[quote]jnd wrote:
How soon after Tuesday will the republicans start making noise about impeaching Obama over Libya?
Wednesday?
January 21, 2013?
jnd[/quote]
Impeach a former president?
[quote]jnd wrote:
How soon after Tuesday will the republicans start making noise about impeaching Obama over Libya?
Wednesday?
January 21, 2013?
jnd[/quote]
That is a tough question as Obama refuses to answer any questions about Libya until after the election and even then who knows if he’ll talk? That alone should tell you that he has something to hide. But if he were elected to a second term and information comes out that he:
-
New in advance of an impending strike.
-
He did not send the Marines in who were only 80 miles away at the time.
-
Was fully aware that the attack had nothing to do with a video yet spoke about that video being the cause.
-
Knew nothing of what was going on because he was disinterested or basically inept.
Yeah…any of those things I would line up behind those asking for his impeachment.
But, I don’t think it will go that far because no one from the corrupt MSLM will ever ask him about it, nor will he answer.
And that’s that…it all goes away.
It’s good to be a liberal democrat with an adoring press.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
That’s the thing, if you mention Silver’s name in any context other than an expression of pure hatred, he’s your hero and you are a deluded fool.
Again, a sign of the times. If an alternate version of Nate Silver–same credentials and track record–were predicting a Romney win, people on these boards would be lining up to blow him. I said it before: I doubt he was such a villain around here in 2010 when he was predicting a big GOP win.
As election day nears, nerves are really starting to fry. I expect that by November 6 we’ll all be shaking uncontrollably and posting gibberish.[/quote]
Yeah, but in 2010, the members of the OJ Simpson jury would have known the Republicans were going to clean house. It’s not like it was some big contentious upset of a call back then. Now, he is clearly at odds with Gallup and Rasmussen. There’s a bit of a difference.
And the guy is cocksure enough about his relatively untested model that a little hackle raising from the opposition is not exactly surprising. [/quote]
No, but like I said, the hysteria that meets his name is over the top, and it’s most reliable sources are the posters whose arguments are looking more and more like they were pre-prepared by Crossroads GPS as the election nears.
Though you’re right that he is cocksure and quite possibly setting himself up for an abrupt and disgraceful end to his career. And the Morning Joe bet thing was absolutely disgraceful for someone pretending to be unbiased (though, if he’d said “I bet my NUMBERS are more accurate than yours,” it would be OK in my book).
But still–he’s making a simple case, and he’s been making it for a while. Obama is the electoral college favorite based on the averages of the all the swing-state polls, and he has been for a long time. This is truly inarguable.
Now, you can get into arguments about poll bias, about which polls are better than others, about which are obviously to be discounted, about voter turnout (a VERY good argument, btw, and one that in my mind is going to matter far more than which poll said what on which day), about this and that. And in making those arguments you can come to a radically different–and entirely reasonable–conclusion than does Silver.
But let’s not pretend that we don’t all see the very simple logic in calling Barack Obama the favorite. Go to RCP, hit no-toss-up states, and take a look.[/quote]
There are very very smart people that have been getting paid to pontificate about this stuff for longer than Silver has been alive that have ignored silver and his famous bias, oops I mean model. Dude on the radio was laughing at him.
One of the two sides are winning, and winning pretty big. It may be Obama. But silver can lick my taint, he is a partisan hack. Google poll? Are we serious? Google? They are blatantly campaigning for Obama. I’ll never respect Silver. [/quote]
LOL you said [quote]Silver can lick my taint[/quote] I laughed but then got a very ugly visual and now I want it to go away.
By the way, one side may not be winning big it could be a squeaker.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
LOL you said [quote]Silver can lick my taint[/quote] I laughed but then got a very ugly visual and now I want it to go away.
By the way, one side may not be winning big it could be a squeaker.[/quote]
Agreed on both counts. Good insult, bad image. And I think it’s going to be a close election either way.
But the following point stands: everybody on this board and everybody who’s halfway intelligent and follows politics understands the logic behind these forecasters and their assertion that Obama is currently the favorite. It’s the simplest kind of electoral college prediction you can make, and any pundit or paid observer who doesn’t at least acknowledge it should lose his job.
