BRAWNDO Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 MSNBC has called the race for Obama 280-257 however Romney has won the popular vote 55%-43% http://www.politico....nbc-148500.html Their missing electoral vote aside, it's the same map I came up with Can see the electoral college falling this way. A 12 point win in the popular vote equals a landside in the EC, so this is not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) New York Times stats guru Nate Silver has elevated the likelihood of President Obama's re-election to better than 85 percent in his latest update. In an early morning update Sunday, Obama improved to an 85.1 percent favorite of winning a second term. That's the highest Obama has scored in Silver's influential polling model — which balances a wide variety of state and national polls and weighs them according to past performance and likely accuracy — since he topped 87 percent just before the first presidential debate in Denver. http://www.salon.com...rcent_favorite/ Voter suppression is in overdrive in Ohio and Florida. I predict one or both of those state's Secretaries of State will try to invalidate their results in order to block the Presidents reelection. They are that desperate. The Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelman didn't spend a half-billion dollars just to let Romney lose. PTR Edited November 6, 2012 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 What is the basis of your claim? Are you just doing another drive-by with no intention of sticking around and defending your position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Voter suppression is in overdrive in Ohio and Florida. I predict one or both of those state's Secretaries of State will try to invalidate their results in order to block the Presidents reelection. They are that desperate. The Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelman didn't spend a half-billion dollars just to let Romney lose. PTR They can't do it and get away with it. The Supreme Court won't stop a recount this year without serious repercussions, if that happened it would justify a re-reading of the first part of the Declaration of Independence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 They can't do it and get away with it. The Supreme Court won't stop a recount this year without serious repercussions, if that happened it would justify a re-reading of the first part of the Declaration of Independence Nervous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Quote of the Day "If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts. We're not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), quoted by Politico, saying that demographics would be the only reason for a hypothetical Mitt Romney loss Tuesday. http://www.politico....3305_Page2.html Already fighting over why Romney lost??? 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!". Its amazing she lost... with 14% unemployment- I seem to remember the social issues dragged her down and beat her silly in that contest. 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. I'll elect to go with science. Nate Silver is using a mathematical non-partisan methodology, and backs it with an algorithm. His predictions were so accurate in 2008 he predicted 49/50 states with the exception of North Carolina, that Obama won by the narrowest of margins. To anyone who has spent 20 minutes on Silver's 538 Blog, read the wikipedia page, and even non-partisan news critics everyone agrees that it simply looks at the hard data of the polls as a statistical average. As Silver recently challenged Joe Scarborough, you think I'm wrong let's put $1,000 on this. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Nate_Silver http://www.guardian....ver-predictions 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. Edited November 6, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Nervous? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Obama supporters REMAIN CALM...........ALL IS WELL............. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Yes She'll be gentle. From what I hear they know what it's like and take it pretty easy on your type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Voter suppression is in overdrive in Ohio and Florida. I predict one or both of those state's Secretaries of State will try to invalidate their results in order to block the Presidents reelection. They are that desperate. The Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelman didn't spend a half-billion dollars just to let Romney lose. PTR Don't forget about Dick Cheney's weather machine creating that storm to supress the vote in blue states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Don't forget about Dick Cheney's weather machine creating that storm to supress the vote in blue states Dick Cheney did not invent that! It's so frustrating to keep hearing people say that. If they only knew... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) 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. You are an idiot. His models lead to him being right a majority of the time. If he puts down "90%" then in 9 out of ten elections he should be right. It's not science by the way, it is math you turd. Edited November 6, 2012 by conner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) You are an idiot. His models lead to him being right a majority of the time. If he puts down "90%" then in 9 out of ten elections he should be right. It's not science by the way, it is math you turd. 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. Edited November 6, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Man, OC, I know you have some reason to blather on and on...and who knows, you might have a point sometimes.... but the gist of most of your arguments seems to come down to, "I said this, so it is true"... reminds me of Catholic school. Anyways, whatever happens with this election, it will be nice when we aren't arguing over poll results...we are entering the dementia zone with this election... Edited November 6, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Anyways, whatever happens with this election, it will be nice when we aren't arguing over poll results...we are entering the dementia zone with this election... The plan is on schedule it seems. Brilliant! 45 days left... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Man, OC, I know you have some reason to blather on and on...and who knows, you might have a point sometimes.... but the gist of most of your arguments seems to come down to, "I said this, so it is true"... reminds me of Catholic school. Anyways, whatever happens with this election, it will be nice when we aren't arguing over poll results...we are entering the dementia zone with this election... Then you haven't paid attention at all. Edited November 6, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Silver's model ended with a 91.6% shot of Obama winning. Wow. It will be crazy if he is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 All you need to know is this: It's going to look like Obama's ahead until 5:00 PM when all the Republicans get out of work and vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 All you need to know is this: It's going to look like Obama's ahead until 5:00 PM when all the Republicans get out of work and vote. I thought the old saying was Republicans vote in the morning and Democrats vote at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts