OCinBuffalo

If you think Paul Ryan is going anywhere...you have 20 years, never mind another thing, coming. Do you think it's still too close?

Libertarians are going to run wild... Also...what do you think about this Ohio thing?

Boy you can say that again. If the vaunted evangelists haven't delivered Oh for Romney? When they could have had a reasonable platform on social issues, but for these people? But, it's better to wait an hour to see WTF is really going on with OH.

I would...if I had been wrong. Show me a battleground state with a D+6 or higher turnout. Romney is well on his way to winning the popular vote, and even if he loses it, it's still not a D+6 or higher nationally. Jesus....now it's down to 911 vote difference? This may not be over? Man....what a clusterF if that's wrong.

I agree with this mostly. I don't know if tolerant is the right word though. I don't remember most Democrats being tolerant about most things. I think it comes down to the candidate themselves, and if the can explain their..."extra-party"? position. But, the GOP has to realize that the national view on a lot of things ain't the same. But, I don't think that this is that difficult. All you really have to do is focus on liberty. If you support things that constrict liberty in one area, you have a hard time talking about it in another. If anything, it's as you say: some conservative leadership needs to be retired. It's not like there's nobody on the bench who can come in and start.

Ohio Obama...it's over.

This may end up being the takeaway from this.

Well, Santa Rosa county just did in fact drop 37k votes for Romney...so.... However, Miami is still looking bad. Given that? It's going to be less than .5% difference...which means automatic recount...and here we go again.

D turnout ain't +6 or higher....anywhere in the swing states, and certainly not nationally. If it was, I would be wrong. NONE of what I said means Obama loses. I think I've said that about 40 times. You know that. What I have said since August: there's no way this is a D+7 or higher election, as it was in 2008. My guesstimation has been D+2. I never said I thought it was R+1...I merely said what would happen if it was. It's still possible for Romney to win, but my objections to the polls where never tied to who wins/loses. I merely stated that D+11 was ridiculous. Right now, I'd give Romney 1 chance in 3 of winning. And, I'd give 100% chance that Gallup gets crucified tomorrow if Romney doesn't win FL. And, I'd give 90% chance that we will have to go through recount hell in FL...and possibly OH.

I was way wrong...in fact I don't see how Romney wins it at this point...unless this one county drops 50k votes for him. But, it's so close...I am almost certain that we will have to go through recount hell.

Then you haven't paid attention at all.

It is now 3 am EST. That means, that there are now about 12 hours for Nate Silver to change his predictions, like he did in 2008, and in 2010. So far, he has only talked about Romney's odds being longer. Thus this thread is about documenting my own "predictions" about the excuses Silver will use if Gallup is right(and to bust balls) If Romney wins, and especially if it's a Dick Morris blowout...look for the following 3 excuses: 1. "Most polls I used(and not the ones I down-wieghted or ignored) were biased in a way my "house effect" adjustment could not have anticipated". Silver has already put this forward. So far, I'm batting 1.000. What could possibly have made a "bookie" like Silver, suddenly decide to hedge his bets, regarding the polls? If there's no problem, why even bring that up? How about: Silver has read the objections to the polls provided by people that he knows and respects? The timing of this, relative to the "intellectually coherent"(Silver's words), arguments being posted that challenge the polls...is no coincidence. 2. "The polls this year acted completely differently than they have historically and/or the turnout was unprecedented, so I'm not wrong". Yes, Nate, no schit. That's what we've all been saying for 4 months. We've been saying something is F'ed. You've said "nothing is F'ed here, man". We've been saying "Nothing is F'ed? The God damn plane has crashed into the mountain!" And, you have ignored that. Had the polls been this goofy for Romney, or had the turnout been a goofy R+11, you'd have made THIS YEAR adjustments, and not screwed around weighting individual polls as you did instead. We still have no idea how or why you do this weighting, but yeah, if Gallup is right, a whole lot of polls are wrong, which have made you exponentially wrong due to your own tinkering. Whatever in the world made you think that this electorate would = 2008? Whatever in the world made you think the Ds would have a turnout = 2008? Or, did you get the internals from Axelrod, again, and try to work backwards from there, again? 3. "Romney beat the odds." Ah yes....the Right Bauer of excuses. I don't need to explain the absurdity of just saying this, and not explaining how or why, do I? Silver: "after all this is a prediction, not a certainty". This means "I can never be wrong, because I gave Romney a >0% chance of winning". How great would it be, if you could go through life like this? "Well, I am not wrong, because I didn't give myself a 100% chance of being right". Try telling that to a client or your boss: "well I didn't get 100% of the job done, but I told you there was an 83% chance that I would, and me not getting it done? Well? That beat the odds". ------------------------------ Now, of course, if Obama wins, we will hear none of this. But, if Romney wins, we will probably hear all 3. The part of this is: none of these excuses are "wrong". In fact, you could just as easily call them "explanations". But...here's the thing...if Obama wins by a hair, that doesn't invalidate the reasons for these excuses either. The only thing that makes them wrong: if he final electorate is in fact <=72% white, and if the turnout is in fact >D+7. Again, it all comes down to Axelrod VS. Gallup/Rassmussen. Additional prediction: If Axelrod is wrong: Nobody will be screaming "pants on fire" louder or longer than Silver. If Gallup is wrong: Nate Silver will serve as the chief executioner. Either way: Silver's model will not be to blame.

