that much we can agree on. But it was thinking, not just blind recitation of other people’s talking points. Which is essentially what most people following Silver were doing. One can be right without thinking(Since others can sometimes do your thinking for you), and one can be wrong while thinking.
As you can see here, the final RCP average was Obama +0.7%, significantly off from the final result. Silver correctly decided, through thinking and statistical analysis, that the state polls meant more than the national polls. The mistake that I made was in thinking the national polls were more important. Thus, on election night, I felt pretty good about Romneys’ chances only being down 0.7%.
I know what the theory was. It was a fucking stupid theory that didn’t make sense. And you still believed it no matter how much that was explained to you.
And you were wrong. Why does it matter that you were a blowhard about it?
The whole reason Nate Silver is famous is that most people in the press don’t understand statistics and polling. What Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity said about the race didn’t mean shit, so you inference that this was significant is worthless.
You parroted the same nonsense a lot of other idiots did. There was no difference between your theory and theirs. You were not special. You were just as wrong as they were.
Actually, that part was uncontroversial and correct. Obama did do poorly in 2012 compared to 2008, but he still won. My side thought that disaffection with him would be enough. What we didn’t count on was that he was self-aware enough to get that and made sure the public was more disaffected with Mitt Romney.
Well, if they were thinking about the issue, then they’d know what the poll internals said, and could decide for themselves if those internals were accurate. They chose not to. They were correct, but minus the thinking part.
Yeah, but Obama needed to help him a lot more than he did McCain. it was a lot like the 2004 election, with a sub-50% approval incumbent trying to do anything but make the campaign about his performance, and finding an great foil for his efforts.
Heck, we even had the same outcome in the first debate, with the incumbent looking unprepared while the challenger cut him apart. And of course the belief that the polls were wrong.
No, numbnuts, he did not do poorly. The election was closer than his first election, but his performance was not poor. He won by about 5 million votes at a margin of 51% to 47%. It was closer than the 2008 election, which wasn’t too surprising, but he was the first president since Truman to win a majority of the vote twice. Stop trying to make your wrong prediction half-right. You are only confirming that you’re an idiot.
So many fucking excuses. You were wrong because you were deluded and stupid, and by the way, that has not changed one whit. Remember all that Republican rebranding stuff and the minority outreach? It was in the toilet in about a month, so there’s a good chance the next election will look a lot like this one. Your prediction that minority turnout would decrease was wrong, and racial minority groups supported Obama at about the same clip they did in 2008. The only group he did significantly worse with was (non-minority) white people.
Except that in 2012 there was a lot of solid analysis that showed Romney was still probably going to lose even after that debate, and that’s exactly what happened.
It’s also stupid as hell for you to say I didn’t do work when I showed my work. This concept is simple enough that even a 4-year old could understand it. You do not. Draw your own conclusions. If you can stop long enough to form an original thought.
Yes, they usually do. But presidents usually don’t take office when the opposition party is being blamed for a historic series of disasters (Iraq, Afghanistan, economic meltdown) and at the beginning of a prolonged economic slump. By definition that couldn’t happen twice.
You told the same story everybody in Skewed Polls land told. Tell me what work you did when your mistakes were indistinguishable from theirs.
Again: everyone who believed the polls were skewed said the same things you did. You’ve insisted you didn’t just repeat their claims, so tell me how your version was different.
Yes, I already explained why you were wrong. So did a lot of other people going back at least a year. And lo and behold, you’re pretending these weren’t real reasons.
No, I know. He’s Otto from A Fish Called Wanda: he thinks he’s brilliant because he reads, but he’s not impressing anyone because you can see he doesn’t understand a word. Still, if he’s going to spout this kind of bullshit in dozens of threads I can take the time in one thread to tell him he’s a gibbering idiot.
I guess if you appreciate the mental exercise of punching a sandbag…
But he’s never going to understand why he doesn’t understand. Because he doesn’t understand understanding. I’m not a heavy poster here, just a newb. But from what I gather, it’s a fruitless endeavor to try and teach the chronically confused.
