Ace of Spades HQ

October 22, 2012

@NumbersMuncher Eats @fivethirtyeight's Lunch
— Ace

Josh Jordan, aka NumbersMucher, looks at Nate Silver's much-heralded "The Model" (it's always with a "The" in front of it) and wonders why he's assigning high weights to polls that favor Obama and low weights to polls that favor Romney.

The most current Public Policy Polling survey, released Saturday, has Obama up only one point, 49Â–48. That poll is given a weighting under SilverÂ’s model of .95201. The PPP poll taken last weekend had Obama up five, 51Â–46. This poll is a week older but has a weighting of 1.15569.
The NBC/Marist Ohio poll conducted twelve days ago has a higher weighting attached to it (1.31395) than eight of the nine polls taken since. The poll from twelve days ago also, coincidentally enough, is ObamaÂ’s best recent poll in Ohio, because of a Democratic party-identification advantage of eleven points. By contrast, the Rasmussen poll from eight days later, which has a larger sample size, more recent field dates, but has an even party-identification split between Democrats and Republicans, has a weighting of .88826, lower than any other poll taken in the last nine days.

There's a lot of this sort of thing in the article, and obviously, I cannot quote it all, as much as I would like to.

But there seems to be a pattern here, at least based on NumberMuncher's data: Polls get weighted more -- judged as "good, professional polls" -- based, it seems, largely on whether they show the results Silver thinks they ought to show (Obama winning, of course). How else to explain this?

This is the type of analysis that walks a very thin line between forecasting and cheerleading. When you weight a poll based on what you think of the pollster and the results and not based on what is actually inside the poll (party sampling, changes in favorability, job approval, etc), it can make for forecasts that mirror what you hope will happen rather than whatÂ’s most likely to happen. This is also true of SilverÂ’s dismissal of RomneyÂ’s lead in Gallup this week. While Romney is likely not up by seven points nationally, as the poll predicted, you canÂ’t dismiss it while at the same time giving a twelve-day-old Marist/NBC Ohio poll a higher weighting than eight newer polls when Marist has leaned Obama this entire cycle.

The implication is that Nate Silver seems to be cherry-picking polls, perhaps unconsciously, thinking that a poll showing a nice Obama lead must be a better, more professional, more accurate poll simply because it's in line with his hunch (Obama wins). Polls that are incongruent with this belief -- Gallup, Rasmussen, most notably -- are weighted less because they are "bad polls" with a "Republican house effect" or whatever sort of language he employs.

So "good polls" get weighted more heavily -- hey, it's the more accurate, more professional poll, right? -- and "bad polls" less heavily and, surprise surprise, "The Model" winds up saying what Silver subconsciously directed it to say.

I have a problem with the whole "state polls are most important" thing of Silver's.

I see there being three levels of analysis here:

Unsophisticated people just look at the national polls. They don't know any better, and don't realize this is a 50 state election.

Sophisticated people look at the state polls. They understand this is not a race for the national vote, but for 50 separate contests in 50 separate states.

Finally:

Even more sophisticated people do what the unsophisticated people do, which is primarily look at the national polls, because unless the national vote is extremely close (1%, 1.5% separating winner from loser) it is mathematically very unlikely the national vote winner will diverge from the electoral college winner.

What is a swing state, after all? What makes it a swing state? What makes it a swing state is that its "political temperature," for lack of a better term, is very close to the average political temperature of the entire United States.

It's a swing state precisely because it's made up of a balance of Americans which makes it essentially a microcosm of the whole country.

That's why swing states tend to swing together. Because the same pitch that works on swing-voting Iowans will more than likely work on swing-voting Ohioans.

There are, of course, local concerns that can cause a swing state to deviate away from the national trends. In Ohio, it's often noted that the unemployment rate is actually lower than the national average (thought to benefit Obama) and that many jobs in Ohio were "saved" by the GM bailout. So it is possible (moreso than usual, I think) that we could have Ohio swinging away from the broader trend of swing states.

Still, the general rule has been that swing states go the way of the national vote and that's why they decide the election. And it's harder to understand why other swing states would be inclined to depart from broader national trends. If I can see a special case for Ohio, I have trouble seeing the same case for, say, Nevada, which has the highest unemployment in the country.

If Ohio's relatively low (yet still kind of high) unemployment rate means it's likely to break from the national trend and wind up in Obama's corner, why isn't it also likely that Nevada will flip to Romney, no matter who wins the national popular vote?

Are most of the swing states going to diverge from the national vote count? What's the precedent for that?

Ohio and the National Vote: JackStraw offers this nugget, noting that the Ohio is even more closely correlated with the national vote than I thought:

According to Larry Schweikart, the U of Dayton professor who has been studying Ohio voting for years, any politician who carries the national vote by more than 0.5% wins Ohio. This has been true for decades.

Posted by: Ace at 12:43 PM | Comments (212)
Post contains 987 words, total size 6 kb.

1 1st

Posted by: CSMBigBird at October 22, 2012 12:44 PM (2rAhg)

2 in

Posted by: soothsayer at October 22, 2012 12:45 PM (jUytm)

3 Ahem. So Silver's hauling the polls to the Russian Arctic, cutting them open, counting the rings and then only using five of them? (Fuck yes I'm using this until the end of time) I mean, I repetitively joke, but that's seriously what it sounds like.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra impact. at October 22, 2012 12:46 PM (VtjlW)

4 speaking of the House... what are we looking at as far as gains/losses?

Posted by: soothsayer at October 22, 2012 12:47 PM (jUytm)

5 Jesus. I need cliff notes on these poll analyses. Anyhow I just signed up to volunteer to drive people to the polling places on Nov 6th. I happen to have that day off of flying evil rich people around. I feel I need to do SOMETHING.

Posted by: Hawker Flyer at October 22, 2012 12:47 PM (2z0mM)

6 Romney breaks 40% at Intrade....finally. Is the Saudi money running out to prop up TFG?

Posted by: DeusExMachina at October 22, 2012 12:48 PM (6RTwM)

7 in before steevy

Posted by: Max Power at October 22, 2012 12:48 PM (q177U)

8 Much quicker & easier to just say "Dems lie".

Posted by: rickb223 at October 22, 2012 12:49 PM (GFM2b)

9 zzz

Posted by: Gerry at October 22, 2012 12:49 PM (RsutZ)

10 6 Romney breaks 40% at Intrade....finally. Is the Saudi money running out to prop up TFG? --- I'm guessing it more likely that people know Romney will win and are looking to profit at the expense of the manipulators.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at October 22, 2012 12:49 PM (e0xKF)

11 SHHHHHH! Let them think their happy thoughts.

Posted by: nate_bob at October 22, 2012 12:50 PM (gsy5B)

12 Polls are for fags

Posted by: runninrebel at October 22, 2012 12:50 PM (H1od7)

13 You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Posted by: Nate Silver at October 22, 2012 12:51 PM (QupBk)

14 Note to Dedicated 10ther-- I'm working on a Benghazi post linking your blog a lot but it's a slog.

Posted by: ace at October 22, 2012 12:51 PM (LCRYB)

15 OT In Michigan, ads are being run for 3 womyn for supreme court. "100% against violence against womyn." Guess violence against men isn't a problem. I really hate women like this. Gonna vote against them.

Posted by: nerdygirl at October 22, 2012 12:51 PM (jLiVY)

16 12 Polls are for fags --- You rang?

Posted by: Barry Cakeboy at October 22, 2012 12:51 PM (e0xKF)

17 So.... is Natey privy to Obama's internal polls this year or is that just for Reggie Love?

Posted by: Jolly Roger at October 22, 2012 12:51 PM (t06LC)

18 According to Larry Schweikart, the U of Dayton professor who has been studying Ohio voting for years, any politician who carries the national vote by more than 0.5% wins Ohio. This has been true for decades. Real swing states, not some of the outliers like PA or NH that go in wave elections, are swing states because they tend to swing with the national vote. They are a microcosm of the national vote. It's totally illogical to think that Romney could take the national vote by 3% or better and lose Ohio.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 22, 2012 12:51 PM (TMB3S)

19 Good catch. It's interesting how Intrade and The Model seem to mirror each other. It probably is just that a lot of their investors give exaggerated importance to Nate's work. Also, some of have said Intrade is too European a market. I don't know about that, but i was thinking about buying some Romney shares the other day, and after signing up, found out they also wanted me to fax them copies of my ID (passport or DL) PLUS two recent utilities statements to comply with ***IRISH*** banking laws. Seriously? Talk about a deterrent to non-Europeans entering the Intrade market.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee at October 22, 2012 12:51 PM (u8eBQ)

20 It's not "unconscious" --- as Obama falls, there will be more of this sh*t

Posted by: Major _____ de Coverly at October 22, 2012 12:52 PM (Dll6b)

21 It is explaining why almost all polls are shit, and even the good ones are unreliable.

Posted by: Vic at October 22, 2012 12:52 PM (YdQQY)

22 Silver was a good baseball statistician who moved over to politics. And then to the NY Times for some of that sweet blogging money.

Why is anyone surprised that a NY Times employee is a shill for the Democrats?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 22, 2012 12:52 PM (2b4yb)

23 SHHHHHH! Let them think their happy thoughts.

What they're trying to do is depress GOP turnout.

If your guy perceived to be doomed, it's pretty easy (especially if there aren't competitive down ticket races) to say "fuck it, my candidate can't win so why bother?"

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 22, 2012 12:53 PM (SY2Kh)

24 'Irish banking laws' means you borrow money based on how many healthy sheep you have, along with your sworn promise to stop drinking for a week

Posted by: Major _____ de Coverly at October 22, 2012 12:53 PM (Dll6b)

25 WHAT I WISH ROMNEY WOULD SAY TONIGHT:

"Barack, on the day we got Bin Laden, I noticed that in the situation room photo you are sitting off to the side and you are appear to be dressed in golf attire while everyone else was dressed in business attire.

Had you sir, in fact, been playing golf that morning? Please answer carefully because my sources already have the answer to this question and we can prove it.

Ok, so you admit you were playing golf. As Commander-in-Chief, knowing that your very Presidency hung in the balance if this mission were to fail, why on earth were you out playing golf? Since you are not even sitting at the head of the table nor do you have a computer in front of you, it almost appears as if you arrived late to the party. Sir, did they in fact call you in off the golf course as the operation was under way? If so, were you actually in charge at all?"

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 22, 2012 12:53 PM (hlUJY)

26 The problem with Intrade is its former success. The dems like to play the bandwagon effect and by putting money down they can help thier own odds. Once it became well known it became a less viable forecasting tool. We would need to know volume to have a better picture.

Posted by: Jolly Roger at October 22, 2012 12:53 PM (t06LC)

>>Note to Dedicated 10ther--

>>I'm working on a Benghazi post linking your blog a lot but it's a slog.

Dedicated 10ther has a slog?

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 22, 2012 12:53 PM (SUKHu)

I voted today. I went around 1 pm, and has to wait in line. Turnout is awesome!! I really think these polls are missing the enthusiasm factor. Dems might vote this year. Republicans can't wait.

Posted by: Drunk Nutty Uncle Joe at October 22, 2012 12:53 PM (m0le6)

29 wonders why he's assigning high weights to polls that favor Obama and low weights to polls that favor Romney. Just a little trick to hide the decline. It's a leftist thing. Normal people wouldn't understand.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 22, 2012 12:54 PM (X3lox)

30 the poll manipulation is to a. depress GOP voters with impending doom. but more so to b. impress the undecided dolts out there that the GOP is losing. Hopefully, GOP GOTV is on fire across the fruited plain right now.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 12:54 PM (QxSug)

31 I still fail to see why using a weighted average of a bunch of polls would be a valid estimate of the truth.

It's quasi-interesting to see what the lower and upper-bounds are, given the weightings of R/D/I, but beyond that it's wankery.

Posted by: HoboJerky, 15 days at October 22, 2012 12:55 PM (xAtAj)

32 "I voted today. I went around 1 pm, and has to wait in line. Turnout is awesome!! I really think these polls are missing the enthusiasm factor. Dems might vote this year. Republicans can't wait." I predict it'll be closer than you think because as a group we do tend to kid ourselves. As I've seen time and time again and used to buy into myself.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee at October 22, 2012 12:55 PM (u8eBQ)

33 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channeling Breitbart at October 22, 2012 12:55 PM (nUH8H)

34 Why is anyone surprised that a NY Times employee is a shill for the Democrats?Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo

It's a post about an asshole. It's what we do on the blogosphere.

No one is expressing surprise or shock or any other formulation of being caught unaware.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at October 22, 2012 12:55 PM (DKxu1)

35 Nate Silver is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable pollster.

Posted by: Christina Hendricks's Mighty Jugs teams Up With Mitt Romney's Hair to Defeat SCOAMF at October 22, 2012 12:56 PM (g6f6y)

36 >>>I still fail to see why using a weighted average of a bunch of polls would be a valid estimate of the truth. Weighting works for the climate alarmism industry, so don't knock it 'til you try it.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee at October 22, 2012 12:56 PM (u8eBQ)

37 It's a leftist thing. Normal people wouldn't understand. Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 22, 2012 04:54 PM (X3lox

The sad thing is that when pressed, that's their actual defense. "Well, you wouldn't understand..."

On November 7th, I am going to be relentlessly cheerful to everyone in my deep blue office. Because nothing, nothing is more annoying to a depressed person than someone who is constantly happy.

Any suggestions for tunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 12:56 PM (sbV1u)

38 What they're trying to do is depress GOP turnout. If your guy perceived to be doomed, it's pretty easy (especially if there aren't competitive down ticket races) to say "fuck it, my candidate can't win so why bother?" Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 22, 2012 04:53 PM (SY2Kh) Never heard of such a thing happening.

Posted by: Eff Chuck Todd at October 22, 2012 12:57 PM (4136b)

39 Unless you are making the assumption they(the polls)are IID, doesn't it sorta fall apart statistically?

Posted by: HoboJerky, 15 days at October 22, 2012 12:57 PM (xAtAj)

40 Nate Silver's model is plus-sized.

Make that plus-plus-sized.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 22, 2012 12:57 PM (T0NGe)

41 Allen G. blogged, Ace slogged.

Posted by: B. Frank at October 22, 2012 12:58 PM (eavT+)

42 40 Nate Silver's model is plus-sized.

Make that plus-plus-sized.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 22, 2012 04:57 PM (T0NGe)

It's just big-boned.

Posted by: joncelli at October 22, 2012 12:58 PM (RD7QR)

43 Off anal sock.

Posted by: dananjcon at October 22, 2012 12:58 PM (eavT+)

44 I find politics confusing, and all the noise and filth makes me angry

Posted by: Travis Bickle at October 22, 2012 12:58 PM (Dll6b)

45 Any suggestions for tunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them? Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 04:56 PM (sbV1u) America, the Beautiful

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 22, 2012 12:58 PM (X3lox)

46 I always suggest embracing the evil, so go with the imperial march. However, battle hymn of the republic is good, any john phillips souza is good.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 12:59 PM (QxSug)

47 I just want to see polls that will slightly depress Obama voters into thinking "just screw it" and stay home. The Romney voters are going to make those Chick-fil-A appreciation day lines look like a Sandra Fluke photo-op.

Posted by: Roy at October 22, 2012 12:59 PM (VndSC)

48 Any suggestions for tunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them? --- Anything that a young child would repeat incessantly. Bonus points go to doing the ABC song, Twinkle Twinkle, Baa Baa Black Sheep, etc., as they all use the same tune.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at October 22, 2012 12:59 PM (e0xKF)

49 37 Any suggestions fortunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them? Battle Hymn of the Republic? Yankee Doodle? It's a small world after all? (Last on guaranteed to make anyone commit suicide)

Posted by: rickb223 at October 22, 2012 12:59 PM (GFM2b)

50 14 Note to Dedicated 10ther-- I'm working on a Benghazi post linking your blog a lot but it's a slog. Posted by: ace at October 22, 2012 04:51 PM (LCRYB) O...M...G....

Posted by: BCochran1981 at October 22, 2012 01:00 PM (GEICT)

>>On November 7th, I am going to be relentlessly cheerful to everyone in my deep blue office. Because nothing, nothing is more annoying to a depressed person than someone who is constantly happy.

Yeh, I gotta start putting together Facebook albums with cute pictures of the kids, fuzzy kittens, etc. to post on Nov. 7th.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 22, 2012 01:00 PM (SUKHu)

52 Nate Silver's model is plus-sized.

That's how I like them.

Posted by: Sir Mix-a-Lot at October 22, 2012 01:00 PM (z9HTb)

53 Those that are hacks will forever be hacks thinking that they will be taken care of when whom they're hacking for "wins."

Sad, but unfortunate.

