HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cleduc » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

cleduc

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jul 13, 2012, 12:38 PM
Number of posts: 499

Journal Archives

Nate Silver may have cost the GOP a fair amount of future campaign dough

They'll never bet hundreds of millions again with the bogus polling data Rove & Luntz, Rasmussen, Gravis et al fed them when they can look up good predictive results from Nate, Dr Wang, Votematic, etc for free to get a truer sense of reality.

I'd love to hear the audio of Rove's cell phone over the last 12 hours or so to hear him try to explain how badly he hosed them out of hundreds of million$.

Here's a little more on Nate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver
The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictionsóhe correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 statesówon Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.


He's also done very well in the 2008 primaries, the 2010 election, the 2012 primaries, senate races, and the Walker recall.

In very tight races/toss ups - almost coin tosses, Nate's been on the side of right 70+% of the time.

When Nate has given an election a 90% chance or better for the favorite, the favorite has never lost. And one could make a case that that makes Nate wrong because something less than 10% of those should have lost. I'm not making that case.

But that's a key point many seem to miss about Nate and his approach. On any given prediction where Nate says something is less than 100%, that also means there's some sort of a smaller chance it could go the other way. And what I have concluded is that on the high end, Nate may be a bit conservative with his numbers. Maybe Nate's 90% chance works out closer to 99% for example.

In the 80-90% category, I think he's been right slightly less than 80% of the time and therefore, not as conservative.

As Nate provides % of chance, his work cannot be evaluated over one contest. It must be evaluated over a series of contests. To date, over many contests, his work stands up as arguably the best in the business of what he does.

Neat 360 Pics of 24,000 to see Obama-Clinton at Jiffy Lube Live in Bristow, Va.

http://www.dermandar.com/p/dmDiYv

http://www.dermandar.com/p/bniGoJ

I did a quick search to try to make sure they hadn't been posted already. Sorry if I missed.

In mathematical theory, yes

Assuming Obama wins PA & MN (heavily favored to do so), Romney has three possible winning combinations:
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map/combinations.php?party=Republican&num_rem=79&st_remain=FL,OH,NC,WI,CO,IA,NV&me=&ne=

He must win FL, OH & NC plus 2 or 3 other battleground states

As stated above, it's very unlikely.

To some extent, the shoe is on the other foot

13 or so GOP senators are up for election in 2014

and so is the House.

If those folks think they'll survive another four years of obstructing the president, let's just say that I have serious doubts about the political future of a number of them within their midst.

Folks are going to find out that Obamacare doesn't come with death panels.
Folks are going to find out that their Medicare wasn't cut and it's benefits are better than ever.
The economy will be better.
Jobs will be better.
Something will be done about the deficit because neither party wants the fiscal cliff they're headed towards.
The Afghanistan war will be wound down which will help reduce the deficit and improve infrastructure.

If they block the Jobs Act now, that's political suicide.

And there can be no plot to make sure Obama doesn't get re-elected because this is his last election.

In Texas, white persons not Hispanic is currently 44.8% of the population. Latino population is getting close to that and should surpass it fairly soon. Blacks and others make up the balance. Texas in the not too distant future could turn blue and without the 38 electoral votes of Texas, there can not be a hard right wing president. Obama may well steward a shift of America away from the old white rich guys in control of the GOP who are headed towards being a minority. The GOP as we know it today faces eventual extinction if they don't change their ways.

I strongly suspect some of that will arise in the postmortem of Romney's candidacy. The GOP tried obstruction and it failed. If they persist, they're doomed.

Look on the upside:

Some consistency from Mitt!!

He's dodged the troops all his life!

Call FEMA

Avalanche warning on Bullshit Mountain !

I hear some rumbling.

That's an up close look at Bullshit Mountain

on the move - scrambling to get out of Obama's way.

Exhibit #1:
Morris claim "And, in Pennsylvania, Romney led on Wednesday night by two points but on Thursday night's polling, he was tied."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html

I've looked at a bunch of polls, early voting

and registration and election history for Nevada.

50% of the vote is in. Obama has a 40,000+ lead, 44%-37.6%.
http://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2500

and the Dems still have the roughly same proportional majority advantage of outstanding voters left (41.9%-35.5%)

Romney has never led a poll in Nevada over the last 15 months.

Romney is toast in Nevada and therefore, he MUST win both Ohio and Florida plus other states to keep any chance alive given that Wisconsin seems to have gone beyond his grasp as well.

So how will Romney's "Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans." line

play out in Virginia now?

Will the GOP laugh like they did during the convention?
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-rnc-speech-republican-national-convention-climate-change-2012-8
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »