lives of a hundred children, and he's still a bus driver. A hero, for sure, but still just a bus driver. But ork just one cow, and he's a coworker forever.
 
2012-11-03 06:18:04 PM

Virulency: PonceAlyosha: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.

Becomes a phrase "pulling a romney" or just romneying it


The problem is that he'll never get the nomination again. He can run and run all he likes but he'll always be relegated to the role of Ron Paul... just without the support or the fans. He will have money, but he will never get past the convention again.
 
2012-11-03 06:19:49 PM
Maybe all of this polling information will show that the era of 2 parties isn't in the best monetary interest of the 24/7 media and they need to let a 3rd and 4th party in to play against the other 2. Look at the primaries, they filled a ton of time with all the flavor of the week candidates.

One can dream.
 
2012-11-03 06:20:15 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: PonceAlyosha: My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.

You mean like other serial campaigners like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?


No, he means more like serial campaigners Henry Clay and Adlai Stevenson.
 
2012-11-03 06:20:46 PM

JolobinSmokin: joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?

Bro,

there is a thing called college football and for over 100 years the winner or national champion has been determined by a poll.

Only since the BCS have we even come close to a on the field winner.

In 2014 maybe with the 4 team playoff we'll have a true NC, but where have you been to not think of College Football Top 25 polls?

^
Actually this question goes to all that have replied to you.


Yeah, I should have thought of college football. Maybe because the elections just seem like a 2 team thing, not 25, it didn't seem the same. My bad.

I still don't see the point though, other than dick wagging.
 
2012-11-03 06:22:40 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: 12349876: pacified: there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]

Haven't seen Gary around much lately.


He took a meltdown sabbatical.
 
2012-11-03 06:23:08 PM

Infernalist: It's like watching the last leg of a marathon, with one guy way out in front, just cruising, and the other guy is behind...Painfully behind...and you can 'see' it on his face, he knows he's going to lose, and he wants to quit so bad, he wants to stop, but you can't.


content.internetvideoarchive.com

He's going for distance. He's going for speed.
 
2012-11-03 06:23:23 PM

Smelly McUgly: HotIgneous Intruder: PonceAlyosha: My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.

You mean like other serial campaigners like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?

No, he means more like serial campaigners Henry Clay and Adlai Stevenson.


Don't forget Eugene V. Debs and William Jennings Bryan!
 
2012-11-03 06:24:47 PM

Smelly McUgly: HotIgneous Intruder: PonceAlyosha: My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.

You mean like other serial campaigners like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?

No, he means more like serial campaigners Henry Clay and Adlai Stevenson.


Eugene Debs
 
2012-11-03 06:26:13 PM

DoctorCal: Smelly McUgly: HotIgneous Intruder: PonceAlyosha: My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.

You mean like other serial campaigners like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?

No, he means more like serial campaigners Henry Clay and Adlai Stevenson.

Eugene Debs


Socialist High-Five!
 
2012-11-03 06:27:03 PM

Blue_Blazer: Smelly McUgly: HotIgneous Intruder: PonceAlyosha: My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.

You mean like other serial campaigners like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?

No, he means more like serial campaigners Henry Clay and Adlai Stevenson.

Don't forget Eugene V. Debs and William Jennings Bryan!


Dammit
 
2012-11-03 06:27:57 PM

Blue_Blazer: DoctorCal: Smelly McUgly: HotIgneous Intruder: PonceAlyosha: My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.

You mean like other serial campaigners like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan?

No, he means more like serial campaigners Henry Clay and Adlai Stevenson.

Eugene Debs

Socialist High-Five!


:-D
 
2012-11-03 06:29:07 PM

heap: joonyer: Yeah well fark you.

well, you asked a silly question, what point is there in a serious answer.

people take polls on everything from favorite yogurt to amateur singers - why wouldn't there be polls on elections, policies, campaigns, or any of a litany of other political matters?


I ask stupid questions sometimes. Sorry.
 
2012-11-03 06:38:56 PM

WombatControl: Lunchlady: I am frying up some crow pre-emptively for you.

Frying? Crow is a delicate meat! It should be roasted with salt and pepper!


Heathens both of you. The way you cook crow is to throw a crow and a rock into a fire. When the rock goes soft you can eat the crow.
 
2012-11-03 06:41:25 PM

joonyer: JolobinSmokin: joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?

Bro,

there is a thing called college football and for over 100 years the winner or national champion has been determined by a poll.

Only since the BCS have we even come close to a on the field winner.

In 2014 maybe with the 4 team playoff we'll have a true NC, but where have you been to not think of College Football Top 25 polls?

^
Actually this question goes to all that have replied to you.

Yeah, I should have thought of college football. Maybe because the elections just seem like a 2 team thing, not 25, it didn't seem the same. My bad.

I still don't see the point though, other than dick wagging.


I'm with you, it's just bullcrap that keeps people interest. I didnt need mean to sounds like a farkdix, hope your having a good day.
 
2012-11-03 06:44:48 PM

WombatControl: Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?

The Ohio polls are showing a non-normal distribution, for one. I believe Jay Cost is the one who first noticed that.

We're also seeing a real disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Obama should not be winning in a swing state like Ohio by a bigger margin than he did in 2008 but somehow not winning nationally by as large a margin. Either Ohio has completely reversed its partisan orientation (which is possible, to be sure), or the numbers aren't adding up.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to be either slightly behind or only slightly ahead nationally, doing roughly the same in the safe red/blue states as he did in 2008, but dramatically ahead in the swing states. The demographics of the swing states aren't enough to move the numbers like that.

In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.


Oversampling? Really? Everyone's oversampling because it is just impossible that people in Ohio are actually happy unemployment is dropping and the President saved the automotive industry which is a very big deal in Ohio.
 
2012-11-03 06:46:40 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

You know what, I thought the same way until Sandy hit. The electoral college prevents those states who were hardest hit from suffering a reduced influence on the final outcome because of conditions. I think Sandy is the best argument I've ever seen heard for keeping the electoral college. And I hate that fact.


I'm sorry, but that's pretty stupid.

1) It is currently within a state's power to delaying election day -- they just have to do it before the electoral college meets (Congress can also intervene, but that's a lot harder to pull off). If NJ was a swing state like Ohio, they'd be delaying the election or giving everyone an absentee ballot.

2) If every state had mail in voting with a one month window, there would be much less of an issue with natural disasters or simply just bad weather affecting the vote. And again, in the instance of a diaster, you could hand deliver everyone in the affected areas a ballot, tell them they have a few hours to fill them out, and then collect them. If people already voted and tried voting again, a simple database that tracks collected allots would catch this.

Given how much of a disaster voting currently is in every state, Obama should propose in his second term that any state which adopts mail in voting and follows certain guidelines (such as length that voting is open, online system where voters can confirm that their ballot was received and properly recorded), will receive federal money to help pay for it. He'll also have the post office waive postage fees for sending out the ballots and returning them.
 
2012-11-03 06:47:48 PM

mrshowrules: WombatControl: Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?

The Ohio polls are showing a non-normal distribution, for one. I believe Jay Cost is the one who first noticed that.

We're also seeing a real disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Obama should not be winning in a swing state like Ohio by a bigger margin than he did in 2008 but somehow not winning nationally by as large a margin. Either Ohio has completely reversed its partisan orientation (which is possible, to be sure), or the numbers aren't adding up.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to be either slightly behind or only slightly ahead nationally, doing roughly the same in the safe red/blue states as he did in 2008, but dramatically ahead in the swing states. The demographics of the swing states aren't enough to move the numbers like that.

In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.

Oversampling? Really? Everyone's oversampling because it is just impossible that people in Ohio are actually happy unemployment is dropping and the President saved the automotive industry which is a very big deal in Ohio.


Yeah a couple other people and I tried that, he left pretty quickly. One less person to bother trying to respond to I guess. Now I see why he got so much hate right from the start.
 
2012-11-03 06:51:49 PM

JolobinSmokin:
I'm with you, it's just bullcrap that keeps people interest. I didnt need mean to sounds like a farkdix, hope your having a good day.


No worries. I'm just tired of Bronco Bama and Mitt Romney.
 
2012-11-03 06:52:54 PM

Irregardless: It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016. We will have at least a couple more years of gridlock and a continued plodding recovery. Hopefully we will hit a point at which confidence returns in a major way and businesses start spending all that cash they are currently sitting on. Whomever wins will preside over a recovery regardless of their policies. President Obama will probably have a budget thats around 24% of GDP and Romney will probably have a budget around 20% of GDP. There is a difference but nothing huge. President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy. Their influence lies almost completely in how much they are trusted and in how much confidence they can instill into the people and businesses via the "bully pulpit". If everybody believes that things are getting better, things will get better much faster, if there is no hope, no enthusiasm and no stability we will have a much slower recovery. I hope that whomever is elected will inspire us but I'm not holding my breath.


As much as I think the GOP (particularly the House morans) will want to continue their obstructionist way, I also think there will come a point where businesses will start saying 'y'know what? we need to make some money. quit yer biatchin so we can get this shiat done.' At some point ideology will take second place to profit.
 
2012-11-03 06:53:40 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

And replaced with what?


I don't remember where I saw this idea, but it seems simple: keep the electoral college, but amend the constitution to say if there is a conflict between the national popular vote and the electoral vote, Congress shall declare the national popular vote winner to be the winner of the election. Each state would still hold separate, simultaneous presidential elections, and recounts would only be triggered under the same conditions as now: a close vote within one state. No authority would exist to order a joint recount among several states because of a close margin in the national popular vote total.
 
2012-11-03 06:56:40 PM

BMulligan: Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters

I know this is a joke, but no one will fall for it. Everyone knows that the correspondence between the 20% who are Teabaggers and the 20% who are Palin supporters is 1:1.


So in this Venn diagram, the blue circle is TeaParty Patriots, the yellow circle is Palin supporters and
But I only see a green circle.
Ding ding ding ding ding
 
2012-11-03 07:02:50 PM

WombatControl: We're also seeing a real disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Obama should not be winning in a swing state like Ohio by a bigger margin than he did in 2008 but somehow not winning nationally by as large a margin. Either Ohio has completely reversed its partisan orientation (which is possible, to be sure), or the numbers aren't adding up.


What are you talking about?

RCP's current spread for Ohio is 2.9.
Obama: 49.3
Romney: 46.4

This same point last year it was 3.2.
Obama: 49
McCain: 45.8

So at best Obama is going to repeat his performance in Ohio, not exceed it.

And in most other swing states, if not all, it looks like the Obama win margin is going to be way less than 2008.
 
2012-11-03 07:08:40 PM

Infernalist: Do you wonder if he sits up at night, thinking to himself..."This is why I got thrashed and harassed and insulted by morons on my OWN SIDE for a year and a half? To be thrown under the bus by Chris Christie at the last minute? To be a sacrifice to a President that we couldn't beat?"


For Christie to throw Romney under the bus, he would first have to have descended in the the now flooded 8th circle of hell, deep below the flooded subways, and carried Romney upwards, toward the light, to find a bus. Sorry, no way Christie makes it back out past the 3rd circle.
 
2012-11-03 07:14:05 PM

Irregardless: PonceAlyosha: Irregardless: President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy.

How anyone can say that after the Bush administration is goddamn beyond me.

Do you really think that Bush single handedly caused the recession? A couple of bubbles burst that were a long time in the making. Do you think he planned it that way? He's not smart enough for that. Hell, he obviously didn't even see it coming. Presidents should receive neither credit or blame for how the economy does while they sit in the white house. If anything they may have one longer term effects that they can be held responsible for but most of those don't have a huge immediate effect. Think Obamacare - there are some good ideas but the devil will be in the details and in the execution. We will know if it's truly successful in about 15-20 years and the vast majority of the execution is completely out of president Obama's control.


Bush prevented the states from enacting their own regulations on predatory lending. His actions directly contribute to the housing bubble.

That is just one reason he bears direct responsibilty for the crash. Making regulatory agencies like the SEC useless also contributed.
 
2012-11-03 07:22:41 PM
If you look at Real Conservative Propaganda's "electoral map without tossup states," it is almost identical to Nate Silver's. It only differs on Virginia:

Link
 
2012-11-03 07:28:20 PM

Thrag: Irregardless: PonceAlyosha: Irregardless: President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy.

How anyone can say that after the Bush administration is goddamn beyond me.

Do you really think that Bush single handedly caused the recession? A couple of bubbles burst that were a long time in the making. Do you think he planned it that way? He's not smart enough for that. Hell, he obviously didn't even see it coming. Presidents should receive neither credit or blame for how the economy does while they sit in the white house. If anything they may have one longer term effects that they can be held responsible for but most of those don't have a huge immediate effect. Think Obamacare - there are some good ideas but the devil will be in the details and in the execution. We will know if it's truly successful in about 15-20 years and the vast majority of the execution is completely out of president Obama's control.

Bush prevented the states from enacting their own regulations on predatory lending. His actions directly contribute to the housing bubble.

That is just one reason he bears direct responsibilty for the crash. Making regulatory agencies like the SEC useless also contributed.


You give Bush far too much credit. Moreover, the driver of the US economy through most of Bush's term was housing. It was not just predatory lending. It was a great many Americans using the the equity on their homes like an ATM machine. And speculators and cheap interest rates driving up the cost of housing. New housing was being built at a silly pace. Home renovations were major business. It all amounted to people spending their wealth faster than real wealth was being accumulated. When the bubble burst, as it had to, "bubble wealth" disappeared and the great hang-over began. Bush didn't make that happen. The American people made that happen by believing the party could go on and on. The American people refused to "do the math".

Zealots of the GOP want to blame Frank and Freddie Mac. They're wrong. Blaming Bush or neocons is just as wrong.
 
2012-11-03 07:31:34 PM

you are a puppet: Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?

They keep changing!


They don't favor Republicans!
 
2012-11-03 07:33:17 PM

WombatControl: Spanky_McFarksalot: WombatControl: and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think

someones been hangin out at unskewed polls again.

Um, no. The Unskewed Polls people are nuts - they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama), but they take that idea too far.

Although it would tickle the hell out of me if they turned out to be right... but the chances of that are about as slim as Anne Hathaway parachuting into my front yard and demanding I ravage her right then and there. Not going to happen...


Eh, never give up hope, meth is a hell of a drug.
 
2012-11-03 07:35:46 PM

joonyer: heap: joonyer: Yeah well fark you.

well, you asked a silly question, what point is there in a serious answer.

people take polls on everything from favorite yogurt to amateur singers - why wouldn't there be polls on elections, policies, campaigns, or any of a litany of other political matters?

I ask stupid questions sometimes. Sorry.


I'm not entirely convinced that it's a stupid question. On one level, it sort of is, because it's obvious why a whole range of people want to poll things in advance. Merchandisers, politicos, media - everybody with money or power "skin in the game" has a use for info about public opinion, and how effective their attempts to manipulate it are.
The question of why we, the people, are so hungry for advance info on who we ourselves are going to vote for next Tuesday is a little more problematic.
Maybe it's a psychological thing. We are a species that thinks to survive, and for most of our existence, an individual's having some idea of what was going to happen next has meant the difference between life and death on a daily basis.
 
2012-11-03 07:35:48 PM
What Nate Silver thinks doesn't matter. The EC doesn't matter. In the end, only nine appointed-for-life arbiters will matter. Which appeals will they hear, which will they deny? That will determine which federal lawsuits prevail, and thus whose votes count.
 