Posted by: © Sponge at October 22, 2012 01:01 PM (UK9cE)

54 If the networks told the truth about Ohio, the ad money would dry up overnight.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 22, 2012 01:01 PM (DRgeg)

55 America, the Beautifu Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 22, 2012 04:58 PM (X3lox)

Brilliant.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 01:01 PM (sbV1u)

56 Nate Silver is setting up a lot of DUmmies and KosSuckers for a very, very, big fall. I like it.

Posted by: eureka! at October 22, 2012 01:01 PM (cTjRR)

57 14 Note to Dedicated 10ther-- I'm working on a Benghazi post linking your blog a lot but it's a slog. Posted by: ace at October 22, 2012 04:51 PM (LCRYB) _______________ Stevens does an interesting thing--when he wants to highlight something he bookends it-- Comment.----------------.End comment.

Posted by: tasker at October 22, 2012 01:01 PM (r2PLg)

58 Geraghty at NRO recently quoted one of his insiders saying Ohio has tracked the national vote almost precisely for the last few elections, including 2008. Why would it break off now?

Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at October 22, 2012 01:01 PM (T+yaH)

>>Anything that a young child would repeat incessantly.

Sesame Street theme!!!!

Yelling out the "everything's a-okay" part, of course.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 22, 2012 01:01 PM (SUKHu)

60 I really can't wait for Election night ... I will be watching Nate's twitter feed and touching myself in inappropriate places from enjoying too much all the Democrat depression over their wonder boy stat man becoming an official hack. Nate Silver is a total joke and I don't even have to investigate his weighting of polls to know that.

Posted by: Brad at October 22, 2012 01:02 PM (4wewJ)

There is not logical reason to think that Obama is going to win reelection. We are a country that punishes Presidents on a lack of success. Why would anyone think this time is going to be different?

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:02 PM (gmeXX)

62 "The implication is that Nate Silver seems to be cherry-picking polls, perhaps unconsciously,....

Schyeah, right......

Posted by: Tami at October 22, 2012 01:02 PM (X6akg)

63 There's only one poll that accurately reflects not only turnout but the true election results; the poll taken on Nov 6th. All the others are just guesses and wild extrapolation.

Posted by: Soona at October 22, 2012 01:02 PM (vkBjn)

64 Note to Dedicated 10ther-- I'm working on a Benghazi post linking your blog a lot but it's a slog. Posted by: ace at October 22, 2012 04:51 PM (LCRYB)

Allen, I think he's saying you're a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable blogger.

Don't take that lying down.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 01:02 PM (sbV1u)

65 O...M...G.... Posted by: BCochran1981 at October 22, 2012 05:00 PM (GEICT) LOL. Now THAT's a lesson in perserverance!

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 22, 2012 01:02 PM (X3lox)

66 Any suggestions for tunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 04:56 PM (sbV1u)

'Hang Down Your Head, Tom Dooley' might do the trick

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 22, 2012 01:02 PM (DRgeg)

67 Any suggestions for tunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them? Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 04:56 PM (sbV1u) America (My Country Tis of Thee)?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at October 22, 2012 01:02 PM (GEICT)

68 latest national poll from my alma mater, Monmouth University, has Romney up 3, 48-45, was up 1 after first debate, and down 3 in September. And for those keeping score, Monmouth is not a right-leaning pollster, and has a D+4 model this time out.

Posted by: tofer732 at October 22, 2012 01:03 PM (Q797Y)

69 I'm working on a Benghazi post linking your blog a lot but it's a slog. Appreciate it, Ace. I hope you know I'm mostly just picking fun at you when I mention you haven't posted it yet. That said- I can only read so much at a time of those documents. I expect one more (maybe) tonight. They're incredibly depressing in light of what happened.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channeling Breitbart at October 22, 2012 01:03 PM (nUH8H)

70 61 There is not logical reason to think that Obama is going to win reelection. We are a country that punishes Presidents on a lack of success. Why would anyone think this time is going to be different?

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 05:02 PM (gmeXX)

Yoo-Hoo!

Posted by: 52% at October 22, 2012 01:03 PM (RD7QR)

71 I didn't mean Dedicated 10ther's posts are slogs. I meant it's a slog to get through all the info and digest the most important bits. One of the major problems with a blog, like my type of blog, is that *churn* is very important. The expected rhythm is about a post every half hour or so, or every forty minutes. that makes it difficult to work in doing a more involved piece. So, in answer to Dedicated 10ther's earlier question, "why haven't I written on this yet:" because stuff that can be written fast always has a big advantage to it.

Posted by: ace at October 22, 2012 01:03 PM (LCRYB)

72 whistle The Who's Won't Get Fooled Again

Posted by: soothsayer at October 22, 2012 01:03 PM (jUytm)

73 good point, re: ad money for Ohio. I've been in Florida during election cycles and the ad buys are insane, it's like radio static. Better to spread that money out to slightly bluer, yet swingable, less contested states. Shit, to more traditionally blue states as well (then again, md gets a lot of Va's spillover ads since we share the same radio and tv stations).

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:03 PM (QxSug)

74 ONE, ONE swing state for Romney! TWO, TWO swing states for Romney! THREE, THREE swing states for Romney! I loooove to count! AH AH AH!

Posted by: The Count - Who polls so much better than that cocksucking fuckweasel Silver at October 22, 2012 01:03 PM (g6f6y)

OT: Reply I received after I sent a letter of complaint to L'Oreal regarding Eva Longoria's tweets. She is their spokesperson.

October 22, 2012

Thank you for contacting L'OrÃ©al Paris on the Web to let us know how you feel about the advertising of our products. I love the way old Glenda twists this around as a free speech issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like everyone else, Eva Longoria has a right to her opinion. Ms. LongoriaÂ’s recent comments on Twitter and YouTube are not connected with us in any way. LÂ’Oreal Paris does not take sides on political issues.

We value you as a customer and assure you that your comments will be shared with our management.

Sincerely,
Glenda
Senior Advocate, Consumer Care Center
Ref # 6727507

Posted by: Cheri at October 22, 2012 01:04 PM (G+Wff)

76 Off anal sock. Only at the HQ will you see comments like this.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at October 22, 2012 01:04 PM (QupBk)

77 Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

The great Sliver demands it!

Posted by: Nate Sliver at October 22, 2012 01:04 PM (mg08E)

78 that's not whistle-able how about My Big Ten Inch?

Posted by: soothsayer at October 22, 2012 01:04 PM (jUytm)

79 Sometimes when you look at a mountain--you take it ten steps at a time. Or you farm it out.

Posted by: tasker at October 22, 2012 01:04 PM (r2PLg)

80 59 >>Anything that a young child would repeat incessantly. Sesame Street theme!!!! Yelling out the "everything's a-okay" part, of course. --- Daa daa daa-daa, daa daa daa-daa, Elmo's song...

Posted by: Multi-millionaire Kevin Clash at October 22, 2012 01:05 PM (e0xKF)

81 I like the D+4 model, it keeps us from getting cocky, although I can't imagine it being anything other than even with I's going strong Romney. HOWEVER, this year, there's no viable 3rd party candidate to siphon off the loons...the loons going in either direction. That's scary.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:05 PM (QxSug)

82 I like how he uses five decimal points in his weighting.

For more accurativity.

Posted by: Waterhouse at October 22, 2012 01:05 PM (POGCP)

83 you know what's a really annoying song to sing? ♪ I-i-i-i-i-i-i-i ain't got noBODYYYYY

Posted by: soothsayer at October 22, 2012 01:05 PM (jUytm)

84 actually, yeah, since Nader took what? 4% of vote in elections past, that's an extra 4 in obama's pocket, but should be offset by the I's going for R by 25 points.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:06 PM (QxSug)

85 74 ONE, ONE swing state for Romney! TWO, TWO swing states for Romney! THREE, THREE swing states for Romney! I loooove to count! AH AH AH! --- Today's number, Mr. Obama, is 270, and today's letters are "F" and "U".

Posted by: Oscar The Grouch at October 22, 2012 01:06 PM (e0xKF)

86 When was the last time this country had three successive 2-term presidents? It has been a very long time. One reasons is because someone is going to get caught in a terrible economic cycle, or cause and/or extend such terrible economic cycles (Carter, Obama). An Obama win was always going to buck certain trends, such as the fact that most incumbents increase their electoral count. Now like a lot of circumstantial eveidence, you can explain away each piece. But if Obama were to win, it would truly be an amazing election. I never saw any of those coming to fruition. Mitt will get 350 or more EVs.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:06 PM (gmeXX)

87 Ya the damn thing has an expiration date--and in the twitter age--it's probably dead already.

Posted by: tasker at October 22, 2012 01:07 PM (r2PLg)

88 The expected rhythm is about a post every half hour or so, or every forty minutes.

Lies!

