HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Things are about to get a...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:18 PM

Things are about to get a whole lot tougher for Nate Silver

From the Political Wire


Too Tough to Forecast?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/oct-14-breaking-the-state-national-poll-stalemate/

Nate Silver: "If the current polls hold, predicting the election outcome will boil down to making a series of educated guesses about the relationship between state and national polls, and between the Electoral College and the popular vote."

"There have been plenty of elections before when the outcome was highly uncertain down the stretch run or on Election Day itself. But I am not sure that there has been one where different types of polls pointed in opposite directions. Anyone in my business who is not a bit terrified by this set of facts is either lying to himself -- or he doesn't know what he's doing."



Well Nate if you are going to trust every Tom Dick and Doug Kaplan that comes your way you are going to make a mess out of it.

You are actually going to have to look at the pollsters and start throwing some of them out, and give others only a token weight.

But when you are flooded by polls from the right wing including Gravis, ARG, Purple Strategies, WeAskAmerica and Rasmussen you are being played, and being played badly.

Did you really think that with hundreds of millions of dollars going around that they wouldn't try and play the ref by flooding you with a lot of right wing polls?

127 replies, 21621 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 127 replies Author Time Post
Reply Things are about to get a whole lot tougher for Nate Silver (Original post)
grantcart Oct 2012 OP
Tom Rinaldo Oct 2012 #1
calimary Oct 2012 #76
anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #89
Sugarcoated Oct 2012 #2
GoCubsGo Oct 2012 #28
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #58
tavalon Oct 2012 #82
DURHAM D Oct 2012 #3
grantcart Oct 2012 #6
DURHAM D Oct 2012 #11
brush Oct 2012 #62
AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #83
krawhitham Oct 2012 #84
DURHAM D Oct 2012 #85
krawhitham Oct 2012 #88
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #114
krawhitham Oct 2012 #120
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #121
MissMarple Oct 2012 #91
DURHAM D Oct 2012 #99
HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #21
yardwork Oct 2012 #54
HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #67
Spider Jerusalem Oct 2012 #103
jayschool Oct 2012 #122
SkepticMetric Oct 2012 #4
grantcart Oct 2012 #8
Baitball Blogger Oct 2012 #14
old guy Oct 2012 #34
Marr Oct 2012 #15
jmowreader Oct 2012 #40
Chan790 Oct 2012 #94
jmowreader Oct 2012 #96
progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #33
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #115
jsmirman Oct 2012 #5
BumRushDaShow Oct 2012 #7
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #9
graham4anything Oct 2012 #10
hack89 Oct 2012 #16
MadrasT Oct 2012 #17
graham4anything Oct 2012 #19
Dawgs Oct 2012 #27
hack89 Oct 2012 #45
Dawgs Oct 2012 #72
hack89 Oct 2012 #73
boxman15 Oct 2012 #71
zeemike Oct 2012 #31
hack89 Oct 2012 #47
zeemike Oct 2012 #126
progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #35
hack89 Oct 2012 #48
BainsBane Oct 2012 #92
grantcart Oct 2012 #23
gkhouston Oct 2012 #41
DURHAM D Oct 2012 #56
hack89 Oct 2012 #50
graham4anything Oct 2012 #55
hack89 Oct 2012 #57
graham4anything Oct 2012 #59
hack89 Oct 2012 #60
graham4anything Oct 2012 #61
forthemiddle Oct 2012 #68
hack89 Oct 2012 #70
grantcart Oct 2012 #64
hack89 Oct 2012 #69
grantcart Oct 2012 #93
hack89 Oct 2012 #102
hack89 Oct 2012 #105
grantcart Oct 2012 #106
hack89 Oct 2012 #108
hack89 Oct 2012 #109
grantcart Oct 2012 #110
hack89 Oct 2012 #111
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #116
hack89 Oct 2012 #117
hack89 Oct 2012 #118
Baitball Blogger Oct 2012 #12
Sugarcoated Oct 2012 #13
grantcart Oct 2012 #24
dchill Oct 2012 #63
grasswire Oct 2012 #66
jsmirman Oct 2012 #98
BlueToTheBone Oct 2012 #18
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2012 #20
zorro1 Oct 2012 #22
AlbertCat Oct 2012 #30
OldHippieChick Oct 2012 #78
AlbertCat Oct 2012 #81
progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #36
Bluenorthwest Oct 2012 #38
randome Oct 2012 #39
Surya Gayatri Oct 2012 #42
rtracey Oct 2012 #25
Blue Idaho Oct 2012 #26
mzmolly Oct 2012 #29
MuhkRahker Oct 2012 #124
mzmolly Oct 2012 #125
FailureToCommunicate Oct 2012 #32
ThomThom Oct 2012 #37
defacto7 Oct 2012 #43
Time for change Oct 2012 #44
Lex Oct 2012 #46
grantcart Oct 2012 #49
HowHasItComeToThis Oct 2012 #51
anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #97
Ccarmona Oct 2012 #52
yardwork Oct 2012 #53
Raine1967 Oct 2012 #65
flamingdem Oct 2012 #75
Denzil_DC Oct 2012 #74
graham4anything Oct 2012 #77
mstinamotorcity2 Oct 2012 #79
DURHAM D Oct 2012 #80
anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #86
Major Hogwash Oct 2012 #87
BainsBane Oct 2012 #90
anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #95
judesedit Oct 2012 #100
68 Rex Oct 2012 #101
Anthony McCarthy Oct 2012 #104
grantcart Oct 2012 #107
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #112
hack89 Oct 2012 #113
psychmommy Oct 2012 #119
ddougherty Oct 2012 #123
Mc Mike Oct 2012 #127

Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:24 PM

1. The G.O.P. polling strategy is so obvious that it discredits any commentater who falls for it.

Sorry about that Nate. You will have to exercise some common sense in addition to statistical wizardry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:41 PM

76. But the problem is - they ARE falling for it.

These guys really fascinate me! Look at all the devious ideas they've come up with to pervert reality!

