Nate Silver can suck it

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by hcap

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.

Sure, Nate Silver did a tremendous job, but that is itself a false equivalancy in the context of the actual content of the article and your using the Atlantic article to support the silly case that everyone that thought Romney was winning was doing so because of "conservative media" and that everything conservative is a lie and everything liberal is the God's honest truth. There's a lousy premise going on between you and the author that somehow everyone that considers themselves conservative is glued to Beck, Hannity, and that nitwit Morris.

The article begins soundly enough with trying to understand why guys like Morris were wrong, but then devolves into nonsense like what you excerpted. Do you really believe that people thought Obama would lose because of birtherism, Kenyan colonialism, jihadism in America, and the rest of that silliness? It's just a smug piece about how smart liberals are and how dumb conservatives are and exploits Silver's standing in liberal circles to make bogus claims that conservatives were listening exclusively to those fringe people and then basing their opinions on the beliefs of fringe elements, while they never doubted SuperSilver for a second.

The reality, if you actually reflect back on this board, with the exception of a few select folks that thought Obama was a loser - was that historical trends in elections relating to economy primarily were the end-all-be-all for most Romney supporters. Read the opening salvos in this very thread. Does any of that sound like a guy that had been glued to WorldDailyNut or whatever you call it? It's a guy making a prediction based on his own data and perspectives. The article basically sucks and the only point it succeeds in making is that Nate Silver was perhaps the smartest guy in the room after all. All the nonsense about right-wing propoganda about Kenyan communists leading people astray is false equivalancy. They were just flat out wrong in how they analyzed trends. Making fun of Glenn Beck is just for the amusement of other sharpies is just silliness that lends nothing to the redeeming parts of the article, which were basically just to point out that Nate Silver was a whole lot better than Rove and Morris.

I didn't think Obama would lose. I've watched plenty (more than plenty) of Rove, Morris, and the gang. I didn't pay an undue amount of attention to Silver. I know few people on either side of the ideological spectrum that had an opinion and was basing it on the pundits that they watched most. I just think this whole premise is a lousy stereotype and illogical.

[lsbets]

How did Silver do compared to the RCP average?

[Tom]

"Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense.

1. 16 trillion heading to 20 trillion
2. 23 million out of work
3. A dead ambassador and Navy Seals hung out to die
4. Repeated lies about a video to cover up incompetence


Yes, we should have focusing on the imaginary war on women.
Are you using medical mary jane?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by 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.)

It wasn't even a faux pas, it was an illumination of Romney's achilles heel - that he was a chameleon that would say whatever it was that the target audience wanted to hear and eventually, that lack of sincerity would come back to haunt him in a context that could be used against him in the worst possible way - the stereotypes of him.

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.

This one is actually baffling. The President campaigned on comprehensive reform in 2008 and then walked in with the ability to press on with it and did nothing. Nothing. Then in a last ditch effort right before the debates, he comes with an executive order, something he campaigned against, to appease them. The President is simply very fortunate that some of the key hispanic leaders decided to be loyal to the party and make this whole thing nice for him. Yes, the Republicans did nothing tangible to capitalize on the President's indifference for three and a half years, but it wasn't like they held the key to the castle either in making it happen. At best, they both ignored hispanics and Democrats outside of the White House better have gotten a pretty healthy quid pro quo agreement for the future in return for delivering the voters.

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

There's nothing really to debate here, other than that the extreme positions of those morons like Akin and the other idiot really were simply well parlayed into Presidential politics by the media. Benghazi details were being released daily and the networks were leading with this story of Mourdock. I mean, yeah, vote those assholes out of their seats, but they really aren't exactly speaking for Romney. It just was great manipulation to make some sort of correlation simply because they were in the same party.

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!

Several of those are Dem states and others swing and others are getting purpler, but I'm telling you, Obamacare will have to kill a lot of geezers for the cultures of Arizona and Texas to swing liberal simply because of population composition. I posted this in another thread, but I heard this last election, and having moved from New York, a true blue state, I didn't buy it whatsoever. Arizona elected "no-earmark" Jeff Flake over former Republican nominated Surgeon General turned democrat Carmona because there is still a lot of Southwestern, anti-Cali-Liberal sentiment here. Not to mention, many of the hispanics here that have made America their culture have grown up and assimilated in the culture - otherwise it would be a 100% sweep for Dems instead of 77% with that blowhard Arpaio running his trap for votes. It may happen eventually, but it will take more than a hispanic population in the very short term.

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.

Like illegal immigration, this is another area where the President hardly pushed all-in. He pushed just enough to get there. He had to make sure that blacks would still show up at 95% or better in spite of 25% unemployment before he could even make a move personally. But yeah, there's just no reason to be on the opposite side of this issue now if politics is your game. It's a two-party scam and nobody would rush over to Obama and Dems at this point. You had the right candidate - he wasn't principled anyway - what the hell.

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.

I should have just touched on the one or two I wanted to because this is getting tiresome. I have to be honest, I've read that like seven times and I'm only sort of sure I know what you are talking about, so...

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.

What they need to do, sad as it may sound to the stalwarts, is let the liberal policies sink or swim. Stop giving them excuses for why they couldn't get this done or make that work. Just let them have the ball and put up as little resistance as possible. Let them either fix it or completely destroy it. The way it sounds now, both sides seem to think one or the other is inevitable, so if you really think that salvation is higher taxes and more spending - go for it. Eventually, if the other side is right, the economy will collapse, big government will cause meltdown, and they can play white (and hopefully black and brown) knight. Nobody stands for much anymore anyway, it's all just a big game. Might as well see what happens when the bullshit that gets thrown around for consumption actually reaches fruition and then maybe we can find out if anyone is right at all.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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

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

I love when you talk tough.

Not as funny as when Tom does, but equally effective.

[redshift1]

Originally Posted by lsbets

How did Silver do compared to the RCP average?

RCP correctly predicted 49 out of 50 (missing Florida). Silver predicted 50 out of 50 pending the Florida finals. As I recall 2 or 3 other polling entities correctly predicted 50 out of 50 as well. Rasmussen was less accurate erring several times with swing state predictions.

To be fair there was a real buzz about conservative enthusiasm that never materialized and a perceived bias among pollsters favoring democrats that made many feel the race was closer than it was. Most of the liberal leaning people I know felt Romney had a real chance at winning the presidency.

.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I love when you talk tough.

Not as funny as when Tom does, but equally effective.

I'll match PA's refund if you go away.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Tom

I'll match PA's refund if you go away.

Sharp post.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Sure, Nate Silver did a tremendous job, but that is itself a false equivalancy in the context of the actual content of the article and your using the Atlantic article to support the silly case that everyone that thought Romney was winning was doing so because of "conservative media" and that everything conservative is a lie and everything liberal is the God's honest truth. There's a lousy premise going on between you and the author that somehow everyone that considers themselves conservative is glued to Beck, Hannity, and that nitwit Morris.

You are missing just how far out in La-La Land most conservatives who bought the Fox/Redstste/Forbes/National Review/Karl Rove spin were. It was notr just WorldNutDaily and Glenn Beck, it was the mainstream of the conservative media that pushed a "feel good" about Romney agenda. They wanted a win, and let their heads get filled with an alternate reality

Unskewed Polls and other distortions of the political landscape were convenient crutches latched onto by the want a win Right

The Left not only cited Nate Silver, but the Mainstream polls. This was not good enough for many on the right. That is why Bigmack lost himself. And many conservative Mainstream pundits predicted a Romney win.

No equivalency here. The Dem underground did not did not significantly influence the Left. Unskewed Polls and Morris tainted the Right

[PaceAdvantage]

Morris? Dick Morris? I don't recall seeing him ONCE this election season...maybe because I wasn't watching any cable news...

I don't know who you think you're fooling. You're talking about such a SMALL NUMBER of people when you refer to these "many on the right" who are immersed in all this campaign minutia.

None of this concerns the great unwashed masses who head to the polls every year. None of it...

They only know what they are told from the media, the President, maybe they saw or heard Romney once or twice in a debate or on the news somewhere where he was being portrayed in a no doubt unflattering manner, and they know what their friends and family think.

I love how some think on here...that everyone is IMMERSED in this stuff like we are day to day...it's just not reality.

That's why having the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, along with the majority of popular print and web media, Letterman and HOLLYWOOD) firmly on your side, as Obama and the Dems have had all these years, is such a TREMENDOUS advantage...you'll never admit it, but if the playing field were level in those arenas, there is absolutely no way in hell Obama wins two days ago.

In fact, it's shocking Romney was able to garner 48% of the popular vote in this kind of rigged environment...

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are missing just how far out in La-La Land most conservatives who bought the Fox/Redstste/Forbes/National Review/Karl Rove spin were. ...

Well okay. If we are talking specifically about those that sit glued in front FOX/etc/etc/etc and then parroted what the majority were saying, then okay, but he didn't spend 200,000 words ever really describing which "conservatives were shocked". I don't really think the author made much of a distinction between saying "those conservatives that..." and "conservatives" in general - just as he failed to reflect on the "liberals that actually..." versus "liberals" in general.

It's okay, there's plenty of right-wing liberal media hating, its not like this guy invented a niche style. But, top to bottom, that's what he spends most of his time doing - blasting right-wing media and transposing that "stupidity" onto conservatives. If you polled 100% of Obama voters that were convinced they were voting for the inevitable winner, I bet that far less than 10% have any friggin' idea who Nate Silver is. Basically the same thing for the other side... they were running robocalls everywhere just to tell people WHEN election day was in the days and hours leading up to Tuesday... I think we're overestimating the extent of most voters access to election information, even bad information.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Morris? Dick Morris? I don't recall seeing him ONCE this election season...maybe because I wasn't watching any cable news...

I don't know who you think you're fooling. You're talking about such a SMALL NUMBER of people when you refer to these "many on the right" who are immersed in all this campaign minutia.

You are in denial about the demographics. The country is moving to the Left. Elderly white men will no longer effect elections as they have in the past.

Republicans on the other hand have gone further right. If Romney had started his bid from the middle he might have won. But the repug primaries FORCED him right.

Today's Repug primaries would have screwed Reagan

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are in denial about the demographics. The country is moving to the Left. Elderly white men will no longer effect elections as they have in the past.

Republicans on the other hand have gone further right. If Romney had started his bid from the middle he might have won. But the repug primaries FORCED him right.

Today's Repug primaries would have screwed Reagan

You're living in a dream world if you think the Republican party is too far right. They're not nearly as conservative as they need to be. You can fool some of the people with your nonsense talk...but if Republicans move any further left, you might as well put a big fat D next to their names.

And your race baiting ("elderly white men") bullshit doesn't fly here either.

And thank you for only replying to a small portion of my post...I know, we're all guilty of doing that at times...but it didn't go unnoticed.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Well okay. If we are talking specifically about those that sit glued in front FOX/etc/etc/etc and then parroted what the majority were saying, then okay, but he didn't spend 200,000 words ever really describing which "conservatives were shocked". I don't really think the author made much of a distinction between saying "those conservatives that..." and "conservatives" in general - just as he failed to reflect on the "liberals that actually..." versus "liberals" in general.

It's okay, there's plenty of right-wing liberal media hating, its not like this guy invented a niche style. But, top to bottom, that's what he spends most of his time doing - blasting right-wing media and transposing that "stupidity" onto conservatives. If you polled 100% of Obama voters that were convinced they were voting for the inevitable winner, I bet that far less than 10% have any friggin' idea who Nate Silver is. Basically the same thing for the other side... they were running robocalls everywhere just to tell people WHEN election day was in the days and hours leading up to Tuesday... I think we're overestimating the extent of most voters access to election information, even bad information.

Well, I would venture that we here on off topic are a bit more engaged in what the polls say and what the pundits pontificated than most. And those of us who tried to understand the politics on the right and left were the ones that had to judge our respective parties BS. But the right's BS was affected by Fox and Karl Rove much more than the Left's Dem underground

The average voter comes into the fray late and without as much investigation. The low information voter on both sides were not primarily the ones affected by the puindits USUALLY. But Fox is an exception. It reaches many ands am radio as well. I would guess the Righty BS was a bit more out there. But not enough to win with a changing electorate. Your major obstacle to a party too far right and too far in the past

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You're living in a dream world if you think the Republican party is too far right. They're not nearly as conservative as they need to be. You can fool some of the people with your nonsense talk...but if Republicans move any further left, you might as well put a big fat D next to their names.

And your race baiting ("elderly white men") bullshit doesn't fly here either.

And thank you for only replying to a small portion of my post...I know, we're all guilty of doing that at times...but it didn't go unnoticed.

Elderly white men race baiting? Gee, I guess I am pulling the race card. Like the Kenyan, crap your compadres like to "joke" about. The only racists here are some of the Tea Party birther types that have repeatedly brought up that bullshit.

Yes, ELDERLY WHITE MEN was in fact what Romney/Ryan were counting on. As well as the blue collars of Ohio and other states affected by the auto bailout. Well guess what? Not enough bought their line. In fact the VP choice of Ryan did not help. Women, Latinos, blacks and the under 30 didn't buy in either.

Yes Republicans were co-opted by the TPiers and their extreme cynical Repug handlers (Dick Army etc) in 2010, and you guys are paying for it now. The old republican party of Reagen, Eisenhower and Lugar is gone. Unreasonable social conservatives took control in 2010.

Libertarianism may be an answer if it steers clear of the same pitfalls and somehow also addresses minority concerns. But Ayn Rand doesn't like either social conservatives or social liberals. If you can package Libertarianism for a changing world including the rise of Global Corporatocracies, not the local merchant of the 187th century, (which is hard to imagine), the basic appeal of Libertarianism may be more successful than what the Repugs have become.