2012-11-03 07:35:48 PM
If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.
 
2012-11-03 07:37:50 PM

aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.


What will you wrap it in?
 
2012-11-03 07:37:52 PM

aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.


Who?

0/10
 
2012-11-03 07:38:31 PM

mittromneysdog: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

What will you wrap it in?


Gauze.
 
2012-11-03 07:43:15 PM

aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.


pulpfactor.com
 
2012-11-03 07:48:45 PM

aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.


Be sure to post pictures
 
2012-11-03 07:49:14 PM

PonceAlyosha: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

My biggest hope is that Mitt Romney loses this election and never stops running. I hope he spends his entire fortune chasing that impossible dream. I hope he and his family become laughing stocks, punchlines and that they kill their corrupt horrible party doing it.


You seem to think that Romney is spending his own money. He isn't from what I can tell...being a shrewd "investor" he's spending Koch's money, various bank executive money, etc.

But not his.
 
2012-11-03 07:51:33 PM

aselene: mittromneysdog: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

What will you wrap it in?

Gauze.


Here at Fark, we favor wrapping things in bacon.
 
2012-11-03 07:52:42 PM

themindiswatching: We don't just want a horse race, we know in our gut that it is one.


The gut is not good at collating and interpreting numbers try your brain.
 
2012-11-03 07:55:26 PM

aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.



hmmm...

Location: Jefferson City, MO

Y'know, that "When in Rome ..." thing is just a saying. You don't have to abuse methamphetamines just because everyone else on your block does.
 
2012-11-03 08:00:55 PM

Richard Roma: I'm not celebrating, not dismissing a 'false horserace', not feeling one iota of comfort, until I hear a Rmoney concession speech. The odds are against him winning, but far stranger things have happened.

But if and when he does lose... oh sweet FSM I'm going to enjoy rubbing it in the face of every indignant piece of Teabagger scum I can.


Here here. But I am going out to dinner at a "nice" restaurant to distract myself from the first round of poll closings, so I don't go nuts.
 
2012-11-03 08:01:07 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?

Wombat still can't comprehend the new Democratic lean to Ohio.

[images2.dailykos.com image 275x259]

Its not too hard to figure out. Unless you're Wombat.


Modern Ohio is pretty easy to figure out. If Ohio thinks it's going well, or as well as could be, they stick with the same party they voted for last time. Otherwise, they switch their vote (the pre-1912 votes are largely Civil War related):

img24.imageshack.us

It's very likely Obama is going to win Ohio. Even though the economy has been shiat, it's on the upswing, and the only times Ohio has flipped since 1952 during single terms has been:

64-68 - Johnson to Nixon
76-80 - Carter to Reagan
88-92 - Bush 1 to Clinton

Johnson to Nixon happened during the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, and all the ugliness that entailed. Carter to Reagan and Bush 1 to Clinton were both during horrendous economic downturns that were on the way down during the elections. Since we're on a very slow upswing, it's unlikely Ohio is going to switch their vote from last time, which means the Democrats have a good advantage.

Modern Ohio tends to stick with incumbents at least through the second term and then switch. Historically, Obama has an advantage. 

Whether or not there's a new "Democratic lean" to Ohio has yet to be determined. The state itself tends to vote opposite party governors compared to the President.
 
2012-11-03 08:01:59 PM
It was always his election to lose. Great job by Romney for giving him a close race.
 
2012-11-03 08:03:55 PM

WombatControl:
Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...


Your best argument is unscrewed polls guy, 'because I think so'. That doesn't beat actual data.

You know, data.
 
2012-11-03 08:11:53 PM

thornhill: Uchiha_Cycliste: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

You know what, I thought the same way until Sandy hit. The electoral college prevents those states who were hardest hit from suffering a reduced influence on the final outcome because of conditions. I think Sandy is the best argument I've ever seen heard for keeping the electoral college. And I hate that fact.

I'm sorry, but that's pretty stupid.

1) It is currently within a state's power to delaying election day -- they just have to do it before the electoral college meets (Congress can also intervene, but that's a lot harder to pull off). If NJ was a swing state like Ohio, they'd be delaying the election or giving everyone an absentee ballot.

2) If every state had mail in voting with a one month window, there would be much less of an issue with natural disasters or simply just bad weather affecting the vote. And again, in the instance of a diaster, you could hand deliver everyone in the affected areas a ballot, tell them they have a few hours to fill them out, and then collect them. If people already voted and tried voting again, a simple database that tracks collected allots would catch this.

Given how much of a disaster voting currently is in every state, Obama should propose in his second term that any state which adopts mail in voting and follows certain guidelines (such as length that voting is open, online system where voters can confirm that their ballot was received and properly recorded), will receive federal money to help pay for it. He'll also have the post office waive postage fees for sending out the ballots and returning them.



I don't agree with your view on the uselessness of the electoral college for several very specific reasons, but before I get into them I want to say that I agree with most of what you wrote.

You mostly spoke of things that could be done immediately to decrease voting complexity the potential for issues. Mail-in early voting is a fantastic way to simplify the system and increase turnout, I would love if we shifted over to such a system as soon as possible.