And look how successful they are. People fall for it like nobody's business, and only after the damage is done, only years later, do the suckers come out of their stupor and realize that they got played - by somebody or other. And by then, these bastards are back, with all kinds of devious ideas for explaining to the suckers that the people who played 'em are OUR guys - who actually did NOT. And watch the suckers fall for it AGAIN!!!

So MY question is -

WHY AREN'T OUR GUYS COMING UP WITH STUFF LIKE THIS????? WHY NOT????? WHY THE FUCK NOT???????????????? Are we so prissy that we just HAVE to stand with the suckers? 'Cause if we don't (she said, with her eyelashes batting and her fingers pointing to her dimples), gee whiz we'll be just like them!!!

Well, how terrible is THAT - IF THEY'RE WINNING???????????? If they get close enough to steal?????

We can be proper and moral and have our asses marched all the way out the back door while the bad guys pull this shit and succeed!

Now, they've managed to maneuver close enough to steal it, and they have all the mechanisms to do that. And OUR guy decided to be nice and dignified and elegant - and look where that got him - BLEW all his leads because he or his advisors told him to be above it all.

But this is politics. This is not morality. This is not church. This is not etiquette class. This is not let's all get along. And it can't be, as long as the other side refuses to meet us there, and refuses to acknowledge - much less play by - rules.

We're gonna get suckered every single damn time if we don't start getting a little more devious.

I hate that it's that way. I wish it was all about REALLY AND TRULY playing fair, with both sides sincerely agreeing.

BUT IT IS NOT. And as long as the playing field is stacked that way, I think we HAVE to start playing that way or else we're gonna get rolled. Again.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have NO interest in taking the so-called high road here, especially when we have to fight ruthless, amoral, cheating assholes like this. Virtue and valor and honest just don't beat 'em - mainly because the public is so damned gullible and dumbed-down, with the memory of a fruit fly. These are obscenely idiotic conditions that aren't based in reason or reality, that call for different approaches. Any OTHER approach than just being nice and polite and trying to get along.

Under conditions LIKE THESE, taking the high road takes us straight over a cliff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #76)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:01 PM

89. What are you suggesting? If the Dems try to beat them at the hypnotic hoodwinking game

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

they will lose, get busted and be the subject of spectacular exposés and investigations that will tarnish them for years.

Better to just call out their tactics. The public is dying for leaders to explain and call out the latest sophisticated techniques of demoralisation, agitation and obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:24 PM

2. Are there any signs that the MSM is picking up on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sugarcoated (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:30 PM

28. They know all about it.

Some of them are even contributing to it. See: CNN and their post-VP debate poll that was skewed to show Lyin' Ryan winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sugarcoated (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:56 PM

58. They were clearly chomping at the bit for more of a horse race to this thing.

I mean, aside from the right-wing corporate bent of the media, the "excitement" of an allegedly close race drives eyeballs and viewership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:00 PM

82. Neither eyeballs nor viewership are primary

Citizen's United endless cash flow for ads. That's the golden ring they are pulling for, nothing more. They worship the green that falls from the tree of that awful, awful, did I mention, unconstitutional ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:28 PM

3. Wow Nate.

What is he doing?

From his article -

"And a Gravis Marketing survey of Colorado had Mr. Obama with a lead of slightly over 2 percentage points in that state."

and

"There are also some critiques that one can render about these polls. Gravis Marketing surveys, for instance, rely on cheap automated interviews."



How does he know what Gravis is doing or NOT doing? Did he make a trip to Orlando? I am really starting to think that Nate is part of the vast right wing noise machine.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:33 PM

6. Especially when they made a miraculous 500 calls in Pennsylvania in just a couple of hours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:43 PM

11. If Nate doesn't fix his model/calculations

I can only assume one thing - he is owned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:22 PM

62. Times owned

Well he does work for the New York Times now, not like in '08 when he was on his own. And I'm really disappointed in him. He should be sharp enough not to lend so much weight to Gravis and the other obviously rove/Koch funded polls. He needs to rework his calculation model

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:49 PM

83. I wouldn't be too sure of that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:12 PM

84. you mean the current model/calculations that have Obama winning?

You all loved this man 2 weeks ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #84)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:24 PM

85. "you all"?

I gather you are not one of us.

And jftr - if Nate pulls the trash data out of his model Obama would be further ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #85)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:46 PM

88. Yep

I have no problem with nate, "you all" seemed to have turned on him

Obama will win, but it will be close. To think otherwise is delusional

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #84)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:02 AM

114. Get real. Two weeks ago the pollsters suddenly switched from Registered Voters (RVs) to....

...Likely Voters (LVs), and then began claiming,

1. GOP LVs were more enthusiastic than Dem LVs,
2. Women and Latino voters were split on the two candidates.

Neither of those two are correct in real life.

Additionally, a number of new pollsters suddenly appeared with data that appeared to support the two points noted above. Where did those pollsters come from, and who is funding them?

Nate took that data and ran with it, but from what I understand he's beginning to see the light.

"You all"?? Your deep concern is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #114)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 10:07 AM

120. What happened in 2010?

GOP LVs were a lot more enthusiastic than Dem LVs

Fact, deal with it


Dems stayed home because Obama did not personally delivery a pony to each professional left voter

Why should the polling companies assume 2012 will be any different? Sure we need to prove them wrong but they use the last election as model for the next, always have

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #120)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 10:09 AM

121. Wow. Just wow. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:31 PM

91. Oh, for heaven's sake!

It's a statistical model. Human behavior is complicated. We have not been devolved to computer code yet. He knows that, he has said that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MissMarple (Reply #91)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 12:32 AM

99. Your post makes absolutely no sense as regards

his continued use of junk data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:18 PM

21. Gravis had Romney up 57-40 among African-Americans in CO.

Certainly makes you question if they did any poll at all, and just pulled the data out of their ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:40 PM

54. That certainly smells. That simply can't be correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #54)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:34 PM

67. Agreed. Either a ridiculously small sample,

or more than likely just made up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:57 AM

103. That seems impossible, but...

Small or negligible sample, probably, if they're polling randomly; demographics: Colorado's population is only 4% black. That 4% is concentrated in Denver and Boulder. So depending on where they were polling and how many calls they were making...I don't really think that the result can be considered significant, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #103)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 10:16 AM

122. Denver and Colorado Springs are home to most of Colorado's African-American population

Denver is 19.2 percent African-American.
Colorado Springs is 6.8 percent African-American.
Boulder is 1.2 percent African-American.

If you've ever walked around Boulder, you'd know it simply by observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:30 PM

4. Does Bias in Polling Work Both Ways: Right AND Left?



I also cringe when I watch Fox News Tackyheads swearing on their mother's milk that we should believe and swallow whole Ram-ass wrong Rasmussen Polls and similar drek!

At the same time, as a progressive fair and balanced (really soothsayer, is the implication that polls oft accused as having liberal tendencies generally are as good as gold? "Our" pollsters wear white hats; their pollsters are wicked polecats? Is it that simple?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkepticMetric (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:36 PM

8. thanks so much for dropping by, enjoy your stay.



What 'our pollsters'.

Zogby, he's owned by the Brazillians.

PPP ? Well its hard to see bias but ok call them Democrats if you want.

Go to RCP and add together the polls from ARG, RAS, WeAskAmerica, Purple Strategies and Gravis and you will see a flood of polls not a couple.

Now who exactly do you think is polling for 'our' side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkepticMetric (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:47 PM

14. You should get educated about what goes on here in DU.

Anyone who pushes an opinion had better back it up with statistics or direct links to sources. We do our homework here, and grant has gone above and beyond to make his point.

It's too easy to lie through statistics. DU was made to debunk the liars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:36 PM

34. That is a big reason I am here.

It ain't easy to pass along BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkepticMetric (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:52 PM

15. Liberal does not mean 'anything that is not conservative'.

There is such a thing as a scientific poll, which aims to get a dispassionate reading of *reality*. You're familiar with reality, right? It's this thing that just IS, no matter what people say or think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:51 PM

40. In North Idaho liberal means "anything to the left of me"

Which is one thing if you are Bush the Elder, another if you're Goldwater and quite another if you're Attila the Hun. Two weeks ago we got a letter that said if we elected a liberal like Romney & Ryan we'd have gun confiscation and death panels w/i 6 months so vote Constitution Party.(We didn't run it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #40)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:38 PM

94. You should have.

Imagine if the Constitution Party won ID...it lowers the total number of EC votes needed by Obama to win.

Better, imagine if Obama won ID because half the conservatives voted for the Constitution Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #94)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:53 PM

96. The boss refuses to run death panel letters

We'll run anything except that which is total bullshit, and death panels top the list of that commodity in my editor's eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkepticMetric (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:35 PM

33. Name 6 major Democratic poling firms that are cited in the MSM. now...

I'm waiting... where are the big democratic-funded polls??? Name 6.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkepticMetric (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:04 AM

115. Concern noted. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:33 PM

5. We're working on it, man, we're working on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:34 PM

7. Sites like electoral-vote.com

have Rasmussen-free options, so there is a history of skewed polls.

WaPo had an interesting opinion piece on Sunday about polling in general -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-political-polls/2012/10/12/21408264-13de-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:39 PM

9. Agree with you...Nate needs to make some choices about the polls he keeps....

....and any poll less than a year old should be deep-sixed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:41 PM

10. Ask yourself a question about nate

 

did anyone nationwide ever really hear of him in 2004 and 2008?
He was more famous for being a sports Billy Beane type numbers man

He now is a very famous person, celebrity, talking head
He knows(as he is smart) it is in his best interest to have a horserace so he keeps his fame through election day

And Nate wants to be the despicable Tim Russert(remember what he did to Kucinich???) or Chuck Todd or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:56 PM

16. He gained (and will retain) his fame by being accurate

he nailed the 2008 election - if he nails the 2012 election he will be set for life.

Juggling his results to produce a false horse race does not help him maintain his fame past election day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:58 PM

17. ^^^ THIS ^^^ (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:06 PM

19. however...there is a truism about rasmussen-(though its sometimes hard to find the proof)

 

ras before a big moment, like before the repub convention, has Obama high pollled, higher than ever in his polls
then after the convention ras drops obama so instead of a 2 point shift, its 6 points

then the very last poll he does, what he does is a fully accurate poll.That way his subscribers(and the majority of the polls are hidden only seen by paying members)

2012-he was outed, electoral-vote.com created a separate page
voila, the last week or so, the poll pages were equal mostly (though not on the senate)
Ras knows 5 to 7 other polls are the same as Ras' used to be, so Ras can play honest

good cop bad cop

So Nate can call it exact, taking out the crap at the end, and be a hero in the talking heads world.

Rove is playing all of them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:30 PM

27. Everyone nailed the 2008 race. It really wasn't that hard.

I think he's making excuses now because it won't be easy this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #27)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:05 PM

45. To this degree of accuracy?

Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia (missing only the prediction for Indiana). As his model predicted, the races in Missouri and North Carolina were particularly close. He also correctly predicted the winners of every U.S. Senate race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #45)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:25 PM

72. So did the RCP average of state polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #72)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:29 PM

73. OK. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #27)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:56 PM

71. Everyone knew Obama would win, but Silver was almost perfect.

He predicted 50 of the 51 "states" correctly (including DC). He only missed the ridiculously close Indiana. Most of his analyses accurately indicated how close or how not close the races would be.

