OCinBuffalo

I wonder then: why oh why Silver is so willing to use an average of polls, whose party ID is consistently ~+6 Democrat...if people vote so strictly on party lines? Why does he down-weight those that do not? Delving deeper into Silver's own article: This single question alone...is glaringly absent from Silver's current modeling. If this was baseball, we'd see Obama as batter, and Obamcare, as "how batter does against LHP with men on base" = not so good. But we don't, do we? But, really? None of this matters much compared to: If most of the pollsters are using a flawed demographic model, weighting their raw data accordingly, and then releasing the poll? Silver only gets the poll, not the raw data. So, if the base model is off for all the polls? Silver is screwed. None of the rest of his modeling can tell us anything about anything.

Ah, we didn't consider the "use alien technology" option when we were trying to network said mid 90s Macbooks. How foolish of us. Because, unlike some posters here, I have no fear of listening to people with whom I disagree. I may even learn something. Besides, listening to idiots, and using their idiocy against them...as in the premise of this thread, is what I pretty much do on this board...and at work.

No....that guy is an even bigger idiot, but for different reasons. The way he "unskews" is retarded, because it assumes that all of the polls are weighted using the same methods. They aren't. In fact they can't be. Pollster's "claim to fame" is that their methods are both unique and better, which is why they are more accurate. EDIT: Before you even start: no, the demographic model that a pollster uses is not the same thing as their weighting methods. These are two completely different things. So, if you take a poll and "unweight" it, to get back to the raw data, so that you can re-weight it by, in this case, Party ID, you have to use the same method that was used to weight it in the first place. Otherwise, you are no better than the people you are complaining about. This guy doesn't know the method that was used for each poll he "unskews", so he can't do it properly, so he is an even bigger moron than Silver. I can explain in further detail... ...but it appears you haven't finished your Nate Silver work yet. Look 4 years ago....I took down Charlie "I'm a football scientist!" Idiot Joyner. I had all these clowns telling me I was wrong...until....I wasn't. Don't be a clown.

How profound. Yes. That's true. Romney is only getting 59-60% of them. Hmmm. What happened to the last guy who only got 60% of the white vote? Oh that's right, Ronald Reagan "only" beat Walter Mondale 49 states to 1 in 1984. He didn't get all of the white people, either. He should have gotten more, and gone for the shut out. The only chance Obama has, if Romney's white performance holds? That Romney does worse amongst minorities than McCain, AND, that Axelrod's model is right. Both must be true, or this is a close Romney win. If neither is true: this is a Romney blowout. EDIT: Now that I see John Adams and Nanker are here...consider this: These two guys may end up being the reason Romney wins PA. If enough of them switch their vote from Obama to Romney, or, vote this time, or, don't vote for Gary Johnson(John Adams historically votes for silly), Obama can lose PA. Think of it this way: What is 60% of 75% of the total electorate vs. what is 90% of 11%, in terms of # of votes? The first is the Romney support among whites, the second is Obama's support among blacks...if the polls are right. See? They have to tinker with the white vote...because a single point in that wipes out a 5 point swing in the black vote. IF Romney's support goes up to 61, that wipes out Obama's support with blacks going from 90 to 95. In effect Romney being at 59-60 with whites has ALREADY wiped out the historical minority historical increase, it's even wiped out Obama's 2008 minority support. So, the only thing left for Axelrod to do? Say that whites aren't going be 76% of the electorate, or even 75. He says they are 72. No. Now you are being Axelrod. Where the hell is +4 latino going to come from, that pushes the white vote down to 72%...when latinos supported Obama ~65%, not 80%, in 2008, and every poll all has them down in both support for Obama and enthusiasm this year? Forget the individual poll results, that's what the trend says. This latino argument = emperor's new clothes. But, it's the only one Axelrod, and apparently you have. On election night, you better have your sombrero on, make some burritos, and get yourself some Corona...perhaps do some human sacrifice to an Aztec god? With the early voting in Ohio, and everywhere else? Here: http://www.washingto...38d93_blog.html If we throw out half of these results, and only use the other half? The Aztec thing is looking to be your only chance at this point.

I have linked that info from various sources about 50 times in these threads. How about this for fun: find me a link that says white voter turnout in 2008 wasn't depressed, especially in Ohio. Ya think? Now why would that be? What "never in my lifetime" thing was actually happening "in their lifetime"? Yeah...and so would white turnout being depressed...in fact, imagine what would happen if BOTH things occurred? Yawn. This, again: http://www.brookings...-elections-frey 74% = wrong. See, now they are even lying about the 2008 #s. The white vote was 76.3: http://pewresearch.o...ential-election That is from the US Census Bureau, not OFA HQ in Chicago. It's going to go down to 72% this election, even though 1.7 million white voters who sat last time, are guaranteed to return. The 4 pts necessary to overcome that and still move it down to 72? Where are they going to come from? Apparently: magical fairy land. Re-read all the things I have just linked. Stop. Re-read all the things I have just linked. Stop. Keep doing this until that stupid question is permanently erased from your mind. There are 0 assumptions here. Only facts. The only assumption, is that magically, white voters will make up 72% of the electorate this year. It's based on nothing, nothing at all, other than "because David Axelrod said so".

Dude...no.

I thought you "knew" all about Silver's methodology, to the point that you could not only defend it, but come after me for not "knowing" it. Well? Instead, it ends with me: teaching. Nate Silver has determined, wrongly, that baseball-->politics. He believes that his data patterning methodology can use an "ideology score" no different than he used On Base %. Understand: his patterning methods are formidable. However they are dependent on statistics, that perform in baseball, but don't perform, the way his patterning methodology REQUIRES them to, in politics. They are also dependent on polls(more on that below). Why does he need "ideology score"? Same reason he needs OBP. His models won't work otherwise. He needs "batter performance". He needs a way to identify how a candidate will perform against the "pitching" = the economic factors, voters aggregate views on issues, etc. The fundamental flaw of "ideology score": in baseball, a single is a single, and both the Yankees and Red Sox see it as such. OBP is a composite statistic(or indicator) of different %s and #s, and the relationship between the "children" to the "parent" is always he same. Ideology score is also a composite statistic. But it's a crappy one, compared to OBP. The relationship of the parent to the children will change. To account for that you must redefine the scoring system, re-run it, and redefine everything it touches in Silver's model, practically on a weekly basis. Silver uses this stat as though it is OBP. It simply isn't. It is unlikely to be measured objectively. You'd have to have somebody besides Silver, or ideally, a whole lot of somebodies, and do this weekly for it to even approach being right. So what is this score already? He uses this: http://www.voteview.com/dwnomin.htm, this http://ideologicalcartography.com/ and polls of what voters think the ideology of a candidate is (yeah...as if the average voter is familiar enough to make consistent, accurate calls like that. There is a reason Wall Street analysts have a job.) to determine the "ideology score". Look at those links. See anything that looks like Single, Double, Bunt? Neither do I. Is there anything here that will behave the same way over time, or that people will perceive the same way as a single? Is this even sorta consistent? Or, simply stated: was Mitt Romney ever a US Congressman? Ideology score is not OBP. You don't get to rate a single in baseball. Or, call a single not a single, because you think it was a lame blooper that the batter got lucky on. But, if you are doing DW-Nominate and you are a Democrat, the difference between Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney is what? 5 pts? You say that because "Paul is such an EXTREMIST!" This has massive effect in this model. However if you were to rate Howard Dean, and Barack Obama...the difference would be 1-2 pts, because you don't see as much difference between them. See the inherent bias? A 1000 other voters may rate this 1000 other ways. The funny part: what we are really looking at via all of this? Nate Silver's partisan, subconscious perception of what the odds -->should be. We still don't know who he rated how, why, and whether this has changed. It's a unintentional view into Silver's mind. So, again, Nate Silver is a moron. He's brilliant, but, he's a moron for not seeing the flaws here. -------------------------------------- As far as the polls: I think it's safe to say we've established that there is a serious out of whack, partisan divide here, when it comes to demographic models. Somebody is dead wrong. We can't know that until election day. We know that Axelrod has been cajoling pollsters for at least a year, to accept his version of the demos of the 2012 electorate. This model, in my estimation, is fantasy. When the polling firms gets a raw sample, they weight it to fit this model. Example: if I get too many white males, and not enough black females, I weight down my sample to fit the Axelrod demo model. So, some voter's responses get thrown out, because my sample is "too white". There doesn't necessarily have to be anything underhanded going on here. Pollsters have to start somewhere. Many chose to use the demographic model of 2008, and adjust to suit Axelrod's whining. They say that they don't weight by party ID. Fine. But, they do use weight by demos. When your sample is consistently producing fantastical D+6-10 turnout, but also has Romney winning independents by 10+? It's time to reconsider that demographic model, and my main B word here is: they haven't. Nate Silver's main problem here is: he is using all of these polls, and down-weights Rassmussen and Gallup, who have told Axelrod to get F'ed. So, Silver is making a potentially bad problem....worse. IF Axelrod's model is wrong, Silver is hopelessly screwed, and so is RCP for that matter.

