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
 
2012-11-11 12:19:06 AM
Why is PPP not included? I believe they were the most accurate.
 
2012-11-11 12:20:36 AM
Gallup should be ashamed. Hooray for valid sampling and normal distributions of multiple polls
 
2012-11-11 12:23:15 AM
I'm an idiot. I see PPP now.
 
2012-11-11 12:26:29 AM
I refuse to take him seriously while he remains thin and refuses to speak in basso profundo
 
2012-11-11 12:34:27 AM
When I was in high school, high variance in your date was a GOOD thing.
 
2012-11-11 12:36:52 AM

BSABSVR: I refuse to take him seriously while he remains thin and refuses to speak in basso profundo


I'm holding out for Esperanto. You just KNOW he can speak it, the little shiat.
 
2012-11-11 12:51:35 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I'm holding out for Esperanto. You just KNOW he can speak it, the little shiat.


Math estas la skatolo foil tiu thin homosexuals kaj liberals al gardi dio de ilia brainwaves
 
2012-11-11 12:53:00 AM

BSABSVR: Marcus Aurelius: I'm holding out for Esperanto. You just KNOW he can speak it, the little shiat.

Math estas la skatolo foil tiu thin homosexuals kaj liberals al gardi dio de ilia brainwaves


I was told there would be no math estas.
 
2012-11-11 02:09:47 AM

BSABSVR: I refuse to take him seriously while he remains thin and refuses to speak in basso profundo


I chuckled.
 
2012-11-11 07:14:03 AM

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.
 
2012-11-11 08:15:54 AM
He just completely ignores Unskewed's poll.

WTF Nate?
 
2012-11-11 08:23:43 AM

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

WTF Nate?


I think "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response" is a perfectly valid answer to anything regarding unskewed polls.
 
2012-11-11 09:36:47 AM
if he keeps telling it like it is and proving his methodology to be correct, someone is gonna put a hit out on his ass. I admire his dedication to the truth but there are a LOT of people out there who do NOT like it when you call 'em out on their bullshiat. you can't just walk away from those people clean...they'll find you and they will get you.

I hope he's got a REAL good bodyguard.
 
2012-11-11 09:39:44 AM

BSABSVR: I refuse to take him seriously while he remains thin and refuses to speak in basso profundo


Well, Dean Chambers has the basso buffo down.
 
2012-11-11 10:05:09 AM
 
2012-11-11 10:16:37 AM

DrRatchet: Maybe Gallup hasn't been in the polling business for some years now...

"Galllup would inflate the number of hours required to complete the work, usually by a multiple of two or three times"


Oh, they're definitely poling someone
 
2012-11-11 10:17:45 AM
How did Unskewed Polls do?
 
2012-11-11 10:26:43 AM

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.
 
2012-11-11 10:54:22 AM

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


This explains the GOP SHOCK(tm).
Without proper handling of these biases, there would be no way to use the data coming from the polls.
If the GOP cherry-picked which polls they used for their forecasting, or WORSE, their own internal polls with even more biases, this would explain karl roves "confusion."

Garbage in - garbage out. Since when has the GOP been know for not listening to garbage? Been a long time.

Add in the GOPs refusal to have underlings who are allowed to disagree with the people in power and TADA, you get a bunch of sycophants and yes-men. This leads to the environment which we saw for 2008 and 2012.

PLEASE dont change GOP!! We love you just the way you are!!!
Whatever you do, dont poll people who voted against you and ask why.
But if you do a poll, PLEASE use Gallup.
 
2012-11-11 10:57:42 AM

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.


He even apologized for calling him effeminate.
 
2012-11-11 11:05:41 AM

namatad: PLEASE dont change GOP!! We love you just the way you are!!!


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.
 
2012-11-11 11:08:32 AM
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.
 
2012-11-11 11:09:10 AM

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.

/kinda like Fox News.
 
2012-11-11 11:09:53 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: namatad: PLEASE dont change GOP!! We love you just the way you are!!!

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.


The GOP is honing their Romneyitis so they can mean nothing to anybody.
 
2012-11-11 11:10:03 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: namatad: PLEASE dont change GOP!! We love you just the way you are!!!

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.


It's going to be tough for them to change. They dug themselves into a hole with the whole Tea Party thing. Those people won't accept compromise.
 
2012-11-11 11:10:12 AM

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

WTF Nate?

I think "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response" is a perfectly valid answer to anything regarding unskewed polls.


Also the fact that it was another poll aggregator and not a poll at all.
 