Plus, he predicted the results of every single US Senate race perfectly.

He knows what he's doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:33 PM

31. Anyone can nail it if they know what the outcome will be.

If the elections are rigged the person I wold most like to know it the rigger in chief....then I would always be accurate with my predictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #31)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:08 PM

47. So Obama won by rigging the elections?

Why would he need to rig the election in order to win?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #47)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 03:59 PM

126. No he won by massive voter turnout.

And that is what it will take this time too....but this time the right has erected some barriers like purging and voter ID so they have a better chance.

But look, I hope to post my eat crow post on November 7...I hope I am wrong to the point of delusional and will gladly eat my crow and make you think I like it....I want to be wrong...but I am a cynic who knows just how morally corrupt the right wing is, and puts nothing past them especially with big money behind them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:36 PM

35. Pure luck. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #35)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:11 PM

48. He correctly predicted the winner of 49 of 50 states and every Senate race

that is not luck.

This was how he did in 2010:

Of the 37 Senate seats contested in the November 2, 2010 elections, 36 were resolved by November 4, including very close outcomes in several states. Of these 36, the FiveThirtyEight model had correctly predicted the winner in 34. One of the two misses was in Colorado, in which the incumbent Michael Bennet (D) outpolled the challenger Ken Buck (R) by less than 1 percentage point. The 538 model had forecast that Buck would win by 1 percentage point. The second miss was in Nevada, in which the incumbent Harry Reid beat challenger Sharron Angle by 5.5 percentage points, whereas the 538 model had forecast Angle to win by 3.0 percentage points. Silver has speculated the error was due at least in part to the fact that polling organizations underrepresented Hispanic voters by not interviewing in Spanish.

In the remaining contest for U.S. Senate, in Alaska, the electoral outcome was not yet determined as of November 4, pending a count of the write-in ballots, but in the end the FiveThirtyEight forecast of GOP nominee Joe Miller as winner ultimately proved to be wrong, as write-in candidate, incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, prevailed.

The 538 model had forecast a net pickup of 7 seats by the Republicans in the Senate, but the outcome was a pickup of 6 seats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:33 PM

92. I'm a fan of Nate's

This is a very tight election, which is why his models shows it to be tight. He has no incentive to be anything other than as accurate as he can be.

This is down to voter turnout. Make sure you help the Obama campaign or your state Democratic party get the vote out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:24 PM

23. i believe that Nate's obstacle is that he made a model that was based

On his baseball experience tnat had a high volume of statistics coming constantly.

In 2008 there was a very high volume of polls which fit his model.

The volume isn't there this time so he is thirsty for numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:56 PM

41. I'd like to offer a correction to that statement which I believe is significant.

His baseball experience was with a high volume of untainted statistics. The statistics came from events (baseball games) that anyone could theoretically have observed, if they'd had the time and a superduper sports channel package on their TV. The statistics, absent some bad umpire calls, were an accurate reflection of the games being played. To taint that pool of data, you'd have to compromise the umpire's ability to make calls in some way. Even if you did that, the public would notice an unusually high number of bad calls.

IMO, that experience only maps well to political polls if we can legitimately assume that the polls are well-constructed and administered in good faith. To taint the data pool, all you would need to do is subvert existing polling firms or establish new ones. Although some might suspect the polls are skeevy, it would be a lot harder to prove because the act of polling is not publicly observable.

Given the amount of effort and money that's been poured into every other facet of voter suppression, it would be odd to assume that polling numbers are as pure as driven snow. Unless Nate takes a more critical look at where his data is coming from, he's likely to lose a lot of credibility this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gkhouston (Reply #41)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:49 PM

56. Agree 100% with your observations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:17 PM

50. Why do you think the polls have changed so much in 4 years?

we have the same polling companies using pretty much the same methodologies. He has all the numbers he needs - you just don't like the results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:47 PM

55. NO WE DON"t==there are 4 to 8 brand new companies that only started after aggregates blocked Ras

 

so it probably is skewered by 7 points
Obama +7 (maybe it's only +4, but it is a good number)

I sent some emails to some of them months ago stating I thought they were 5 to 7 points off and I still think so.

The more we out them, the more honest they will be.

I now predict Obama is going to win well over 270, and as soon as they get to 192 before 11pm eastern, we won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #55)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:53 PM

57. And Nate weighs new polls to give them less influence on the results

while giving more weight to established and reliable polls. He also establishes a "house bias" for each poll to see whether it consistently favors one party over the other.

I think Nate knows what he is doing. I dismissed Republican hysterics over "skewed" polls when Obama had a commanding lead and I will do the same now. The race tightened significantly - election politics are dynamic. Nothing more and nothing less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #57)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:57 PM

59. Obama is now where he was before the debate. Mitt & Glove gained nothing but statistical noise

 

the race has not tightened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #59)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:04 PM

60. And your expertise in polling is what exactly?

I can understand supporting the President - that doesn't mean you have to deny reality.

There is nothing to indicate it is "nothing but statistical noise" other than your wishful thinking.

Look - Obama will win. He still leads in major battleground states. But the race is closer now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:06 PM

61. Who was better? Willie Mays or Derek Jeter? I rest my case. (Willie of course).

 

Nate is like Kreskin.

It's fun entertainment.

but the main thing is, betting on politics is illegal in the USA.

it's only for fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:37 PM

68. This also happened during the Wisconsin recalls

One of the reasons I joined back up with DU during the Wisconsin recalls was the unending denials of the Wisconsin polls. They were all saying Walker would win with about a 5 point margin. There were very few outliers, yet everyone here was complaining about how wrong they were (generally oversampling Republicans).
I stood up and stated that in my part of the state (very rural, and red to purple) that is what I was experiencing.
I have learned to pay attention to the polls because when taken as a whole (or an average) they tend to be pretty close. When a final election is less than a % difference, that is when polls become "unreliable", but in the 2012 election so far, on average Obama is in the lead, and that is the solace (at least today) I take. Even if they tighten even more, a very small percentage has had Romney ahead, and none of those by a huge amount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #68)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:49 PM

70. The polls for the Wisconsin recall were pretty accurate.

I do remember the denial here as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:27 PM

64. you don't have the facts

In the key states Gravis is the most used and most heavily rated poll by Nate Silver.

