I hope basso, bigtexx,TJ, bobmarley, jopatmc et al. will start believing in math. It doesn't have a liberal bias and doesn't have a conservative bias.
Funny, this lady on Fox News just admitted as much. Something along the lines of "We have to realize that this is a numbers game."
Not really. Because people will hear what they want to hear. You think Fox News hasn't been wrong long enough? My goodness if you go back and rewatch any of their shows from a year ago, you'd see that basically everything they predict turns out wrong. But their watchers don't care. Because as people, we want the news to be line with our own beliefs, even if they're wrong.
People hear what they want to hear. True enough. But this is not exclusive to Republicans or Fox news. There was good reason to suspect that Obama might be in trouble. Starting with the 2010 election outcome, weak economic news, Benghazi, etc. They were wrong at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean there wasn't logic behind their coverage.
Obama could have been in trouble but Nate silver was just stating probabilities. The republican crew was saying he is making things up because of D+8 or something. People were trying to explain to them that when you pick a random sample you can't predict if they will be D or R, but they didn't want to acknowledge how random sampling works. This should vindicate things like random sampling or math.
Here's some fact: people are lining up around the block to loan the US billions of dollars at virtually no interest. I understand from your commentary that you have no conception of what any of this means. I'm in far too good of a mood to explain it to you at the moment but you'll have to take my word for it that short term debt is meaningless. When people quit wanting to loan the US money then I'll be happy to listen to you. Otherwise keep quiet, the adults are speaking.
It's only "math" after the fact. Who shows up to vote or does not is not a "fact" until it has been done. Then it is a matter of how they vote.
Why were Republicans so certain that there was a systematic liberal bias on all the state and national polls? Really, I think it just comes down to that. It isn't so much "Do you believe in math?" Guys like Commodore, basso, and jopatmc seem to be generally agreeable to Morey's analytic approach, for instance. Its more: "Do you believe the vast majority of pollsters have an agenda to skew the results?". Common sense would answer "no" to that question, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.
thus 2010 turn out were accounted for as well in Nate's methodology it's been working before and it worked again yesterday it's the math STUPID!