2012-11-11 11:11:37 AM

namatad: PLEASE dont change GOP!! We love you just the way you are!!!
Whatever you do, dont poll people who voted against you and ask why.
But if you do a poll, PLEASE use Gallup.


images.45cat.com
 
2012-11-11 11:12:18 AM
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
 
2012-11-11 11:12:19 AM
Pretty interesting about how all we heard from the rightwingosphere was "polls r biased against Republicans!!1"... turns out that, on average, polls were actually biased against Democrats.
 
2012-11-11 11:13:31 AM
fta some polling firms may engage in "herding" toward the end of the campaign, changing their methods and assumptions such that their results are more in line with those of other polling firms.

I'm so old...

How old are you?

I'm so old that when I was a kid we called that lying

/laughter
//applause
 
2012-11-11 11:13:31 AM

BSABSVR: Marcus Aurelius: I'm holding out for Esperanto. You just KNOW he can speak it, the little shiat.

Math estas la skatolo foil tiu thin homosexuals kaj liberals al gardi dio de ilia brainwaves


The fascinating thing about Esperanto is it pretty much preserved everything that was wrong with languages.

Gender...oh fark it...I quit....
 
2012-11-11 11:15:22 AM

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: Pretty interesting about how all we heard from the rightwingosphere was "polls r biased against Republicans!!1"... turns out that, on average, polls were actually biased against Democrats.


And the right is never angry at their own sources for lying to them. Repeatedly.
 
2012-11-11 11:15:57 AM

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.


This looks... algebraic.
 
2012-11-11 11:16:02 AM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428291/80617822#c80617822" target="_blank">The Dreaded Rear Admiral</a>:</b> <i>Pretty interesting about how all we heard from the rightwingosphere was "polls r biased against Republicans!!1"... turns out that, on average, polls were actually biased against Democrats.</i>

I think it is a matter of most polls didn't anticipate how effective obama's get out to vote efforts would be. From what I read his was the first campaign to run it as well as they did so it likely didn't show up
 
2012-11-11 11:16:14 AM
Unskewed went in to promote an agenda, it was not trying to be a scientific look. Thats the main difference between Silver and the right wing that is bashing him. He is looking at facts, they are looking at opinions then trying to make up facts to support opinions.

Silver, Dr. Wang, etc are scientists or stats geeks. They would report if Romney were ahead. Only he wasn't.

Weaver: I haven't seen any derp over taking out pollsters or poll aggregators. Are you seeing something in your travels through a much more red part of of the country than I?

Most derp hate post election seems squarely focused on the ursurper, "the media," and the usual suspects (libby lib libs). Silver got one right, Gallup got one wrong. Why's that make him a target?
 
2012-11-11 11:17:54 AM
i566.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 11:19:16 AM

Weaver95: I hope he's got a REAL good bodyguard.


Bodyguards are slim protection against an unexplained car or small pane crash.
 
2012-11-11 11:19:56 AM
However, it turned out that most polling firms underestimated Mr. Obama's performance, so those that had what had seemed to be Democratic-leaning results were often closest to the final outcome.

Derpublican hacks on Fixed News Fair and Benghazi were right! The polls aren't accurate
 
2012-11-11 11:22:46 AM
I thought the problem with Gallup's polls was their "likely voter" model, not their actual polling?
 
2012-11-11 11:24:25 AM

vygramul: How did Unskewed Polls do?


Unskewed Polls was neither unskewed or pollsters. They do poll meta-analysis.
 
2012-11-11 11:25:24 AM
It's just too funny that the Fark Independents ended up confusing their alternate reality polling.
 
2012-11-11 11:26:22 AM

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.
 
2012-11-11 11:28:21 AM

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.


but with 1500% more Jeesus that conservative crave!!!
 
2012-11-11 11:29:40 AM

neenerist: vygramul: How did Unskewed Polls do?

Unskewed Polls was neither unskewed or pollsters. They do poll meta-analysis.


Agh, this.

/don't know if you couldcall it "analysis" really but polling it wasn't.
 
2012-11-11 11:32:35 AM
that said, the guy who ran unskewed polls admitted he was dead wrong and manned up and apologized to Nate Silver.

Chambers DIDN'T apologize for this rant: Silver is "of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the 'Mr. New Castrati' voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program."
 
2012-11-11 11:35:03 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: neenerist: vygramul: How did Unskewed Polls do?

Unskewed Polls was neither unskewed or pollsters. They do poll meta-analysis.

Agh, this.