ZEB (from a while ago): I wouldn’t expect any sort of explanation to change your mind on the effectiveness of government. Simple words do not undo X years of personal observation/belief. My main point was simply around getting out the vote in Philly and it not being a big problem (turns out most of the area without power was actually the Montgomery/Bucks area, which was “only” about 60/40 Obama in 2008 vs Philadelphia county’s 85% or something huge). Also, deciding to run (at least at first) the marathon/outlawing soft drinks is absolutely undeniably moronic in every way possible-agreed on that point.
I have to say, the final day campaign stops are interesting and can really be spun either direction. IMO it looks like Obama is banking on his midwest states to come through and carry him home and doesn’t consider PA to really be in play. The visit to VA is his attempt to expand his map and maybe steal one from Romney that IMO is likely to end up in R’s camp. Romney’s are way more interesting IMO. To me it looks like it could be one of several scenarios in play, ranging from “I’m crushing it-time to make this a blowout” to grasping at straws (neither of which I believe to be the case for the record). I believe he is simply shoring up close states that are likely his (VA/FL), trying still to move OH to his column, and going for an alternative to OH ¶ to give himself another route to victory. CO an NH are interesting. Worth noting that if VA/FL/WI go Romney and PA/OH/NV/IA go Obama, NH and NV will be the deciders, with both having to go Romney for his victory. I don’t see this as a likely scenario moving forward but it would be interesting.
As has been said by others before, I would LOVE to see the internal polling numbers…
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
ZEB (from a while ago): I wouldn’t expect any sort of explanation to change your mind on the effectiveness of government. Simple words do not undo X years of personal observation/belief. My main point was simply around getting out the vote in Philly and it not being a big problem (turns out most of the area without power was actually the Montgomery/Bucks area, which was “only” about 60/40 Obama in 2008 vs Philadelphia county’s 85% or something huge). Also, deciding to run (at least at first) the marathon/outlawing soft drinks is absolutely undeniably moronic in every way possible-agreed on that point.
I have to say, the final day campaign stops are interesting and can really be spun either direction. IMO it looks like Obama is banking on his midwest states to come through and carry him home and doesn’t consider PA to really be in play. The visit to VA is his attempt to expand his map and maybe steal one from Romney that IMO is likely to end up in R’s camp. Romney’s are way more interesting IMO. To me it looks like it could be one of several scenarios in play, ranging from “I’m crushing it-time to make this a blowout” to grasping at straws (neither of which I believe to be the case for the record). I believe he is simply shoring up close states that are likely his (VA/FL), trying still to move OH to his column, and going for an alternative to OH ¶ to give himself another route to victory. CO an NH are interesting. Worth noting that if VA/FL/WI go Romney and PA/OH/NV/IA go Obama, NH and NV will be the deciders, with both having to go Romney for his victory. I don’t see this as a likely scenario moving forward but it would be interesting.
As has been said by others before, I would LOVE to see the internal polling numbers…[/quote]
You are not quite spot on but close.
You’ve made an error you have NV- 6 electoral votes in the Obama column and then you also have it as a deciding factor state. But in your first scenario you are still not quite spot on but close.
If, as you say, Obama wins PA-OH-NV and IA it is game over! Romney can win FLA, NH, WI, VA, and NC and still only end up with 268 electoral votes. If he does win those states he still needs to steal two electoral votes from Obama. They could come from anywhere, or not come at all. I have no idea. But in your scenario above Obama wins it regardless. However, if you flip NV to Romney keeping all other things as you project then Romney wins.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
That’s the thing, if you mention Silver’s name in any context other than an expression of pure hatred, he’s your hero and you are a deluded fool.
Again, a sign of the times. If an alternate version of Nate Silver–same credentials and track record–were predicting a Romney win, people on these boards would be lining up to blow him. I said it before: I doubt he was such a villain around here in 2010 when he was predicting a big GOP win.
As election day nears, nerves are really starting to fry. I expect that by November 6 we’ll all be shaking uncontrollably and posting gibberish.[/quote]
Yeah, but in 2010, the members of the OJ Simpson jury would have known the Republicans were going to clean house. It’s not like it was some big contentious upset of a call back then. Now, he is clearly at odds with Gallup and Rasmussen. There’s a bit of a difference.