With respect to extending the voting hours the states appear to have broad powers to open the polls for longer, extend voting into a second or third day or in theory hold it on a different day altogether and such decisions are made on a state by state basis, internally. Nationwide it appears an act of congress could change the polling day from the legally prescribed first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
The things are possible, but I sincerely doubt anything beyond some polls remaining open longer will happen.
Because neither the state not the Congress will act to I feel the electoral college helps to mitigate the effects of many fewer voters having voted by Tuesday than would otherwise have.Even if there are 5 million fewer voters, the results of the election will not be significantly effected because it's equally difficult or impossible for both Obama and Romney supporters.

So, while you suggest a number of ways to reduce the need for the electoral college, they can't be relied upon for the election that ends on Tuesday. I still think the electoral college is for once helping more than hurting for an election.
 
2012-11-03 08:12:12 PM

MithrandirBooga: I have to wonder, how many people Obama is going to kill just by being re-elected.

Think about it. I have never seen such vehement angst about an election before. It's even worse than 2008 for Thor's sake. It's not out of the realm of possibility to think that there will be a few people so pissed off about this that they'll have heart attacks.


It is also not out of the realm of possibility that there will be a few people so pissed off about this that they'll start shooting.
 
2012-11-03 08:14:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures


I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.
 
2012-11-03 08:20:15 PM

aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.


and because you have no penis.

/or maybe because Osama Hussein isn't even on the ballot
 
2012-11-03 08:21:32 PM

propasaurus: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

and because you have no penis.

/or maybe because Osama Hussein isn't even on the ballot


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-03 08:22:00 PM

aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.


Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.
 
2012-11-03 08:25:53 PM

jjmartin: WombatControl:
Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...

Your best argument is unscrewed polls guy, 'because I think so'. That doesn't beat actual data.

You know, data.


His shtick for awhile was "There's 6 months to go", "There's 5 months to go" but when he started running out of time he shifted to the polls being wrong. If you accept that Romney should win and will win, obviously the polls are very wrong indeed.
 
2012-11-03 08:28:30 PM
What I think the wingers are denying is the Republican stay at home factor due to their putting up such a god awful candidate.
 
2012-11-03 08:30:34 PM

mrshowrules: jjmartin: WombatControl:
Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...

Your best argument is unscrewed polls guy, 'because I think so'. That doesn't beat actual data.

You know, data.

His shtick for awhile was "There's 6 months to go", "There's 5 months to go" but when he started running out of time he shifted to the polls being wrong. If you accept that Romney should win and will win, obviously the polls are very wrong indeed.


What I love is that everything he's been saying for a week or two, all his bullshiat is remarked upon in TFA. According to Nate silver "the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking" ad no matter how much mr wombat tries to scream nuh uh! I know better, it's all still just wishful thinking (at best) otherwise he's just herping the derp.
 
2012-11-03 08:33:30 PM

WombatControl: cameroncrazy1984: WombatControl: they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama

Prove it.

Take the last Marist poll of Ohio. They have a partisan makeup of 38D/29R/32I (D+9). That's bigger than the D+5 advantage in 2008. If the Democrats are doing close to twice as well as they were in 2008, we should see early voting in strongly Democratic counties doubling. We should see a huge partisan advantage in early voting in Ohio. (And yes, I know how the early voting totals are calculated, but that should at least give us SOME idea of a Democratic wave forming). We should see Obama attracting huge crowds of motivated voters.

But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less. So those numbers don't match the reality of what we're seeing on the ground. The problem with someone like Nate Silver is that he's looking at the numbers only and not asking critical questions about how the numbers fit with the bigger picture.

That's the downside of statistical analysis - most of the time it works just fine, but sometimes it breaks horribly. The models that predicted that the housing market would never go down were highly advanced and done by people whose jobs depended on getting it right - and they were still horribly and tragically wrong.


Do you know how I can tell you have never read Silver's methodology page. Polls in his predictive models are weighted; in fact, Marist is recognized as having a significant (D) house effect and his model is designed to account for that, just like it accounts for Gallup's (R) lean and all the other polls.

I will say that the media's "enthusiasm gap" is non-existent. Perhaps another candidate may have helped, but Romney hasn't; nobody likes him.

The reason you saw polls close the day after the first debate was (and note that the polls were closing before) because Romney simply didn't shiat his pants. I would argue that the raw partisans that broke for Romney after that debate were those people that were going to vote for him no matter what; they were simply encouraged by his performance in the debate enough to admit publicly that they were voting for him.

Also, to your earlier statement, there is zero evidence that Romney's internal polls look any better than the public polls in the field. His campaign has continued odd behavior and shown the same clownshoes planning they've been showing all summer. The only improvement they've made is by keeping Romney from taking questions or interviews so he doesn't say something stupid yet again.
 
2012-11-03 08:38:06 PM
I got filterpwned on the name of Gov. Perry's ranch. =/
 
2012-11-03 08:40:53 PM

whistleridge: FeedTheCollapse: that bosnian sniper: LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: the right won't try to get rid of the electoral college. They have too much of an advantage in the form of disproportional representation among low-population red states to give up. I'd fully expect them to try to amend the electoral college thus:

- 102 electoral votes go to the states and District of Columbia, to be pledged as winner-take-all.
- 436 electoral votes are pledged proportionally on a state-by-state basis.