/don't know if you couldcall it "analysis" really but polling it wasn't.


It was actually a rhetorical question. I didn't expect so many people to answer it seriously.
 
2012-11-11 11:35:22 AM
I wonder what the REAL results would have been if all the Republican shenanigans hadn't worked. The GOP succeeded in getting the results as close as they were.

Unfortunately some still believe all this cunning could still work next time.

/second post ever
 
2012-11-11 11:35:59 AM
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?
 
2012-11-11 11:36:50 AM

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.


Not only that, but he said that he ordered a copy of Silver's book and wants to figure out where he went wrong.

Dean Chambers was very very wrong, but he seems sincere. He wasn't knowingly peddling bullshiat, he honestly thought that he was right. Once it turned out not to be so, he admitted that he was wrong and seems to care about correcting his understanding of the polls and getting it right going forward.

I have way more respect for that than a Dick Morris or a Peggy Noonan or a Karl Rove, who have shown no shame or contrition or any sign that they'll do anything but continue to lie and propagandize going forward.
 
2012-11-11 11:42:17 AM
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.
 
2012-11-11 11:44:26 AM

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?
 
2012-11-11 11:45:43 AM
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.
 
2012-11-11 11:45:44 AM

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.


"Rocks, sand, and grains don't vote."
 
2012-11-11 11:45:51 AM

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.


So they're population density deniers?
 
2012-11-11 11:45:52 AM

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


Either Blackwater. or Phillip-Morris.
 
2012-11-11 11:46:28 AM

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: Pretty interesting about how all we heard from the rightwingosphere was "polls r biased against Republicans!!1"... turns out that, on average, polls were actually biased against Democrats.


HAHAHAHAHAHAH
THIS THIS MORE THIS and ONLY FARKING THIS

ANYONE who still talks about polls being meaningless or biased in the reverse direction of the actual bias are either: lying, delusional or ignorant.

The best part is that the GOP supporters and leaders alike, will continue to live in their glass bubble. They have been living there too long to move. None of the other neighborhood want them to move next door. They are bad neighbors.

They will continue to do their own poling and trust their own results. They will continue to trust polls which support their world view and distrust everyone else.

Reality ??? HAHAHAHAH
 
2012-11-11 11:47:38 AM

BKITU: "Rocks, sand, and grains don't vote."


You haven't looked at Republican voters lately, have you?
 
2012-11-11 11:47:39 AM
Nate properly mentions hurricane Sandy as a reason that Obama was underestimated. But the other reason was how many voters turned out because of the suppression the attempted suppression. It backfired and made more people vote Democratic that might have not voted.
 
2012-11-11 11:48:39 AM

12349876: 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.

So they're population density deniers?


almost...needed..new..keyboard...magnificent bastard
 
2012-11-11 11:48:46 AM

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.
 
2012-11-11 11:49:26 AM

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.


Yeah, this one: Link.

I can see where he might advise the party to change its ways while in the throes of post-election despair, and then totally turn around and return to spouting their usual nonsense within days. Those guys all live in the Tea Party bubble...aka the echo-chamber, so instead of learning something rational from their defeat, they'll go more conservatard for '14.

Two years from now they'll lose more House and Senate seats before doubling down again for '16, when they'll not only not win the White House, but they'll lose control of the House. It will be '18 before they start making gains in Congress, and '24 before they stand a realistic chance of taking the White House...and only then if they ditch the Tards.
 
2012-11-11 11:49:41 AM

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?


I would go a step further, how long before they stop being friends? I have found that the deluded GOP people which I have known, become intolerable after enough years. First I had to listen to 8 years of slicky willy, then 8 years of bush, you have to stand behind the president during times of war, then 4 years of obama is destroying america.

Life became so wonderful after unfriending them.
 
2012-11-11 11:50:29 AM

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?


It's not just population density. To win an election, you need 50% plus 1 vote in an area. Republicans are more than happy the create their party platforms in such a way that red states win them 65% of the vote, but lose the vote by relatively small amounts in large states.
 
2012-11-11 11:50:51 AM

BKITU: 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.

"Rocks, sand, and grains don't vote."


Yes, but somewhere near the deserts of Barstow, Snoopy's brother Spike votes. Or doesn't.
 
2012-11-11 11:51:28 AM
Yall need to be a lot more selective in who you call 'friend'.
 
2012-11-11 11:52:05 AM
The #1 poll was Investor's Business Daily.

Jesus, that makes me so sad. They have such a BRILLIANT analytic paper for the stock market, yet their editorials are so goddamn batsh*t insane.
 
