It seems to me that Conservative-leaning voters are not being represented accurately, I see this here and I would imagine this is happening nationwide.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
or a forecast model like fivethirtyeight. [/quote]
Dude, I’m sorry but Silver is fast becoming a douche. Not only is the times an extension of the Obama campaign but he is just like Krugman…
Silver and Krugman could both have great careers NOT being souless shills for one party over the other (with the emergence of the tea party, ron paul bots, and even occupy to a degree, people like Krugman are scared, as his economic theories are proving to be causing massive problems in developed countries, and people are noticing.)
All I’m saying is Silver has gone out of his way to discount polls he doesn’t like, and he is in love with anything that says Obama +286,754. Although I haven’t gone back after he was the only source saying the debate didn’t change the race significantly, so he might have come back to earth since. [/quote]
First off, no argument on Krugman. He is a partisan hack.
Re; Silver, it’s interesting you feel that way, because I see him as one of the most objective guys in the field. I do assume that he’s liberal because he works at the NYT in politics and his last name isn’t Douthat. But every time I read his blog posts I’m pretty impressed at his generally dispassionate interpretations of the numbers. I can’t find the thing about Romney’s debate performance not changing the debate significantly. In fact, all I can find are headlines like “Romney maintains momentum” and etc. He IS cautious and it can at times seem like he’s discounting something, but in my view either side could see him as ignoring their best evidence.
But, that is more an argument about Silver and less an argument about his forecast model. When I say fivethirtyeight, I mean the model and not the blog. I’m not a mathematician and my understanding of these kinds of things is adequate but not by any means comprehensive, but I’ve been told by several people whose careers are built around this kind of thing that Silver’s forecast model is one of the most sophisticated out there. It does little things–downgrades Obama’s standing based upon economic data, compensates for post-convention bounces by watering down strong polls in their immediate aftermaths, evaluates national tracking polls against state-by-states–that many people believe make it preferable to a simple aggregator like realclear.
But, in the end, you can get lost in this stuff. It’s good to keep in mind that we may not be able to predict the actions of millions of separate individuals on a given day in November when we can’t even figure out whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow.
I still think Obama is going to win, and it will serve the republicans well to get their shit straight for 2016.
I have no doubt that obama won’t do any better in his second term than he did in his first, and the country will pull itself out of this stagnation in spite of his policies.
This will lead to a ripe picking field for the right. They just need to get their internal issues in order. First and foremost is appealing to the hispanic vote (this shouldn’t be hard to do, and they don’t have to pander for it either). Second is embracing the Tea PArty types and folding in that ideal. Moderates win, but seeing as the left has pulled the whole landscape so far left that what was “center” when I was a kid is now seen as “extremist right” they have some work to do to.
Today’s moderate would have been a democrat when I was a kid. This has to shift back, but Bush 43 made this very very hard to do.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
or a forecast model like fivethirtyeight. [/quote]
Dude, I’m sorry but Silver is fast becoming a douche. Not only is the times an extension of the Obama campaign but he is just like Krugman…
Silver and Krugman could both have great careers NOT being souless shills for one party over the other (with the emergence of the tea party, ron paul bots, and even occupy to a degree, people like Krugman are scared, as his economic theories are proving to be causing massive problems in developed countries, and people are noticing.)
All I’m saying is Silver has gone out of his way to discount polls he doesn’t like, and he is in love with anything that says Obama +286,754. Although I haven’t gone back after he was the only source saying the debate didn’t change the race significantly, so he might have come back to earth since. [/quote]
First off, no argument on Krugman. He is a partisan hack.
Re; Silver, it’s interesting you feel that way, because I see him as one of the most objective guys in the field. I do assume that he’s liberal because he works at the NYT in politics and his last name isn’t Douthat. But every time I read his blog posts I’m pretty impressed at his generally dispassionate interpretations of the numbers. I can’t find the thing about Romney’s debate performance not changing the debate significantly. In fact, all I can find are headlines like “Romney maintains momentum” and etc. He IS cautious and it can at times seem like he’s discounting something, but in my view either side could see him as ignoring their best evidence.
But, that is more an argument about Silver and less an argument about his forecast model. When I say fivethirtyeight, I mean the model and not the blog. I’m not a mathematician and my understanding of these kinds of things is adequate but not by any means comprehensive, but I’ve been told by several people whose careers are built around this kind of thing that Silver’s forecast model is one of the most sophisticated out there. It does little things–downgrades Obama’s standing based upon economic data, compensates for post-convention bounces by watering down strong polls in their immediate aftermaths, evaluates national tracking polls against state-by-states–that many people believe make it preferable to a simple aggregator like realclear.
But, in the end, you can get lost in this stuff. It’s good to keep in mind that we may not be able to predict the actions of millions of separate individuals on a given day in November when we can’t even figure out whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I was hoping for a level headed responce.
I will give him a shot again, and see if I can find the peice I am reffering to.
In othr news PPP has Romney hitting 50% with the following tweet: “Impt to note on our national poll- 75% of interviews conducted within 48 hrs of debate. Would encourage Dems to wait a week before PANIC”
haha
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
or a forecast model like fivethirtyeight. [/quote]
Dude, I’m sorry but Silver is fast becoming a douche. Not only is the times an extension of the Obama campaign but he is just like Krugman…
Silver and Krugman could both have great careers NOT being souless shills for one party over the other (with the emergence of the tea party, ron paul bots, and even occupy to a degree, people like Krugman are scared, as his economic theories are proving to be causing massive problems in developed countries, and people are noticing.)
All I’m saying is Silver has gone out of his way to discount polls he doesn’t like, and he is in love with anything that says Obama +286,754. Although I haven’t gone back after he was the only source saying the debate didn’t change the race significantly, so he might have come back to earth since. [/quote]
First off, no argument on Krugman. He is a partisan hack.
Re; Silver, it’s interesting you feel that way, because I see him as one of the most objective guys in the field. I do assume that he’s liberal because he works at the NYT in politics and his last name isn’t Douthat. But every time I read his blog posts I’m pretty impressed at his generally dispassionate interpretations of the numbers. I can’t find the thing about Romney’s debate performance not changing the debate significantly. In fact, all I can find are headlines like “Romney maintains momentum” and etc. He IS cautious and it can at times seem like he’s discounting something, but in my view either side could see him as ignoring their best evidence.
But, that is more an argument about Silver and less an argument about his forecast model. When I say fivethirtyeight, I mean the model and not the blog. I’m not a mathematician and my understanding of these kinds of things is adequate but not by any means comprehensive, but I’ve been told by several people whose careers are built around this kind of thing that Silver’s forecast model is one of the most sophisticated out there. It does little things–downgrades Obama’s standing based upon economic data, compensates for post-convention bounces by watering down strong polls in their immediate aftermaths, evaluates national tracking polls against state-by-states–that many people believe make it preferable to a simple aggregator like realclear.
But, in the end, you can get lost in this stuff. It’s good to keep in mind that we may not be able to predict the actions of millions of separate individuals on a given day in November when we can’t even figure out whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I was hoping for a level headed responce.
I will give him a shot again, and see if I can find the peice I am reffering to.
In othr news PPP has Romney hitting 50% with the following tweet: “Impt to note on our national poll- 75% of interviews conducted within 48 hrs of debate. Would encourage Dems to wait a week before PANIC”
haha[/quote]
If you’re going to give Silver another shot, last night’s post is the place to do it. He makes some extremely good points:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/oct-15-distracted-by-polling-noise/#more-36116
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
or a forecast model like fivethirtyeight. [/quote]
Dude, I’m sorry but Silver is fast becoming a douche. Not only is the times an extension of the Obama campaign but he is just like Krugman…
Silver and Krugman could both have great careers NOT being souless shills for one party over the other (with the emergence of the tea party, ron paul bots, and even occupy to a degree, people like Krugman are scared, as his economic theories are proving to be causing massive problems in developed countries, and people are noticing.)
All I’m saying is Silver has gone out of his way to discount polls he doesn’t like, and he is in love with anything that says Obama +286,754. Although I haven’t gone back after he was the only source saying the debate didn’t change the race significantly, so he might have come back to earth since. [/quote]
First off, no argument on Krugman. He is a partisan hack.
Re; Silver, it’s interesting you feel that way, because I see him as one of the most objective guys in the field. I do assume that he’s liberal because he works at the NYT in politics and his last name isn’t Douthat. But every time I read his blog posts I’m pretty impressed at his generally dispassionate interpretations of the numbers. I can’t find the thing about Romney’s debate performance not changing the debate significantly. In fact, all I can find are headlines like “Romney maintains momentum” and etc. He IS cautious and it can at times seem like he’s discounting something, but in my view either side could see him as ignoring their best evidence.
But, that is more an argument about Silver and less an argument about his forecast model. When I say fivethirtyeight, I mean the model and not the blog. I’m not a mathematician and my understanding of these kinds of things is adequate but not by any means comprehensive, but I’ve been told by several people whose careers are built around this kind of thing that Silver’s forecast model is one of the most sophisticated out there. It does little things–downgrades Obama’s standing based upon economic data, compensates for post-convention bounces by watering down strong polls in their immediate aftermaths, evaluates national tracking polls against state-by-states–that many people believe make it preferable to a simple aggregator like realclear.
But, in the end, you can get lost in this stuff. It’s good to keep in mind that we may not be able to predict the actions of millions of separate individuals on a given day in November when we can’t even figure out whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow.
[/quote]
That’s why I caution people to not accept just any poll numbers. Polls are like people some of them are very good others are not worth the time of day. For example, if you look at Gallup since 1936 they have been good not perfect but pretty accurate:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115543.0
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I still think Obama is going to win, and it will serve the republicans well to get their shit straight for 2016.
I have no doubt that obama won’t do any better in his second term than he did in his first, and the country will pull itself out of this stagnation in spite of his policies.
This will lead to a ripe picking field for the right. They just need to get their internal issues in order. First and foremost is appealing to the hispanic vote (this shouldn’t be hard to do, and they don’t have to pander for it either). Second is embracing the Tea PArty types and folding in that ideal. Moderates win, but seeing as the left has pulled the whole landscape so far left that what was “center” when I was a kid is now seen as “extremist right” they have some work to do to.
Today’s moderate would have been a democrat when I was a kid. This has to shift back, but Bush 43 made this very very hard to do. [/quote]
Think Hillary will make a run for the Prezzy in 2016 ?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Think Hillary will make a run for the Prezzy in 2016 ?
[/quote]
Yes, and if the republicans can get their shit together re: Ron Paul & Tea Party, she will get smoked after 8 years of O
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Think Hillary will make a run for the Prezzy in 2016 ?
[/quote]
Yes, and if the republicans can get their shit together re: Ron Paul & Tea Party, she will get smoked after 8 years of O[/quote]
Do you think the incident in Libya will hurt her chances of being nominated?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Think Hillary will make a run for the Prezzy in 2016 ?
[/quote]
Yes, and if the republicans can get their shit together re: Ron Paul & Tea Party, she will get smoked after 8 years of O[/quote]
Do you think the incident in Libya will hurt her chances of being nominated? [/quote]
Not at all. Not only does she look good as the only motherfucker in that administration that is taking responsibility for anything that isn’t spun “positive” she knows two things:
- Many people will have forgetten about this by then
- If they haven’t, it means they didn’t let her take the fall, and pressed the president and that is why it stuck with them.
She really can’t lose. It will be his lies that are remembered if any part is, and this is her way of getting out of the post to start her run for 2016 now.
She needs to get some of that good dem money flowing early though. They all know they will have an uphill run in 2016 unless obama suddenly stops being shitty.
