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 Atlantic)   Does what you earn predict your vote? Or is it just that witch, Nate Silver   (theatlantic.com) divider line 26
    More: Interesting, Larry Bartels, swing states  
•       •       •

815 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2012 at 11:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-06 08:17:21 AM
photo.shockya.com
(This man votes Romney and makes under $13,000 a year)
 
2012-11-06 09:24:10 AM
It might in theory, though socially conservative poor certainly buck the trend. Voting against your own interests because a gay couple might get married, only in America!
 
2012-11-06 09:32:11 AM
This particular election gender, age and race are much bigger predictors than wages.

Mitt has the rich, old white guy vote locked up and that's about it.

Nice to see Obama maintain his double digit lead with the ladies.
 
2012-11-06 09:41:10 AM

nekom: It might in theory, though socially conservative poor certainly buck the trend. Voting against your own interests because a gay couple might get married, only in America!


It saddens me that we have such a large population that would use their beliefs to take away the freedoms of others for no reason other than "I don't agree with it".
 
2012-11-06 10:44:17 AM
according to that chart, I should be voting for Romney.
 
2012-11-06 11:04:51 AM
www.lifelounge.com.au
LEAVE NATE SILVER ALONE
 
2012-11-06 11:16:31 AM
can't wait for the romney victory so that Nate Silver is proven not credible and we don't have to hear about him anymore.
 
2012-11-06 11:18:09 AM
Looks like Obama had about 47 percent of the vote locked up before the campaign even started.
 
2012-11-06 11:20:26 AM
There are much stronger predictors of a person's vote. Race and Gender, for instance
 
2012-11-06 11:21:18 AM
The graph doesn't match the table.
 
2012-11-06 11:23:08 AM

Lost Thought 00: There are much stronger predictors of a person's vote. Race and Gender, for instance


Grasp of reality?
 
2012-11-06 11:23:48 AM

ManateeGag: according to that chart, I should be voting for Romney.


Funny, right? I make more than my father ever did and he's voting Romney and I'm not.
 
2012-11-06 11:24:17 AM
Kinda annoys me that Fark removes punctuation marks from the end of the headline. It's almost like the headline is missing a
 
2012-11-06 11:24:44 AM

thurstonxhowell: The graph doesn't match the table.


Scratch that. They don't have to match. The graph, despite being labeled as being based on Payscale data, is actually based on a survey by The Atlantic.

Does anyone hire editors anymore?
 
2012-11-06 11:26:27 AM

thurstonxhowell: thurstonxhowell: The graph doesn't match the table.

Scratch that. They don't have to match. The graph, despite being labeled as being based on Payscale data, is actually based on a survey by The Atlantic.

Does anyone hire editors anymore?


Christ, I should hire an editor. Nevermind all this.
 
2012-11-06 11:29:48 AM
FYI, if you take Nate Silvers vote percentage for each state, and the margin of error, you can figure out the probability of Obama/Romney winning the state.

If you take those probabilities and run them through a simulator, it gives Obama a 99.4% chance of winning.

Nate Silver is lying to us. 90% odds for Obama are WAY too low. It makes one think Romney has a 1 in 10 chance at winning, when he only has a 1 in 200 chance.

/I'm joking - sort of. If polls were truly random samples of the voting populous, I would be right though. The fact they're not truly random adds uncertainty.
 
2012-11-06 11:31:02 AM
A guy just walked past me and a pro union chick and said "I make 100000 a year, I know who I'm voting for"

So I muttered to the union chick that my still union member business owning uncle has millions in investments and is voting pro Union and Obama. Would've said that to the guy but wanted to avoid a f--king scene.
 
2012-11-06 11:32:16 AM
I make over $75k (the breakpoint for voting Republican according to the chart) and I voted Green. Do I win a price, or did I break the law or something?
 
2012-11-06 11:33:09 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: A guy just walked past me and a pro union chick and said "I make 100000 a year, I know who I'm voting for"

So I muttered to the union chick that my still union member business owning uncle has millions in investments and is voting pro Union and Obama. Would've said that to the guy but wanted to avoid a f--king scene.


Are you assuming the guy was voting for Romney? The wealthy have done very well under Obama. Not that $100,000 is 1 percent territory.
 
2012-11-06 11:37:05 AM

ManateeGag: according to that chart, I should be voting for Romney.


After all of the talk about 538 and what Silver does and people still do not understand probabilities?

/Solidly in Romneys demographic and voting Johnson.
 
2012-11-06 11:49:23 AM
NATE SILVER! ALL THE LINKS!!!
 
2012-11-06 11:53:57 AM

SlothB77: can't wait for the romney victory so that Nate Silver is proven not credible and we don't have to hear about him anymore.


Care to bet on that?
 
2012-11-06 12:04:27 PM

SlothB77: can't wait for the romney victory so that Nate Silver is proven not credible and we don't have to hear about him anymore.


Just like 2008, right? You know, where he only got 49 out of 50 states right.
 
2012-11-06 12:15:27 PM
 
2012-11-06 12:20:07 PM

SlothB77: can't wait for the romney victory so that Nate Silver is proven not credible and we don't have to hear about him anymore.


I won't bet against Nate. He's not perfect (it is just a statistical analysis), but he's pretty darn thorough on looking at all the permutations. I can appreciate a math geek's need to assign quantifiable (but, even to them, ultimately imperfect) numerical values to something like this.
 
2012-11-06 01:20:05 PM

impaler: If you take those probabilities and run them through a simulator, it gives Obama a 99.4% chance of winning.

Nate Silver is lying to us. 90% odds for Obama are WAY too low. It makes one think Romney has a 1 in 10 chance at winning, when he only has a 1 in 200 chance.


Nate explained that in a recent post. His projections also attempt to quantify the likelihood of a systematic error - for example, if a particular polling model favored Democrats, it would skew the polls in many states, not just one.

It's like the mortgage crisis - you can't just use simple math with the odds of person A defaulting and the odds of person B defaulting to figure out the odds of both defaulting, because they are not independent events; both A and B can be caused by C (say, A and B both being laid off due to a poor economy).

For example, if Minnesota polls were inaccurate and the state somehow went Romney, it's very likely Wisconsin would have the same issue and go Romney as well - you can't consider those probabilities as independent of each other.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report