Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Debates will be make or break...
How will 'wingers unskew the poll that they used to skew their reported polling results?
If you can convince a substantial proportion of your supporters that the press is simply not to be trusted and are in the bag for the other guys, then you really are never going to be held accountable for anything that you say or do.
And of course, if Romney actually does win, they get to point to the inaccuracy of the polls as evidence of liberal media bias.
It's a hedging strategy, plain and simple.
As long as Obama doesn't show up in Muslim garb carrying a Koran while flanked by the Kenyan embassy, he will win the election.
"Fortunately, such an outcome remains quite unlikely. Of the 25,001 simulations that we ran on Monday, a 269-269 tie came up in 152 model runs, or about 0.6 percent of the time.
Still, this probability has roughly doubled from a few weeks ago, when the chances had been hovering at about 0.3 percent instead."
I'll speak slowly for you now GDfR a 0.6% likelihood of something happening is very, very, very, very..... small.
Nate Silver's article was a pot boiling article. "Oh I've got a deadline and an article due, well there is nothing meaningful to write about so I'll write about something completely unlikely and meaningless. Gotta keep those checks coming in."
If Romney tries hard tomorrow, he can probably get that down to 1%, which would be fitting.
Still gotta get out and vote, though.
I don't even know what to make of this one. #13 breaks new ground in bald-faced bullshittery
Of course there can be also instances where polled voters can give incorrect data, but those are generally in cases like support for straight up extreme-right/fascist parties and referenda on civil rights, romney is a huge dick but not really yet something one would be embarrassed about to admit support for.
Long story short, the polls are more likely to be skewed in favor of romney than against...
Still, don't get lazy, go and vote..
Silver claiming a .6% likelihood of something happening is not him postulating that it will happen. But you know that already. You just lie.
It amazes me that you think you can point to the sky, tell us it is purple, and expect us to believe you.
Seriously, Goldy, don't be dissing on Nate. He's one of the wonders of our political analysis landscape, a self-made statistician who grew up in baseball, doing awesome sports predictions. As his modeling techniques got more and more sophisticated, he realized he could probably apply them to other fields that had lots of statistical data, like political polling and demographics. Considering he came out of, you should pardon the expression, left field, and has bested some of the best seers in the business, give him some love.
As for him having to crank out something every day to amuse his fans and followers, it certainly keeps me amused anyway, and he does come up with the occasional gem. Last time around, he spent a lot more time showing us raw data and explaining in great detail how his model works. I actually enjoyed that more, but I suspect his current approach is more accessible to most people, and his model has gotten so complex that it would probably explode my head, anyway.
)
(...sorry, old programmers' habit)
yes: "stop yer @#$!'n texting and vote!"
Basically, you're getting flak for a misleading use of a word and a nonsensical defense of it.
If your UW guy got lucky enough to miss the Electoral College totals by only 2 votes, that means he had to have missed at least 2 states. (No state has less than 3.)
Vote often.
Nate is one of the most consistently clear and useful political commenters. Plus he's not half-shabby at predicting the outcome of the election.
And GDfR, you are so full of shit you squish when you walk.
In an abstract could it happen and what would it look like if it did, kinda of way, Nate's could the electoral college tie article was interesting.
However only an idiot or someone deliberately trying to mislead would claim that someone else's musing was a postulation.
FTFY. (At the risk of sounding like a less verbose Sgt. Doom.)
Darryl got 49 out of 51. In addition to NE-02 (but not NE as a whole), he missed IN and MO. They had the same number of electoral votes (11), so in terms of the EV count the pair were a push. Overall, he predicted 364-174. The actual count was 365-173.
FWIW, in Darryl's most recent analysis on September 30, Obama won every single one of the 100,000 Monte Carlo simulations. The mean EV count was 344-194, the median was 347-191, and the mode was 348-190.
And I'm not dissing Nate Silver. But there's nothing magical about what he does.
Silver postulates an electoral tie.
Silver supposes an electoral tie.
Silver entertains an electoral tie.
I hoep you see what I'm talking about. They all offer a degree of certainty. I know you seem to have a love for disregarding language. But language and its meaning is very important.
Seems to me Republicans have always been in denial. This is news?
There aren't many scientists who would postulate the existence of water on Mars. That's something we'd decide through empiricism, not intuition.
@39 Well, I know it's not actually magic, but can't I enjoy it anyway?