2012-11-11 11:52:19 AM

Kevin72: But the other reason was how many voters turned out because of the suppression the attempted suppression. It backfired and made more people vote Democratic that might have not voted.


THE BEST way to mobilize people, take away a right. Tell them they dont count.
 
2012-11-11 11:52:26 AM

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.


So by that logic, military service members, veterans, and senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote either, since they're all on the government dole. Right?
 
2012-11-11 11:52:41 AM

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 did the research for you. Obama took the 14 most densely populated states. Romney took 9 out of 11 least densely populated.
 
2012-11-11 11:52:53 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: (2) public employees shouldn't be allowed to vote because they just vote for the Dem who will give them more freebies.


However stupid that argument may be, I'm not even too sure that would change the election results much actually. Military personnel largely vote Republican, are public employees and the military happens to be the largest employer out there.
 
2012-11-11 11:53:51 AM
Whatever. I will still trust my much MANLIER right wing derp wizards, even though they're wrong about everything because they're stupid or deliberately trying to deceive me:

imageshack.us
 
2012-11-11 11:54:07 AM

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?


12349876: 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.

So they're population density deniers?


Overall they're smart people. One is a civil engineer. His excuse is "there is no mandate because of all the red. The democratic message is not the will of the people. The electoral college is irrelevant". It's sad to watch an intelligent mind melt into blubber.
 
2012-11-11 11:54:27 AM

Gwyrddu: LouDobbsAwaaaay: (2) public employees shouldn't be allowed to vote because they just vote for the Dem who will give them more freebies.

However stupid that argument may be, I'm not even too sure that would change the election results much actually. Military personnel largely vote Republican, are public employees and the military happens to be the largest employer out there.


Just a minor correction here: Military 'officers' are largely Republican. Military grunts and non-officer rankings tend to be a mix, Democratic, or apolitical(the best choice for military men, I believe).
 
2012-11-11 11:55:14 AM

NewportBarGuy: The #1 poll was Investor's Business Daily.

Jesus, that makes me so sad. They have such a BRILLIANT analytic paper for the stock market, yet their editorials are so goddamn batsh*t insane.


Google Surveys turned out to be one of the most accurate as well.

Which is funny, because I distinctly remember tenpoundsofderp on here a couple weeks ago saying that the Google polling should be ignored since it wasn't legitimate or reliable.
 
2012-11-11 11:56:06 AM

Doc Daneeka: 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.

So by that logic, military service members, veterans, and senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote either, since they're all on the government dole. Right?


Don't forget any employee of a business that takes a gov. contract, tax break for companies, property tax variance etc. etc.
 
2012-11-11 11:56:38 AM

12349876:
So they're population density deniers?


Have you ever read political textbooks in Texas?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. The EARTH. As a creation of God, the Earth itself is holy. And those districts which contain more Earth per person have move divinely-inspired direction on who the best person as President should be."
 
2012-11-11 11:57:07 AM

Carth: I think it is a matter of most polls didn't anticipate how effective obama's get out to vote efforts would be. From what I read his was the first campaign to run it as well as they did so it likely didn't show up


except this is a bit silly. the polls that were wrong, were wrong for many different reasons.
this might be ONE of the many reasons, but it is not THE reason.
Unless the polls release the methodology and adjustments used, there is little or no way to determine the causes.

What we do know for a FACT, is that certain polls were very accurate and certain polls are worthless pieces of shiat.
 
2012-11-11 11:57:28 AM

Doc Daneeka: So by that logic, military service members, veterans, and senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote either, since they're all on the government dole. Right?


This is the kind of forced introspection that motivated him to rage-quit his FB friendship with me. He never had any answers to these questions, and finally just got tired of me asking.
 
2012-11-11 12:00:00 PM
Well, it's real simple:

Whatever Gallup and Rasmussen are doing is THE WRONG WAY.

Whatever IBD and Google are doing is THE RIGHT WAY.
 
2012-11-11 12:00:12 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Derpublican hacks on Fixed News Fair and Benghazi were right! The polls aren't accurate


It was REALLY cute how faux has been complaining about how unfair it was the Benghazi didnt get the proper true story reported!!!

NO ONE PAID ATTENTION TO US!

/The best PART, given the quality of fauxnews, when they finally get a story right, we will never know.
 
2012-11-11 12:02:34 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.


Peel away the layers and you're left with someone who wants only white land-owning males to have the vote.
 