Posted by: AoSHQ Mornings at October 22, 2012 01:07 PM (POGCP)

89 ♪ I-i-i-i-i-i-i-i ain't got noBODYYYYY Posted by: soothsayer at October 22, 2012 05:05 PM (jUytm)

If I could just get the David Lee Roth vocal fry down...it would be perfectly annoying.

POP inspired me, I think it would have to be Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American"

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 01:07 PM (sbV1u)

90 There hasn't been a viable third party canidate since Perot or really Teddy Roosevelt. Nader was a protest vote. The people that voted for him are too cool to vote for any other mainstream canidate anyway.

Posted by: Jolly Roger at October 22, 2012 01:07 PM (t06LC)

91 >>I didn't mean Dedicated 10ther's posts are slogs. I meant it's a slog to get through all the info and digest the most important bits. The most important questions are why did Obama ignore all the warnings and what was so important that Stevens felt the need to go to Benghazi, a place he knew was an al Qaeda hive and where they were launching attacks on allies, to meet with the Turkish consul general? Follow the weapons.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 22, 2012 01:07 PM (TMB3S)

92 We've gone full blown metapoll: From discussing, polls, to discussing discussions about polls, to discussing discussions, discussing discussions, about polls. There must be some sort of abstract philosophical ism for what we are doing to ourselves.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Regular! With Full Stomping Power! at October 22, 2012 01:08 PM (0q2P7)

93 Mitt will get 350 or more EVs.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 05:06 PM (gmeXX)

No. It will be closer than that, maybe much closer.

Posted by: joncelli at October 22, 2012 01:08 PM (RD7QR)

94 I like how he uses five decimal points in his weighting. For more accurativity. Posted by: Waterhouse at October 22, 2012 05:05 PM (POGCP) Reminds me of Barky's Porkulus stats - back in the day - that would detail "jobs saved or created" by the Porkulus to 2 decimal points. Another leftist thing. Decimals imply science. "reduce premiums by 3000%" implies ... more science.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 22, 2012 01:08 PM (X3lox)

95 I think Romney needs to come off as peaceful tonight, and leave the sabre-rattling to Obama - if that happens I think we've got it in the bag.

Posted by: Joe at October 22, 2012 01:08 PM (Duv7q)

96 For more accurativity. I thought it was for positronic traction.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra impact. at October 22, 2012 01:08 PM (VtjlW)

97 The reason I doubt Romney loses Ohio if he wins the popular is 2008: Obama *underperformed* there four years ago.

That's not a 100 percent guarantee--Ohioans may like Romney less than McCain--but it means that if across-the-board voters like Obama a lot less than four years ago, he should lose.

Last time I looked, Silver had Obama's chance of flipping a state McCain took as less than 1 percent. That's another measure that Obama's loss of popularity is *national*.

It would be very odd if Obama's popularity is eroding everywhere but not as much in Ohio. Hillary beat him by about 8 1/2 points or more than 200,000 votes in the Democratic primary. He's never been exceptionally popular there.

Romney can win Ohio and will almost certainly win it if he wins the national popular vote.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 22, 2012 01:09 PM (vouc9)

Re: Benghazi attack

They fought them off for hours.

The reports seem to vary...about how many hours.

The Bret Baer Special mentioned "8 hours"....I think...or was it "6 hours".

Either way, there was time for them to send in someone to help them.

The big question is, why didn't they?

Posted by: wheatie at October 22, 2012 01:09 PM (ipkPX)

99 I'm still at a loss for why Nate Silver is the gold standard?

He's had, like, one in a row, right?

He's like that chubby first baseman from AAA they bring up who hits a dinger in his first game, and you have him penciled in to be your team's power hitting first baseman for the next twelve years, but it never works out.

Also, weren't his predictions in 2008 based upon O! internal polling data that they were feeding him?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at October 22, 2012 01:09 PM (mg08E)

100 I saw this same thing and went: whuh?

How does he assign these precise percentages to these polls?

Annd like Ace, I noticed A TREND in the ones that were high and A TREND in the ones that were low.

Strangely enough they tracked Mr. Silver current level of ass hattery and liberal leaning.

Posted by: Jcw46 at October 22, 2012 01:09 PM (Vh0f5)

101 @90, not going to disagree, HRP (hey, herpes) gave us Uncle Bill (wow, there's probably a semi-funny joke hidden in there) true. But Nader helped us get the ribbon in 2000 considering how close it was.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:09 PM (QxSug)

102 >>>HOWEVER, this year, there's no viable 3rd party candidate to siphon off the loons...the loons going in either direction.

Rosanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan ain't loony enough for you?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Regular! With Full Stomping Power! at October 22, 2012 01:09 PM (0q2P7)

103 86 When was the last time this country had three successive 2-term presidents? --- Best guess is Jefferson-Madison-Monroe. We went a long time without two-term Presidents between roughly Andrew Jackson and Lincoln while a lot of other time periods had place-holders because a President died and his VP took over, such as Truman for FDR between FDR's 4 elections and Eisenhower's 2 elections.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at October 22, 2012 01:09 PM (e0xKF)

104 While we ask questions about "The Model" I'd like to see some questions asked about the state fundamentals part of the formula. Why does Obama get the edge in the Presidential but then Mandel does in the senate. Interesting huh? Even more of a discrepancy in Wisconsin, though I guess Thompson probably carrys some name cred, but then so would Ryan right? It's very dubious stuff indeed.

Posted by: Dave S. at October 22, 2012 01:10 PM (GX2fm)

105 92 We've gone full blown metapoll: From discussing, polls, to discussing discussions about polls, to discussing discussions, discussing discussions, about polls. There must be some sort of abstract philosophical ism for what we are doing to ourselves.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Regular! With Full Stomping Power! at October 22, 2012 05:08 PM (0q2P7)

Onanism. Although it's more a way of life than a philosophy.

Posted by: joncelli at October 22, 2012 01:10 PM (RD7QR)

106 Nate Silver -- wasn't he the belly button whistler in Groundhog Day?

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at October 22, 2012 01:10 PM (0It32)

107 I think Romney needs to come off as peaceful tonight, and leave the sabre-rattling to Obama - if that happens I think we've got it in the bag Yeah. Romney's not selling himself to us, mores the pity, but to the mushy middle. He's going to use the Middle East instability to segue to energy independence and American jobs. You watch.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at October 22, 2012 01:10 PM (QupBk)

108 >>> Geraghty at NRO recently quoted one of his insiders saying Ohio has tracked the national vote almost precisely for the last few elections, including 2008. Why would it break off now? lightworker

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee at October 22, 2012 01:10 PM (u8eBQ)

109 OT: Reply I received after I sent a letter of complaint to L'Oreal regarding Eva Longoria's tweets. She is their spokesperson.

Personally I wish more companies would do the same in response to such complaints.

This idea that a business must be held responsible for any and every statement made by anyone associated with it has gotten out of hand.

Practically every item you've ever bought was produced, marketed, or sold by a company who employs at least one person who has publicly said something stupid.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 22, 2012 01:10 PM (SY2Kh)

110

Bush 41 won in a rout, had one of the highest public approval ratings of all time (yes, b/c of a war, but still), a war hero and was up against a relatively unknown govenor from a small state who had a lot of baggage. Yet he lost. (Yes, there were lots of various reasons - read my lips, perot, etc.). But the bottom line is the country was struggling domestically. You just don't win reelection in that kind of environment. Obama will be punished on election day.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:10 PM (gmeXX)

111 I have been guilty of cherry picking polls as well. I have been paying more attention to the polls that reflect that illegal fund raising is... well... illegal. Unfortunately for me, those particular polls don't seem to be getting widespread attention.

Posted by: HtP at October 22, 2012 01:10 PM (jx2j9)

112 Any suggestions for tunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 04:56 PM (sbV1u)

Anything by Yoko Ono

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 22, 2012 01:11 PM (DRgeg)

113 Any suggestions for tunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 22, 2012 04:56 PM (sbV1u)

--------

"If You're Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands"

Posted by: mama winger gets to vote for Paul Ryan TWICE at October 22, 2012 01:11 PM (P6QsQ)

114 **Hillary beat him by about 8 1/2 points or more than 200,000 votes in the Democratic primary. He's never been exceptionally popular there.** stuff like this is good gouge. Democrats will fall in line, only if they fall in love. Ohio is Romney's true and through because they don't love him. It's time to start picking up bluer states.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:12 PM (QxSug)

115 We have reviewed Nate Silver's methodology, find absolutely no issue with it, and will be incorporating it into our results.

