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)   Nate Silver does a recap of all the polling firms to see how accurate they actually were. CNN? Pretty good. Rasmussen? Pretty bad. Gallup? It might be time to get out of the polling business   (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 166
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

6135 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 11:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-11 12:23:45 PM
Rasmussen is always right wing biased. But everyone kept saying "Oh they'll come out with figures right before election day that will be in time with all the other polling agencies".

Nope. This time, they herped their derp all the way to the bitter end.
 
2012-11-11 12:24:24 PM
In my view, there will always be an important place for high-quality telephone polls, such as those conducted by The New York Times

Nate, I love you and believe this is factually correct, but stroking off your employer like that is just WRONG,
 
2012-11-11 12:27:20 PM

herrDrFarkenstein: I respect the work of 538, but to say that the most innacurate pollsters in your sample population should be discarded reeks of jackbooting thugs.


He didn't say that. He simply said they have had significant error in the past three elections and that smaller, less known firms fared significantly better. Then at the end made a remark that if this continues Google may end up more credible than Gallup. Which is a simple fact when Google's polling was FAR more accurate than Gallup's.
 
2012-11-11 12:29:41 PM

Gwyrddu: Krymson Tyde: He just completely ignores Unskewed's poll.

WTF Nate?

Unskewed polls wasn't actually a poll though, it was a forecast based on polls, just like Nate Silver except without the math.


He *did* use math, but he didn't use science. He started with an assumption that 1) Democratic turnout would be depressed, 2) Republican turnout would be high and 3) the growth in independents was from former Democrats, not the Tea Party.

He adjusted the numbers in the polls based on those Party ID assumptions.
 
2012-11-11 12:29:48 PM

Mrtraveler01: StreetlightInTheGhetto: LouDobbsAwaaaay: DubyaHater: A couple of my right-leaning friends are still having teenage girl-level hissy fits over the election. They're looking at the overall popular vote map and wondering how Obama could possibly win "with that sea of red" in the middle of the country. I don't have the heart to explain it and I'd rather not lose a friend over the election.

I got a lot of this from a right-wing friend in the last election (he has since rage-quit our FB friendship, so I don't know how he handled this one, though I expect he didn't take it well). His arguments for the state really counting for republicans were: (1) if you counted the vote based on the total acreage of counties voting R/D, R wins, and (2) public employees shouldn't be allowed to vote because they just vote for the Dem who will give them more freebies. I don't know if he was this stupid back when we were actual friends in college, or if he just descended into madness when he moved to northern WI and got lost in the echo-chamber.

Well, that's a new straw to grasp at, I'll give him that.

Not "majority of the country if you look at the map is red waaah!" but actually working out the acreage, that's a new angle. MATHEMATICAL!

That's too complicated for the GOP so their new strategy is to split up the electoral vote by districts.

"If at first you don't succeed...cheat."


I'd be perfectly okay with splitting votes by proportion of votes earned. As long as the teatards are okay with splitting Texas and the south, I'll be cool with splitting New York and California.
 
2012-11-11 12:30:00 PM

namatad: Since when has the GOP been know for not listening to garbage?


Well, it does seem that they're only happy when it rains.
 
2012-11-11 12:30:20 PM

Monual: Last time Scott Rasmussen's polling firm did so badly calling a presidential election, he shut it down (Portrait of America) and opened a new one (Rasmussen Reports) in an effort to distance himself from his own failure.

I wonder what he's going to call his new polling firm?


Bullshiat 'R Us?
 
2012-11-11 12:32:42 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Well, it does seem that they're only happy when it rains.


What would you expect from a bunch of stupid girls?
 
2012-11-11 12:34:10 PM

BigBooper: CynicalLA: It's just too funny that the Fark Independents ended up confusing their alternate reality polling.

I'm a Fark Independent, and I also respect and trust Nate Silver. I knew when I voted for Romney, that he didn't have a chance.