Their best chance is to push things like Media Matters to try and keep the right blasted in the press. (Although I don’t think Clintons like Brock too much, lol. What a douche that dude is.) But the right is going to have to realize they need to move away from the Rove type shit and get main stream.
If the right stays retarded, and rove-esk, she will have a fighting chance. If the right gets their shit together, she is toast.
This is all my opinion and I may change it upon reading more. So the proverbail grain of salt an all…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Think Hillary will make a run for the Prezzy in 2016 ?
[/quote]
Yes, and if the republicans can get their shit together re: Ron Paul & Tea Party, she will get smoked after 8 years of O[/quote]
Do you think the incident in Libya will hurt her chances of being nominated? [/quote]
Not at all. Not only does she look good as the only motherfucker in that administration that is taking responsibility for anything that isn’t spun “positive” she knows two things:
- Many people will have forgetten about this by then
- If they haven’t, it means they didn’t let her take the fall, and pressed the president and that is why it stuck with them.
She really can’t lose. It will be his lies that are remembered if any part is, and this is her way of getting out of the post to start her run for 2016 now.
She needs to get some of that good dem money flowing early though. They all know they will have an uphill run in 2016 unless obama suddenly stops being shitty.
Their best chance is to push things like Media Matters to try and keep the right blasted in the press. (Although I don’t think Clintons like Brock too much, lol. What a douche that dude is.) But the right is going to have to realize they need to move away from the Rove type shit and get main stream.
If the right stays retarded, and rove-esk, she will have a fighting chance. If the right gets their shit together, she is toast.
This is all my opinion and I may change it upon reading more. So the proverbail grain of salt an all…[/quote]
Lets say Romney wins and the economy turns around (whether it’s his doing or not). Does she run in 2016 or wait for 2020?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lets say Romney wins and the economy turns around (whether it’s his doing or not). Does she run in 2016 or wait for 2020? [/quote]
According to Wiki she will be 73-74 years old in 2020…
And she’ll be running against the likes of Chris Christy, Jeb Bush or Rubio…
She’ll get slaughtered.
Kinda funny that Obama is supposed to be winning the female vote, then throws Hillary under the bus for Libya.
I agree.
For Hillary, it will be 2016 or not at all.
Mufasa
I agree.
For Hillary, it will be 2016 or not at all.
Mufasa
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lets say Romney wins and the economy turns around (whether it’s his doing or not). Does she run in 2016 or wait for 2020? [/quote]
According to Wiki she will be 73-74 years old in 2020…
And she’ll be running against the likes of Chris Christy, Jeb Bush or Rubio…
She’ll get slaughtered.[/quote]
Do not put anything passed 74 yr olds, our current governor admitted that he is now 74, and will soon be 74.5 yrs old in a few months (have you ever heard of a grown man or a grown anyone refer to themselves as being a “half” year old after they reached their 20’s ?)
Fucking retarded shit man.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I agree.
For Hillary, it will be 2016 or not at all.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s a sure better shot than Joe “run my mouth like I have Tourette’s and get a pass because I am a Dem” Biden.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Kinda funny that Obama is supposed to be winning the female vote, then throws Hillary under the bus for Libya.[/quote]
This might be the biggest homerun obama has had this entire run…
I think it works, but I can see how it wouldn’t.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Kinda funny that Obama is supposed to be winning the female vote, then throws Hillary under the bus for Libya.[/quote]
This might be the biggest homerun obama has had this entire run…
I think it works, but I can see how it wouldn’t.[/quote]
Dangerous play my friend, Romney could easily turn this around by asking why he threw Hillary under the bus to begin with.
I can’t see him winning many people over by dusting Hillary off, after he threw her on top of such a grenade.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Kinda funny that Obama is supposed to be winning the female vote, then throws Hillary under the bus for Libya.[/quote]
This might be the biggest homerun obama has had this entire run…
I think it works, but I can see how it wouldn’t.[/quote]
I don’t see the President inaugurating his comeback with “hold me personally responsible for an ambassador’s death.”
If that article is on to something and it works, though, then it’s a brilliant move. But those are two big ifs.