Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Princeton University)   You know what the politics tab needs today? More Wang   (election.princeton.edu ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Brennan Center for Justice, highest mountains, swing states, romney, NVA  
•       •       •

849 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2012 at 6:28 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-06 05:25:55 PM  
YES.

It is criminal, how underappreciated Wang is on here. Especially given the homoerotic circle-jerk that is the Fark-love fest for Nate Silver....

All dick jokes side, Sam Wang > Nate Silver. Seriously.
 
2012-11-06 05:43:03 PM  
www.wearysloth.com
 
2012-11-06 05:44:14 PM  
everybody wang chung tonight
 
2012-11-06 05:51:44 PM  

whistleridge: YES.

It is criminal, how underappreciated Wang is on here. Especially given the homoerotic circle-jerk that is the Fark-love fest for Nate Silver....

All dick jokes side, Sam Wang > Nate Silver. Seriously.


Wang is more technical, it seems. Sometimes I don't get what he's talking about, where Silver can feed it to the masses. For instance, Wang has a 22% or so chance that Romney gets exactly 270 EVs if I read his chart correctly, but less than a 1% chance of winning. I think that has to do with 270 being 22% of the possible outcomes, but that those outcomes are unlikely. I'm not sure. I used to be good at math, but haven't had to use much math in 20 years. I've only started following him in the past month or so, so I've been playing catch up with his models and probabilities. I wish I'd started sooner and learned what the hell he was talking about as time went by.
 
2012-11-06 06:06:26 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: whistleridge: YES.

It is criminal, how underappreciated Wang is on here. Especially given the homoerotic circle-jerk that is the Fark-love fest for Nate Silver....

All dick jokes side, Sam Wang > Nate Silver. Seriously.

Wang is more technical, it seems. Sometimes I don't get what he's talking about, where Silver can feed it to the masses. For instance, Wang has a 22% or so chance that Romney gets exactly 270 EVs if I read his chart correctly, but less than a 1% chance of winning. I think that has to do with 270 being 22% of the possible outcomes, but that those outcomes are unlikely. I'm not sure. I used to be good at math, but haven't had to use much math in 20 years. I've only started following him in the past month or so, so I've been playing catch up with his models and probabilities. I wish I'd started sooner and learned what the hell he was talking about as time went by.


Well, unlike Silver, if you have a question for Wang, you can ask it and have a reasonable chance of getting a response. He's a nice guy. I sent him an email, asking for his thoughts on that critique of Silver's methodology that came out in Red State a few days back, and he actually gave me two paragraphs in response.

I think it's because he's a professor; he's used to responding to people.
 
2012-11-06 06:16:37 PM  

whistleridge: Well, unlike Silver, if you have a question for Wang, you can ask it and have a reasonable chance of getting a response. He's a nice guy. I sent him an email, asking for his thoughts on that critique of Silver's methodology that came out in Red State a few days back, and he actually gave me two paragraphs in response.

I think it's because he's a professor; he's used to responding to people.


If you ask me, the Comments section of his site are the best part. His willingness to explain, actual intelligent conversation, etc. is awesome. Don't mistake my Boobies, I love his site. Just wish I'd discovered it sooner.
 
2012-11-06 06:33:27 PM  
What a farking joke. obama over 300 electoral votes? You libs are delusional.

It
 
2012-11-06 06:34:34 PM  
Pos browser. The polls he's basing his data on is bunk.
 
2012-11-06 06:35:11 PM  
weknowmemes.com
 
2012-11-06 06:35:24 PM  

evoke: What a farking joke. obama over 300 electoral votes? You libs are delusional.

It


Is Wang even a "lib"?
 
2012-11-06 06:35:25 PM  

evoke: Pos browser. The polls he's basing his data on is bunk.


Got some statisticals for us?
 
2012-11-06 06:36:37 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: whistleridge: Well, unlike Silver, if you have a question for Wang, you can ask it and have a reasonable chance of getting a response. He's a nice guy. I sent him an email, asking for his thoughts on that critique of Silver's methodology that came out in Red State a few days back, and he actually gave me two paragraphs in response.

I think it's because he's a professor; he's used to responding to people.

If you ask me, the Comments section of his site are the best part. His willingness to explain, actual intelligent conversation, etc. is awesome. Don't mistake my Boobies, I love his site. Just wish I'd discovered it sooner.


What do people normally mistake your boobies for?
 
2012-11-06 06:39:12 PM  

whistleridge: I think it's because he's a professor; he's used to responding to people.


Volume of inquiries has to be considered as well. Silver is much more well known to the public at-large given his affiliation with the NY Times.
 
2012-11-06 06:40:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: evoke: Pos browser. The polls he's basing his data on is bunk.

Got some statisticals for us?


Turn on your farking TV? I don't need statistics when the REAL results will be coming in within the hour. How many times haven't polls been wrong? If you think Obama is going to win in a landslide you're delusional.
 
2012-11-06 06:42:49 PM  
I don't think we need more Wang. Most of the people on the politics tab are dicks already.
 
2012-11-06 06:43:32 PM  

evoke: Philip Francis Queeg: evoke: Pos browser. The polls he's basing his data on is bunk.

Got some statisticals for us?

Turn on your farking TV? I don't need statistics when the REAL results will be coming in within the hour. How many times haven't polls been wrong? If you think Obama is going to win in a landslide you're delusional.


Pick a number then, tough guy. Put up or shut up.
 
2012-11-06 06:44:25 PM  
Given a choice, I would have voted for boobies.
 
2012-11-06 06:45:10 PM  

evoke: Philip Francis Queeg: evoke: Pos browser. The polls he's basing his data on is bunk.

Got some statisticals for us?

Turn on your farking TV? I don't need statistics when the REAL results will be coming in within the hour. How many times haven't polls been wrong? If you think Obama is going to win in a landslide you're delusional.


Who said anything but about a landslide? 300EV is no landslide.
 
2012-11-06 06:46:01 PM  

BMulligan: Given a choice, I would have voted for boobies.


Romney/Ryan wasn't on the ballot in your state?
 
2012-11-06 06:58:30 PM  

evoke: Philip Francis Queeg: evoke: Pos browser. The polls he's basing his data on is bunk.

Got some statisticals for us?

Turn on your farking TV? I don't need statistics when the REAL results will be coming in within the hour. How many times haven't polls been wrong? If you think Obama is going to win in a landslide you're delusional.


Care to place some money on that?
 
2012-11-06 07:04:38 PM  

evoke: Philip Francis Queeg: evoke: Pos browser. The polls he's basing his data on is bunk.

Got some statisticals for us?

Turn on your farking TV? I don't need statistics when the REAL results will be coming in within the hour. How many times haven't polls been wrong? If you think Obama is going to win in a landslide you're delusional.


Depends on what you mean by "landslide," genius.
 
2012-11-06 07:09:38 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: whistleridge: YES.

It is criminal, how underappreciated Wang is on here. Especially given the homoerotic circle-jerk that is the Fark-love fest for Nate Silver....

All dick jokes side, Sam Wang > Nate Silver. Seriously.

Wang is more technical, it seems. Sometimes I don't get what he's talking about, where Silver can feed it to the masses. For instance, Wang has a 22% or so chance that Romney gets exactly 270 EVs if I read his chart correctly, but less than a 1% chance of winning. I think that has to do with 270 being 22% of the possible outcomes, but that those outcomes are unlikely. I'm not sure. I used to be good at math, but haven't had to use much math in 20 years. I've only started following him in the past month or so, so I've been playing catch up with his models and probabilities. I wish I'd started sooner and learned what the hell he was talking about as time went by.



that red line is just there to mark the magic number of 270 EVs, maybe it should have been dotted.
 
2012-11-06 07:10:19 PM  
numberwang?
 
2012-11-06 07:15:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: evoke: Philip Francis Queeg: evoke: Pos browser. The polls he's basing his data on is bunk.

Got some statisticals for us?

Turn on your farking TV? I don't need statistics when the REAL results will be coming in within the hour. How many times haven't polls been wrong? If you think Obama is going to win in a landslide you're delusional.

Who said anything but about a landslide? 300EV is no landslide.


If you were a republican, and Romney got 270 EVs, you would consider it a landslide and a mandate
 
2012-11-06 07:23:19 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: whistleridge: Well, unlike Silver, if you have a question for Wang, you can ask it and have a reasonable chance of getting a response. He's a nice guy. I sent him an email, asking for his thoughts on that critique of Silver's methodology that came out in Red State a few days back, and he actually gave me two paragraphs in response.

I think it's because he's a professor; he's used to responding to people.

If you ask me, the Comments section of his site are the best part. His willingness to explain, actual intelligent conversation, etc. is awesome. Don't mistake my Boobies, I love his site. Just wish I'd discovered it sooner.


I get you.

It also doesn't hurt that he is both more accurate and more transparent than Silver. Hell, you can download his code if you want. Silver, on the other hand, adds in some 'special sauce' that we don't know about, and was (slightly) less accurate in 08, and (noticeably) less accurate in 2010.

This is just me, but...Wang is a successful academic neuroscientist who has an accordingly dorky hobby. Silver is a numbers dork who has found a way to make a living doing what he loves. Both are very good, but Wang is a bit more honest, I think.
 
2012-11-06 07:37:33 PM  
I guess skullcrusher was right when he asked me if I was gay, because my first thought on reading the headline was everything is better with more wang.
 
2012-11-06 07:53:26 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-06 07:59:30 PM  

whistleridge: YES.

It is criminal, how underappreciated Wang is on here. Especially given the homoerotic circle-jerk that is the Fark-love fest for Nate Silver....

All dick jokes side, Sam Wang > Nate Silver. Seriously.


They both reference eachother on occasion, and seem to respect the work each of them is doing. I would suggest that, considering how their methods are pretty similar, it would take quite a few elections cycles to actually work out which method was more accurate, because there's probably not much in it. Either way, the only difference in their predictions is Florida, and that's on an absolute knife edge - essentially it's a coin flip either way, so that call is more about luck than anything else.
 
2012-11-06 08:05:55 PM  

maddermaxx: whistleridge: YES.

It is criminal, how underappreciated Wang is on here. Especially given the homoerotic circle-jerk that is the Fark-love fest for Nate Silver....

All dick jokes side, Sam Wang > Nate Silver. Seriously.

They both reference eachother on occasion, and seem to respect the work each of them is doing. I would suggest that, considering how their methods are pretty similar, it would take quite a few elections cycles to actually work out which method was more accurate, because there's probably not much in it. Either way, the only difference in their predictions is Florida, and that's on an absolute knife edge - essentially it's a coin flip either way, so that call is more about luck than anything else.


I dunno. To me, it's more the difference between a Honda and a Toyota, or a BMW vs a Mercedes: both are excellent, and both will absolutely get you where you want to go, but that doesn't mean I don't have a preference. I prefer Honda to Toyota, BMW to Mercedes, and Wang to Silver. But that's just me.
 
2012-11-07 06:17:46 AM  
Wang is so unappreciated these days.
 
2012-11-07 03:19:00 PM  

evoke: What a farking joke. obama over 300 electoral votes? You libs are delusional.

It


Look at all your credibility! Just look at it!

PROTIP, tough guy: The next time you call something "a farking joke," you best be looking in a mirror.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report