You have no idea what you are talking about conner. What a surprise. conner...yet again, factless, clueless, feckless. I forgot what this was like...it's still as ever! This time Silver is in trouble if he stays with what he has, and Gallup is right. He hasn't changed his model..so far. But chances are, he will. Oh, that's right, I will not be surprised in the slightest, if, in the next 8 hours, Silver makes changes like he has every single time. In 2008, the Obama campaign gave him the answers...because they gave him their internal polling, so he could check his work, and make changes. ....but you didn't know that, did you? In 2010, 14 hours before the results started coming in, Nate Silver suddenly, and without warning, changed his projections. Yeah, he was right, for 14 hours...what an amazing "forecast". He didn't "forecast" the blowout. Somebody tipped him off. And even they didn't have it right, Silver was still off by 12 seats...which of course was within the margin of error, by 1. ....but you didn't know that, did you? How about when Silver said that Sharon Angle would defeat Harry Reid? How's Senator Angle doing...oh...wait...she lost. She lost because Silver's model says Dan Quayle = Newt Gingrich. It really is as simple as that. ...and you don't know that either. The bottom line is: I know you conner. You can read Silver's blog every day for a year, and not understood any of it. I understand ALL of it. It still comes down to Axelrod Vs. Gallup, and make no mistake, if Gallup is right, Silver will be yelling "pants on fire" at Axelrod louder than me, or anybody. If Axelrod is lying, nobody stands to lose more than Silver.

Normally, I wouldn't bother with this...but...this Sabres Classic game is boring, so... conner has a much longer history and depth to his silliness than you do. But don't fret, you just may make it into the big retard league someday. You have to work hard at it every day though. Start lots of threads using links that directly contradict what you are saying (always a favorite of DC_Tom).) Practice posting things like "Lincoln would be a Democrat today" and "The Surge will Fail because I said so"(and I know this due to my non-existent military knowledge). You'll get there, but you have to put in the work, every day, just like conner used to. Isn't correcting him one of the basic functions of this board? You know, 2 years ago I was close to starting a "connerFix" sock puppet handle....you know, like ComboFix. "Have an annoying virus-like poster who invades every thread and spreads nonsense? connerFix is the answer!"

Did you actually see those pictures? Scattered...my ass. There were whole sections empty...in Cleveland? No wonders the Flats are shut down.

Again, this post betrays the fundamental misunderstanding of what this race has become. This no longer has anything to do with "what somebody said or did in September, or even October". This is now a "somebody has been wrong...for a very long time...about this election". It is now: Axelrod Vs. Gallup(and Rassmussen now)...demographic and LV models. Tomorrow is the Thunderdome. 2 will enter, only one will leave. The assclown part here is: now, even the scoreboard has become politicized, and that is horseshit. There are more polls now that ever before, by a factor of 3. I will have plenty to say about this, once I have the real data, the votes. But, there can be no doubt about this: if Gallup is right, and this is in fact a R+3 election, with demos <= 2008...then Axelrod has been lying, blatantly, about this race...since ~June of 2011. Yeah...this means the debate never mattered, neither did the storm. Obama never, ever, had a chance, and has been done, for well over a year now. And, it also means that a whole lot of media people and pollsters that either innocently bought this lie, or, they actively participated in it. The funniest thing I've heard said so far? "There will be executions on Wednesday!". No. Sharon Angle lost because Sharon Angle is a moron. Nate Silver thinks that a candidate's "ideology score" = On Base % in baseball. So, somebody who is an "Arch-Conservative", in Silver's model, will always produce predictable results, the same way 2 players with identical OBPs against RHP will. However, only a moron would put an = sign between Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. Nate Silver is that moron, because, by his system, using the 3 things he uses to determine that score, Dan Quayle = Newt Gingrich. This is as inescapable as it is wrong. Newt Gingrich crushes Reid in that election, and both Dan Quayle and Sharon Angle lose by 5...because they are morons. Then you are not choosing science. Period. Talk all you want, when you get done, you still won't be choosing science. If you've spent 20 minutes on this board, you know the obvious MAJOR holes I've poked in his model myself like the above, or, you've seen the links I've provided of statistical masters debunking it as well. EDIT: (D-bag disclaimer: No, D-bag, I am saying I <<< Master Statistician. They are actually called "Master". I have worked with them. We would bring them in to review our modeling. You want to talk about crazy billable hours...) Again, a lot of what Silver does is sound. This is not "all or nothing", and it is complicated. One thing that is not complicated: he is dependent on polls...that simply have no way of being accurate, or scientific. "Yeah...this is a +11 Democratic turnout year, Nate! Weight that CNN poll higher than Rassmussen!" :lol: You said...."science".... There is nothing scientific about this at all, and Silver himself said it's based purely on what he "believes". Perhaps you can scour 538...and find Silver's poll-weighting methodology. And, no, I'm not talking about his "house effect" weighting. That's what he does per pollster. What I want is why today's poll gets less weight...than a poll from 4 weeks ago, that just happens to favor Obama. To save you the effort: you will not find it. He doesn't explain why he does this, anywhere, nor does he explain how. Most "scientific" work I am familiar with puts ALL of its methods on the table...not just conveniently explaining the ones that suit the latest data, and saying nothing about the ones that don't. The other problem with Silver: ALL science...requires the concept of falsification. It's the contrapostive in logic. It means you that not only can you prove why you are right, you can also prove why the opposite of what you are saying is wrong. Nate Silver's entire work...is based on the premise that he can never be wrong. If you can never be wrong, you can never be right, either. Example, if Romney wins, Silver will simply claim that Romney beat the odds(Nate Silver Excuse #3), and therefore, he was not wrong. The only falsification that Silver has provided(that I have seen so far...this can change) is Nate Silver Excuse #1: the polls are biased. Which means of course...Silver STILL isn't wrong. All roads lead to Silver being right, and therefore, exactly 0 roads lead to "science" being done here.

Have you considered the possibility of a relationship between her drinking...and being in your general vicinity when Bills games are on? Edit: Not saying I'm any better...

Gallup is where that comes from. Backed up by Rassmussen recently. And, if you look at this: http://baseballcrank...ics_why_i_2.php (which is the original post of this thread...just on the guy's website instead of at Red State, or RCP...who thought enough of it to put it on their front page...which is where I saw it) You see that if anything, Gallup has been dead on over the years...and Rassmussen has, if anything, underestimated R turnout by 2-3 over the same timeframe.

Hold on....I'm looking up the "5 reasons why this Rs are actually Is theory is horseshit" analyses I have. From memory...the first theory breaker is that even if that were true...then why do these polls routinely have not enough Inds then? Edit: here you go: http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/02/no-independents-are-not-just-discouraged-republicans/ They can discount the source all they like...but the math...is the math. Or, in this case...90% of the people...is not 100% of the people. To wit:

About what?

<crickets> Guess nobody has anything to say about this...on election eve...for an hour.... hehe...you don't get to drop something like this on us...without questions! 1. What kinda crosstabs does he have? Meaning, what's the breakout of his polling data? What % of the electorate will be white vs. minority? What does he have for each side in terms of "extremely likely to vote"? Give...me..data! NOW! 2. Only a moron doesn't know D+11 is wrong...unless you are push polling Greenwich Village, and your first question is "Do you support protecting the civil rights of Americans to marry whomever they wish"? I want to know what he has...is it D+5...or D+2? What? 3. Does he believe that Gallup, and now, Rassmussen is right....is this an R+1-2 electorate? (If it is, everybody on this board will be showing their face tomorrow night.) Or, does he think that's wrong?

If I understand you right...then they are simply wrong. It's not hard to see why. The best definition of this country's election-crushing, never mind winning, majority is "financially conservative, but pragmatic, and, socially moderate". The first party to prove that this is their agenda, and lay claim to this mantle...wins. And, probably continues to win, for a whole lot of elections. Right now, we have both parties merely getting portions of that majority, and trying to force the edges of that majority into their portion. People don't like that, which is why we don't have larger turnout. Obama has been doing this more than Romney for the entire cycle, and even after the 1st debate. This all goes back to Nixon...who was the key proponent of "get the base first, show off the energy, then, tell the middle you are winning, and try to draw them in". This is precisely Obama's game plan. Especially, with help from the media, the "tell them you are winning" part. The trouble is...he hasn't been able to show off the energy, and the reality of early voting has undercut that argument....so few believe him when he says he is winning. That's why we have ties in polls, and is also why Obama isn't polling at 50%...even with D+7 polls. This is also the biggest reason why this year's turnout, overall, is probably going to be less overall, with everybody, than in 2004, never mind 2000 and 2008. That's if you believe the "undertow" theory. So far? The data supports that theory. Obama's support isn't what it was. How far has he fallen? That is the question that will decide the race. If you believe Gallup? Farther than any Democrat in the history of political science and opinion polls. If you believe(d) Axelrod...Obama should have improved on his early voting #s. He patently has not...no matter what the spin is about registration. Registration...is not voting.

So...given the propensity for nuts, on both sides, taking it upon themselves to F about.... Remind me...how is this an argument AGAINST voter ID, and more scrutiny of the registration process on the whole? Conner. No poster on this board more closely resembles Fox Butterfield.

When I was young, and largely because going meant no school that day, my buddy and I saw VP Bush at a mall. It was ridiculous in terms of being energized. I had never seen anything like it. I went in thinking I was just getting over, and, I was more interested in the secret service guy that I saw trying to be sneaky on the roof. I stared right at him, and he looked right at me and smiled, since apparently I was the only one who saw him. But, later, when Bush started talking and the crowd started going off, I looked over at my buddy and he was going off, then...I realized that I was too. It was surreal. Half of me was cheering and clapping, and the other half was asking: "WTF are you doing, tool?" I determined that I didn't like this at all. I also determined that it would never happen again. That, and there's the 2000 RNC convention stories that I've told lots of times here. I still think asking a bunch of Republicans "Hey why are you all wearing blue sport coats? Did Kmart have sale?"...is I also had lots of fun asking them "Did you guys just get done performing? I heard the Texas Gay Men's choir was in town, how'd it go?" Of course, we were bipartisan...my roommate, some neighbors and I...absolutely crushed the protestors on our block.

Go outside, throw salt over your shoulder, and knock on wood. The very last thing we need is 269-269...and a Romney/Biden election. Silence frog!