That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states. For example, under this system in 2008 Obama would have only won 34 electoral votes in California, McCain would have won 20, and Nader would have won 1.

if they don't remove the Electoral College entirely, I at least expect them to drop their defense of it from their official party platform if Obama wins the EV but not the popular vote.

Sam Wang at the Princeton Electoral Consortium presents the best argument for the Electoral College that I've heard to date:./a>

Basically, he argues that with the EC, any count or recount issues are compartmentalized. Without it, any close calls or errors in the popular vote mean Bush v Gore type lawsuits everywhere, and long-running-heavily-argued recounts like Minnesota's Senatorial race in 08 could be the norm rather than the exception.

There's a certain amount of logic there. If you get rid of the EC, what do you replace it with? A single vote for each state, weighted to population? That just duplicates the EC. A truly national Popular vote? How do you deal with discrepancies? 300,000,000 people producing 120,000,000 votes is ...


Those people are voting anyhow.

Since you'd need an amendment to make it happen, you would also require a minimum federal standard for voting standards.

I would also use the opportunity to force the House to have a 250,000:1 constituent:rep ratio. Having 120mm people vote isn't a big deal; I would still require states to manage it and provide block grants to assist. I would recommend that, in the voting standards, that equal access (like voting machine:voter) ratios are equal and that inner city people would have the same expectation for the amount of time to get through a line that a suburban or exurban person would. I would also require federal standards for training and actions of poll monitors and poll workers. One could also make vote fraud a federal felony and have the crime of stuffing ballot boxes to be a 10-year sentence (most common fraud).
 
2012-11-03 08:45:25 PM

wademh: Thrag: Irregardless: PonceAlyosha: Irregardless: President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy.

How anyone can say that after the Bush administration is goddamn beyond me.

Do you really think that Bush single handedly caused the recession? A couple of bubbles burst that were a long time in the making. Do you think he planned it that way? He's not smart enough for that. Hell, he obviously didn't even see it coming. Presidents should receive neither credit or blame for how the economy does while they sit in the white house. If anything they may have one longer term effects that they can be held responsible for but most of those don't have a huge immediate effect. Think Obamacare - there are some good ideas but the devil will be in the details and in the execution. We will know if it's truly successful in about 15-20 years and the vast majority of the execution is completely out of president Obama's control.

Bush prevented the states from enacting their own regulations on predatory lending. His actions directly contribute to the housing bubble.

That is just one reason he bears direct responsibilty for the crash. Making regulatory agencies like the SEC useless also contributed.

You give Bush far too much credit. Moreover, the driver of the US economy through most of Bush's term was housing. It was not just predatory lending. It was a great many Americans using the the equity on their homes like an ATM machine. And speculators and cheap interest rates driving up the cost of housing. New housing was being built at a silly pace. Home renovations were major business. It all amounted to people spending their wealth faster than real wealth was being accumulated. When the bubble burst, as it had to, "bubble wealth" disappeared and the great hang-over began. Bush didn't make that happen. The American people made that happen by believing the party could go on and on. The American people refused to "do the math".

Zealots of the GOP want to blame ...


Yep, there is plenty of blame to spread among all presidential administrations and congresses since Reagan was elected and some other people (such as Mr Greenspan). The systematic dismantling of banking regulation occurred over decades.
 
2012-11-03 08:46:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.


The "science" is all based on polls which over sample DemocRats.
 
2012-11-03 08:48:49 PM

aselene: cameroncrazy1984: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.

The "science" is all based on polls which over sample DemocRats.


Why do you think the democrats are over sampled?
Did you even read the article?
 
2012-11-03 08:49:07 PM

aselene: cameroncrazy1984: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.

The "science" is all based on polls which over sample DemocRats.


So...if Obama wins, you will send pictures, right?
 
2012-11-03 08:56:10 PM

joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?


The polling isn't for the electorate; it's for the polititians' campaign staffs.
 
2012-11-03 08:58:31 PM

Angry Buddha: The polling isn't for the electorate; it's for the polititians' campaign staffs.


^^^THAT

/campaign staffer/statistician
 
2012-11-03 09:01:37 PM

GWSuperfan: Angry Buddha: The polling isn't for the electorate; it's for the polititians' campaign staffs.

^^^THAT

/campaign staffer/statistician


Heh heh... polls, staff...

/penis
 
2012-11-03 09:03:55 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: anfrind: There may be hope for your coworker yet.

I dunno. A bus driver can save the lives of a hundred children, and he's still a bus driver. A hero, for sure, but still just a bus driver. But ork just one cow, and he's a coworker forever.


I've read the entire thread and this will be the only post I remember tomorrow.
 
2012-11-03 09:06:15 PM

aselene: cameroncrazy1984: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.

The "science" is all based on polls which over sample DemocRats.


Yep, even Rasmussen "over samples" Democrats.
 
2012-11-03 09:13:37 PM

Richard Roma: But if and when he does lose... oh sweet FSM I'm going to enjoy rubbing it in the face of every indignant piece of Teabagger scum I can.


