OCinBuffalo

Yep...this election is rapidly becoming more about Axelrod Vs. Gallup, and less about Obama Vs. Romney.

Blue: See Just Jack's prediction thread for why this blue...is the only blue. Yes you are bringing the pain...yes...you...are.

I don't know why I've bothered with all my polls/Silver analysis. All we needed to know is right here. http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=321104028 GO PANTHERS!

2 things: I just remembered that it is your sig that has teh quote I've been using in meetings for the past 2 weeks...to the point of annoyance I am sure. And, do you see that the opposite outcome is just as likely: holding the Republicans hostage causes a shift the other way? The bottom line is: the TEA party would not exist, nor would it need to, had Obama acted like Clinton. We get what we give.

See, I'm not really saying that. Silver's model, and certainly much of this thinking, is appropriate. There are rational approaches. But, there are problems. And, the biggest one, that Nate himself has now identified, is that he is 100% reliant on the top line of polls. It's a dependency. Period. Nate's model is only as accurate as the polls. Those polls are only as accurate as the demo model they use, and the weighting methods that are applied to the raw data that is collected, to map the raw data to that demo model. It's just a long string of dependencies, that no, in fact, Silver has NOT corrected for with his "house affect" adjustment. That adjustment doesn't account for Axelrod's demo assumptions being off to the extent that the white voter electorate is 75%...and not 72% like he is saying, and MOST of the pollsters using Axelrod's assumptions. The "house affect" only deals with the individual pollsters, it does nothing if many, if not all of them are using a broken demo model. IF this is what has happened here, and Gallup is right instead? Then Silver is completely screwed. The thing is: in that scenario it actually isn't Silver's fault. How was he supposed to factor in everyone using a broken model? If anything his 80% prediction, and a Romney win...would be the single biggest confirmation of just how broken Axelrod's demo model was. It will be clear as day. Don't think Silver won't remind you of that on Nov. 7th.

I see. Yeah...in those terms, you are right. The question is whether the entitlement culture is real, and how real. Or, if it is as rigidly defined as some say. However, you would agree that denying your vote to people who are more likely to support your ideas, than those who have no chance of doing that, isn't going to do anything to curtail the entitlement culture, right? It's seems you are setting up a chicken/egg scenario: you will support people that move to you, but, if they have enough support to move to where you are, and can win elections, and do the things that you want, doesn't that mean they've reached a point where they don't really need you?

This lady has been right a lot more than she has been wrong over the last few years. However, Pittsburgh Democrats are the people she is talking about in every detail. I wonder if she's not in a bit of her own echo chamber there. Of course, I like that she's talking about introspection. Perhaps the single biggest problem with Obama winning, if he does? It will prevent a whole lot of reasonable Democrats from doing the introspection they should have done after 2010. No group of people, short of Scientologists, are in bigger need of introspection than Democrats today.

That's the part of this that is so frustrating. If I had any confidence in the data I've seen, I'd make a prediction that I thought was serious. I understand what you are asking, and more importantly: why. Right now, I'd rather give a range: anywhere from O 281-R 257(upper limit if Axelrod's demo model is right)...to O 207-R 331(upper limit if Gallup's demographic model, and their 9000+ sample, likely voter, party ID poll is right) is reasonable, and can be supported, given the data we have. Obama ain't winning FL. You want an example of late game desperation...Obama wins FL, or NC, is it. The difference is: Gallup's model is supported by public data we can see. We don't know the rationale behind Axelrod's model, because it is based on internal data we can't see. It doesn't mean Axelrod can't be right. All it means is: most of the stuff we have, that is in the public domain, says he's wrong. There's simply too many inconsistencies. How can any serious person say that independents don't matter , and that this election is D+6 or higher? However, if their demographic model is right, D turnout may, for the first time in a VERY long time, surpass the Is and Rs, and this may be a close Obama win. Put it this way: if this is work? I'd advise the client that their data is messed up, and to not make any major decisions with it until it can be fixed. At this point, I fear any serious prediction I might make would be more about wishful thinking, than data. I'm not a liberal, I don't try to pass off my wishful thinking as fact. My problem is: with the data we have, it looks like that's exactly what the liberals are doing, again.

These endorsements, as well as the one in Iowa...make me wonder. If anybody "knows" what is happening, and has the inside baseball stuff, the media does. I don't see an upside for a media outlet to pick the wrong guy. Perhaps that's just me being cynical. But, I have to think that they wouldn't feel "safe" in doing this, if they didn't think Romney didn't have a good shot.

Apparently Bolger is one of the few(3) pollsters in the entire country who picked Harry Reid to be re-elected by 5. I'd rather have that track record, than Nate Silver's. It's like what I say in health care, so often that I'm bored with it: "everything you are doing in the middle, and everything you are doing at the high end, and moving data here and there...is worthless, because, after all these years and after all this money...you still don't collect your raw data properly, and your raw data is what everything else is based on." From what I read, Bolger does raw data, properly, and has for years. Remember, this has been the CONSISTENT problem since I saw my first WTF? poll in August. It's not like this is some new thing If I didn't see this consistency, I'd be much more worried. I'd rather have consistent, and wrong, because then I know what to expect. It comes down to starting with one model of the electorate's demographics, or, another, and then the weighting methods used. Somebody is using the wrong one....and that's what I'm seeing on all the Sunday shows right now. I've been saying it for months. (Some clown on ABC just stated it: "This is going to be 74, 73, 72 white voters"...and he just said "26% minority in 2008" . Both of those statements simply just aren't supported by the data we have, anywhere near as much as 75% white, 21% black+latino. I find it hysterical that the guy just said 74..and 72...as if just tossing around those #s doesn't mean massive swings, and, losses/wins of multiple states. 74...means Romney wins Ohio. 72 means Obama wins close elections all over the place. It's this cavalier approach that makes me think these people are merely repeating talking points, rather than actually knowing WTF they are talking about.) This is the only rational explanation for why we see this divergence in the polls, rather than the convergence we've seen in every other election. One other rational explanation is: the state polls are being done by amateurs with tiny sample sizes, and the national are being done by pros. However, the other way is just as likely to be true: the state polls are being done by new people with new(and better) approaches, and the national are being done by old guys, with old methods that no longer apply. There can be no doubt: The divergence alone tells you that something is wrong here....and somebody needs to start looking for a new job.

And we wonder why "Congress is divided", "politicians can't get anything done"...and all the rest. It's actually our fault, not theirs. We are the ones who think that we can have everything our way, and that it will actually work. If we demand that everything goes our way, all the time, there's no way we will ever be happy, because it mostly won't. And, even in cases where everything does go our way...for example, in 2009 and 2010, there's a good chance major Fups will occur, liberals controlled government completely, and got blown out completely in 2010. Look at what happened in 2005. Too many years of one party being in charge led to complacency + bad leadership = scandal after scandal and no big work getting done = lose. Things don't get more "true conservative" than Tom Delay, so I don't know what else you were hoping for then. However, I think you would agree: 1994-2000 = the most libertarian 6 years we've ever had. Right? I would argue that the more pragmatic the people in charge are, regardless of the ideology they are supposed to support...the more likely the results they produce end up being more in line with libertarian thinking, and less in line with liberal thinking.

Yeah...and that's actually, as 3rdnlng says, encouraging. Show me 1(one) analysis that says things are going well for Obama in early voting in general, or in any battleground state. Oh, wait...this is conner, so we need a definition of the word "well", otherwise he will try to say that Obama going from 6% in FL to 2% is "doing well, because he is still winning". Obama doing "well" = winning by the same large margins in EARLY VOTING that wiped out his ELECTION DAY losses in 2008. If this thing comes down to election day voting, with only minor leads for Obama in every battleground? Look out. (Hint: I know the answer to the above...but I'm not going to tell you conner. Do your own work. And, that state is so weird, in terms of Inds, crushing their early voting #s from 2008, that nobody really knows what's going on there) I know what Nate Silver is saying: Silver is simply a bookie. Nothing more. However, a real bookie would adjust his odds the second he gets any new info: like these early voting #s, because he wants to win. Silver hasn't, because doing so puts his model in question, and that's not how he "wins". The model is more important to Silver than the outcome, as Excuse #3(soon to come) will show. No. Silver would much rather keep his model untouched, because his model is the juice here. If the outcome is bad? Silver will blame the polls, something he has "nothing to do wtih" . He just "baked in" that excuse, right after the early voting #s come in ...and you think...that's a coincidence?

http://fivethirtyeig...tically-biased/ Read the whole article if you like, but if you've paid attention to me at all, you already know what Nate Silver is saying, and why. Ask yourself: how it is that I was able to predict Silver saying this, so easily? Why is Silver saying this today...and not 3 months ago? Is this any more true today, than it would have been 3 months ago? If we assume Nate Silver is "brilliant", then doesn't it follow that he would see the flaw in his own work, immediately react, and start the disclaimer process, or, fix his model, as soon as he sensed there might be a problem? Why is he reacting...now? I have a theory as to why: http://www.aei-ideas...uld-sweep-ohio/ Hey Nate? Feel your sphincter tightening? Yeah Nate, if you are only using top line #s, and ignoring the internals of the polls, and the obvious data patterns in them, then...yeah...if there are problems with those top line #s, you are screwed. Nate has, in politics, essentially ignored things he would never have if this were baseball. You will not find that in this article...which is essentially a very long disclaimer. His "house effect" adjustment doesn't take into account what is happening THIS year. THIS is the year we are seeing some real nonsense in the polls: again, the internals not matching the top line, the effect of Independents, etc. Thus, he has NOT accounted for bias. He simply thinks/says he has. Had he been truly objective, he would have seen the problem with the internals and adjusted for THIS year's problems. Yes, Nate, this certainly is unlikely to reflect sampling errors alone. Thank you Cpt. Obvious. It is rather, much more likely to reflect the awful WEIGHTING methods in the polls you use, or the Axelrod pushed demographic model. Silver assumes that there's nothing wrong with the methods used to produce these polls, whose weighting produces bizarre internals in other areas(again, Romney leading independents by 10+, Party ID of D+6, etc, Romney better on economy by an average of +6.). Instead, he uses a strawman = sampling error. Nate Silver needs to ask himself the screaming question: why is he relying on polls that have a D+6 or higher turnout bias, when we know that is a fantasy, and when he himself says that people vote by party ID almost exclusively, and, he himself says races depend on Independents? If you want an in depth(and I mean it) explanation of this...look no further than another baseball guy who does politics too, Baseball Crank. http://baseballcrank...012/10/post.php And, you guys think I write long posts. If you don't want to read all of that, just pay attention to this: Look for excuses #2 and #3...coming soon to Nate Silver's blog. Again, none of this says Obama = lose. What it does say? We can read Silver like a book, and, Nate himself has now exposed a significant crack in his model.

We thank you for your service. But, think of it this way: which candidate is more likely to keep the Bernanke printing presses moving? (That appears to be your #1 issue). Well then, you are indirectly putting a stop to Bernanke...if you vote for Romney..

of c) Obama didn't even approach running Clinton's plan for the last 2 years. He did the exact opposite of Clinton. "what is this "our" plan schit?" Does anybody on the right, or in the center, not know this? Oh, that's right "low-info" voters. Another example of "Obama can only talk to his base". Another reason I should reproduce.

Yeah...he told me to, not you. Dude...I don't have to screw with people's words to make points. Nor do I have to take them out of context. Liberals provide so much stupidity, you don't have be dishonest, like they do, when they try to criticize the right.

This is what I get for taking 1(one) Friday off...in I don't know how long. As opposed to you?

I am simply applying what I know. I cannot unknow what I know. Asking me to take these polls at face value, since August, is asking me to unknow. Also...I won't necessarily be "right". I am merely offering criticism. I don't have my own model that I am offering as an alternative ( I have a job already). That would make me "right". The thing is: my criticisms can be valid, and, Obama can still win in spite of them. What if Silver is off by 20 pts, but Obama wins the election? He's still not wrong...in the eyes of partisan dopes who don't care about how he got there...but he is wrong. When I was doing this stuff for a job? If I'm off by that much? Fired. Period. Then...this race is not "close". The polls you've identified show that. But, we keep hearing from the Obama people, and the Romney people for that matter: that it is close. If it is "close" we should be seeing ~10-9, not 19-1, right? 19 of something implies...weird results. The fact that 19 polls show the same thing, in a race that is "close" tells me that those 19 polls all have the same issue, or that more than a few of them do. Really, I'm basically done with these polls that continue to show Obama winning the top line, but losing with Is, enthusiasm, racial turnout and have a D+6 or more party ID, and every other internal. It's not even worth talking about. There's simply no way these things are "scientific". Something is F'ed here. It's concerning, because we are supposed to be able to agree on the rules of the game...and then play it. Somebody is cheating. I can't say if they are doing it intentionally. But, regardless of who wins...a lot of people are going to have a lot of explaining to do after this election. It may even cost some pollsters their jobs.

At this point, anyone who thinks they can read the Obama campaign right is full of it. There's plenty of things they could/should be doing, for plenty of reasons. It's not like 2008, and it really doesn't matter what they do. But, the PA thing is real. There's no F'ing with that. Lots of people heading there, including the election reporters, pundits, campaign nerds, etc.