Gravis posted its first poll only 66 days ago, even though he is recorded on Russian radio talking about polling in January.

The main victims are the conservatives who are blogging like crazy about Gravis great numbers. Trust me when everything is finally released its the right wing that is going to be the most upset, so prepare yourself for more bombshells about Kaplan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #64)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:48 PM

69. Of the competitive states on Nate's site ..

Gravis has Obama leading in Florida, Colorado, and Nevada among recent polls

Gravis s lightly rated in Virginia.

Gravis has Romney winning North Carolina but then so does most every other poll.

Gravis is not even included in Iowa and Virginia.

I just don't see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #69)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:37 PM

93. Let's stick with your first point


How have the polls changed

Kaplan goes on Russian radio and talks extensively about a whole series of polls that he has just completed and is now doing.

None are published. He does go and register a political action committe so that he can raise money and spend it on behalf of candidates he supports.

Tell me when in US history has a pollster announced polls, not published them and then gone to try and raise money to spend on candidates.

Then 6 months later he becomes the most prolific pollster in the country even though he has no staff and claims he is making no money.

As for his polls RCP is much easier to manipulate because it has the all of the polls on a single page.

Ohio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html#polls

23 polls and only 3 show Romney leading

Gravis
ARG
WeAskAmerica

All 3 are highly discredited right wing pollsters. Everyone else has Obama ahead.

North Carolina

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_romney_vs_obama-1784.html

basically all of the polls are showing either Romney or Obama within the Margin of Error.

Gravis is the only one that shows it being significant just under double digits with a +9.

So you are impressed with Gravis Colorado poll showing Obama ahead.

Well you are easy to impress. They came out with the most laughable poll of the season on October 4th in Colorado showing Romney ahead of Obama with African Americans here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Gravis_CO_1006.pdf

Then two days later in an effort to fix their obvious fuck up they immediately publish another Colorado poll showing Obama back up.

I could go on but you are obviously a die hard Republican who will again be embarassed when Kaplan is completed revealed as the con artist he is.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #93)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:53 AM

102. So agreeing with Nate Silver = "die hard Republican"? Ok. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #93)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 07:58 AM

105. So is Nate Silver merely incompetent or is it something more nefarious? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #105)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:24 AM

106. As I stated clearly before Nate's model was designed based on baseball which had no


problems with the supply of statistics. In 2008 you had an explosion of polls many times more than this year due to a completely different primary context generating thousands of statewide polls.

I am not a statistician but I qualified as an intertnational ISO 9001 Systems inspector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000


There are 20 key elements that are needed to maintain quaility in any system. One of them, and you could consider it the most important is establishing the quality standards of your raw material because once it is in your factory it is impossible to improve the quality of the raw material you have received.

So Nate Silver's model had two weakenesses. The first it requires more statistics than the market normally produces. 2008 was an exception year 2012 is a more typical one.

The second Nate did not make a serious enough attempt at grading the raw material.

I am not going to pursue this any further with you except to say that the working group on Gravis now has materials into the hundreds of pages and it is so voluminous that we are having a hard time cataloging it. When it becomes published, and it will, Gravis Marketing is going to be laughed off the scene.

Anyone who continues to attach any weight to Gravis Marketing is going to be discredited.

In ISO 9001 we stay away from words like 'incompetent' or 'nefarious'. In ISO 9001 terms Silver's 538 site is "non conforming to a quality standard". You either conform to a quality standard or you don't. In Nate's case he didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #106)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:27 AM

108. Time will tell - I suspect Nate will nail it once again. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #106)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:33 AM

109. You keep saying there were more polls available in 2008

may I please see your evidence? Just curious what the delta actually is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #109)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:43 AM

110. If you are not aware of the fact that in 2008 that there was the most extensive primary campaign in


US history with the unusual circumstances of a contested primary in both parties and that the one in the Demcoratic side was the most media intensive extended campaign not in US history but world history and that this created an explosion of polling that sparked a whole new industry of poll watching that launched not just 538.com but also pollster.com and that carried forth all the way to the GE and all of the state wide races well then you just fell below the bar of "your points are so full of nonsense you are wasting my time and you now go on ignore".

That is why I know you are a Republican. You end up wasting so much time talking about facts that are already known that sucks up all of the oxygen on the discussion of really relevent facts.

Its a never ending effort into proving retro history. Soon we will be talking about founding fathers and then we have to work our way all the way back and prove Copernicus was really right after all.

Let me guess. You aren't quite convinced of climate change or evolution either.

Post all you want. You are now the third person on my ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #110)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:50 AM

111. So you have no actual evidence?

sorry but you have to do better than a rectal extraction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #111)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:07 AM

116. Sorry, but you have to be much more polite to a respected DU poster....

...who has done his homework and has no time to deal with personally insulting posts.

Here's a simple solution: If you think he's wrong, produce your evidence to prove he's wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #116)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:14 AM

117. How do I prove a negative?

he says there were many more polls in 2008 - I cannot find any such evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #116)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:17 AM

118. And it was not insulting on his part

to call me a diehard republican because I had the nerve to support Nate Silver? Is that what it has come to here - the slightest disagreement can only be due to pure partisanship?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:43 PM

12. Maybe the Dems should start a polling company that removes

ARG, Gravis and the other dildo, and try to get it into the Silver formula to balance things out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:46 PM

13. Grantcart -

Are there any signs that the MSM is picking up on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sugarcoated (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:29 PM

24. yes conversations are going on by other DUers. We expect something to be ublished by Thus.

If they don't we have an alternative plan.

Can tell you that we are holding back some of the most damning information yet as an incentive for a MSM 'scoop'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #24)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:27 PM

63. That's great news!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #24)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:31 PM

66. I have David Corn's private email addy if you need it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #66)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 12:09 AM

98. We just might, for sure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:01 PM

18. Go Grantcart! Force him to be real! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

20. Why don't we just get to the heart of it....

This election for Republicans is broken down into three basic groups. The ones who hate Obama. The ones who feel they are fighting for the concept of working for a living because they think it's under assault by pro-welfare types who believe working people should pay for them to be lazy. And the third group are the types who worship business types and think government should be run like a business and the President should be a CEO.

All three of those types are basing their vote on what they hear from the Right Wing and they aren't going to have their minds changed.

Keep in mind that this represents a minority of voters.

Republicans used to know this and used to at least TRY to lure in people of color and women but they act like they not only don't need those people anymore but they don't even WANT them, like it will taint their purity if their guy gets Latinos to vote for him.

They're calling BUSH a "Liberal" now.

And we are supposed to believe it's close?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)


Response to zorro1 (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:33 PM

30. I'm just not sure I'm going to vote this time around.

Obama... Schmobama! Romney .... Schmomney!

The presidential race is all flashy and stuff...

but it's the Houses of Congress that make laws.

So get out there and vote for the party that is not NUTS.... vote for Reps and Senators!!!!!

Your biggest concern is getting out the vote.... but you don't know if you are gonna vote??????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #30)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:50 PM

78. I'm going to assume you are male

And do not give a whit about the Supreme Court and the possible reversal of Roe v. Wade. But even a male has to be concerned about Citizens United and the possible reversal of the Ohio lower court ruling on early voting. The next President will probably select two justices and possible more. Get your head on straight! Please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldHippieChick (Reply #78)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:14 PM

81. reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Not gonna happen.

And there are other issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zorro1 (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:39 PM

36. "if you vote"??? Really, you like Romney that much?

Which Romney do you like? Last week's Romney? April's Romney? Or tomorrow night's Romney?

You may not care at all, but I have kids and grandkids and I DO care what happens to them. We cannot survive going back to another Bush era, but this time even worse. If you aren't going to vote, why are you here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zorro1 (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:41 PM

38. Anyone who does not vote is in no position to judge who is 'smart'.

Non voters have no rights when it comes to discussing elections they are taking a pass on, not before, during and especially not after. What sort of an adult claims they will not vote unless the campaign motivates them? Not the brightest of bulbs, that is certain....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zorro1 (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:43 PM

39. "you smart DU people"? Good thing you're not one of us, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #39)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:57 PM

42. Zorro has just become a zombie.

Well, at least his "not voting" post has been axed and I suspect he'll be among the walking dead before long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:29 PM

25. here's a fun thing

Maybe whoever gets the most electoral college votes wins the presidency. Is knowing Obama is ahead in Ohio by 3 or Romney ahead in Texas by 2 really going to sway voters here or there. I say we just ban ALL polls and vote on who and what we believe is the best candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:30 PM

26. Polling has become a political False Flag operation.

Reputable polling firms may have served the public interest in the past - but this year the republican party seems to have launched a number of orchestrated efforts to control public thinking by releasing false polling data.

It is entirely possible these polls will not alter voting patterns but will instead make all the talking head political celebrities look like complete idiots. You know what they say about data - garbage in, garbage out.

I say its about time America had a chance to see just how shallow all these political media "experts" really are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:32 PM

29. He had a bit of critique for Gravis today:

There are also some critiques that one can render about these polls. Gravis Marketing surveys, for instance, rely on cheap automated interviews. While they are usually more Republican-leaning than the consensus, they also seem to wander about randomly with little rhyme or reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #29)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 11:21 AM

124. That's because Kaplan's "polls" appear to be made up out of whole cloth.

Hope Nate Silver takes notice of this HUGE story and corrects for this error in his current methodology. Then he needs to take a closer look at the other pollsters he trusts, a few of them consistently put out right-leaning data only slightly less egregious than the bulk of Gravis' phony numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuhkRahker (Reply #124)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 01:57 PM

125. I agree.

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:34 PM

32. Stop making sense!

But seriously...keep looking into this. We appreciate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:39 PM

37. The republics are just trying to make it seem confused so they can steal

without people questioning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThomThom (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:58 PM

43. Could very well be...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:00 PM

44. I find Nate Silver's columns to be very interesting... however...

One thing that concerns me about them is that, with all the extensive and minute detail that goes into his statistical forecasts I've never seen him mention a word about the possibility of election fraud, voter disenfranchisement, etc. Perhaps the NY Times won't allow that.

Anyhow, I consider the neglecting of these things to be a serious oversight. Even in years when there may not be much outright election fraud, the poor and minorities have been systemically disenfranchised by the fact that they typically use older voting machines (punch card machines in particular) that are inferior in their ability to record a voter's intended vote compared to more affluent voting precincts. This is a major reason why exit polls ALWAYS indicate a better result for the Democratic Presidential candidate that what the official vote count shows. Silver refers to this as an indication of an "enthusiasm gap". Clearly, there is much more at play than an enthusiasm gap, if such a gap exists at all as an explanation of why Democratic candidates fail to measure up to their registered voter poll results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:08 PM

46. It is a drawback that he is strictly a numbers guy & admitted that he doesn't like politics

and I think therefore he doesn't always know the political motivations of various polling groups.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:11 PM

49. i believe Nate did a piece on voter suppression

That In PA it would cost a couple of oints but not change the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:19 PM

51. MORE TWO SENSES FROM LAYKOFF


The Little Blue Blog

Framing Basics
The Little Blue Book
Authors

About this Blog
The Little Blue Blog is a continuation of The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. The book addressed a problem that progressives face everywhere: conservatives have framed just about every issue in conservative moral terms. Progressives all too often find themselves stuck with using conservative language and ideas, which reinforces those ideas even in arguing against them. The Little Blue Book tells how to get out of the trap. Use the progressive moral system you believe in. This is about much more than words. Words mean things. You need to say what you believe and what is true. Progressive communication is democratic communication. It requires that you be transparent, authentic, honest, and strong if your fellow citizens are to trust you. This is advice for all citizens, not just our leaders.

Why Obama Lost the First Debate
Moral Leadership: What Obama Has to Show Tomorrow In the Debate Performance, and for Real
By George Lakoff On October 15, 2012

As Nate Silver, NY Times polling expert put it, “Instant polls conducted after the debate are suggestive of something between a tie and a modest win for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.”

Biden held his own and maybe a bit more. That was important. But President Obama has to do a lot better than that. He has to go beyond the policy wonk to be a moral leader once more. Here’s how Jennifer Granholm put it on her Current TV show video.

On the whole, the public and especially the undecided voters don’t keep track of policy details and which numbers are right. The worst thing the president can do is to just compare details of policy. That just elevates Romney to the status of an equal, who can come back with lies that will sound just as good if not better to most of the undecided.

The TV debates are not primarily about policy details and the numbers in themselves. As Ronald Reagan showed, the debates are about choosing a moral leader. And we do this through a performance.

Reagan didn’t debate policy details and numbers. Instead he did the following:

Stated his values.
Connected with the viewers by projecting empathy.
Communicated clearly.
Appeared authentic, appeared to be saying what he believed.
Was positive and upbeat.

Those are the basic rules of the performances called presidential debates. The content that goes with the performance is to show that you will be a moral leader. Policy discussions and facts can flesh that out, but those are the ground rules.

Romney was prepped the Reagan way — to project the necessary appearance for this performance. The President was not. President Obama needs to follow the ground rules, especially because he IS authentic, he DOES have the right values, he DOES have empathy.

Moreover, those moral values are really what this election is about. The president sees democracy as based on citizens caring about each other and using a government as an instrument of that care, protecting and empowering us all, equally, through public provisions. America started out with building roads, bridges, public schools, a national bank, a patent office, public records, etc. We now have many more citizen provisions — clean air, clean water, safe food and drugs, sewers, policing, disease control, a federal reserve, basic scientific research, college loans. Now we need, and have, more that is provided for all. Think of a cell phone. It couldn’t exist without what citizens have provided via the government: the computer science research, the internet, the satellite system, the PDF system. Once you have all these things, you have certain basic freedoms — you can live well and maybe start a business, or work for one, on the basis of what your fellow citizens have given you. The issue here is freedom, the real material freedom that other Americans have provided us with. You can only build it starting from what other Americans have built for you.

When the president made his “You didn’t built that” gaffe, he was intimidated out of talking about this truth. But this is the central truth of this campaign. Citizens built all the mechanisms for each of us to access. If you worked hard to build a business, you used all that to start with. The president needs to go back to that deep truth and say it right this time. You, our citizens, have provided all this not just to yourselves but to every American. That’s what makes America America.

You, the citizens, use our common government to make this country what it is.

Consider the 96 percent study by Mettler and Sides at Cornell. It showed that 96 percent of Americans make use of the help provided by their fellow citizens through the government — and most don’t even know that government is involved and that their fellow citizens are helping them. An itemized deduction on your taxes means that your fellow citizens are paying to make up for the amount of the deduction; they are helping you. Most homeowners take a home interest deduction on their mortgages. Your fellow citizens are helping you out with your home. If you take a deduction on college investments for your children, your fellow citizens are helping out your children. If you are out of a job and living on unemployment insurance, or if you are a veteran depending on veterans’ benefits, your fellow citizens are helping you. They are helping you, and you have been helping them. Your government is the intermediary, the one who helps you help or be helped. Most of the time, most people do not even see the government helping, or their fellow citizens helping. But 96 percent of you gladly accept that help — and you deserve it. Who are the other 4 percent? Mostly those of you who are still too young to need it — but you will, and soon. Almost all Americans do.

Conservative radicals — not moderates — have a different idea of democracy: They define democracy as providing the liberty to seek your own interests without any responsibility for the interests or well being of others, and without others helping you. They consider illegitimate all the things citizens do for the citizens of our country as a whole. And under Romney-Ryan, all of that would be eliminated.

The moral difference is clear: Do we have both personal and social responsibility, or just personal responsibility? Are we in this together, or are we on our own? The conservatives say we are, and should be, on our own. Are we the United States or the Separate States — or millions of isolated individuals who don’t care about anybody else?

The answer to these questions affects every issue. If Romney and Ryan win, our nation will never look the same. It should be made clear, in every discussion of every issue, that this is the moral value behind the issue: what is our national moral character? When Romney looked at Jim Lehrer, and said, smiling, that he liked him and loved Big Bird, but that he would fire them both, he revealed a deep meanness of spirit that is the very opposite of our national character.

The fate of the nation, and in many ways the world, hangs on this election.

Mr. President, this is a grand performance that means something; it is much more than a policy debate where most people won’t understand or remember the fine details of the policies. We need you to show America what real moral leadership is.


Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.
Platform by PageLines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HowHasItComeToThis (Reply #51)


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:24 PM

52. I've Been Inundated

by telephone polling that begins shortly after 8a and doesn't stop until sometime around 9p. I haven't answered one call, and I'm wondering who else is ignoring the pollsters. If I don't answer, how does any polling agency take this into account? They know I'm a member of the Democratic (not Democrat, take that Rushbo) Party, so does this lead to skewing the numbers. Just asking.
In any event, I don't know why Nate would be wringing his hands over the national popular vote, since its the Electoral College vote than only matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:39 PM

53. Excellent OP. Our side needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

I thought about this after the debate. Our side - the so-called liberal media - is made up of people who may or may not be liberal but at least still retain the fundamental bases of journalistic integrity. The other side is flat-out lying, stealing, and cheating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:30 PM

65. grantcart:

I wrote this a few days ago. It was about another polling firm, We Ask America. I put an OP up here at DU as well...