And the guy is cocksure enough about his relatively untested model that a little hackle raising from the opposition is not exactly surprising. [/quote]
No, but like I said, the hysteria that meets his name is over the top, and it’s most reliable sources are the posters whose arguments are looking more and more like they were pre-prepared by Crossroads GPS as the election nears.
Though you’re right that he is cocksure and quite possibly setting himself up for an abrupt and disgraceful end to his career. And the Morning Joe bet thing was absolutely disgraceful for someone pretending to be unbiased (though, if he’d said “I bet my NUMBERS are more accurate than yours,” it would be OK in my book).
But still–he’s making a simple case, and he’s been making it for a while. Obama is the electoral college favorite based on the averages of the all the swing-state polls, and he has been for a long time. This is truly inarguable.
Now, you can get into arguments about poll bias, about which polls are better than others, about which are obviously to be discounted, about voter turnout (a VERY good argument, btw, and one that in my mind is going to matter far more than which poll said what on which day), about this and that. And in making those arguments you can come to a radically different–and entirely reasonable–conclusion than does Silver.
But let’s not pretend that we don’t all see the very simple logic in calling Barack Obama the favorite. Go to RCP, hit no-toss-up states, and take a look.[/quote]
I really couldn’t care less about Silver, this is the first time I’ve even mentioned him on the site, but I do think the annoyance with the guy works both ways. What I mean is, it definitely seems like people in the Obama camp are a little too quick to link to 538 whenever any legitimate poll is brought up that appears to favor Silver.
I just had this happen to me. Again, on Facebook, I posted a few of the links from this thread that look good for Romney. Immediately, my leftistest, borderline eco-terrorist friend throws up the 538 blog link as if that counters everything I just posted, and immediately, I felt that annoyance that probably inspires a lot of the Silver-hatred that you notice.
Just giving you the perspective of someone who honestly does not “hate” Silver, but certainly does not want the results of his model to come to fruition.
Oh, and I’m sure beans has a very nice taint.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Oh, and I’m sure beans has a very nice taint. [/quote]
I do… Thank you.
This article came up just now, lol. I guess we aren’t the only people irked (or not irked) by Silver.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/02/nate-silver-patron-saint-of-confirmation-bias
I don’t think this is going to be close. I am thinking winner gets 290-305 one way or another. It will be an early night for some.
It’s just I’ll watch it on MSNBC if Romney wins, and CBS or CNN if Obama wins.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Oh, and I’m sure beans has a very nice taint. [/quote]
I do… Thank you.
This article came up just now, lol. I guess we aren’t the only people irked (or not irked) by Silver.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/02/nate-silver-patron-saint-of-confirmation-bias
I don’t think this is going to be close. I am thinking winner gets 290-305 one way or another. It will be an early night for some.
It’s just I’ll watch it on MSNBC if Romney wins, and CBS or CNN if Obama wins. [/quote]
The right complaining about confirmation bias is pretty damn funny. This from a group of people who will actually discount the polls to meet their own narrative of how people will actually vote.
Attacking the messenger, in this case Silver, is petty and demonstrates a lack of intellect.
Argue his model, argue his methods, but don’t tell me that his information is “bogus” just because you don’t like the message.
jnd
Good article, and about where I stand
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Oh, and I’m sure beans has a very nice taint. [/quote]
I do… Thank you.
This article came up just now, lol. I guess we aren’t the only people irked (or not irked) by Silver.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/02/nate-silver-patron-saint-of-confirmation-bias
I don’t think this is going to be close. I am thinking winner gets 290-305 one way or another. It will be an early night for some.
It’s just I’ll watch it on MSNBC if Romney wins, and CBS or CNN if Obama wins. [/quote]
The right complaining about confirmation bias is pretty damn funny. This from a group of people who will actually discount the polls to meet their own narrative of how people will actually vote.
Attacking the messenger, in this case Silver, is petty and demonstrates a lack of intellect.
Argue his model, argue his methods, but don’t tell me that his information is “bogus” just because you don’t like the message.
jnd[/quote]
Whatever dude. Stick your fingers in your ear and keep telling yourself that D+8 polls will “eventually give you the accurate picture of what’s happening”.
You have proven, time and time again, you are no better than anyone you are trying to bash here.
Interesting. R&O basically tied in a D+9 and Woman+20 poll out of MI.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Go to RCP, hit no-toss-up states, and take a look.[/quote]
http://web.archive.org/web/20001212163700/realclearpolitics.com/Polls/polls-Electoral_11_06_EC.html
This cracked me up
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Interesting. R&O basically tied in a D+9 and Woman+20 poll out of MI.
[/quote]
I would have to believe that if Romney thought he could win Michigan that he would at least put in one appearance.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Interesting. R&O basically tied in a D+9 and Woman+20 poll out of MI.
[/quote]
I would have to believe that if Romney thought he could win Michigan that he would at least put in one appearance. [/quote]
I think he thinks the same things about Michigan and PA. Long shots worth one visit, he picked PA.
Romney’s crowds in OH and CO lead me to believe PA isn’t some hail marry, but rather a “fuck it” lets see if we can hit one out of the park.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Oh, and I’m sure beans has a very nice taint. [/quote]
I do… Thank you.
This article came up just now, lol. I guess we aren’t the only people irked (or not irked) by Silver.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/02/nate-silver-patron-saint-of-confirmation-bias
I don’t think this is going to be close. I am thinking winner gets 290-305 one way or another. It will be an early night for some.
It’s just I’ll watch it on MSNBC if Romney wins, and CBS or CNN if Obama wins. [/quote]
The right complaining about confirmation bias is pretty damn funny. This from a group of people who will actually discount the polls to meet their own narrative of how people will actually vote.
Attacking the messenger, in this case Silver, is petty and demonstrates a lack of intellect.
Argue his model, argue his methods, but don’t tell me that his information is “bogus” just because you don’t like the message.
jnd[/quote]
Whatever dude. Stick your fingers in your ear and keep telling yourself that D+8 polls will “eventually give you the accurate picture of what’s happening”.
You have proven, time and time again, you are no better than anyone you are trying to bash here.
[/quote]
I never said I as better than anyone else here, I just understand statistics is all. You are so hyper-focused on the individual polls that you do not see the overall trend that is taking place. You might benefit from googling the central limit theorem. It will help you to understand how many polls work to tell you what is happening.
If anyone has their fingers in their ears it would be those who expect Obama to lose PA…
jnd
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Oh, and I’m sure beans has a very nice taint. [/quote]
I do… Thank you.
This article came up just now, lol. I guess we aren’t the only people irked (or not irked) by Silver.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/02/nate-silver-patron-saint-of-confirmation-bias
I don’t think this is going to be close. I am thinking winner gets 290-305 one way or another. It will be an early night for some.
It’s just I’ll watch it on MSNBC if Romney wins, and CBS or CNN if Obama wins. [/quote]
The right complaining about confirmation bias is pretty damn funny. This from a group of people who will actually discount the polls to meet their own narrative of how people will actually vote.
Attacking the messenger, in this case Silver, is petty and demonstrates a lack of intellect.
Argue his model, argue his methods, but don’t tell me that his information is “bogus” just because you don’t like the message.
jnd[/quote]
Whatever dude. Stick your fingers in your ear and keep telling yourself that D+8 polls will “eventually give you the accurate picture of what’s happening”.
You have proven, time and time again, you are no better than anyone you are trying to bash here.
[/quote]
I never said I as better than anyone else here, I just understand statistics is all. You are so hyper-focused on the individual polls that you do not see the overall trend that is taking place. You might benefit from googling the central limit theorem. It will help you to understand how many polls work to tell you what is happening.
If anyone has their fingers in their ears it would be those who expect Obama to lose PA…
jnd
[/quote]
Romney and company making 3 appearances in PA (a long shot state for him) indicates that he feels he has won Ohio and possibly Wisconsin as well and wants to pile on an additional state to his total. Or, he feels that he may lose both Ohio and Wisconsin and is looking for a third strategy.
As a supporter of obama you want to believe that it is the latter. I understand that and you may be right. Then again you may be wrong. There is no way of knowing until Tuesday.
Two parties battling, gridlock ensues, country descends into chaos.
Along comes a man, a very dynamic speaker, who promises to restore the country to its former glory.
Why does this sound vaguely familiar? 