2012-11-11 12:04:15 PM

DamnYankees: I'm an idiot. I see PPP now.


I see the PP too...
 
2012-11-11 12:04:55 PM

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.
 
2012-11-11 12:05:40 PM
This article: Too gay sounding; didn't read
 
2012-11-11 12:06:33 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Doc Daneeka: So by that logic, military service members, veterans, and senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote either, since they're all on the government dole. Right?

This is the kind of forced introspection that motivated him to rage-quit his FB friendship with me. He never had any answers to these questions, and finally just got tired of me asking.


I had a "friend" exclaim how he was going to "buy some guns" right after the election. Yep, still whipping out that old canard. When someone pointed out that the only legislation Obama passed was the bill allowing gun possession in national parks, and that Romney had actually passed an assault weapons ban, they were told to "get stuffed". Yeah, you wouldn't want facts to cloud up your idiocy, you farking moran.

I feel bad, but when I hear from these tards, and their inability to defend their positions with reason or logic or facts or data, I lose all respect for them as a person, and really don't give a fark if I ever see or hear from them again.
 
2012-11-11 12:08:28 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]



What's your R^2?
 
2012-11-11 12:09:16 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 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.


You give me hope.
 
2012-11-11 12:10:08 PM

Infernalist: Well, it's real simple:

Whatever Gallup and Rasmussen are doing is THE WRONG WAY.

Whatever IBD and Google are doing is THE RIGHT WAY.


and yet, rasmussen probably wont change much. it is possible that gallup could change, but the trend is that they KNOW what they are doing, why should results matter??? LOL
 
2012-11-11 12:10:47 PM

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!
 
2012-11-11 12:12:15 PM

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
 
2012-11-11 12:12:25 PM

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

From: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/el ection/2012/
 
2012-11-11 12:12:52 PM

Weaver95: if he keeps telling it like it is and proving his methodology to be correct, someone is gonna put a hit out on his ass. I admire his dedication to the truth but there are a LOT of people out there who do NOT like it when you call 'em out on their bullshiat. you can't just walk away from those people clean...they'll find you and they will get you.

I hope he's got a REAL good bodyguard.


Karl Rove is in more danger than Nate Silver. Nate could a useful tool, specially with his credibility. Karl sold his credibility for all the money he wasted on this election cycle. I haven't seen Nate break a sweat. 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.
 
2012-11-11 12:14:51 PM

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."
 
2012-11-11 12:15:15 PM

DubyaHater: Overall they're smart people. One is a civil engineer.


I know many engineers, family included. Book smarts don't translate into world smarts. The hoary old joke, usually reserved for professors, is they learned more and more about less and less until eventually knowing everything about nothing.
 
2012-11-11 12:16:22 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 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.
 
2012-11-11 12:16:52 PM

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?


Oh, stat snap.
 
2012-11-11 12:16:55 PM

depsilor: I wonder what the REAL results would have been if all the Republican shenanigans hadn't worked. The GOP succeeded in getting the results as close as they were.

Unfortunately some still believe all this cunning could still work next time.

/second post ever


From what I understand their suppression tactics actually motivated people to get out and vote. So, the effect ranged from a minimal benefit to a small negative. The only thing that really benefited them was redistricting, which save a bunch of House seats.
 
2012-11-11 12:20:14 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: namatad: PLEASE dont change GOP!! We love you just the way you are!!!

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.


Sounds good to me. I'm waiting for the next GOP presidential candidate to demand that Americans wear black uniforms and jackboots at all times. I'm waiting fror the GOP's total popular vote to be lower than the Zionist Socialist Party. I'm waiting until you can say "Who's the Republican candidate this year?" and other people will look at you and say "Who?"
 
2012-11-11 12:20:36 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 actually did start doing his own online poll.
 
2012-11-11 12:22:55 PM

namatad: 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?

I would go a step further, how long before they stop being friends? I have found that the deluded GOP people which I have known, become intolerable after enough years. First I had to listen to 8 years of slicky willy, then 8 years of bush, you have to stand behind the president during times of war, then 4 years of obama is destroying america.

Life became so wonderful after unfriending them.


I pretty much don't talk to anyone anymore unless I absolutely have to.
 
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.
 
2012-11-11 05:01:27 PM

quatchi: 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?


Not quite. It wasn't tossed for being an outlier, it was tossed because of questions regarding their methodology (not their results). Basically, he does a check into each polling firm and he could not get the required information from Pharos in order to satisfy himself they were using proper, scientific methodology and reporting accurate results. A similar case with JZ Analytics except that he had issues with a specific part of their selection process (basically, it was self-selected).
 