One of the reasons I'm an Independent and not a Republican is that I believe in math and science. I've been following Nate long enough to know he was reporting facts. And despite the ay not have been the best choice to lead our country.


This is another reason the polls underestimated Obama. People who have to call themselves "independent" but actually are Republicans and voted for Romney. Who can't call themselves Republicans because Bush and because the party more or less has become the Confederate or at least Dixie party.
 
2012-11-11 12:37:54 PM

DemonEater: Interesting that Gallup's bias was exactly their average error. Take away their bias and hey, they're exactly accurate!

But man, their bias is terrible.


That's not necessarily as meaningful as is sounds. Those numbers being equal just means that all of their errors were in the same direction (favorable to Rebublicans) so none canceled out. Also, the "bias" term that Nate uses is in the statistical sense, he has no way of knowing if they're biased in the more traditional sense of the word. Their results in this election could very well be explained by them sucking at their jobs rather than any actual attempt to give Republican leaning results, afaik.
 
2012-11-11 12:40:15 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: DamnYankees: I'm an idiot. I see PPP now.

I see the PP too...


Sorry. Didn't realize my webcam was on.
 
2012-11-11 12:40:35 PM

Katie98_KT: I thought the problem with Gallup's polls was their "likely voter" model, not their actual polling?


Possibly something funky with their weighing algorithm, anyway. However, it might not be their "likely voter" algorithm, but some part of their weighting algorithm. Of "gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number)", the most obvious suspect seems "phone status", as most of the others have weights that can be benchmarked directly against the 2010 US Census.

This also might explain the most recent anomaly in the historical trendline on evolution attitudes.
 
2012-11-11 12:43:47 PM

CynicalLA: BigBooper: The fact that Romney was blindsided by the elections outcome shows that he may not have been the best choice to lead our country.

They definitely need more people like you voting Republican. There is just too much crazy in the party for me to even consider voting for them.


I'm curious why BigBooper voted for Romney in the first place. I voted for Obama in spite of being pissed about the lack of a public option, and his continuation of the worst parts of the Patriot Act, but was thrilled by his Keynsian stimulus, winding down the wars, and general attitude of inclusiveness. Romney & Ryan promised to drive us into another depression, and their support for the culture wars against immigrants, gays and women were just over the top. They didn't look up to any of the major challenges facing this country, and would have been as shocked when their plans didn't work as they were about being shellacked in the EC.

But enough about why I voted for Obama... ;^)
 
2012-11-11 12:49:38 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Not completely related, but I used some of Nate's data to make this. Feel free to post it on FB, or wherever people want to rationalize voter ID laws and all the other shiat the GOP has been doing to suppress voter turnout.

[oi45.tinypic.com image 617x449]


So - if we do away with the electoral college, and every single vote counts... Democrats would overwhelmingly win any election with 85%-90% voter turnout.

Color me surprised.
 
2012-11-11 12:52:10 PM

herrDrFarkenstein: I respect the work of 538, but to say that the most innacurate pollsters in your sample population should be discarded reeks of jackbooting thugs.


Isn't it normal statistical practice to discard outliers ?
 
2012-11-11 12:58:00 PM

neenerist: herrDrFarkenstein: I respect the work of 538, but to say that the most innacurate pollsters in your sample population should be discarded reeks of jackbooting thugs.

Isn't it normal statistical practice to discard outliers ?


Yes, which makes me wonder if Silver didn't retain the outliers to sidestep GOP accusations of bias (in the traditional sense).
 
2012-11-11 01:05:14 PM
If you enjoy right wing conspiracy theory hysteria over the polls, don't forget about this one:

www.mediamatters.org

Looks like Axelrod might have been onto something. Hysteria coverage courtesy of MediaMatters: http://mm4a.org/Ot6sZc
 
2012-11-11 01:08:35 PM

CynicalLA: BigBooper: CynicalLA: It's just too funny that the Fark Independents ended up confusing their alternate reality polling.

I'm a Fark Independent, and I also respect and trust Nate Silver. I knew when I voted for Romney, that he didn't have a chance.

One of the reasons I'm an Independent and not a Republican is that I believe in math and science. I've been following Nate long enough to know he was reporting facts. And despite the fact that those facts didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, they were the truth. I live in Wisconsin, and I remember just a few months ago Nate gave an edge to Governor Walker in the recall. At that time, there were those on the left that were coming up with various reasons that Nate was wrong. Of course I don't remember anyone attacking Nate on a personal level. The lesson that everyone can learn from this is that it's easy to listen to those who tell you what you want to hear. But a good leader has to have the wisdom to look beyond what he or she wants to hear, and see things as they truly are. The fact that Romney was blindsided by the elections outcome shows that he may not have been the best choice to lead our country.

They definitely need more people like you voting Republican. There is just too much crazy in the party for me to even consider voting for them.


That is one of the more intelligent posts I have seen from a republican voter.

I'm still in awe that Romney never even thought there was a possibility that he would lose. And Conservatives think Obama is arrogant.
 
2012-11-11 01:11:05 PM
This sucks. The only reason that I voted for Romney is that all the polls said he was gonna win, and I didn't want to get stuck voting for a loser.

I mean, that is why they shamelessly release ridiculously inaccurate polls, right?


/didn't vote Romney
 
2012-11-11 01:13:25 PM

Infernalist: Yall need to be a lot more selective in who you call 'friend'.


Some of these people are our families. I spent the day with my mom yesterday, and she asked how could Ohio vote for Obama when so many counties voted for Romney? To her, the popular vote proved their was voter fraud.

I also got to hear all about Libya, birth certificates, birth control, guns, and uniformed voters. She is convinced that I will eventually go back to being a Republican as long as she keeps trying.
 
2012-11-11 01:14:12 PM

Stone Meadow: CynicalLA: BigBooper: The fact that Romney was blindsided by the elections outcome shows that he may not have been the best choice to lead our country.

They definitely need more people like you voting Republican. There is just too much crazy in the party for me to even consider voting for them.

I'm curious why BigBooper voted for Romney in the first place. I voted for Obama in spite of being pissed about the lack of a public option, and his continuation of the worst parts of the Patriot Act, but was thrilled by his Keynsian stimulus, winding down the wars, and general attitude of inclusiveness. Romney & Ryan promised to drive us into another depression, and their support for the culture wars against immigrants, gays and women were just over the top. They didn't look up to any of the major challenges facing this country, and would have been as shocked when their plans didn't work as they were about being shellacked in the EC.

But enough about why I voted for Obama... ;^)


First, I could never call my self a Republican because I can't stand social conservatives; I lean more libertarian. I don't care what your religion is, and I don't care who your farking. (as long as everyone involved is an adult)
Second, I'm a fiscal conservative. GW Bush made me puke blood at times.

But boiled down to the simplest point, I own an independent health insurance agency. With the reelection of Obama, health care reform may as well be written in stone. I don't see my agency surviving in the long run. So you can say I voted out of self interest, and in part that's true. However, I also don't think anyone but the largest insurance companies will get what they want out of the ACA. It's like wrote the damn thing. After 2014, they will be able to push out independent agents, and smaller companies that actually try to do a good job for consumers.
 
2012-11-11 01:28:11 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-11 01:28:50 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: zelachang: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Not completely related, but I used some of Nate's data to make this. Feel free to post it on FB, or wherever people want to rationalize voter ID laws and all the other shiat the GOP has been doing to suppress voter turnout.

[oi45.tinypic.com image 617x449]


What's your R^2?

0.069


I took the chance to get the data for myself to analyze and while against voter suppression I am also for statistical soundness. This is what I got:

img833.imageshack.us

In other words, I would be hesitant to make the conclusion that higher voter turnout leads to more D victory, especially since we have the 2008 turnout combined with 2012 voting data. With the p>.05 and the pretty low R2 value I think you need more data before you can definitively say the two are correlated.
 
2012-11-11 01:33:32 PM

BigBooper: Stone Meadow: I'm curious why BigBooper voted for Romney in the first place.


First, I could never call my self a Republican because I can't stand social conservatives; I lean more libertarian. I don't care what your religion is, and I don't care who your farking. (as long as everyone involved is an adult)
Second, I'm a fiscal conservative. GW Bush made me puke blood at times.

You sound like a Blue Dog Democrat, because well, I don't know if you are aware of it, but the Libertarian Party (I know, not the same thing as you being 'libertarian') has been wholly cooped into the GOP, from RON PAUL to Gary Johnson (who bragged before the election that he was looking to steal voters from Obama). In any case, labels aside the only party that walks the walk wrt personal liberties with fiscal conservatism is the DNC GOP smear tactics notwithstanding.

But boiled down to the simplest point, I own an independent health insurance agency. With the reelection of Obama, health care reform may as well be written in stone. I don't see my agency surviving in the long run. So you can say I voted out of self interest, and in part that's true. However, I also don't think anyone but the largest insurance companies will get what they want out of the ACA. It's like wrote the damn thing. After 2014, they will be able to push out independent agents, and smaller companies that actually try to do a good job for consumers.

Yes, I'd say you voted against your own self interest, since Romney and the GOP are all-out corporatists. Romeny's sops to small businesses aside, people like you are just nuisances to big corporations. You aren't big enough to make buying you worthwhile, yet you're big enough to take measurable business away from them.

The Democrats have their own issues with being bought and paid for by big business, but do yourself a favor and vote with your heart. You'll be glad you did.
 
2012-11-11 01:33:48 PM

BigBooper: But boiled down to the simplest point, I own an independent health insurance agency. With the reelection of Obama, health care reform may as well be written in stone. I don't see my agency surviving in the long run. So you can say I voted out of self interest, and in part that's true. However, I also don't think anyone but the largest insurance companies will get what they want out of the ACA. It's like wrote the damn thing. After 2014, they will be able to push out independent agents, and smaller companies that actually try to do a good job for consumers.


Out of curiosity (and assuming some form of socialized healthcare has to pass), what changes would you make to better support the transition for businesses like yours?

As a side note, it is incredibly refreshing to hear from someone who voted in the other direction and is actually reasonable.
 
2012-11-11 01:40:00 PM

BigBooper: Stone Meadow: CynicalLA: BigBooper: The fact that Romney was blindsided by the elections outcome shows that he may not have been the best choice to lead our country.

They definitely need more people like you voting Republican. There is just too much crazy in the party for me to even consider voting for them.

I'm curious why BigBooper voted for Romney in the first place. I voted for Obama in spite of being pissed about the la. GW Bush made me puke blood at times.

But boiled down to the simplest point, I own an independent health insurance agency. With the reelection of Obama, health care reform may as well be written in stone. I don't see my agency surviving in the long run. So you can say I voted out of self interest, and in part that's true. However, I also don't think anyone but the largest insurance companies will get what they want out of the ACA. It's like wrote the damn thing. After 2014, they will be able to push out independent agents, and smaller companies that actually try to do a good job for consumers.


Ye olde Republican Party used to be good for small business. Now they are totally in the tank for big business. Democrats aren't in the tank but are squeezed by its tentacles. We need Teddy Roosevelt
 
2012-11-11 01:48:14 PM

zelachang: In other words, I would be hesitant to make the conclusion that higher voter turnout leads to more D victory, especially since we have the 2008 turnout combined with 2012 voting data. With the p>.05 and the pretty low R2 value I think you need more data before you can definitively say the two are correlated.


Admittedly, that was a lazy effort on my part. Hungover Sunday morning.

What I think would be telling is to look at individual states over a handful of elections. Looking at voter turnout in the state compared with how that translated into R and D numbers. I think tracking individual states, or even districts over several elections would give a much better understanding of how voter turnout actually impacts election results. Of course, then you've got redistricting, changing demographics, different candidates, general voter sentiment, changing economic conditions, changing laws such as Citizens Undermined, etc. Man, that's a lot of work to try to really get a handle on stuff. I knew there was a reason I shied away from stats.
 
2012-11-11 01:48:51 PM

missiv: Karl, on the other hand, lost his marbles on Fox News during election coverage. How much vig can you owe, yet, still keep you alive? Karl is looking like the walking dead.


Karma, not to be trifled with.
Nor rich right wingers.
 
2012-11-11 01:53:05 PM

nogudnik: Doc Daneeka: DubyaHater: A couple of my right-leaning friends are still having teenage girl-level hissy fits over the election. They're looking at the overall popular vote map and wondering how Obama could possibly win "with that sea of red" in the middle of the country. I don't have the heart to explain it and I'd rather not lose a friend over the election.

They honestly don't understand the concept of population density?

Show the this. 2012 results with the state sizes adjusted for population

[www-personal.umich.edu image 300x200]

From: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/el ection/2012/


Or this, which shows results by county instead of state,

i192.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 01:57:13 PM

neenerist: Book smarts don't translate into world smarts.


This is a lie that stupid people console themselves with.

Engineers, however, as a group, are spectacularly stupid compared to, say, academicians in theoretical sciences, English, or philosophy. Engineers and other applied scientists, as a group, are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories or other erroneous beliefs than are academicians in the other fields I just named.
 
2012-11-11 02:05:41 PM

James F. Campbell: neenerist: Book smarts don't translate into world smarts.

This is a lie that stupid people console themselves with.

Engineers, however, as a group, are spectacularly stupid compared to, say, academicians in theoretical sciences, English, or philosophy. Engineers and other applied scientists, as a group, are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories or other erroneous beliefs than are academicians in the other fields I just named.


As an engineer, I'll second this. Every job I've had I've been amazed how many engineers are brilliant in their particular field of engineering, but are completely stupid when it comes to looking at some other field. You'd think problem solving skills and logic would be easy for people to carry over to other applications, but for many it isn't.

Of course, the ones that can apply those skills to other fields are typically very smart and interesting people to talk with.
 
2012-11-11 02:09:42 PM

James F. Campbell: Engineers, however, as a group, are spectacularly stupid compared to, say, academicians in ....English, or philosophy.


That explains why I always feel above my station at a Starbucks.
 
2012-11-11 02:12:54 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Did you see the Boortz article from earlier this week where he was telling the GOP to give up gay rights, abortion, and a few other things? Last night I caught him basically saying Romney wasn't conservative enough.


Boortz is right on the "social issue" nonsense. I'm a straight, white, upper-middle-class single male. I have absolutely zero interest in gay rights, women's rights or minority rights personally.

Yet every time I hear a story about Republicans trying to restrict said rights, I'm more encouraged in voting AGAINST the Republicans.

/ I'm not a Democrat. I'm an anti-Republican
 
2012-11-11 02:16:16 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: James F. Campbell: neenerist: Book smarts don't translate into world smarts.

This is a lie that stupid people console themselves with.

Engineers, however, as a group, are spectacularly stupid compared to, say, academicians in theoretical sciences, English, or philosophy. Engineers and other applied scientists, as a group, are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories or other erroneous beliefs than are academicians in the other fields I just named.

As an engineer, I'll second this. Every job I've had I've been amazed how many engineers are brilliant in their particular field of engineering, but are completely stupid when it comes to looking at some other field. You'd think problem solving skills and logic would be easy for people to carry over to other applications, but for many it isn't.

Of course, the ones that can apply those skills to other fields are typically very smart and interesting people to talk with.


Hmm. I'm in computer engineering, which one might assume is the worst of the bunch in this regard, but I've had the opportunity to work with quite a few truly intelligent people with knowledge extending beyond their field.

But maybe it's just sampling error; I tend not to gravitate towards the stereotypical computer scientists/engineers who eat drink and breathe code.
 
2012-11-11 02:17:04 PM

James F. Campbell: neenerist: Book smarts don't translate into world smarts.

This is a lie that stupid people console themselves with.

Engineers, however, as a group, are spectacularly stupid compared to, say, academicians in theoretical sciences, English, or philosophy. Engineers and other applied scientists, as a group, are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories or other erroneous beliefs than are academicians in the other fields I just named.


Engineering (especially as a undergrad discipline) involves a lot of "this is basically how it works, don't worry about the actual scientific details" type of teaching. We learn all of the quick tricks, but very few of the true methods.
 
2012-11-11 02:19:33 PM

vwarb: BigBooper: But boiled down to the simplest point, I own an independent health insurance agency. With the reelection of Obama, health care reform may as well be written in stone. I don't see my agency surviving in the long run. So you can say I voted out of self interest, and in part that's true. However, I also don't think anyone but the largest insurance companies will get what they want out of the ACA. It's like wrote the damn thing. After 2014, they will be able to push out independent agents, and smaller companies that actually try to do a good job for consumers.

Out of curiosity (and assuming some form of socialized healthcare has to pass), what changes would you make to better support the transition for businesses like yours?

As a side note, it is incredibly refreshing to hear from someone who voted in the other direction and is actually reasonable.


Right now people buy health insurance through me because I help them choose the health plan and company that make the most sense for them. I help them with the application, and then I deal with the insurance company after the sale; claims problems, billing issues, etc. All I ask is that the consumer have a choice. If you want to buy direct, feel free. However, if you want to have me be your advocate, and take care of most of the bullshiat of dealing with the insurance company, then you should have the right to make that choice.
 
2012-11-11 02:24:15 PM

elchip: But maybe it's just sampling error; I tend not to gravitate towards the stereotypical computer scientists/engineers who eat drink and breathe code.


That was essentially my point about 'book smarts'. High mastery over a tiny sliver of knowledge, while impressive, lends no authority to a person's opinion outside the field. Engineers, as the 'implementers' between hard science and the real world, have a stronger tendency than most to overextend the value of that expertise.
 
2012-11-11 02:25:23 PM

DubyaHater: A couple of my right-leaning friends are still having teenage girl-level hissy fits over the election. They're looking at the overall popular vote map and wondering how Obama could possibly win "with that sea of red" in the middle of the country. I don't have the heart to explain it and I'd rather not lose a friend over the election.


I've seen that argument. In the specific words, "The winner lost the geographic majority?" GEOGRAPHIC MAJORITY. If only it were just land owners who could vote.

But I remembered seeing the argument once before...
www.obeythefist.com
 
2012-11-11 02:26:14 PM

nekom: Hanky: Gallup should be ashamed. Hooray for valid sampling and normal distributions of multiple polls

It's starting to look like, had he disregarded certain polls, his percentage for an Obama win would likely have been in the high 90s rather than the low 90s.


The beauty of what he does is this can be accounted for in the future as "outliers".
 
2012-11-11 02:27:19 PM

elchip: Hmm. I'm in computer engineering, which one might assume is the worst of the bunch in this regard, but I've had the opportunity to work with quite a few truly intelligent people with knowledge extending beyond their field.

But maybe it's just sampling error; I tend not to gravitate towards the stereotypical computer scientists/engineers who eat drink and breathe code.


It might be that there are a lot of utility guys in my particular field. Utilities tend to be very slow to accept new technologies, and they cling to outdated ways of doing things even when it's costing their company huge money. Maybe it's just that my field tends to attract a lot of people that (in my opinion) shouldn't be engineers. If you don't want to embrace new ideas and make improvements, then why become an engineer? I suppose a lot of the people I'm thinking of are old as well, which may also shed some light.
 
2012-11-11 02:34:29 PM

Stone Meadow: neenerist: herrDrFarkenstein: I respect the work of 538, but to say that the most innacurate pollsters in your sample population should be discarded reeks of jackbooting thugs.

Isn't it normal statistical practice to discard outliers ?

Yes, which makes me wonder if Silver didn't retain the outliers to sidestep GOP accusations of bias (in the traditional sense).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(statistics)#Jackknife

The joke ...
 
2012-11-11 02:53:20 PM

ToeKnee666: If only it were just land owners who could vote.


A conservative, constitutional Senate may be open to your argument

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 03:02:17 PM

herrDrFarkenstein: I respect the work of 538, but to say that the most innacurate pollsters in your sample population should be discarded reeks of jackbooting thugs.


my understanding of 538 was that it worked on exactly that basis

1. get the results of all the polls
2. look at how reliable each has been in the past
3. take more notice of the ones that have a history of being right

you do the same in real life: if someone offers an opinion and you know in the past they've been wrong (for whatever reason) you take less notice of him than someone who's been right many times

nothing to do with thuggery, everything to do with rationality/science
 
2012-11-11 03:06:02 PM

Katie98_KT: I thought the problem with Gallup's polls was their "likely voter" model, not their actual polling?


I'm a Gallup member. Took a survey over the phone about 6 or 7 years ago and now I fill out surveys for them maybe once every two weeks via a secure website.

The cool thing is I get a unique password each time. I give them out on TF Discussion every now and then.
 
2012-11-11 03:19:39 PM
Don't Troll Me Bro
Not completely related, but I used some of Nate's data to make this. Feel free to post it on FB, or wherever people want to rationalize voter ID laws and all the other shiat the GOP has been doing to suppress voter turnout.

It would be a much stronger argument if you included the R-squared value.
 
2012-11-11 03:31:35 PM

Palmer Eldritch: Don't Troll Me Bro
Not completely related, but I used some of Nate's data to make this. Feel free to post it on FB, or wherever people want to rationalize voter ID laws and all the other shiat the GOP has been doing to suppress voter turnout.

It would be a much stronger argument if you included the R-squared value.


0.069. See upthread for more discussion. It was an admittedly lazy effort after waking up hungover and not drinking my morning coffee.
 
2012-11-11 03:32:02 PM

MithrandirBooga: Weaver95: vygramul: How did Unskewed Polls do?

badly.

that said, the guy who ran unskewed polls admitted he was dead wrong and manned up and apologized to Nate Silver.


And made off to the bank with how much in advertising dollars because the entire right-wing derposphere were clicking on his site 50 times a second?

The guy was a painfully obvious "Tell the conservatives what they want to hear and profit off of that" fraud.


I am going to find a way to get in on that next election cycle. You gotta admit, it is a solid plan.
 
2012-11-11 03:50:41 PM

heavymetal: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 311x311]


unscewed?
 
2012-11-11 03:52:07 PM

ToeKnee666: I've seen that argument. In the specific words, "The winner lost the geographic majority?" GEOGRAPHIC MAJORITY. If only it were just land owners who could vote.

But I remembered seeing the argument once before...



I always tell them "land doesn't vote"
 
2012-11-11 04:34:13 PM
Interesting article is interesting.

fta: FiveThirtyEight did not use polls by the firm Pharos Research Group in its analysis, since the details of the polling firm are sketchy and since the principal of the firm, Steven Leuchtman, was unable to answer due-diligence questions when contacted by FiveThirtyEight, such as which call centers he was using to conduct the polls. The firm's polls turned out to be inaccurate, and to have a Democratic bias.

So the one polling group that the allegedly left-biased Nate Silver tossed out as an unreliable outlier was biased towards the Dems by 2.5 pts?

Meanwhile Gallup shiat the bed right up until E-Day with a 7.2 pt bias towards the GOP and were included?

And out of 22 polling outfits used by 538 only 3 were found to biased towards the Dems?

Just wanted to make sure I had all that right.
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report