Nate Silver can suck it

[ceejay]

So, in the end did Silver get lucky twice (or 3 times, including 2010 – as I understand it)? Or, are his models serious tools?

[iceknight]

Originally Posted by ceejay

So, in the end did Silver get lucky twice (or 3 times, including 2010 – as I understand it)? Or, are his models serious tools?

His models have been successful in baseball, before he came to political stuff

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

There is no refuting silliness, so why bother. The composition of the board goes through constant changes, and has been doing that for the past 13 years (except for Tom of course)...people come, people go...there's no real argument to be had either way...you're going to bring up your list of "smart" people who have stopped posting. Others won't agree with everyone on your list. I can pull up the people who have stopped posting because of you, and I know damn well you won't consider any of them "smart." But others will disagree with your assessment.

It's not a productive road to wander down, but then again, that's kind of your shtick at times...

But once again, you've succeeded in getting another thread way off topic. We're all guilty of that...you seem to be extra keen at it though...congrats!

And once again you've shown you have no integrity.

Yay!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

And once again you've shown you have no integrity.

Yay!

Yeah, I have no integrity. Who the hell are you anyway?

Listen, if you want a refund of your membership fee, contact customer service.

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

This isn't a handicapper's forum for the most part.

It's a political board with a tiny bit of horse racing mixed in. Most of the smart horse racing people have been run off by the idiots with the high post counts because the owner of the site has shown he prefers quantity over quality.

I'm just glad I didn't spend 10 hours doing something (for no reason) only to be totally wrong. That must really suck.

Really...you have 5x's the # of posts in HALF the time...

[Rookies]

Originally Posted by A. Pineda

He didn't do too badly this time.

He was UBER impressive:

"Mr. Silver’s forecasts received the most attention during this campaign, and he was accordingly the main target of attack. His track record remains impressive. In 2008, Mr. Silver made the right call in 49 of 50 states and in all 35 Senate races. That gives him an accuracy rating of 98.2 per cent in the last two presidential elections."

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5034108/

BM tried to throw us off the scent early with that ReallyScrewedUpPolls.com gibberish, which most people on my side, hooted at.
And Gamer's treatise, which caused further scrutiny, but less mockery.

I stuck to a similar alignment of polls, like Silver, at realclearpolitics.com with my own predictions. It was tried and true for me since 2008. Despite BM's scoffing, I used examples of several battleground states (Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Pennslyvania, Nevada and Wisconsin) where the President lead either wire to wire in almost every set of polls or at least 6 months.

Why would that all change on Voting Day?

[kingfin66]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I don't see much of any sarcasm in my last reply.

It's not a productive road to wander down, but then again, that's kind of your shtick at times...

But once again, you've succeeded in getting another thread way off topic. We're all guilty of that...you seem to be extra keen at it though...congrats!

I would consider this to be sarcasm. Of course, I wasn't necessarily referring to just this post. I guess I could point it out every time I see it, but would would be the point?

[hcap]

One of the main reasons Conservatives got it SO wrong was the Conservative media.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ndfile/264855/

"Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense. WorldNetDaily brought you birtherism. Forbes brought you Kenyan anti-colonialism. National Review obsessed about an imaginary rejection of American exceptionalism, misrepresenting an Obama quote in the process, and Andy McCarthy was interviewed widely about his theory that Obama, aka the Drone Warrior in Chief, allied himself with our Islamist enemies in a "Grand Jihad" against America. Seriously?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because their information elites pandered in the most cynical, self-defeating ways, treating would-be candidates like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain as if they were plausible presidents rather than national jokes who'd lose worse than George McGovern.

How many months were wasted on them?

How many hours of Glenn Beck conspiracy theories did Fox News broadcast to its viewers? How many hours of transparently mindless Sean Hannity content is still broadcast daily? Why don't Americans trust Republicans on foreign policy as they once did? In part because conservatism hasn't grappled with the foreign-policy failures of George W. Bush. A conspiracy of silence surrounds the subject. Romney could neither run on the man's record nor repudiate it. The most damaging Romney gaffe of the campaign, where he talked about how the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes are a lost cause for Republicans? Either he was unaware that many of those people are Republican voters, or was pandering to GOP donors who are misinformed. Either way, bad information within the conservative movement was to blame."

One olf the biggest purveyors of nonsense

http://unskewedpolls.com/

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

The most damaging Romney gaffe of the campaign, where he talked about how the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes are a lost cause for Republicans? Either he was unaware that many of those people are Republican voters, or was pandering to GOP donors who are misinformed. Either way, bad information within the conservative movement was to blame."

One olf the biggest purveyors of nonsense

http://unskewedpolls.com/

Are you telling me that sound byte of 47%....you honestly believe that cost Romney REPUBLICAN votes? You are going to sit there and tell me there are Republicans out there, upon hearing that, switched their vote to Obama?

Just trying to clarify what I seem to be reading from you...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Are you telling me that sound byte of 47%....you honestly believe that cost Romney REPUBLICAN votes? You are going to sit there and tell me there are Republicans out there, upon hearing that, switched their vote to Obama?

Just trying to clarify what I seem to be reading from you...

I am telling you self-dishonesty was the operative policy. La-La Land replaced rationality

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am telling you self-dishonesty was the operative policy. La-La Land replaced rationality

Maybe you can just answer my direct question? Enough with the games and nonsense.

[johnhannibalsmith]

He's saying that the misinformation from the right wasn't as effective as the misinformation from the left. The right believed what they were selling, as did the left, and one had to be right. May the best liar win.

[hcap]

I don't know if repugs switched, but those few undecided were more motivated to vote Dem and Romney's crass remarks helped to get out the Dem base.

Not a shinning moment

But read rthe Atlantic article. Off topic echoes those idiots more so than the far left extremists.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

He's saying that the misinformation from the right wasn't as effective as the misinformation from the left. The right believed what they were selling, as did the left, and one had to be right. May the best liar win.

Bull, no real equivalancy here. Nate Silver nailed it and many posters here pointed to his forecast as did the Left mostly. To wit this thread

Unskewed Polls and DickHead Morris have few Leftie counterparts.

[Rookies]

PA- NO election is won or lost on a single issue.

In no particular order:

1) The 47% comment will go down as one of the Top 10 faux pas by any candidate in an election in a western democracy all time. It was Marie Antoinette obtuse and would rival Obama's " Guns & Religion" remark in 2008, except it was much, much more defined.(And this is notwithstanding, that I believed Romney didn't do terribly in the campaign.)

2) The illegal immigrant position of conservative republicans translated into a: " We hate Hispanics and want nada to do with them"position. Hispanics are the rising demographic in America and the Republican share of their vote has declined the past 3 Prez elections.

3) I'm trying my damndest not to deride or crucify a persons' religious beliefs. But, it is surely a 'test of faith' to simply describe the positions of Con Evangelical Christians, Todd Akin & Richard Mourdock as merely extreme. When the electorate of two fairly strong Red States decide to ensure that these two loons snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, you know the women's vote has become a huge Democrat factor. I believe women voters are connecting the dots of the Venn diagram between Evangelical Christians and the Tea Party and the result is snake eyes. Other Tea Party stars went down

4) Migration. Some Southwestern & Southern Red States are being transformed by a combination of Hispanic births and movement of Dems from Blue States. These are: New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and South Carolina. And to come? Arizona & ...here it comes... TEXAS!

5) Gay Marriage. This is a non issue in a civilized society, certainly Canada. Obama & the Dems pushed all in here to resolve this once and for all. The Republicans are lined up with some of the most oppressive countries and regimes in the world. They need to give it up and move on.

6) Urban-Rural & Young-Old. I don't need to point out who is who here, but the word on the left in each coupling is growing and the word on the right is Republican- pun intended.

If the Republicans are going to turn this around, they need to re-think their entire strategy.They could still win a Prezzy election in the future, but the Dems would have to pick a particularly abhorrent candidate who offends women or minorities and have a huge turnout of the remaining Grumpy Old White Men.

A Rubio, with a complex, filtered position on immigration, (get the criminal illegals + keep the family oriented ones) might do that.