I am torn over whether I should believe Nate Silver or OMG as far as analyzing these polls. Such a tough choice!
Well on the one hand you have a national recognized statistician with a great track record in poll analysis, who’s data analysis methods are accepted by other in the field as being top notch.
On the other hand you have OMG’s gut feelings.
I gotta go with the gut.
Quote Rob Gordon: “Well, I’ve been listening to my gut since I was 14 years old, and frankly speaking, I’ve come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains.”
Go right to the source!
Oh, that map is fun. Read the article, and it’s something like: the map above was commissioned by the author, and reflects accurately what might happen if Mittens absolutely destroys Obama in all 3 debates, and the undecideds and independents all vote 100% Romney, 0% Obama. A Romney landslide, I tell ya!
No. It means just what I said; they more-than-likely are assuming that Independents will cast a lesser percentage of the votes than they will actually cast in the election. If, for example, CNN assumed that Independents only cast 5% of the total votes, than losing this demographic by 5% would have a minimal effect on the election. It’s actually really simple. You’re assuming that if it’s not X it must be Y when, in fact, the far more likely assumption would be to make that it’s W.
Interesting, but too bad it has no relation to a single one of my posts-- especially since I’ve never said Romney would win in a landslide. I mean, really. Show me where I said he’d get near 400 EV’s.
(Of course, if it’s true that shows the electorate this year made up of 37.6% Republican voters, 33.3% Democratic voters and 29.2% independent voters then, yeah, Romney would win easily. But I’m a bit skeptical about those demographics.)
I predict that if Nate Silver’s model spits out Romney at less than 5%, then he will lose. Ditto for Obama. If events prove otherwise, then I have put too much trust in 538: I would be disproved.
If Romney stays level at 20% then goes on to win the election, a detailed post mortum would be in order. But it would be hard to definitely say it wasn’t just luck of the draw. Personally, I’d put Romney’s odds halfway between 538 and intrade or (21.4+33)/2= 27.2%. So he still has a chance. Over 1:4 isn’t bad. Heck 1:5 isn’t bad either.
I expect the intrade / 538 spread to fluctuate during the election, as Romney supporters try to tilt the odds in their favor, sympathetic media outlets pick up on it, and gullible supporters take their reports at face value.
So W is that the polls aren’t accurate. Ok, I got it- the math works fine if you just say that the demographic breakdowns the polls are using are wrong. I was just trying to figure out your explanation.
Has anyone else been noticing that every time a right-winger predicts a Romney victory, they staunchly ignore any kind of actual betting on the outcome? I have neighbors that’ll bet on local basketball games, fantasy football leagues, Packer games. But challenge their “Romney by a landslide! Fox News says!” with “Ok, wanta put ten bucks on it?” and they reply “Hey, I’m gettin’ thirsty. Yeah… so… I’m headin’ in to the fridge, anybody else wanta beer?”
I’ve seen it in a couple of threads here. OMG replies to every little point… except a bet. He sidestepped the "Even odds?’ line, and now there’s a harmless “public apology” bet on the table, but he won’t even agree to a post a phrase if he’s wrong (which he obviously suspects he is).
Ha Ha … when you shovel shit you can’t believe it.
If Romney sinks the entire party and they lose control of the house and don’t get e senate he may have done them a huge favor. They’d finally have the leverage to oust the idiots from their party, at least from contributing to actual policy.
What you consider obvious really isn’t.
Apparently, you’re under some kind of delusion that offering a “public apology”, whatever that means, in the event Obama wins re-election is some kind of big deal to me or even that a bunch of liberal posters posting about how wrong they were is a big deal to me. Trust me when I say that neither one is. If Obama wins, he wins though I expect Romney will win. But hey-- I’ll tell you what. If Obama wins you can quote all my posts, make a thread about it, get a good laugh at it and whatever else you want. How’s that for a deal?
BTW> The bold? Yeah, that’s a straw man-- especially considering Fox doesn’t predict Romney to win by a landslide.
The idiots are in the majority and in control. They’re not leaving. And the sanes wouldn’t want them to, as long as they vote.
More likely, the response would (will?) be that they needed to quit pandering to the moderate appeaser wing and go true hardcore batshit instead. Combined with the GOP tradition of giving nominations to whoever’s “turn” it is, whoever has paid the most dues and done second-best the last time, get ready for a Santorum-Paul ticket in 2016.
Not so much that, but I’ve certainly noticed that the reasoning offered for the prediction that Romney *will *win is invariably simply some bombast about how Romney deserves to win. The same is true of any Republican, or the party in general. Only those of us intellectually imprisoned in the reality-based community are influenced by such mundanities as facts and data and non-Fox reporting and non-Rasmussen polls.
You sound like the kind of person whom Rick Santorum says will never support the GOP. You should be ashamed.
Quoting your posts is something that anyone here can do at any time, for any reason. The point of offering the wager is for both sides to stake something on a particular outcome; something that wouldn’t happen otherwise.
I find that offering a friendly wager is an excellent blovation detection technique. Furthermore it is a solid heuristic: discussion of odds setting typically deflates the blowhards pretty rapidly.
If the person proceeds to that step, they can be given the expert assessment treatment. To wit, “Can you give me a scenario where you might be wrong?”
and
“Knowing that, do you want to reset your odds?”
At that point, we have probably advanced to an adult conversation. IME, most do not reach that level. Still, bluster deflation alone has educational benefits.
ETA: Also: Is your stance falsifiable? What circumstances would persuade you to re-think your position?
Meanwhile, while nobody seems to be talkin about it, 538 has had the race tightening for a few days. Not by a lot, but it does appear we saw a campaign bounce and it’s now frittered away, and the Libya thing had no effect.
He’s about to release some Senate forecasts that I assume are going to be very good news for the Democrats.
Oh Wow, Nate just posted about Pollsters that call cellphones rather than only landlines is showing a stronger lead for Obama