http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/11/03/nate-silver-obama-led-in-19-battleground-state-polls-today-romney-led-in-one Comments On: Nate Silver: "Obama led in 19 battleground state polls today. Romney led in one." by Charles Mudede en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 03:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by w7ngman]]> Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:27:46 -0800 The Stranger
I agree with that. Blacks and Browns are coming out in force to early vote for President Obama, so that zaps the whole "enthusiasm gap" argument.

Not sure if Romney has to care about his billionaire supporters if he loses the election. Why would he? He will never run for anything again. In fact, he'll go on to live a very relaxed life post-November 6th. He only wanted to win to lower his taxes and for the hell of it. That's why he flips and flops so rapidly and has no core principles.

Looking forward to a good night on November 6th.
Posted by Patricia Kayden]]> Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:07:41 -0800 The Stranger
Easiest explanaition: Wiki "binomial distribution" and find the probability mass function (pmf). n is 20. k is 19. p is 0.5.
Posted by aureolaborealis]]> Sun, 04 Nov 2012 12:43:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Aurora Erratic]]> Sun, 04 Nov 2012 02:02:06 -0800 The Stranger Posted by seandr]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:12:32 -0700 The Stranger I can only hope it's a crushing defeat and the GOP has to crawl back to the center, ideally let the Tea Party become their own goofy party.
Posted by CbytheSea]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 20:32:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by floater]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:40:36 -0700 The Stranger He needs every excuse he can find or invent.
Posted by MrBaker]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:32:12 -0700 The Stranger Posted by chimsquared]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:28:33 -0700 The Stranger
(For anybody playing with that page who's a little slow like me, if you wanna take any particular battleground state back to "undecided" [as opposed to flipping it to the other party], just click again on the party you selected the first time. Don't have to refresh.)
Posted by rob!]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 15:35:06 -0700 The Stranger Posted by concerned engineer should look in the mirror]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 14:53:58 -0700 The Stranger
((0.5^20)*20) = 0.00001907, which is 1/52428.8
Posted by concerned engineer]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 14:51:27 -0700 The Stranger http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/…

It seems to be working with Nate Silver's numbers, calling anything he gives less than 80% odds for either candidate "undecided". I plan to have this open election night, following along.
Posted by MacCrocodile]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 13:15:12 -0700 The Stranger Posted by COMTE]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 13:12:11 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by PortervilleNerd]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:56:39 -0700 The Stranger
It's the race between "Back Alley Abortion McKenna" and Pro-Privacy Inslee that I am more concerned with.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:15:12 -0700 The Stranger Posted by originalcinner]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:15:37 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Pope Peabrain]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:13:21 -0700 The Stranger
It was a couple of years ago when I heard a blip of reason from Lindsay Graham. He noted that the minority party - his party - should influence the agenda and appointments of the majority and president but, in the end, the majority party's agenda should not be wholly blocked. Afterall, they are, in fact, representatives of the majority (aprox) of Americans.


Posted by NotSean]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:08:25 -0700 The Stranger true conservatives. Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan."
Posted by DOUG.]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:51:51 -0700 The Stranger
who owns the top three (and I'd appreciate the full answer on the top five) voting machine companies?

Simple question --- awaiting the response from any wise and knowing ones ......
Posted by sgt_doom]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:51:34 -0700 The Stranger
If Obama loses the popular vote, Democrats will blame it at least partly on Sandy impacting voter turnout in reliably blue New Jersey and metro New York.

If Obama wins - electoral, popular, or both - Republicans will say it's because the liberal media fawned all over Obama doing 'the bare minimum you'd expect of the President after a natural disaster' (which is already a lead talking point on Fox - never mind that Bush did even less after Katrina).

Posted by SuperSteve]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:37:09 -0700 The Stranger Posted by diggum]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:34:05 -0700 The Stranger
Spread it around.

Posted by johnyawl]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:33:45 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by NotSean]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:29:13 -0700 The Stranger