NYT Nate Silver Doubles Down: 75% Chance Obama Wins

I know what the problem is.

He has no answers that don't leave him exposed.

 

Jopat please post the question you emailed nate

 

No. I emailed him a lot of questions.

 

Post one or all

 

I thought you tweeted them to him? Those are public - are you afraid of actually showing the specifics of your stupidity to us?

 

I Dont think he actually asked nate anything

 

Here. Take a shot at this question. I'm still waiting for even a single answer to it.


http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7301201&postcount=3280

 

Did u tweet that to nate or rcp?

 

FiveThirtyEight takes into account economic variables. In case you haven't noticed, everything economically speaking has beaten expectations lately.

 

I posted the question here for all those that believe Obama is going to win this election. If you believe Obama is going to win the election, attempt to answer the question.

 

My "gut" tells me that he has not responded because your questions were absurd and not worth his time.

 

I answered you shortly after you asked it. I told you I have a feeling. Is that answer not sufficient for you?

 

No. Feeling should follow some sort of factual evidences, not precede it.

 

Do you have any factual evidence that the statistical model that Silver uses is politically biased?

I have been following him for over 5 years and he has always claimed and appropriately weighed pollsters based on their historical bias (regardless of political party).

Polling is a science as is collectively weighing and projecting an outcome. I guess we will find out soon if his model is flawed. With dozens upon dozens of state polls in battlegrounds, it creates a much smaller standard deviation to a projection when weighted properly.

He typically weighs polls as follows:
1. Date. With the more recent polls being a better indicator than a poll taken a month ago or earlier.
2. Poll sample size.
3. Pollster historical accuracy. Not all polls are created equal and some have shown historical bias. As stated earlier, he does acknowledge when a poll has shown either democrat or republican lean.

% of win is merely a range of possibilities based on the standard deviation of the sum of the polls. Sure, these polls may all be close and Romney might fall within the margin of error on most, but that doesn't mean you can't discredit the science behind studying the culmination of all the polls together.

 

Of course he didn't - he's just making up stuff as he goes.

 

I think this is where jopat wings some incredibly r****ded questions on the fly for us to behold.

 

Absolutely - but since he doesn't actually understand anything related to math, stats, or polls in general, he first has to go scour some wingnut sites to find someone else's questions that he can pretend are his.

 

Says the guy who professes, and I quote:

I am choosing to believe what I feel is the truth.

 

Jopatmc, there was a time when I thought---probably still do---that DaDakota was a little unhinged, maybe had some personal demons, which could explain how far afield he would drift from reality/normalcy (and I say not wanting to judge, just putting it out there; opinionated is one thing, but s**t..

You're in that same territory now.

As far as the polls go, were we badgering you, bigtexx, gwayneco, basso, t_j et al whilst ya'll were waxing the collective dolphin over Romney's poll leads (especially that nearly inexplicable Gallup poll, named for its boss, a certain evangelical Christian named Mr. Gallup who always seemed to err heavily in favor of the Republican Presidential candidate)?

You post your smug crap on this board day in and day out, didn't learn your lesson from the Dwight Howard thing. Maybe you need to spend less time at Christian businessmen meetings. Or do you work for Diebold after all and know something we don't?

Why do we believe Obama will win based on what the polls tell us?

Maybe it isn't the polls alone, but this late in the game, the polls don't tend to lie.

Generally, Romney needs Ohio, period. If he wins it, though, I'd be highly suspicious, no matter the depth of the grotesque lies he's telling the people of that state, trying to Swift Boat Obama on the auto bailout and Jeep and China and etc etc.

I'm guessing Romney has a great chance at Florida, though, judging by that state's governor ensuring that early voting is as difficult and tumultuous as possible (anyone see the early voting lines there? just horrific).

 

OK, that's easy.

1. More people are better off now than they were 4 years ago. You can spin all the "facts" you want, and there are still many people who are suffering, but a majority are better now than in 2008/2009. Based on unemployment, house sales, etc. People are going to vote based on their own individual situation. Plus, here are some others:

2. Obama generally has a high likeability rating. YOU may not like him, but you don't represent the majority. It may not be a great majority, but you don't need a great majority to win an election.

3. Obama's approval rating is at 50%, and it's been on the rise. Good trend.

4. Mitt Romney still has likeability issues. Not sure what the latest percentage is, but it's not as high as it needs to be.

Obama's approval rating is high ENOUGH to win an election. The economy has been improving ENOUGH to win an election. Obama is liked by ENOUGH of a majority to win. And Romney is not ENOUGH of a compelling candidate, like Reagan or even W Bush (who had a high likeability rating), to overcome this. Obama is ahead and has been ahead in enough close states to win the electoral votes. Romney can certainly win, but he'd have to win in almost every battleground state, whereas the road is not as difficult for Obama. Those are facts, the polls have been out there for long enough to determine this, and there's absolutely a case for Obama winning while there is one for Romney, as well. Not sure why that's hard for you to understand- if this was Kerry or Dukakis, we'd be on the other end- close, but probably not enough to win.