Nah. PTR has been good here in the past. I've seen interesting points, and even some insight. I don't like it but, as I say, tough schit if I don't like it. He has been retarded lately. The same may be said, due to the proximity of the election, about all of us. This is an uninteresting time for PPP. That's because when it's not election time, you have one team on O, one on D, everybody knows their position, etc. and you get the real discussions and/or take downs. Somebody starts a 30 page thread about finance, etc. There's no nearby, big, "hahaha you lost" election outcome that can be used as the argument-ender in all threads. Right now, there's a lot of anxiety about which team is going to get that big thread-smasher. In 2008, at this point, we already knew, and the "regular season" had already started. Me back then: "if Obama goes overboard, he's going to lose the House and Senate just like Clinton did"

You have no idea what you are asking for. This idea is fine in brainstorming. But, it should die right after. Now, you've stated it. See what I did in my thread? I told him "this has nothing to do with anything"...and then just reinforced my point. You don't have to completely ignore him, just swat him like the fly that he is, and move on.

Easy way to fix that, though....stop switching gears.

Ok.... How exactly that would happen? Or, do I not want to know we arrive at me saying something definitive, and contradicting myself, at the same time? Before we proceed, is there any chance of creating a new dimension, or messing with the space/time continuum here? I really don't have time for any Dr. Who, crazy adventures...I still have 2 meetings tonight.

I clearly have. Extensively. The question here is: have you? The other question here is: where the F is your common sense? The putting words in my mouth/strawman arguments on this board have become so tiresome. Not what I am saying. Not even close. I am saying: let's use the NORM for determining minority growth. NOT THE OUTLIER. Did you take statistics in college? Do you know what these terms mean? There is a historic growth rate for minority voters relative to the electorate as a whole, over the last 40 years, since they've been tracking this. It's ~1.5 %. Your pal's model relies on a 4% increase. Just stop....and think about that for 3 seconds. It also relies on the electorate going from white 76% in 2008(when the white vote was inordinately depressed)...to white 72% What could possibly make you think this is right? Seriously. Even if we include 2008, there's no way in hell. The rest of your post is babble, as is whatever else you have to say, until you explain how the F white voters are going to sit home, especially ones that voted every damn year BUT 2008, in even larger #s this year than in 2008. That's the only way Axelrod's, your buddy's, demographic model makes any sense. If you want to stand by that model, be my guest. Why would I want to stop you from signing up for something I get to mock you for...eternally? EDIT: Liberal Projection Alert! I almost missed this. Hmmm. Why do you think I need to boost enthusiasm? I am perfectly fine with R enthusiasm. In fact, all signs show it's better than expected. The early voting #s in Ohio, and especially Nevada and Iowa, show that R enthusiasm is over performing expectations. Given this, why should I have an enthusiasm problem, or even a question about it? Do you have the enthusiasm problem, and your coping mechanism, as with all projectors, is telling me that I have....your problem?