The thing is, Nate and others have a choice to make. They can consider every polling outfit or decide to choose reputable polling firms. This was the very reason why I researched and wrote about We Ask America.

They don't need to be terrified, they need to figure out who is legit and who is NOT.

Just because one has tons of information to sift thru doesn't mean you should assume all that info is factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine1967 (Reply #65)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:41 PM

75. Grantcart did you send info to Nate?

You've probably written about this somewhere. Seems like he make use of the info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:36 PM

74. Nate Silver has a rapidly closing window of opportunity

He can either quit being lazy and actually draw on the good research that folks like grantcart have been putting together, along with severe reservations from the likes of Sam Wang, and make a big splash of removing some of these astrotrurf polls from his model and admitting it's been compromised up to that point, or go into the election in a total state of confusion and maybe cost himself his reputation.

I'm so impatient and disappointed with him at this point, I'm surprised how little the latter prospect bothers me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:45 PM

77. YOu heard that Rob Portman was talking today about Romney doing it without Ohio didn't you?

 

If the man Mittens actually wanted to pick as VP, and from Ohio said they could do it other ways-

what does that mean?

IT MEANS ROB PORTMAN SEES THAT MITT WILL NOT WIN OHIO, therefore the election is over.
There is no other logical way Mitt can win without Ohio.
Because losing Ohio means there is no major run toward Mitt.
And Rob portman, without saying it, just told the world that it is true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:57 PM

79. They do this to

confuse the Voter!!!!We will have our Victory on Nov.6,2012. That is when members of the Democratic Party will confuse Republicans. We will be out like a blanket at one of their so called picnics lol.I have friends who have their ballots and are fired up and ready to go. They want to do it after the debate on Tuesday, Oct.16. To give him a debate surge. I will do mine after next debate. For my participation on debate surge. And my husband is doing same. And all my children are actually going to the polls and cast their ballot.My sisters and brother in laws and really my whole family is doing 235 votes to check in for this President. We are getting early votes and we are going to put enogh people out there until it is clear that Our President has retained his seat in office. Sorry Mr. Romney, the Potus Chair is occupied.lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:38 PM

86. I'd like to see a Michael Moore exposé on the corruption and pundit-abuse of polling.

I regard the pushback against the echo chamber's presumptuous calling of the first debate, and the rise in scepticism and meta-discussion about polls - as very healthy developments for democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:39 PM

87. I think Nate has been punked.

There is no way Gravis has any credibility of polling in the states he is reporting on.

I'd like to see the phone bills for Gravis.
They probably only made 4 calls a day, and then, only to talk to each other.

Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:31 PM

90. Silver's model does rate polls

He adjusts them according to their house effect, or whether they tend to lean Dem or Rep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:47 PM

95. Even as the more-obviously dodgy polls are weeded out,

the big ones should also be scrutinised, some of whom I suspect use similar but more sophisticated techniques.

eg If I was to rig polls, I'd do accurate scientific polling most of the time to sustain my credibility, but compartmentalise my company such that at potential moments of historical imprint/turning points - I could change results with a view to manipulating the echo chamber and real public opinion.

Such a strategy may have helped in:

- agitating/co-opting the Tea Party against health-care reform.
- demoralising/disorienting Dems after the debates
- intimidating lawmakers against starting various investigations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:06 AM

100. The GOP is trying to make it look close. They want to steal the election without having a revolution

Nate is way smarter than they give him credit for. The GOP pollsters call only landline owners and twist the questions in a way to get the anwser they want. Most of us use cell phones anymore. Their polls are skewed. Not once have I seen a picture of Rob-me with thousands of people attending. It's always a narrow screen shot. He has to bus them in to try to make it look good. Folks, we cannot let them get away with it this time. They are blaming Obama for the mess they got this country in, and, unfortunately, their sheeple followers swallow their bullshit hook, line and sinker. Speak the truth loudly and clearly. If it works to wake one person up you've done something good. Go Nate and go Obama!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:36 AM

101. Gravis, ARG, Purple Strategies, WeAskAmerica and Rasmussen

 

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 07:15 AM

104. Opinion polling is all fatally flawed

 

Opinion polling is all fatally flawed in that it relies on people telling you the truth about what they think and what they're going to do. There is no way to guarantee an accurate response. On top of that there are the wildly variant quality of the methodologies. For example, the survey being touted on NPR this morning about a "landslide" for Romney in the "rural vote". All based on a massive sample of 600 "likely voters".

The widespread belief that opinion polling is a scientific exercise is mass superstition by those who have too much faith in the social pseudo-sciences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anthony McCarthy (Reply #104)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:25 AM

107. But seldom is it an outright fraud by known con people with previous citations by the FCC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #107)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:52 AM

112. Yep....this year has been very bad....

...how the President could suddenly lose his huge edge in women and minorities virtually overnight is a major red flag to me. No switch from RVs to LVs is going to make that big of a difference in the polling, if any.

I also seriously doubt the enthusiasm to vote is that much higher among GOP LVs. In fact, based on the extreme right-wing stances of the GOP on women's issues, enthusiasm should be much lower among GOP LVs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:54 AM

113. I think Nate is going to do just fine. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:51 AM

119. grantcart you make statistics sound so sexy!!!!!!

You rip them a new one. Really proud of you. Thanks for making du worth coming to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 11:11 AM

123. repubinrecovery

Looks like Doug Kaplan is having someone for lunch !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 06:57 AM

127. Thanks. +1. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread