Nate Silver - Romney’s momentum over
Gallop - Romney moves from 50-51
…
Yeah, its not just my bias.
ZEB tried to PM, but yes donated
Thanks for asking so crassly haha
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]treco wrote:
Referencing TB’s post above
My fear in an Obama re-election is that he will go full tilt instituting every social change he can manage, all with unchecked impunity - czars gone crazy.
Secondly - his administration has already proven to be inept, inexperienced, and/or unprofessional in such a degree as to weaken the US as a country, and us as a society virtually permanently. It’s time to quit letting the kids run the school.
[/quote]
He would be playing with fire if he did this.
Should he go all out as you suggest, you could be looking at a Republican trifecta, owning all 3 houses in the next elections.
I doubt he would care, but seeing how much he has alienated this many people and he HASN’T gone full tilt (yet), he would push many people over the edge.
He got his ass kicked in 2010, he is struggling right now, I would have to imagine he is smarter than that. [/quote]
I don’t think he cares.People who see their ‘destiny’ as being agents of change work in the assumption that no one will counter them.
Plus it seems nearly impossible to change things once they are set in place. Look at the bad policies and laws in place that all claim to hate - yet remain permanent.
That saying about a dedicated few getting more done than the uninterested masses combined is true in my eyes.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nate Silver - Romney’s momentum over
Gallop - Romney moves from 50-51
…
Yeah, its not just my bias.[/quote]
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/25/Colorado-Republicans-Leading-In-Early-Votes-Cast
Yup… Must just be my bias and not the fact Silver is still up selling polls 7-10 days old.
EDIT: oh and google’s poll… Yeah, there is an unbaised source for ya.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nate Silver - Romney’s momentum over
Gallop - Romney moves from 50-51
…
Yeah, its not just my bias.[/quote]
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/25/Colorado-Republicans-Leading-In-Early-Votes-Cast
Yup… Must just be my bias and not the fact Silver is still up selling polls 7-10 days old.
EDIT: oh and google’s poll… Yeah, there is an unbaised source for ya.[/quote]
We’ll see soon enough. He did get 49/50 right last time around, and the model hasn’t changed significantly, so I wouldn’t be too confident that his bias is going to seriously get in his way.
And by the way, in '08, he erred on the conservative side. He predicted a narrower edge for Obama, and the one state he got wrong was Indiana.
Again, the model hasn’t changed substantially since that election.
[quote]treco wrote:
ZEB tried to PM, but yes donated
Thanks for asking so crassly haha
[/quote]
The reason I ask is that it’s easy to mouth off on a message board, I do it all the time. But it’s another thing to put your money where your mouth is. I’ve given the maximum allowed by law to the Romney campaign. And I’ve also donated to one pac. My wife and I are going to donate our time on election night as well. If Obama wins it won’t be because I didn’t do everything in my power to prevent it.
Glad to see that you’ve donated.
Zeb
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nate Silver - Romney’s momentum over
Gallop - Romney moves from 50-51
…
Yeah, its not just my bias.[/quote]
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/25/Colorado-Republicans-Leading-In-Early-Votes-Cast
Yup… Must just be my bias and not the fact Silver is still up selling polls 7-10 days old.
EDIT: oh and google’s poll… Yeah, there is an unbaised source for ya.[/quote]
We’ll see soon enough. He did get 49/50 right last time around, and the model hasn’t changed significantly, so I wouldn’t be too confident that his bias is going to seriously get in his way.
And by the way, in '08, he erred on the conservative side. He predicted a narrower edge for Obama, and the one state he got wrong was Indiana.
Again, the model hasn’t changed substantially since that election.[/quote]
Nate Silver is a left wing hack who doesn’t know a lie from the truth. I place no stock in anything that he says.
Gallup on the other hand has been polling with accuracy since 1936.
But, again if it makes you feel good go right ahead and drink the koolaide.
Alright:
Read this: Axelrod: Trajectory of Race 'Settled'
And then this: Obama Campaign Email: 'Some Bad News'
What do you think?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[/quote]
Thank god for this: Boom: Concerned Women for America announces ‘Lady Smarts’ campaign – twitchy.com
This is how I want people to address my daughter. As a person, not a walking vagina.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Alright:
Read this: Axelrod: Trajectory of Race 'Settled'
And then this: Obama Campaign Email: 'Some Bad News'
What do you think?[/quote]
The first article what else can Axlerod say? “The trajectory is all set…everything is B E A U T I F U L!” No mystery everyone says stuff like that both sides at this stage of the game.
In the second article oh boy:
Hopefully whoever wins such a distinct honor will sit far enough away so that none of the slime that it took him to win (should that happen) will hit them from the podium.
Anyway…there is a real question where all the Obama money was raised. I assure you should he win we will never know. But as the article indicates it ain’t from a clean source.
Is anyone but the ardent Obama lap dogs surprised by any of this?
Chicago politicians play by their own rules.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Alright:
Read this: Axelrod: Trajectory of Race 'Settled'
And then this: Obama Campaign Email: 'Some Bad News'
What do you think?[/quote]
The first article what else can Axlerod say? “The trajectory is all set…everything is B E A U T I F U L!” No mystery everyone says stuff like that both sides at this stage of the game.
In the second article oh boy:
Hopefully whoever wins such a distinct honor will sit far enough away so that none of the slime that it took him to win (should that happen) will hit them from the podium.
Anyway…there is a real question where all the Obama money was raised. I assure you should he win we will never know. But as the article indicates it ain’t from a clean source.
Is anyone but the ardent Obama lap dogs surprised by any of this?
Chicago politicians play by their own rules.
[/quote]
If obama loses does anyone use Axelrod again? Because he isn’t going to take the blame.
And Breitbart ran a couple stories about Obama’s donation site not having the right security, and being linked to china officals… The Government oversite committee mentioned it as well. But ya know, big bird, rape spin and romnesia are more important. I mean the press outside of FOX ignores the new Libya info, why would they report on obama’s obvious overseas donations.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Alright:
Read this: Axelrod: Trajectory of Race 'Settled'
And then this: Obama Campaign Email: 'Some Bad News'
What do you think?[/quote]
The first article what else can Axlerod say? “The trajectory is all set…everything is B E A U T I F U L!” No mystery everyone says stuff like that both sides at this stage of the game.
In the second article oh boy:
Hopefully whoever wins such a distinct honor will sit far enough away so that none of the slime that it took him to win (should that happen) will hit them from the podium.
Anyway…there is a real question where all the Obama money was raised. I assure you should he win we will never know. But as the article indicates it ain’t from a clean source.
Is anyone but the ardent Obama lap dogs surprised by any of this?
Chicago politicians play by their own rules.
[/quote]
If obama loses does anyone use Axelrod again? Because he isn’t going to take the blame.
And Breitbart ran a couple stories about Obama’s donation site not having the right security, and being linked to china officals… The Government oversite committee mentioned it as well. But ya know, big bird, rape spin and romnesia are more important. I mean the press outside of FOX ignores the new Libya info, why would they report on obama’s obvious overseas donations.[/quote]
Cheer up man, we all know that the press “installed” obama by not vetting him in 08’. Now they want to keep the “chosen one” in the White House. Why would they want to report on Benghazi? They don’t think of the families of the four people that died. They look at it as just bad luck for their boy in the White House and now they have to cover for him.
I’ve said this before but I have never ever seen the left wing media lean this far left. It’s truly an amazing thing to watch.
And…that’s why I said it will be difficult for Romney to beat both Obama and the MSLM.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nate Silver - Romney’s momentum over
Gallop - Romney moves from 50-51
…
Yeah, its not just my bias.[/quote]
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/25/Colorado-Republicans-Leading-In-Early-Votes-Cast
Yup… Must just be my bias and not the fact Silver is still up selling polls 7-10 days old.
EDIT: oh and google’s poll… Yeah, there is an unbaised source for ya.[/quote]
We’ll see soon enough. He did get 49/50 right last time around, and the model hasn’t changed significantly, so I wouldn’t be too confident that his bias is going to seriously get in his way.
And by the way, in '08, he erred on the conservative side. He predicted a narrower edge for Obama, and the one state he got wrong was Indiana.
Again, the model hasn’t changed substantially since that election.[/quote]
Nate Silver is a left wing hack who doesn’t know a lie from the truth. I place no stock in anything that he says.
Gallup on the other hand has been polling with accuracy since 1936.
But, again if it makes you feel good go right ahead and drink the koolaide.[/quote]
Unlike you, Zeb, I am not pining for one result or another on election day.
Silver’s model worked like a charm in '08 and when it was wrong, it favored the Republican candidate. Again: when Silver was wrong in '08, he was UNDERESTIMATING Obama’s margin of victory.
I know it’s easier to argue by assertion, but I’d like to know if you think this is not a salient point. The model was relatively fair in '08 and it hasn’t been changed in a substantive way since.
And he’s an extremely smart guy. Does that guarantee that he’s right? No. But I guarantee you that your refusal to accept the plain fact that this is not, at the moment, a sure Romney win (far from it) is absolutely nothing more than confirmation bias.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I guarantee you that your refusal to accept the plain fact that this is not, at the moment, a sure Romney win (far from it) is absolutely nothing more than confirmation bias.[/quote]
You are missing his/our point.
It isn’t that we are refusing to accept the fact that it is not a sure romney win, it is we refuse to believe that it is 75/25, when all other evidence points to much closer to 50/50.
There is no way on Earth obama thinks it is 75-25. Well at least his camp doesn’t.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I guarantee you that your refusal to accept the plain fact that this is not, at the moment, a sure Romney win (far from it) is absolutely nothing more than confirmation bias.[/quote]
You are missing his/our point.
It isn’t that we are refusing to accept the fact that it is not a sure romney win, it is we refuse to believe that it is 75/25, when all other evidence points to much closer to 50/50.
There is no way on Earth obama thinks it is 75-25. Well at least his camp doesn’t.[/quote]
It is not 50/50. Every available poll average gives Obama an electoral college win if the election is held today.
Now, these numbers can change. They do change. They can also simply be wrong. But when we talk about odds, we talk about a prediction based on the entirety of the available data. The data favors Obama at this point. There is no way to get around that conclusion without picking and choosing among the polls.
By the way, I get it. Silver is OBVIOUSLY a liberal. You guys don’t like him. I wouldn’t like him either if I were a staunch conservative. But based on his record, the guy is good at this. And in any case, you’re not up against him as a person, you’re up against a statistical model that he built and that had an extremely good showing last time around. (And furthermore, the only thing making that track record “extremely good” and not “perfect” is a CONSERVATIVE BIAS in the last election).
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I guarantee you that your refusal to accept the plain fact that this is not, at the moment, a sure Romney win (far from it) is absolutely nothing more than confirmation bias.[/quote]
You are missing his/our point.
It isn’t that we are refusing to accept the fact that it is not a sure romney win, it is we refuse to believe that it is 75/25, when all other evidence points to much closer to 50/50.
There is no way on Earth obama thinks it is 75-25. Well at least his camp doesn’t.[/quote]
It is not 50/50. Every available poll average gives Obama an electoral college win if the election is held today.
Now, these numbers can change. They do change. They can also simply be wrong. But when we talk about odds, we talk about a prediction based on the entirety of the available data. The data favors Obama at this point. There is no way to get around that conclusion without picking and choosing among the polls.
By the way, I get it. Silver is OBVIOUSLY a liberal. You guys don’t like him. I wouldn’t like him either if I were a staunch conservative. But based on his record, the guy is good at this. And in any case, you’re not up against him as a person, you’re up against a statistical model that he built and that had an extremely good showing last time around. (And furthermore, the only thing making that track record “extremely good” and not “perfect” is a CONSERVATIVE BIAS in the last election).[/quote]
At this point, we are talking about two different things…
Yes Silver is the all mighty all knowing, I bow to his wonder. I mean he nailed one whole election.
Dude Obama went on record, yesterday I think it was, talking about “it’s gonna be close”.
An incumbent doesn’t talk like that if it is 75-25…
I just don’t care enough anymore.
Yes Silver and the NYShitrag are the 8th and 9th wonders of the world.
“Federal officials say that absentee ballots being sent to U.S. military serving in Afghanistan may have been burned in a plane crash…” - Associated Press
Uh huh…
The snarky attitude during the last two debates…The Libya coverup, the MF’ing economy…
I has to be a Romney blowout
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Unlike you, Zeb, I am not pining for one result or another on election day.[/quote]
That’s a shame as a good American I would have hoped by now that you could see Obama as the disaster that he is. We have to go back almost 50 years to find a President that is actually worse than Obama. That man is LBJ who cost us 10’s of thousands of lives in Vietnam, and who began a failed war on poverty that cost us trillions through the years ( and encouraged people to stay in poverty) was a worse President than Obama. Other than LBJ guys like Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and many others look really good compared to Obama.
But, you can’t see that because the Chicago sleeze machine ran some negative ads against Romney. So, let’s forget about Romney’s executive experience and the fact that he actually understands the economy and comes from a place of great success. Yeah… let’s have more Obama a proven failure! Uh huh…
Silver’s model worked…ONCE good for him. Curly (if he were still alive) from the original three stooges could have picked Obama as the winner in 2008. That is a very small deal my friend…tiny. In fact, I called Obama the winner the moment the republicans picked McCain as their candidate. I said Obama would win by 5 to 10 points. I nailed it!
So what?
It means nothing. It actually means less than nothing because he is a partisan hack.
So is Karl Rove, would you listen to him on this election? If not would it be because he’s partisan?
I like you smh but you are a youngster. Don’t get upset over that it gives you an excuse to go all gaga over guys like Silver.
I wish you would pay better attention to my posts. I am the one who said from the beginning that Romney has an uphill battle. Now how many times have I said, “it is going to be difficult to beat both a sitting President AND the main stream liberal media?” I’ve probably said that no less than 20 times in these political threads. I don’t think anything has changed. It is still an uphill battle based on those two things.
Sure Obama has helped Romney by allowing himself to get destroyed during the first debate.
By playing the part of Snarky McSnarkison in the third debate
By allowing Uncle Joe Biden to sit in front of 60 million people and play the part of the Joker.
By trying to keep this campaign about small things like “binders” “bayonets” and “big bird”
By calling Mitt Romney a Bullshitter in Rolling Stone magazine.
By avoiding tough questions from serious news people and instead making the talk show rounds and trading barbs with political titans like Jon Stewart.
Granted he’s done all that he can to help Romney on to victory. But I still maintain that this is Obama’s election to lose.
When I quote polling companies like Gallup I do it because they have a long, long history (since 1936) of calling the winner of each Presidential election. Silver on the other hand got it right once. And the one he got right was an incredibly easy call.
Yes, while I am pulling for Romney to end the Obama error (no not era) I am still looking at unbiased facts along the way to determine what sort of chance that Romney has. I suggest you put down the fairy tale books and do the same thing.