If that is true, then it's only because Democrats lost control of their party after 2004. Hell, we already had signs of it prior = Howard Dean "Aaeeeeeeiiiiii" You can't possibly be so obtuse that you don't see the connection. Pushing too far in one direction, gives rise to pushing in the other. There would be no TEA party, if there was no plausible need for one.

White decrease election over election is historically is 1.3%. The model your pals are using for this time? -4%. Who is dreaming again? Who is being "bullish"? 2008 is an outlier for 3 reasons: 1. electing a black dude fired up lots of people over things that have nothing to do with a normal election 2. inordinate increase in minority voters, that was not in line with the longitudinal growth rate that had been established. It was a spike. There's 0 reason to believe that it will remain. And, the polls that say Obama is up, also inexplicably show a decrease in minority enthusiasm, while also showing an uptick in white. Explain that. 3. inordinate decrease in white voters. The polls then showed that this was directly due to Bush exhaustion, and the fact that McCain inspired...few. In order for you to be right, and this turnout model to be right, we have to believe that not only ALL of them will stay home again, but that even more white voters will. Good luck with getting all 3 of those things to show up again in 2012. Dude this is common f'ing sense. IF you honestly believe that all 3 of them will show up again, to the same extent? You are delusional. There's no other nice way to say it.

And this response is a long, long way from what I was hearing in August = "you don't have a real point here, you just don't like what the polls/Nate Silver/Intrade are saying". As for the ground game? http://thehill.com/b...-in-ground-game Obama's "ground game" is not the advantage it has been sold as. This comes right after we find out that Obama's "early vote advantage"...isn't, so far. The R "ground game" was able to deliver OH for Bush in 2004. Thus far, with Obama's lead in early voting from 2008 virtually erased? It appears the R ground game is no joke either. Especially if we are to believe that Ds are cannibalizing their election day voters by making them vote early. There was a laundry list in August of "why Obama can't lose". Over time, we've seen item after item being scratched off that list. The "blue wall" was the first casualty. It seems the "line of death" keeps getting closer and closer to the shore...and the last thing on the list is "structural electoral college advantage". That depends solely on which electorate demographic model is accurate, and we'll see, won't we?

Certainly such an advanced culture such as yours can find a way to interface to our primitive information exchanges. Might I suggest you try Google?

Actually? It's misbehavior now. This was done to make looting subject to the same thing as cowardice. Looting is not cowardice, so, misbehavior instead. I posted this above...http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/151961-report-obama-watched-benghazi-attack-from-situation-room/page__st__20?do=findComment&comment=2615873 I almost guarantee that drone cam '= "in the presence of the enemy". However, "before the enemy" means fighting with, etc. "In the presence" is supposed to cover "in the rear with the gear" guy, who doesn't perform his duty, etc. I don't know how far back "the rear" goes. If it goes to the WH, and the UCMJ applies? Then yeah, we might just have a guilty president or certainly a guilty defense secretary, whose punishment would be literally, a firing squad. No way it ever gets there though. That would be insane, no matter how "by the book" it is. They'd resign, then Congress would give them a pass/it would just end..long before it got to that. Which is kinda BS, because if Pvt. Pissypants runs, he gets shot, and it's 50/50 on whether he gets a trial.

This has no bearing on this thread at all....but...Mrs. Obama is going to be in NC on election eve. What does that mean? Romney is going to be in PA, eastern suburbs, big rally, the whole weekend. That might actually mean something...because of the data. You do realize that in PA, rich suburbs of Pittsburgh and Philly are 25% of the vote...and Obama is polling at 34-38% amongst whites, Romney at 62-65%, right? I've spent plenty of time, and lived in both suburbs. I can assure you: lily white. Do that math, if you are capable...and...there's no way Obama is not in deep trouble in these areas, and therefore, these states. If the minority turnout in PA is down from 2008, by just 1-2 pts, then Romney makes it a photo finish. If they are down by 2-3 points, Romney wins easily. You do understand this, right? There's no guarantees...but given the data, that seems like a very fine use of resources. That's the difference: I'm looking for data. Show me some data, stop cheerleading, or STFU.

Some guy at Salon is saying "independents don't matter" http://www.salon.com/2012/11/01/the_independent_illusion/ It's truly amazing, this independents thing. Apparently, in 2004, when Kerry won them, and won them in Ohio, and in 2008, when Obama won them, Ohio same, we didn't have these "covert" independents at all. No. ALL of them were absolutely independent independents. Underpants Gnomes Reasoning: 1. Today, nobody who says they are an independent actually is, most of them are lying about being Republican, sneaking past the LV screen, and that's why Romney is winning them by double digits? (giggle ) 2. These Rs are more likely to pull off these shenanigans, because they are more likely to vote? (chuckle ) 3. Yes, a race where Ds are less likely to vote than Rs... (pregnant pause + schit eating grin ) 4. ????? 5. ....absolutely means that losing INDs doesn't matter. ROFL! :lol: Ahhhhhh...hehe...he...he...Ok...I'll settle down. Ahem...Doesn't that sound a little nutty, conspiratorial, and just plain idiotic to you? Does your common sense violation alarm go off...at all? Is that more likely than: Obama has pissed off the center of the country, and, the economy sucks = pretty much why you would lose independents, in ever other race, BUT, apparently, this one..

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/parties-wonder-which-side-s-polls-reflect-reality-20121101 My takeaway: 1. Somebody is right, somebody is wrong? This is not good. Internal polls for the candidates should not be drastically different. We are supposed to be able to agree on the scoreboard, and then debate the score. 2. We have a real problem with polling in general, and no, that is not limited to Nate Silver. Silver is only as good as the polls. The polls have problems, so everybody, including Silver, has problems. (Silver is bad for his own reasons: re-weighting polls after they've been weighted, and using an "ideology score" as though it's = as meaningful and predictive as an On Base %. facepalm ) 3. We can't keep pretending this is 1965, everybody has a land line, and they all answer their phone immediately. But, we also can't pretend that this is...never, and we can just make whatever electorate demographic models we want. 4. Like it or not, polls, and polling have a real effect, and they do shape opinion, if not create it. We are better off not having any polls than having ones that are broken, one way or another. 5. There's nothing like being vindicated, albeit by Republicans(but I have been saying this for 4 months now): Remember, I reviewed the data myself, and said BS. I did not have some guy do the research, read his article, and start passing off both his work and his opinion as mine.

In an incredible turnabout, CBS news joins the ranks of right wing news outlets. "We've seen our declining ratings, and we plan to re-capture our viewers from a certain cable channel". The WP editorial calling out the media this past weekend...is beginning to have an effect.

No way in hell man. All I am saying is that we are rapidly approaching the final day, and the early voting margin for Obama isn't what it was in 2008. In fact it's almost wiped out completely. What does that mean? Nothing other than: it's one more piece of evidence that this electorate '= 2008, and that Nate Silver is a moron. Here's what I am calling: Nate Silver uses an "ideology score" for candidates, and this piece of data is going to be the source of much fun in threads for the next few days.