Consider: The particular species you refer to occupies an ecological niche that thrives on negative emotions, like some strange creature from Star Trek. If you stoke those fires, they will predictably respond with comments about the sorry state of voter's intelligence, the 47%, welfare queens or voter fraud by hordes of illegal aliens. Don't do it. Kill 'em with kindness. It will emasculate them. Speak of hoping that we can find ways to respect the whole country and find common ground. Sure, it's a cruel way to twist the knife, so smile. It will leave them with nothing to target their hate upon except their own kind.
 
2012-11-03 09:32:24 PM
I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.
 
2012-11-03 09:44:42 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.


Won't happen until the following week. Monday will still have them campaigning for him and slamming Obama. The few days after the election will be filled with shouting how the elections were fixed.

Tgeevisionarihe they'll throw him under the bus.
 
2012-11-03 09:54:54 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.


They seem so certain of a victory this time around that they're going to blame:

1) Liberal bias in media, specifically for not bringing more attention to Bengazi and "Fast and Furious."

2) Polling conspiracy, especially Nate Silver.

3) Sandy

4) Chris Christie

5) Chicago politics

All of these factors conspired to steal the election from Romney.
 
2012-11-03 10:02:37 PM
No more polls? Thank the Goddess!
 
2012-11-03 10:04:29 PM

thornhill: shower_in_my_socks: I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.

They seem so certain of a victory this time around that they're going to blame:

1) Liberal bias in media, specifically for not bringing more attention to Bengazi and "Fast and Furious."

2) Polling conspiracy, especially Nate Silver.

3) Sandy

4) Chris Christie

5) Chicago politics

All of these factors conspired to steal the election from Romney.


Add in

6) Illegal immigrants

7) Activist judges (Pennsylvania voter ID ruling)

8) Using welfare to buy votes

9) Romney is a secret liberal who cheated to stop "real Americans" from winning the primaries and intentionally threw the election.

And the final conclusion will be that they need a more right wing candidate. Just hope someone comes to their senses over the next 3 years.
 
2012-11-03 10:09:41 PM

mrshowrules: I love how Silver shows how Obama's significant lead in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and Wisconsin are not sampling errors whereas Romney's thin lead in Florida could very well represent a sampling error. Sure could see how this would piss off Conservatives. KILL THE MESSENGER!

/to they crazies out there, it is an expression - please don't kill anyone


If the GOP is as sensitive as they act, he was doing them a favor by dumbing things down for their use.
 
2012-11-03 10:23:23 PM

dywed88: And the final conclusion will be that they need a more right wing candidate. Just hope someone comes to their senses over the next 3 years.


Why? If this is the best the Republicans can do, maybe they deserve to be shunted off into the dustbin of history.
 
2012-11-03 10:31:02 PM

Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters


You counted the same people three times. And you badly misspelled 'racists'.
 
2012-11-03 10:33:25 PM
Nate Silver has saved this country.

If he hadn't been here to throw water on the "Mitt-monetum" horseshiat... and the GOP had been allowed to make that case to logical americans, then the GOP would have been free to rig the votes in Ohio, Florida and Virginia to give Romney the win.

But they can only rig the votes if it wouldn't be totally obvious. But Silver has made it so that a GOP win would be such a blatantly statistical anomaly that they'll have to save it for next time.
 
2012-11-03 10:35:33 PM

WombatControl: In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.


PPP twitter feed earlier today had some comments that their blue state polls are WAY down (but still ahead) for Obama, like 10 points down from 2008. PPP thinks this might explain why the national polls show a very tight race but the electoral college shows an Obama lead.

Example: Obama ahead 8 points in blue state (connecticut?) this year, up 18 points in 2008

best explanation I've read yet.
 
2012-11-03 10:46:00 PM

James F. Campbell: dywed88: And the final conclusion will be that they need a more right wing candidate. Just hope someone comes to their senses over the next 3 years.

Why? If this is the best the Republicans can do, maybe they deserve to be shunted off into the dustbin of history.


Parts of the right wing have been making that argument since the primaries began. They will argue that his previous socially liberal positions cost them the election. Then they will bring up how Romney threw Ryan under the bus trying to distance himself from his VP candidate. In the end most of the far right will go "we tried a moderate and he failed, now we get our candidate".

And if the Democrats pick a moderate right leaning candidate again in 2016 they will have further justification of picking someone to differentiate himself.

The question is can the far right retain their stranglehold on the party for three more years and dominate the party. The 2014 elections could be critical to this question (their wins in 2010 gave the far right a lot of momentum within the party, a moderate win or far right failure in 2016 could help shift things back).
 
2012-11-03 11:02:40 PM

phillyguy1547: Nate Silver has saved this country.

If he hadn't been here to throw water on the "Mitt-monetum" horseshiat... and the GOP had been allowed to make that case to logical americans, then the GOP would have been free to rig the votes in Ohio, Florida and Virginia to give Romney the win.

But they can only rig the votes if it wouldn't be totally obvious. But Silver has made it so that a GOP win would be such a blatantly statistical anomaly that they'll have to save it for next time.


On the contrary--if Romney wins (by hook or more likely by crook), the derpers will use this as "proof" that Silver, statisticians in general, and the science of statistics itself are full of shiat; it'll be a new plank in their anti-science platform.
 