Posted by: Climate Scientists at October 22, 2012 01:12 PM (feFL6)

116 Who's munching who's carpet?

Posted by: Redd at October 22, 2012 01:12 PM (RoEtU)

117

>>There must be some sort of abstract
philosophical ism for what we are doing to ourselves.

Procrastinating?

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 22, 2012 01:12 PM (SUKHu)

118 These polls are voodoo, and perhaps, poopoo.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at October 22, 2012 01:12 PM (fKrgS)

119

No. It will be closer than that, maybe much closer.

----

No, it won't. Ha. I guess we will have to wait until election day to find out.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:12 PM (gmeXX)

120 There must be some sort of abstract philosophical ism for what we are doing to ourselves.

Mental masturbation.

Enjoy!

Posted by: Jcw46 at October 22, 2012 01:13 PM (Vh0f5)

121 -- Mitt needs to be subtle, very subtle --Mitt also needs to express firmness, but not vocally --Mitt wins tonight by not losing. --Mitt needs to show calm and silent strength. -- Mitt's criticism of Obama will be done in broad strokes so the idiots in Rio Linde can follow along.

Posted by: soothsayer's keys to the debate at October 22, 2012 01:13 PM (jUytm)

122 I kind of hate InTrade. It gives the impression of being a predictive device but it'd really s lagging indicator and/or bullshit device for monnied low-information types.

Posted by: @ParisParamus at October 22, 2012 01:13 PM (YDcdB)

123 Posted by: mama winger gets to vote for Paul Ryan TWICE at October 22, 2012 05:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9NZnpleU0s

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at October 22, 2012 01:13 PM (0It32)

124 91 >>I didn't mean Dedicated 10ther's posts are slogs. I meant it's a slog to get through all the info and digest the most important bits. The most important questions are why did Obama ignore all the warnings and what was so important that Stevens felt the need to go to Benghazi, a place he knew was an al Qaeda hive and where they were launching attacks on allies, to meet with the Turkish consul general? Follow the weapons. Posted by: JackStraw at October 22, 2012 05:07 PM (TMB3S) _______________ Okay I know where you are leading with that bu-- #1) Business Insider--the reputation --I know a lot of people that will scream at me for siting them. #2) What they have is poorly sourced. #3) The Obama admin might have motivation to discredit or make Stevens less sympathetic. #4) Even if all of what they say is true--it still doesn't answer why they denied Steven's requests but it makes the case for--"Defending Stevens" lose support on both the Left and the Right. #5) First reports from foreign sources as poorly sourced as BI were --Stevens was in Benghazi to try and get the production and distribution of Libyan oil ramped up. Benghazi is an oil transport center in Libya. A large Libyan oil company is headquartered there iirc

Posted by: tasker at October 22, 2012 01:14 PM (r2PLg)

125 Romney & Sabre Rattling. I think the whole public is a little bit warred out. But really, who would Romney be shaking a sabre at? China, Russia? I think he needs to establish a Afghan doctrine, maybe desurgify and reestablish the commando war supporting non taliban forces. Otherwise, how could R be more belligerent than Obama? More competent, yes, but belligerent? no.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:14 PM (QxSug)

126 Come play with us Danny, and we can poll forever and ever

Posted by: The creepy Shining twins at October 22, 2012 01:14 PM (Y//vu)

127 We've gone full blown metapoll: From discussing, polls, to discussing discussions about polls, to discussing discussions, discussing discussions, about polls. There must be some sort of abstract philosophical ism for what we are doing to ourselves.

48.2% of readers disagree with your statement, with 8.7% undecided.

The poll sample was 65/35 fapper / non-fapper.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 22, 2012 01:14 PM (SY2Kh)

128 Trump bombshell on Drudge? It's got to be the O college transcripts.

Posted by: Interested Party at October 22, 2012 01:14 PM (KAISi)

129 Romney needs to get a hat on a hat.

Posted by: John Madden gets a little confused. at October 22, 2012 01:14 PM (POGCP)

130

Regarding Ohio, it begs the question if it is wise to spend so much money in Ohio? If Ohio basically follows the national vote, does spending money there do much?

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:15 PM (gmeXX)

131 And ever

Posted by: The creepy Shining twins at October 22, 2012 01:15 PM (Y//vu)

132 Bush 41 won in a rout, had one of the highest public approval ratings of all time (yes, b/c of a war, but still), a war hero and was up against a relatively unknown govenor from a small state who had a lot of baggage. Yet he lost. (Yes, there were lots of various reasons - read my lips, perot, etc.). But the bottom line is the country was struggling domestically. You just don't win reelection in that kind of environment. Obama will be punished on election day.

While I think, hope and pray that Romney wins - I think this is not as true as it once was. If it were, Romney would be leading by quite a bit in the polls right now. I think the country is more divided ideologically than it was in 1992 or 1980.

Also, the media has become much more aggressive in its bias. the usual slate of homeless stories, people out of work stories, and 24/7 stories about how bad the economy is only happens now when a republican is president. For Obama, they instead try to spin everything as good economic news.

Add to that the real demographic changes in America over the last 50 years, and I think it is possible for a president who is as big of a failure as Obama to get reelected. I hope not, but I think it is actually possible.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 22, 2012 01:15 PM (sOx93)

133 When we win Nov 6th, I want a gigantic (and I mean gigantic) flaming skull with Kate Upton dancing a devil dance on top. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Posted by: Soona at October 22, 2012 01:15 PM (vkBjn)

134 96 For more accurativity. I thought it was for positronic traction. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra impact. at October 22, 2012 05:08 PM (VtjlW) Not available on the 64 Buick Skylark

Posted by: BCochran1981 at October 22, 2012 01:15 PM (GEICT)

135 Posted by: LC LaWedgie at October 22, 2012 05:13 PM (0It32)

------------

HA!

Posted by: mama winger gets to vote for Paul Ryan TWICE at October 22, 2012 01:16 PM (P6QsQ)

136 The Turkish diplomat was the last person he met with--not the only person--or meeting he had that day.

Posted by: tasker at October 22, 2012 01:16 PM (r2PLg)

137

3 Ahem. So Silver's hauling the polls to the Russian Arctic, cutting them open, counting the rings and then only using five of them? (Fuck yes I'm using this until the end of time)

--------

Kind of like that one bristlecone pine that caused the hockey stick.

Posted by: Anachronda at October 22, 2012 01:16 PM (FzhYM)

138 Regarding Ohio, it begs the question if it is wise to spend so much money in Ohio? If Ohio basically follows the national vote, does spending money there do much?

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 05:15 PM (gmeXX)

if it's truly that close, you can't take the chance. You have to spend in Ohio.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 22, 2012 01:16 PM (sOx93)

139 129 Trump bombshell on Drudge? It's got to be the O college transcripts. --- Not necessarily... Have they got the paperwork for his financial aid?

Posted by: House of Saud at October 22, 2012 01:17 PM (e0xKF)

140 John Madden: Remember ARAPAHO? You used to say it a lot when you were on FOX with Summerall. (Do you miss those two? I do.) Madden loved to explain that an ARAPAHO can be A Run, A Pass, A Hit, Or.... I screwed it up. What is it, again? fuk it I'll do it live!

Posted by: soothsayerwing plover at October 22, 2012 01:17 PM (jUytm)

141 I kind of hate InTrade. It gives the impression of being a predictive device but it'd really s lagging indicator and/or bullshit device for monnied low-information types.

Posted by: @ParisParamus at October 22, 2012 05:13 PM (YDcdB)

It has the virtue of making them unmonnied low information types though.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 22, 2012 01:17 PM (z1N6a)

142 "Regarding Ohio, it begs the question if it is wise to spend so much money in Ohio? If Ohio basically follows the national vote, does spending money there do much?"

I think you still need to get your message out in Ohio. Perhaps if your message is calibrated to do well in Ohio it works elsewhere?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at October 22, 2012 01:17 PM (mg08E)

143 Jordan notes that Silver had access to the Obama campaign's internal polling in 2008; what about the possibility that they're feeding him internals that they know are nonsense in order to influence his "The Model"?

Posted by: Occam's Safety Razor at October 22, 2012 01:17 PM (8Mgrk)

144

One thing to watch out for tonight: the TV audience is going to tilt left, quite significantly, because of the broadcast competition from the NFL and from the NL's 7th game. Tilting the audience left is also going to tilt the response to the snap "who won" polls...

Posted by: Frederick Stephan at October 22, 2012 01:17 PM (khZbv)

145 *citing* them

Posted by: tasker at October 22, 2012 01:18 PM (r2PLg)

146

I've always thought that Romney in his convention speech should have simply said he was going to bring the troops home Afghanistan. I have no interest in building that country up. If we need to go in and take out a camp, we can go in at any time.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:18 PM (gmeXX)

147 Is he using math to prove Nate's a hack?

Posted by: Jean at October 22, 2012 01:19 PM (duqON)

148 I wonder what the viewership is going to be tonight. Monday Night Football vs Game 7 of the NLCS vs Third in a Series of Debates. I bet there are a good number of people who will watch the 2 games, and maybe just flip over to check out the debate during commercial breaks that happen to coincide.

Lots of people have already seen the first two - will there be that much of a draw to watch the 3rd, if there are two ballgames on?

Posted by: mama winger gets to vote for Paul Ryan TWICE at October 22, 2012 01:19 PM (P6QsQ)

149

There may be an opportunity at Intrade caused by a lot of otherwise sensible gamblers making the mistake of relying on Mr. SilverÂ’s Â“conclusionsÂ”. Is there another explanation why current Intrade odds differ from RCP polling averages?

Posted by: oldbrokedick at October 22, 2012 01:19 PM (tICTz)

150 It is said of Silver that he picked 49 of 50 states correctly in 2008 (Indiana, I think, is the one he missed).

What would be more impressive is if he picked states against the spread. Boasting about 49 out of 50 when easily 40 of those are a lock is self-inflation.

The other thing is in 2008 Obama did better than expected everywhere. So a slight Obama bias would have served you well in that election.

I'm more impressed by the record Silver claims regarding Senate races, but then I know less about that myself, so it's easier to impress me. I would have a terrible time predicting senate outcomes.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 22, 2012 01:19 PM (vouc9)

151 Lots of people have already seen the first two - will there be that much of a draw to watch the 3rd, if there are two ballgames on? No. So get your water cooler patter ready.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at October 22, 2012 01:20 PM (QupBk)

152 Trump bombshell on Drudge?

It's got to be the O college transcripts.

It's Donald Trump.

There's a 92% chance that his "bombshell" will be self-serving, meaningless bullshit.

I'll consider ourselves lucky if it does less harm than good.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 22, 2012 01:20 PM (SY2Kh)

153 Romney & Sabre Rattling. I think the whole public is a little bit warred out. But really, who would Romney be shaking a sabre at? China, Russia? I think he needs to establish a Afghan doctrine, maybe desurgify and reestablish the commando war supporting non taliban forces.

Otherwise, how could R be more belligerent than Obama? More competent, yes, but belligerent? no.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 05:14 PM (QxSug)

-------------------------------------------------

I could go for a covert SF-type was in Afghanistan. But only if the ROE's were changed to "kill 'em, kill 'em and then forget 'em".

Posted by: Soona at October 22, 2012 01:20 PM (vkBjn)

154 There won't be an election.

3 days before the election jujubees will rain from the sky. All stores will close because everyone will be eating jujubees. Since the stores will be closed no one will be able to buy pencils for the election.

And then after the election, pencils will arrive by the truckload.

Posted by: ratsnuts [/i] [/b] at October 22, 2012 01:20 PM (DKxu1)

155 Its not a model if it requires the original author to be available to "weight" the individual polling outfits on a week-by-week basis.

Posted by: Serious Cat at October 22, 2012 01:20 PM (UypUQ)

156 Six degrees of murderous separation: http://tinyurl.com/9rl2sp5

Posted by: HtP at October 22, 2012 01:22 PM (jx2j9)

157 I wonder what the viewership is going to be tonight.

I was listening to a sports radio station today where the sports dude asked ten people 'on the street' -- eight said Monday Night Football, one said WS, one said debates.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at October 22, 2012 01:22 PM (feFL6)

158 >>>so the idiots in Rio Linde

It's "Rio Linda" it's just outside Sacramento. Home of Rush's early broadcasting days. If you're going to rag on it, at least get the name right.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Regular! With Full Stomping Power! at October 22, 2012 01:22 PM (0q2P7)

159

While I think, hope and pray that Romney wins - I think this is not as true as it once was. If it were, Romney would be leading by quite a bit in the polls right now. I think the country is more divided ideologically than it was in 1992 or 1980.

I'm not sure that is true. Reagan was losing to Carter at this point. I am also of the belief that the Bush elections were the aberrations. They were much closer than most elections of the past 100 years. Obama's victory started the trend away from this. We'll see if it continues.

Also, the media has become much more aggressive in its bias. the usual slate of homeless stories, people out of work stories, and 24/7 stories about how bad the economy is only happens now when a republican is president. For Obama, they instead try to spin everything as good economic news.

Yes, but the media no longer has the control it used to have. It is no longer the lone outlet.

Add to that the real demographic changes in America over the last 50 years, and I think it is possible for a president who is as big of a failure as Obama to get reelected. I hope not, but I think it is actually possible.

The Demographic changes may have already peaked for the Democrats. They should start losing the demographic advantage. The future belongs to those who produce. That is conservatives.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:23 PM (gmeXX)

160

143 - No need to feed Silver nonsense - what he claims he's doing is, statistically speaking, nonsense, and his bias has always been clear. Now, as to whether they're coordinating the stories they're telling...their actions speak loudly.

As for his "credentials", as I've written before, anyone who bothered to read a nationwide poll in 2008 got between 47 and 50 states right (plus D.C., of course), and it was just a matter of luck whether someone got IN, MO, and/or NC right - even a perfect poll with 40,000 respondents wouldn't have necessarily produced the correct winner in any of those states.

Posted by: Frederick Stephan at October 22, 2012 01:23 PM (khZbv)

161 spelling is for homos

Posted by: soothsayer at October 22, 2012 01:23 PM (jUytm)

162 140 John Madden: Remember ARAPAHO? ARAPAHO? I didn't know she was a ho!

Posted by: rickb223 at October 22, 2012 01:24 PM (fwfIz)

163

Sorry about my post at 159. I tried to use italics and failed. It is hard to read. Oh well.

My main point - as it has been for about 2 weeks. Obama is going to lose, and he is going to lose big.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:24 PM (gmeXX)

164 >>Business Insider--the reputation --I know a lot of people that will scream at me for siting them. I'm not referring to Business Insider. There are lots of other sources for factual information including in the Bret Baier piece on Fox. Last meeting Stevens had was with the Turkish consul. Tow of Stevens killers were captured in Turkey in route to Libya. The guy Steven, who was our liaison to the Libyan rebels and who is a known terrorist is now in Syria and has been for some time. Shoulder fired missiles are showing up in large quantities in Syria. Up to 20,000 shoulder fired missiles have disappeared from Libya since the fall of Gaddafi. It goes on and on. Obama has instituted a policy of working with terrorists like Iran, the Taliban and the MB because he thinks he can negotiate with them. He's an idiot but this is the result of that policy. The CIA has also been part of the weapons movement since Obama signed an intelligence finding in August to allow them to funnel weapons to the Syrian rebels, many of who are Islamic terrorists and Libyans to boot. This may explain why they are doing their damnedest to pretend the youtube garbage is still relevant, they are in this up to their hips.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 22, 2012 01:25 PM (TMB3S)

165 O/T Bob Beckel just dismissed Libya by saying something along the lines of, while four people died, in the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of other things to talk about. Desperation. Stay classy, dirtbag.

Posted by: Dante at October 22, 2012 01:25 PM (NWLVJ)

166 I carried the ball 99.5% of the length of the field.

Posted by: Earnest Byner at October 22, 2012 01:25 PM (Ec6wH)

167 you shoulda said Arapaho? I swear I never touched her!

Posted by: soothsayer at October 22, 2012 01:26 PM (jUytm)

168 Tonight I predict Romney pulls Obama's Underwear up over his head and Tomorrow Obama announces Airstrikes on Aspirin Factories in Libya..

Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka Ali Muhammad Surpra-izi Amin U'rbu T'hol wright at October 22, 2012 01:26 PM (ovpNn)

169

I was going to suggest an non political political post by suggesting listing top political movies of all time. Then it came to me that almost every political movie was either pro liberal or anti conservative movie. A few were apolitical. Thus I don't know if many here actually enjoyed more than a few movies of this genre.

I can think of only a few I liked and they are all old.

All The Kings Men

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

Manchurian Candidate

Posted by: polynikes at October 22, 2012 01:27 PM (m2CN7)

170

The Donald should create a new Apprentice for useful democratic idiot activists like Cindy Sheehan and Sandra Fluke. Maybe even Al Gore.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:27 PM (gmeXX)

171 165 O/T
Bob Beckel just dismissed Libya by saying something along the lines of, while four people died, in the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of other things to talk about.

Desperation. Stay classy, dirtbag.

Posted by: Dante at October 22, 2012 05:25 PM (NWLVJ)

Bob Beckel is that loveable chubby uncle who is wrong on everything but is still great fun to have around because he says fuck at the most inopportune moments.

Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka Ali Muhammad Surpra-izi Amin U'rbu T'hol wright at October 22, 2012 01:27 PM (ovpNn)

172

I remember hearing last year, how "anyone can beat" Barky.

Remember all those polls that showed a 'Generic Republican' winning by a big margin?

So what has changed?

Posted by: wheatie at October 22, 2012 01:27 PM (ipkPX)

173 will the JEF take the opportunity to "mourn" the passing of "community organizer" Russell Means. Bet he does

Posted by: Thunderb at October 22, 2012 01:28 PM (Dnbau)

174 Is it just me, or does anyone recall how two months ago, the MSM was trying to create tales of internal strife of the romney campaign? Lolz, that romney and his real world executive experience, what good would that be in righting an allegedly listing ship? romney don't play, he just win.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:28 PM (QxSug)

175 165 O/T Bob Beckel just dismissed Libya by saying something along the lines of, while four people died, in the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of other things to talk about. Desperation. Stay classy, dirtbag. Posted by: Dante at October 22, 2012 05:25 PM (NWLVJ) No one ever talks about the 8 harriers and the dead pilot do they?

Posted by: cajun carrot at October 22, 2012 01:28 PM (UZQM8)

176 Obama is practicing his outraged face in front of a mirror and learning how to say The Notion that blah blah blah...I FIND OFFENSIVE with less smirk and more smile.

Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka Ali Muhammad Surpra-izi Amin U'rbu T'hol wright at October 22, 2012 01:28 PM (ovpNn)

177 #61 - see Rush's conversations regarding nfl quarterbacks

Posted by: NoBama12 at October 22, 2012 01:28 PM (ykY2u)

178 Well. That explains why every time I enter the winning horses for the season into Nate's model, I get a hockey stick graph...

Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at October 22, 2012 01:29 PM (GBXon)

179 Ah, there's the beckel we know. He almost had glimmers of self awareness last week.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:29 PM (QxSug)

180 Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka Ali Muhammad Surpra-izi Amin U'rbu T'hol wright at October 22, 2012 05:28 PM

He's so busy trying to put together coherent sentences without having his teleprompter, he doesn't have time for faces.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at October 22, 2012 01:30 PM (0It32)

181 so, obama's fate relies on a lefty being offended? Lolz, that's the only thing the leftists are good at. But I think that checking account is overdrawn.

Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at October 22, 2012 01:30 PM (QxSug)

182 Bob Beckel just dismissed Libya by saying something along the lines of, while four people died, in the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of other things to talk about.

-------------------

In terms of foreign policy, I would think the fact that we encouraged de-stabilization of a country in a volatile part of the world, put an ambassador there with no security and no back-up, failed to listen to the reports that the situation was deteriorating, watched impotently as our ambassador and 3 other Americans were murdered over a period of several hours, made no move to aid them, blamed an innocent civilian for their deaths, jailed him, lied about it for political advantage so that you could win an election, and still are trying to stonewall the American people about it

a big f*n deal

Posted by: mama winger gets to vote for Paul Ryan TWICE at October 22, 2012 01:31 PM (P6QsQ)

183 Generic polls better against unpopular incumbents.

Generic Democrat won in 2004, too.

Hard to run negative ads against a generic.

Also, Obama's popularity is up a bit.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 22, 2012 01:31 PM (vouc9)

184 Obama has instituted a policy of working with terrorists like Iran, the Taliban and the MB because he thinks he can negotiate with them. He's an idiot but this is the result of that policy. The CIA has also been part of the weapons movement since Obama signed an intelligence finding in August to allow them to funnel weapons to the Syrian rebels, many of who are Islamic terrorists and Libyans to boot. This may explain why they are doing their damnedest to pretend the youtube garbage is still relevant, they are in this up to their hips. Posted by: JackStraw at October 22, 2012 05:25 PM (TMB3S) this this this this this Muslim Brotherhood and its surrogates have been frequent flyers to the White House. CIA will not turn on the JEF cause it will reveal they are cooperating with Islamacists, and they are all arabphiles. Remember Jennifer Power was one of the JEFs big advisors on the ME. The video was a ruse to hide what they are really doing in the ME, which goes directly against our interests. Treason

Posted by: Thunderb at October 22, 2012 01:33 PM (Dnbau)

185 A small bit of wonkery... I'm a professional statistician on the math side and not the survey side. If I were to construct a model, assuming I was happy w my inputs (and not D+10) there would be a "national-effect" and a "local-effect"... There is some issue with time-based analytics so I'll ignore it. Generally, locations can do what they will but it is fair to say that if locals are pushing one way then we can use that to infer about everybody else if that tends to be the overall pattern. Likewise, if there's a national trend then many local areas will march in step. Now squaring these isn't necessarily straight-forward. I would also say that silver is not a stat modeler they way I view the world, so while his model may appear complex and it might have some utility, it's more a matter of throwing things into a blender rather than setting up structures. Good work in advanced statistical methods is done by relating a plausible structure. Other methods are done in the absence of the ability to do so.

Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at October 22, 2012 01:33 PM (ytax8)

186 It has been pointed out somewhere that Ohio's actually unemployment number is over 10%. The only reason the rate shows lower?

People have stopped looking for work and have dropped out of the work force.

We will take Ohio.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at October 22, 2012 01:35 PM (wR+pz)

187 I remember hearing last year, how "anyone can beat" Barky.

Remember all those polls that showed a 'Generic Republican' winning by a big margin?

So what has changed?

Nothing. Statements like "any Republican can beat Obama" was stupid then, and it remains stupid now.

The lesson to be learned is- don't listen to people prone to saying stupid shit like "I'm tired of The Establishment picking our candidates for us" and "Electability doesn't matter".

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 22, 2012 01:38 PM (SY2Kh)

188 Regarding Intrade, I do think it's a good time to short Obama or buy Romney. If Romney does well in the debate--and the odds are good of that--then the market will have to move toward 50 - 50 soon.

Unless Obama wins tonight, no way he's still the favorite. And I don't see him winning. It could be closer than the first debate, but every debate Romney holds his own or edges 0, he grows stronger.

Foreign policy isn't Romney's wheelhouse, but you know he's going to come prepared. He's smart and speaks better on his feet than Obama does. The format is the one in which he cleans house and Obama sucks.

After tonight, you won't be able to get 3-2 odds any more.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at October 22, 2012 01:38 PM (vouc9)

189 "I would also say that silver is not a stat modeler they way I view the world, so while his model may appear complex and it might have some utility, it's more a matter of throwing things into a blender rather than setting up structures."

It does have the effect of looking complicated, which is like catnip to your self-regarded elite Leftist.

From what numbermuncher says, it is a Rube Goldberg machine with a bunch of levers and pulleys to arrive at "Obama wins!"

Posted by: Alec Leamas at October 22, 2012 01:39 PM (mg08E)

190 If I could figure out how to open and inter trade account I would load up right now.

Tomorrow is going to be to late to make the big money. People will be selling the shit out of Barry at about midnight.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at October 22, 2012 01:39 PM (wR+pz)

191 The IPT made the discovery combing through millions of White House visitor log entries. IPT compared the visitors' names with lists of known radical Islamists. Among the visitors were officials representing groups which have: ~Been designated by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist trials; Extolled Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas and Hizballah; ~Obstructed terrorist investigations by instructing their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement; ~Promoted the incendiary conspiratorial allegation that the United States is engaged in a "war against Islam"Â— a leading tool in recruiting Muslims to carry out acts of terror; ~Repeatedly claimed that many of the Islamic terrorists convicted since 9-11 were framed by the U.S government as part of an anti-Muslim profiling campaign. from the JAWA report the JEF sent weapons to these assholes

Posted by: Thunderb at October 22, 2012 01:39 PM (Dnbau)

192 "Other methods are done in the absence of the ability to do so."

Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at October 22, 2012 05:33 PM (ytax

That's a very polite criticism.

Please leave...you aren't welcome here. Take that shit someplace else.

[hopefully I don't need the /sarc...but just in case]

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 22, 2012 01:41 PM (2b4yb)

193

Any suggestions for tunes I should whistle until it sounds like nails on a blackboard for them?

Mr. Roger's theme song.