2 things: 1. Read your own wiki link. Ron Klain is a democrat. In fact he's the hero in the "Republicans stole the 2000 election movie" on HBO. Why would a Democrat, who knows this, find fault with Silver...if he "just want's to hear what he wants to hear"? The fundamental problem with Silver: he is using bad demographic assumptions. We can talk about models all day, but if you don't have a sound electorate represented in your averages(raw data), all you are doing is averaging bad. Also, and I have been waiting patiently with this: Silver uses an "ideology score" or rating, does he not? Read your own info. No. Let me do it for you: http://fivethirtyeig...choice-of-ryan/ Yeah...that's right, I've had this queued up since Ryan became VP. IF Silver hasn't modified his "ideology" scores and is still rating Romney as arch-conservative...then isn't he badly misrepresenting voter's views of Romney? But, Romney's ideology hasn't changed...or, wait...has it? Well? Has it? Your side keeps saying it has. Yeah. Warning: you have now stepped into it ...let's see try to get out of it. :lol: I've been waiting to use this one, and now seems like the right time. It's going to be fun seeing you try to argue both for and against Romney being a moderate, at the same time. For, to try and preserve what Obama has been saying about "you can't trust Romney", and against, to try and keep your Nate Silver argument going. This is going to be fun! Wriggle..wriggle...wriggle. EDIT: The simple fact is that the "ideology score" itself, as a concept, that heavily informs Silver's work here, is flawed. This is perhaps the single biggest factor that breaks Silver's model. He is trying to assign a single number...to a thing nobody agrees on this time, and certainly not Democrats. Last time, the ideology score may have had less of a factor, or it may have been congruent with the rest of the data. This time...we'll see. 2. I wonder, what are you going to say on Monday, when Nate Silver does his last minute shift towards Romney, with Obama still winning, but just enough to be "margin of error" territory? Are you going to tell me that it's just because the new raw data he received moved his models that way? I was watching him in 2010. That's precisely what he did. Notice that the entire wiki never talks about where he was 6 months out from 2010, 3 months, etc. No. It only talks about the "final prediction" on "election eve". Coincidence?

Wait...isn't PTR a Canadian? (Christ, where is crayonz when you need him? ) So, isn't his answer: Me: Nothing and/or whatever my media/politicians says it does? Country: Does not apply and/or whatever the USA dictates it does? (Think I'm kidding? Read on) ------------------------------------------------ One thing I know for sure, if PTR's candidate loses, most Canadian politicians will be invoking "evil Mitt". For reasons passing understanding, they can't seem to get through any political discussion, without involving the USA in some fashion, even for stuff that has nothing to do with us. It's uncanny. I listened to the last prime minister debates(I was on a long drive, so why not?). No less than 5 times they ended their sentences with "X is bad, and we don't want to do it like they do in the USA(or one of our states)". Meanwhile the other guy countered with "the USA(State) has this and this, and we have (crap), and we might just learn to like (not crap)". I kept laughing and thinking: "WTF is this?" "WTF do we have to do with the Canadian prison system, the French being...French, or the expenditures(they know no other word) on (some Canadian ClusterFucracy), that we don't even have? Why can't they make most of their points without involving us? Seriously, if what is happening in Texas and Arizona is informing their views to this extent, and they give a crap about Texas and Arizona to this extent, then why bother having 2 countries? I thought this was a debate about what to do in Canada, not Texas. Or, have these guys solved all their own problems to the point that they've got extra time to start working on the domestic issues in Texas? Are they looking for extra credit? The one guy sounded like was running for governor of NY, and was at a Democratic primary debate" It was goofy...and surreal. ...dammit...this is where crayonz would say "It's Canada, dumbass, of course its goofy and surreal"....but funnier than that.

Me: No, in fact, what I know about business analytics is not as useful, when it comes to analyzing political data, as I thought it was. I need to do more reading and understand this stuff better, because there's definitely something different about it that I don't get yet. I was wrong this time, and I need to find out why. Something odd, for me, happened here, and understanding it may be useful in my work, and make me better at it. Country: I have grave fears that Obama continues to over-rate and over-rely on his "ability", and learns nothing even though this time, it was his butt on the line, instead of just Ds in Congress. This election, even though he wins it closely, will not serve as the wake-up call that 2010 should have. When we have Democratic bloggers describing his "I got this" attitude as the reason he might lose: just imagine if he wins. OTOH, the country isn't run by one man. There are no indications that the House is going anywhere. So, it's gridlock. At least gridlock means no more stupidity from DC for at least 2 years. The irony: we WILL be "on our own", quite literally. Once again, the opposite of what they intend...comes to pass.