2012-11-03 11:31:33 PM
Three statisticals:
1) election of 2000
2) Ohio has Republican government
3) math is hard

The way I see it, the 3 add up to a Romney victory.
 
2012-11-03 11:42:48 PM
Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.

Current participants:

Barack Obama
John Maynard Keynes
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Markos Moulitsas
Michael Moore
Paul Krugman
Noam Chomsky
George Soros
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins

newsthatsfittoprint.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-04 12:04:31 AM

SouthParkCon: Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.


Wow...dissing libs for liking Nate Silver. Aren't you just on the cutting edge of Derp.

Have you heard about this new "MSNBC" thing?
 
2012-11-04 12:09:03 AM

Lionel Mandrake: SouthParkCon: Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.

Wow...dissing libs for liking Nate Silver. Aren't you just on the cutting edge of Derp.

Have you heard about this new "MSNBC" thing?


Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Current participants:

Barack Obama
John Maynard Keynes
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Markos Moulitsas
Michael Moore
Paul Krugman
Noam Chomsky
George Soros
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins
Nate Silver
NPR
 
2012-11-04 12:48:58 AM

SouthParkCon: Lionel Mandrake: SouthParkCon: Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.

Wow...dissing libs for liking Nate Silver. Aren't you just on the cutting edge of Derp.

Have you heard about this new "MSNBC" thing?

Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Current participants:

Barack Obama
John Maynard Keynes
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Markos Moulitsas
Michael Moore
Paul Krugman
Noam Chomsky
George Soros
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins
Nate Silver
NPR


Now I just feel sorry for you.

And for some reason, I suddenly remembered how much the 1/2 Hour News Hour sucked.

/*other* than pretty much stealing their name from This Hour Has 22 Minutes
 
2012-11-04 01:08:18 AM
Silver's credibility will either be raised to an even higher level or be completely destroyed Tuesday. He did very well, once.
 
2012-11-04 01:56:21 AM

3_Butt_Cheeks: No, he's not going to sleep with you.


On 10-18 you said you'd rather go in to this election with Romney's numbers than Obama's.

Still feel that way?
 
2012-11-04 02:21:38 AM

SouthParkCon: Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...


Interesting that when you think of the best thing possible, it involves taking a load of sperm to the face.

You should come out of the closet. No one cares these days.
 
2012-11-04 03:14:21 AM

mediablitz: SouthParkCon: Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Interesting that when you think of the best thing possible, it involves taking a load of sperm to the face.

You should come out of the closet. No one cares these days.


Grrr, angry Liberal is angry.
 
2012-11-04 03:18:19 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: SouthParkCon: Lionel Mandrake: SouthParkCon: Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.

Wow...dissing libs for liking Nate Silver. Aren't you just on the cutting edge of Derp.

Have you heard about this new "MSNBC" thing?

Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Current participants:

Barack Obama
John Maynard Keynes
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Markos Moulitsas
Michael Moore
Paul Krugman
Noam Chomsky
George Soros
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins
Nate Silver
NPR

Now I just feel sorry for you.

And for some reason, I suddenly remembered how much the 1/2 Hour News Hour sucked.

/*other* than pretty much stealing their name from This Hour Has 22 Minutes


I'll be the first one to agree that the 1/2 Hour News Hour was an abomination.

/Flame On!
 
2012-11-04 03:36:13 AM

SouthParkCon: mediablitz: SouthParkCon: Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Interesting that when you think of the best thing possible, it involves taking a load of sperm to the face.

You should come out of the closet. No one cares these days.

Grrr, angry Liberal is angry.


Really. It's ok. You like taking loads of cum in the face. It's your "thing". No need to get all defensive.
 
2012-11-04 04:38:10 AM

SouthParkCon: mediablitz: SouthParkCon: Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Interesting that when you think of the best thing possible, it involves taking a load of sperm to the face.

You should come out of the closet. No one cares these days.

Grrr, angry Liberal is angry.


I always find it funny that a dumbass teabagger calls himself southparkcon. Unfortunately that is possibly the only funny thing about you.
 
2012-11-04 07:02:52 AM

Thrag: Bush prevented the states from enacting their own regulations on predatory lending. His actions directly contribute to the housing bubble.

That is just one reason he bears direct responsibilty for the crash. Making regulatory agencies like the SEC useless also contributed.


Also the fark damn wars and how monstrously bungled they were.
 
2012-11-04 10:20:57 AM

Halli: SouthParkCon:derp

I always find it funny that a dumbass teabagger calls himself southparkcon. Unfortunately that is possibly the only funny thing about you.


I figured it was probably Marcus Bachmann's Fark handle.
 
2012-11-04 12:53:10 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: And replaced with what?


My plan is pretty complicated, but I'll try to explain it as clearly as I can....

The guy who gets the most votes wins.
 
2012-11-04 01:22:35 PM

quid: Silver's credibility will either be raised to an even higher level or be completely destroyed Tuesday. He did very well, once.


Once?
 
2012-11-04 01:24:28 PM

quid: Silver's credibility will either be raised to an even higher level or be completely destroyed Tuesday. He did very well, once.


"Once?" he repeated, this time with the link previewed.

His Baseball Prospectus work was pretty much definitive, before he branched out to simpler problems.
 
Displayed 254 of 254 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report