If it was me, and PA really didn't matter, I'd park Clinton in Cincy and Columbus the last 3 days, and send him to Cleveland to try and figure out why their turnout is so down. I wouldn't waste him on "mopping up". We'll see. The #s say PA is in reach. There's no way this is head fake, or "desperation" . Not with the amount of $, and Clinton, etc. That argument is gone. One more "Obama can't lose" item scratched off the list. Man...not much left on that list, is there? Well, there's always 538, right? (Not for much longer)

Well, that depends. What's your offer? Wait: does she like guys who wear scarves? If she does, that's a deal breaker.

Disclaimer: technically, this entire thread is a violation of this law as well. However, not really, since the topic is Goodwin's law itself, and since we are talking about Hitler in post #1. As for reducing everything to Hitler? I'm not the one talking about revenge ...am I? Anybody ever heard of the V1? The "buzzbomb"? How about the V2? The first real, ballistic missile? The precursor to everybody's space program? The V in these weapons stood for "vengeance". It was Hitler's personal revenge, since he was losing. Precious resources were diverted away from where they would have done some good, to these things, for little gain. These new weapons were going to turn things around, and take revenge on the Allies for the damage they had done to him. They did nothing of the kind, and in fact, motivated the Allies even more. Now...we have Obama, talking about "revenge". Does that mean he is losing too? Well? It certainly doesn't mean he's winning. If this isn't another example of Goodwin's lawhttp://en.wikipedia....ki/Godwin's_law...I don't know what is. This is a long "conversation" and now that "vengeance" has entered the fold? We are headed towards that probability of 1. And, it's having the same effect negative effect as Hitler's V weapons did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjX9Xn7IBro Precious good will is being diverted away from what Obama might have said, and is being diverted to this idiocy. That Obama is thinking in terms of "revenge" tells us a lot. That's no mere gaffe...that's a mindset. And, with 30k people at that rally? It appears to be motivating the Rs. And yeah...I'm just having fun with this.

This is a prediction thread. What fun is there in saying what everybody else does? It's like a SB sheet, I was late, so I'm taking the goofy 5 square here. And that sucks...unless somebody gets a safety. This PA...activity...whatever it is, is making Clinton spend the last 2 days there. That is pretty darn close to looking like one of the SB teams has the ball, but on their own goal line. So...perhaps my 5 square ain't so bad, and a safety is coming...or, they just run the ball for a first down, and it's all a big nothing. Just havin' fun...

HeHe...if you think 20 ads is bad, you have no idea. Something is definitely going on in PA. I've been hearing about it for a while...we'll see how it goes. It could end up being clusterF, very easily, given some of the people involved. Whatever, I wonder, will the media will be saying about the TEA party on Monday night? You won't have to look for them, they will be all around you. I wonder if Nate Silver has factored people from 5 states hitting PA into his model? "Campaigns don't matter", Nate? We'll see. I also hear: the PA Ds are in full panic mode. Frantic calls are going out for volunteers...on a Friday, after 8pm? Good luck. Oh...and I just saw this: http://battlegroundw...t-pennsylvania/ Looks like what I heard is right, that's the 3rd place I've heard it. [been waiting for 30 minutes to hear back on something....oh well, I'll just post this now.] What I didn't know: Bringing in Clinton. For the last 2 days? Yeah, they are scared. This permanently ends the "PA is just a head fake/desperate move" argument. PA is in play, and it's not just the TEA party who thinks so.

Since so many people are saying the same thing, about so many states....I'm going to do the opposite: http://www.270towin.....php?mapid=bfbG Why not? Obama: NV, MN, MI, OH = 250 Romney: IA, WI, PA, NH, VA, NC, FL = 288 This, given the data we already have, including OH early voting and the fact that PA is late voting and is about to have $20 mil in pro-Romney money dumped on it at the end...is just as supportable as any other prediction. 25% of PAs electorate is rich suburbs...and Romney is polling at levels there that could easily tip the whole state over. This prediction has the added benefit of causing 1000s of heads to explode on election night, which is also why I chose it. All that effort in Ohio..and it ends up not mattering? Yes, there would be some that night. (The only way OH/PA happens this way, is if we have been completely lied to about early voting in OH, by a multitude of people, and if Western PA stands on its head because it's pissed off with the EPA. Neither thing is that hard to imagine.)