Jonah Goldberg? Shut up you cock.

The point is, the models are all over the map. They can't all be right.

The funny thing is that almost all models agree that Obama will win, although the margins of victory is varied. The only model that doesn't agree with the general consensus is the University of Colorado's model, which predicts a landslide Romney victory.

But... but momentum!

Math is a tool of teh debbil.

I'll trust Nate Silver over the cable news projections any day.

I hope someone is saving all these Romney landslide predictions by the pundits.

Link

What do conservatives think? The Denver Post has collected maps from eight conservative map makers. Here are the electoral vote scores they are predicting.




Comments about alternative universes will be held until tomorrow. However, Election Projection, a very conservative, but data-driven, site, has Obama at 303, just as we do.

WalkingCarpet: Jonah Goldberg? Shut up you cock.

My first thought the moment I read the headline.

It must be Retarded Headline Tuesday.

The reason we make mathematical models is that they allow us to reason precisely about the consequences of our assumptions. No one claims the models are reality, but when the consequences of our assumptions turn out to match reality, we are somewhat justified in claiming that our assumptions have validity. That's how science works. We make hypothesis, and we test them. If we're wrong, we learn from that.
It's perfectly fair to claim there are alternative hypothesis. Make your models and prove they match reality more closely. What's not fair is to claim that a model sucks, and even if it predicts things pretty well, it's just a model and therefore horseshiat. No one understands quantum mechanics, and no one likes it, but that doesn't stop physicists from shrugging and "just calculating". Because it gets the right answers, and that's all we're trying to do, your politics notwithstanding.

RedPhoenix122: I'll trust Nate Silver over the cable news projections any day.

That's no joke. I think it is hilarious that Fox has Michigan and Iowa as toss ups but not North Carolina. I don't think NC is a toss up but it should qualify before freaking MI or Iowa. And the same thing goes for CNN. They have Wisconsin and Iowa as tossups and NC as Romney.

Marcus Aurelius: WalkingCarpet: Jonah Goldberg? Shut up you cock.

My first thought the moment I read the headline.

It must be Retarded Headline Tuesday.

The admins are just giving us lots to click. Its gonna be a long day of people glued to their puters - may as well give them something to click.

UberDave: RedPhoenix122: I'll trust Nate Silver over the cable news projections any day.

That's no joke. I think it is hilarious that Fox has Michigan and Iowa as toss ups but not North Carolina. I don't think NC is a toss up but it should qualify before freaking MI or Iowa. And the same thing goes for CNN. They have Wisconsin and Iowa as tossups and NC as Romney.

I sincerely hate cable news channels. Instead of deciding what is important to know, they broadcast what sells.

"wrongly good"?

cry moar!

rumpelstiltskin: It's perfectly fair to claim there are alternative hypothesis. Make your models and prove they match reality more closely.

Good post. But what a lot of people (news organizations) are doing is simply making a map, backing it with little information and/or not explaining how they came up with the hypothesis other than vague subjective claims...Especially in the face of such rich polling data.

Jonah Goldberg:

Will this be last of our daily Nate Silver threads, or will there be a follow up thread tomorrow?

simplicimus: Will this be last of our daily Nate Silver threads, or will there be a follow up thread tomorrow?

There is a 95% chance that there will be at least 2 more today. The trollier the better.

simplicimus: Will this be last of our daily Nate Silver threads, or will there be a follow up thread tomorrow?

Well, we'll have to see how accurate he was. I still think he's overstating a few states, but well he's obviously mathed the everloving fark out of all this and his track record last time was quite impressive.

My final prediction: 318

I find it very interesting the Romney claims to have "internal polling" that puts them up by one in Ohio, and 538 has Ohio so high now (91.8% odds Obama will win) that it isn't even listed as a "Competitive State" now.

Guess we'll find out who is right.

WalkingCarpet: I hope someone is saving all these Romney landslide predictions by the pundits.

Dusk-You-n-Me posted this in a thread yesterday. not sure if it's his, but someone is attempting to memorialize all of the unfounded right-wing election predictions.

Nate Silver is giving these people free research. You would think they would see this data and say, "Hey, thanks, now we know where we should be focusing." Instead, they see it and say, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU'RE GOING TO FEEL LIKE SUCH A DUMBASS ON WEDNESDAY!!!"

Quickly, somebody! SHOOT THE MESSENGER!

/f*ckwits

thomps: WalkingCarpet: I hope someone is saving all these Romney landslide predictions by the pundits.

Dusk-You-n-Me posted this in a thread yesterday. not sure if it's his, but someone is attempting to memorialize all of the unfounded right-wing election predictions.

One thing is for sure... one side is going to be scratching their head tomorrow.

dletter: I find it very interesting the Romney claims to have "internal polling" that puts them up by one in Ohio, and 538 has Ohio so high now (91.8% odds Obama will win) that it isn't even listed as a "Competitive State" now.

Guess we'll find out who is right.

Not just Nate, I don't think I've seen a single poll where Obama did not lead by some margin in Ohio. Another poll site I check has Ohio at +3% for Obama, it had previously been as high as +5% or so. Candidates internal polls = numbers pulled out of someone's arse. So disregarding that, *IF* the polls are generally right, I'd be relatively shocked if Obama does not carry Ohio. Perhaps to the point that I would suspect something had gone wrong, unless the polls were consistently wrong across the board. And Romney can't realistically win without Ohio, so bob's your uncle.

dletter: I find it very interesting the Romney claims to have "internal polling" that puts them up by one in Ohio, and 538 has Ohio so high now (91.8% odds Obama will win) that it isn't even listed as a "Competitive State" now.

Guess we'll find out who is right.

Yep. We'll find out in about 12 hours.

Not that it'll matter to the professional outrage industry. Being wrong just gives them more things to be upset about, because their audience cares about the narrative, not actual information.

Although, you have to remember, even in 1984, on election day, they didn't even get all of there predictions right:

 

Reagan won Iowa by 7%.

Jubeebee: dletter: I find it very interesting the Romney claims to have "internal polling" that puts them up by one in Ohio, and 538 has Ohio so high now (91.8% odds Obama will win) that it isn't even listed as a "Competitive State" now.

Guess we'll find out who is right.

Yep. We'll find out in about 12 hours.

Not that it'll matter to the professional outrage industry. Being wrong just gives them more things to be upset about, because their audience cares about the narrative, not actual information.

Yep and you need conflict for that. Conflict drives drama. When progressives figure out how to craft a more compelling narrative then we will see a swing back to the left. In the meantime this is the only show in town. Of course it gets the ratings - of thems that watches those things.

dletter: Although, you have to remember, even in 1984, on election day, they didn't even get all of there predictions right:

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x360] 

Reagan won Iowa by 7%.

if only we had spent any time getting better at poll predictions over the last 30 years. IF ONLY

thomps: dletter: Although, you have to remember, even in 1984, on election day, they didn't even get all of there predictions right:

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x360] 

Reagan won Iowa by 7%.

if only we had spent any time getting better at poll predictions over the last 30 years. IF ONLY

Well, you certainly have to admit they didn't make much progress by 2000.

RexTalionis: The point is, the models are all over the map. They can't all be right.

The funny thing is that almost all models agree that Obama will win, although the margins of victory is varied. The only model that doesn't agree with the general consensus is the University of Colorado's model, which predicts a landslide Romney victory.

Exactly right. Can someone point me to a single model - not a prediction by a pundit, but a predictive model - which shows Romney winning and has actually been used in a previous election? The only two I know of are Unskewed Polls (heh) and the U. of Colorado model which is a post-dictive model.

Here ya go, Jonah, please share this with your friends. Its going to be a long week, and theres going to be a LOT of butthurt.

I_C_Weener: wrongly good

Thank you. Glad I'm not the only one.

DamnYankees: The only two I know of are Unskewed Polls (heh)

That's not a model, that's science fiction.

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: The only two I know of are Unskewed Polls (heh)

That's not a model, that's science fiction.

playing fast and loose with the word "science" there, pal

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: The only two I know of are Unskewed Polls (heh)

That's not a model, that's science fiction.

It's about what I came up with as well when searching for the most plausible Romney win scenario. And it involves giving him Florida, Ohio, AND Virginia, AND he still would need to take Colorado as well. Lofty goal is farking lofty.

Wrongly good? Are republicans rightly bad?

What are you going to do after the election? Do you clowns have an UnskewedElectoralCollege.com ready to go?


Late Obama poll gains leave Romney with longer odds

vpb: Wrongly good? Are republicans rightly bad?

What are you going to do after the election? Do you clowns have an UnskewedElectoralCollege.com ready to go?


Late Obama poll gains leave Romney with longer odds

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 600x522]

The campaign to impeach Obama over Benghazi has already started

I came here to say this:

RexTalionis: "Indeed, what we see is that Silver's projections are broadly in line with what most people who have built statistical models of the likely results see. Here's a summary of predictions from a variety of poll aggregators, all of whom use different models:

FiveThirtyEight: 314.4 electoral votes for Obama
The Princeton Electoral Consortium predicts Obama will get 309 electoral votes
electoral-vote.com has Obama at 294
Election Projection has Obama at 303
The Huffington Post Election Dashboard has Obama at 277 with 70 tossup votes
Real Clear Politics has Obama at 201 with 146 tossups
Votamatic has Obama at 326"

Also, we did this exact same thing in 2008. And the right was off then as well.

Final verdict: Obama 303 or 332, depending on FL.

When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: vpb: Wrongly good? Are republicans rightly bad?

What are you going to do after the election? Do you clowns have an UnskewedElectoralCollege.com ready to go?


Late Obama poll gains leave Romney with longer odds

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 600x522]

The campaign to impeach Obama over Benghazi has already started

Well, since they have all that free time, now that all the Country's major problems have been solved, go for it. Meanwhile, the DOJ can investigate Bush for war crimes.

The right-wing butthurt about Nate Silver only serves to look him better, because after they complain about him, they unveil their own numbers and they're full of wishful thinking and just plain bullshiat.

dletter: thomps: dletter: Although, you have to remember, even in 1984, on election day, they didn't even get all of there predictions right:

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x360] 

Reagan won Iowa by 7%.

if only we had spent any time getting better at poll predictions over the last 30 years. IF ONLY

Well, you certainly have to admit they didn't make much progress by 2000.

fraud farks up projections

SlothB77: When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.

Can you back that up with some statisticals?

SlothB77: When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.

SlothB77: When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.

Deleted by what? Flying monkeys coming from someone's ass?

tallguywithglasseson: SlothB77: When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.

Can you back that up with some statisticals?

No. Because socialism.

simplicimus: SlothB77: When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.

Deleted by what? Flying monkeys coming from someone's ass?


I love it when people like that assume everyone has the same emotional investment that they have. I'm for Obama. If Romney wins tonight, I will sleep just fine. If Obama wins tonight, there's going to be a lot tired eyes in the morning...at least from the right-wingers I personally know.