NYT Nate Silver Doubles Down: 75% Chance Obama Wins

I like that song. I also like "Jerusalem" and "Marilyn Monroe."

Oh, and to answer the poster that keeps asking everyone, Obama is going to win with relative ease.

 

83.7% and 305.3. jopat nailed it.

 

Hum...

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7143113&postcount=17

:grin:

 

Finally a small injection of reason in this thread filled with hype and false information.

 

Agreed, spreading false information such as the idea that Silver is going to move Obama's chances to close to 50% by election day does nothing but dirty up this thread. I'm sure the turn will start any minute now.

 

Spreading false information is what you are doing when you only tell half the story. Typical Obama right there.

 

How brave of you to show up again in your thread.

And if he is right?

 

And Estelle.

Why baby, why baby, why baby, why'd you turn your back on love?

Musically, reminiscent of Like a Rolling Stone.

 

Mitt only has a 16% chance to win.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...s-must-be-statistically-biased/?smid=re-share

 

Bill Clinton doing 4(!) events in PA Monday.

Why?

 

This seems one of the most intellectually dishonest posts in this long thread. Many congratulations for the achievement.

*If* you read Silver's latest post, he cites about 85% or more of recent swing state polls favoring Obama. *That* is the main thing that feeds his model: state polling data.

So if you want to cook up a "Silver is biased" and "Silver is creating this effect" story, then you have to honestly believe that he is tampering with and influencing dozens of state polling processes carried out by ten or more independent organizations (!) That is just stunning poppycock, even for someone of your political persuasions. You are usually a little bit better than that.

If you read the piece, and honestly look at the state polling data, you can only come up with this conclusion, based on logic: if Romney is actually winning, there is a systematic error weighing against him in the state polling data, carried out by multiple organizations. That is totally possible, which is what Silver is saying.

That is completely different than what are saying: that his model is biased against Republican candidates. The model is simply responding in a coherent fashion to the most basic inputs. Here are the inputs he refers to, by the way:



Yeah, Nate Silver, the all-powerful, is super-biased! I wish he would leave Ipsos, SuveryUSA, PPP, Mason-Dixon, Gravis Marketing, Melman, NBC, WSJ, We Ask America, Grove, Rasmussen and CNN the hell alone.

So please explain the conspiracy of these ten organizations. Or, alternately, you could explain how an "honest" model would eject the strong lean to one candidate and take in, say, local grain and dairy prices, or pollen count.

 

ROFL

(we know why but the Obama zombies do not)

 

I think you either didn't read his entire post or completely missed his point with the quoted paragraph. He wasn't saying that Nate Silver is definitely putting out biased info right now. He said that if Romney wins, by Silver's own admission the polling is biased against Romney, and going forward 538 needs to account for that.

 

Will Fox and their "loyal followers" finally believe that "garbage in, garbage out" applies to that "news" outlet after Obama wins?

Rhetorical question, the answer is no, Fox will just amp up the claims of "voter fraud" even though all the poll pointed to a relatively easy win for Obama.

 

Fox's own pollsters, Schoen and Caddell, are both established democrats and are running their polls at D+5.

They'll probably need to adjust their own methodology.

 

Because he is an animal and not a man of leisure.... Greatest politician in 75 years, just a marvel.

 

You leftist with your partisan ideas like math! This might be fun bit of trolling p*rn for a clown to make on a message board. Probably troll viagra really. Mojster may have to consult a physician by Tuesday


The less cool thing is that a disproportion faction of the minority political party actually believes this and that the other half is tolerant of it. Doesn't bode well for them in terms of being successful - but horrible for the country as the constitution allows these idiots to monkeywrench attempts by adults to solve real problems.

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LvZHTmA-www" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Because they can afford to.