Zippidy-do-dah, etc from Song of the South. Has the bonus benefit of being....wait for it.....waasist.

Posted by: The Choir at October 22, 2012 01:41 PM (OBDWE)

194 Good work in advanced statistical methods is done by relating a plausible structure. Other methods are done in the absence of the ability to do so.

Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at October 22, 2012 05:33 PM (ytax

-------------------------------------

And the biggest factor is only being able to report what people say instead of reading their minds.

Posted by: Soona at October 22, 2012 01:41 PM (vkBjn)

195 Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 22, 2012 05:38 PM (SY2Kh)

RINO!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 22, 2012 01:44 PM (2b4yb)

196 Russell Means had a helluva sweat lodge, let me tell you.

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at October 22, 2012 01:45 PM (IoNBC)

197 The popular vote almost always coincides with the winner of the electoral college. The single presidential election (that wasn't fraught with fraud or irregularities) where the popular vote winner didn't win was George W. Bush in 2000. Well, I kinda take that back because there was lots of pro-Gore fraud in Florida, just not enough to drag him across the finish line in first place. For an insight into the three other elections where the popular vote winner didn't win the electoral college vote read: http://presidentelect.org/art_evpvdisagree.html They were all from the 19th century, so I'm not too worried about that kind of stuff reoccurring nowadays. Bottom line: There is a remote possibility Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. And though it's very remote, it's worth keeping an eye on. The odds, however, of a presidential candidate winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote twice in twelve years is astonishingly low. This is just more media bullshit to keep their viewership high, confuse the undecided dolts and rake in more $$$ from campaign ads.

Posted by: Ed Anger at October 22, 2012 01:46 PM (tOkJB)

198 176 No one ever talks about the 8 harriers and the dead pilot do they? -------- Meh. Just another not optimal occurrence. Nothing significant, like binders full of wimminz.

Posted by: Anachronda at October 22, 2012 01:47 PM (IrbU4)

199

"Josh Jordan, aka NumbersMucher, looks at Nate Silver's much-heralded "The Model""

Numbers, we MUCH!!

Posted by: Al "The Pal" Sharpton at October 22, 2012 01:49 PM (lQCe+)

200

The lesson to be learned is- don't listen to people prone to saying stupid shit like "I'm tired of The Establishment picking our candidates for us" and "Electability doesn't matter".

---

I still think anyone could have beaten Obama, meaning if Perry or Santorum had won the primary, I think they could have beaten Obama too. There is no way to prove me wrong of course which is nice. But I think Obama was basically going to lose. Regardless, Romney has run a very nice campaign, and if he wins he will be vindicated as the right pick.

Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 01:50 PM (gmeXX)

201 ...unless the national vote is extremely close (1%, 1.5% separating winner from loser) it is mathematically very unlikely the national vote winner will diverge from the electoral college winner.

Yes, well, here we are, Ace. Even unlikely things happen. The national vote might be that close (although I doubt it). That's one thing.

The other is: Just as you pointed out, Ohio may be diverging from the national avg for its own reasons. Enough so that it's not quite as "swingy" this time as it has been. The polls have shown a several point gap between the national numbers and Ohio for quite a while, which seems to confirm that.

So let's not get too excited about what defines a swing state or assume that because people give Ohio that label, it therefore isn't likely to buck the national trend too significantly. Ohio may be just far enough in Obama's camp that Mitt will need more than just a couple percent lead in the popular. He may need 5 or 6 six points. And he may get it. I hope so. But either way, it's ALL about Ohio, and it's going to be a tough place for Romney to win. He'd better get the ground game in top shape there.

Posted by: Cornfed at October 22, 2012 02:01 PM (Hoy9u)

202
Josh Jordan, aka NumbersMucher, looks at Nate Silver's much-heralded "The Model""

Begun the AspergerÂ’s War has

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 22, 2012 02:07 PM (kdS6q)

203 Since 1964, the Republican presidential candidate has underperformed only twice - 1964 and 1972, in Ohio relative to that candidate's national performance. In 2004 it was a wash.

Posted by: perdogg at October 22, 2012 02:07 PM (Ttf/I)

204 I still think anyone could have beaten Obama, meaning if Perry or Santorum had won the primary, I think they could have beaten Obama too. There is no way to prove me wrong of course which is nice. But I think Obama was basically going to lose. Posted by: SH at October 22, 2012 05:50 PM (gmeXX) I concur. And I would add Newt or Bachmann, too. Both of which would have ripped both Barky and Crowley to shreds. Bachmann has been busy trying to expose the fact that the White House has been coddling terrorists and letting them run rampant in the administration (to which idiots on the right have savaged her ... big surprise). She would have dismembered Barky on the Banghazi attack and the other parts of his giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America. Romney has done fine but anyone else in our primary would have done fine, as well.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at October 22, 2012 02:07 PM (X3lox)

205 I still think anyone could have beaten Obama, meaning if Perry or Santorum had won the primary, I think they could have beaten Obama too. There is no way to prove me wrong of course which is nice.

You're wrong.

Proof: I said you're wrong.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 22, 2012 02:11 PM (SY2Kh)

206 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at October 22, 2012 02:12 PM (6o4Fb)

207 No wonder they found global warming using data

Posted by: pointsnfigures at October 22, 2012 02:23 PM (EBPRt)

208 ...unless the national vote is extremely close (1%, 1.5% separating winner from loser) it is mathematically very unlikely the national vote winner will diverge from the electoral college winner. Yes, well, here we are, Ace. Even unlikely things happen. The national vote might be that close (although I doubt it). That's one thing. The other is: Just as you pointed out, Ohio may be diverging from the national avg for its own reasons. Enough so that it's not quite as "swingy" this time as it has been. The polls have shown a several point gap between the national numbers and Ohio for quite a while, which seems to confirm that. So let's not get too excited about what defines a swing state or assume that because people give Ohio that label, it therefore isn't likely to buck the national trend too significantly. Ohio may be just far enough in Obama's camp that Mitt will need more than just a couple percent lead in the popular. He may need 5 or 6 six points. And he may get it. I hope so. But either way, it's ALL about Ohio, and it's going to be a tough place for Romney to win. He'd better get the ground game in top shape there. Posted by: Cornfed at October 22, 2012 06:01 PM (Hoy9u) Pretty good analysis. I'm not as confident as many that OH is a slam dunk. OSU dominates my town (Columbus) and, like most univ, is a progressive cesspool that has taken an even harder Left turn the last 20 yrs or so. BHO signs outnumber R&R in my neighborhood (Upper Arlington) which is a desirable suburb close to OSU. MANY Useful Idiots here.....to many

Posted by: ghostofhallelujah at October 22, 2012 02:36 PM (XvrTA)

209 ....too many....ugh

Posted by: ghostofhallelujah at October 22, 2012 02:37 PM (XvrTA)

210 I think a lot of the buzz a pollster does is self promotion. Mr. Silver is taking a Hail Mary, hoping he's right. If he is, then he's good to go for future contests as he will be the goto guy. Currently, I believe Rasmussen. Not because Rasmussen is "in the tank for the Republicans" as some claim, but because he usually comes very close. If Rasmussen misses the boat, you can expect to hear less from him in 2014 + 2016.

Posted by: dej at October 22, 2012 04:20 PM (0gb+u)

211 Nate Silver is an excellent statistician with a proven track record both in politics and sports. Josh Jordan from his article does not seem to grasp the meaning of poll errors - by arguing about 1% or any understanding of confidence intervals. 67% chance of winning and rising means that 67% of the distribution of electoral college voting possibilities modelled give Obama more than 270. Obama by having California and New York is always in a strong position with Florida he would be unassailable, but he can win without it.

Posted by: Andrew at October 22, 2012 10:45 PM (m0Das)

212 @211 Nate Silver himself believes that the winner of the popular vote has a better than 95% to win the EC too. Go check his own blog. Now. This whole EC thing is a distraction from the fact that he feels that Obama has virtually the same chance of winning the Popular Vote as he does the EC...so why does he even mention the EC? Sean Trende basically agrees, and said if the election result between Romney and Obama were under a point (really under half a point), there might be a one in three chance of the loser of the EC having won the PV. Basically the odds that Silver says Obama has to win the Election. But over one percent (really over half a percent) and the winner of the PV has a 99% chance of winning the EC also. You do the math. In any case, what should be crystal clear to Silver's fans: Silver feels the winner of the PV has a better than 95% chance of winning the EC also, as of a few days ago (when I last checked his blog). And I doubt the President acting like a desperate challenger tonight much changed any of that. We are dealing w/ math after all.