2012-11-11 05:03:13 PM

mjjt: 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


There were also adjustments based on 'house effect' of the pollster, the state of the nation's economy and the 'state fundementals' (party ID numbers, etc.) but yeah.
 
2012-11-11 06:47:39 PM

neenerist: That explains why I always feel above my station at a Starbucks.


You should: apparently you don't know what "academician" means.
 
2012-11-11 06:54:02 PM

James F. Campbell: neenerist: That explains why I always feel above my station at a Starbucks.

You should: apparently you don't know what "academician" means.


like a scientician but with beard and sandals?
 
2012-11-11 07:15:23 PM

mjjt: 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


actualhuman: mjjt: 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

There were also adjustments based on 'house effect' of the pollster, the state of the nation's economy and the 'state fundementals' (party ID numbers, etc.) but yeah.



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

The joke ...

Jackknifing?
Bootstrapping?

Am I the only statistics joker here?

Sigh ...
 
2012-11-11 08:00:27 PM

GardenWeasel: 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 image 850x585]



Wow, that map is psychedelic, it moves in 3-D in the west, and the pie from Ohio to Georgia spins if you stare at it long enough.
 
2012-11-11 08:48:09 PM

James F. Campbell: You should: apparently you don't know what "academician" means.


Barista?
 
2012-11-12 12:22:52 AM
Next Nate needs to do an analysis off all the pundit predictions.
 
2012-11-12 12:23:54 AM

neenerist: James F. Campbell: You should: apparently you don't know what "academician" means.

Barista?


So what's wrong? Are you an engineer? Did I hurt your little aspie feelings? I didn't know you guys had feelings, frankly.
 
2012-11-12 12:38:03 AM

mjjt: 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


FUNNIER STILL
the GOP did EXACTLY what this guy is talking about.
except they threw out all of science
they tossed out all of the polls which they disagreed with
they kept and worshiped the polls which fit their narrative.

so instead of science and logic, they went with PURE fiction
 
2012-11-12 01:04:31 AM

namatad: mjjt: 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

FUNNIER STILL
the GOP did EXACTLY what this guy is talking about.
except they threw out all of science
they tossed out all of the polls which they disagreed with
they kept and worshiped the polls which fit their narrative.

so instead of science and logic, they went with PURE fiction


yeah I actually think this is one of the most interesting underlying lessons of the election - science-based reality beats faith-based imaginary reality.

I realize most will choose to ignore the lesson but l hope it will be just one more drip that will eventually erode the mount

Not sure whether it's in the category of anti-evolution belief ("I don't care what the facts are, l won't examine my beliefs")

or whether it's so blatantly obvious that some will reconsider
 
2012-11-12 01:32:04 AM
So the bookies, Vegas, and Intrade got it right after all. Wow. Who needs all them polls?
 
2012-11-12 01:40:32 AM
K. Rove said he corrected the polls back to the 2004 dem/repub/indie demographics, on the presumption that 2008 was a one-off, that Obama was simply riding an anti Repub wave, and that 2012 turnout would look like 2004 and not 2008.

Not to mention ignoring changing trends in voter demographics that are independent of political preference.

Similar logic to Unskewed. 

A whooole lotta assumption / potential error / echo chamber / Super PAC waste going on there.
 
2012-11-12 03:54:58 AM

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?


This. As a "liberal" (actually social-democrat) Australian (bizarrely our conservative party is the Liberal Party), I'm not invested in your election but was fascinated to watch it unfold anyway. Even I know that "We the people" is a pretty important phrase in your constitutional affairs. You can explain it without any politics, just simple maths. The "sea of red" would mean a lot if acreage had votes. But it doesn't. The people do, hence "We the people". And the people don't all live in the "sea of red", they substantially live in highly concentrated population centres away from the sea of red. So you can rightly point out "If you don't like our constitution, yer can git out" (heavy Southpark accent on this phrase). Guaranteed to make any right winger shut the fark up.
 
2012-11-12 10:52:03 AM

Weaver95: if he keeps telling it like it is and proving his methodology to be correct, someone is gonna put a hit out on his ass.


It's okay. He'll know when and where the hit is scheduled to happen with a +/- 0.1% accuracy,
 
2012-11-12 02:10:31 PM

Aussie_As: Guaranteed to make any right winger shut the fark up.


LOL U
 
Displayed 166 of 166 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report