On 10/26 "It’s hard to make sense of why so many pollsters are showing this as a tight race under these circumstances, with independents consistently breaking heavily to Romney and all the indicators of turnout suggesting at least a much smaller Democratic advantage than 2008 and – if you believe Gallup’s and Rasmussen’s surveys – a Republican wave unlike any we’ve seen in a presidential election in our lifetimes.
Surely you mean “imposing their religion on us… om…”
Lul.
How could the polls have been so wrong?
They grossly oversampled Democrats again and again - how could that have been? Why didn’t we see that Republican registrations were up, and Democratic registrations were down, and that early voting wasn’t going as enthusiastically for Obama as they did in 2008?
Nate Silver’s an idiot. There. I said it. Total idiot. I’ll never listen to polls again.
lol lol lol lol lol
More seriously, it is almost uncanny how close things are coming out to what Nate Silver was showing. It’s almost like we don’t need to actually hold the election!
Looks like the toaster broke.
To be fair, Silver’s accuracy is entirely reliant on pollsters in aggregate having good sampling practices - or at least having bad sampling practices in extremely predicable ways.
On Fox news, the conversation was as follows:
Megyn Kelly: “I mean, how could this have happened? All the states we thought would go to Romney, they didn’t. How could that happen?”
Other guy: “Yeah, I mean it was weird, it turned out that the polls were more right than wrong.”
Turns out you can’t wish away statistics after all. Huh.
Yep.
What pisses me off is folks like OMG dismissing Nate Silver as “our Messiah” or somesuch. He’s a number cruncher. He doesn’t give a shit who wins, he wants to be right. In 2010, he was calling races for Pubbies left and right. I didn’t see Dems complaining. Yet, when the polls and statistical model goes against them, the right seems to launch into full-on attack mode against rational discourse. At no point did Nate Silver say it was a sure thing. His process has been transparent, and he’s said, straight-up, that he will and should be wrong at some point, statistically speaking. If anything, it seems to me like his confidence intervals are conservative, but we only have a handful of races to judge that on.
Hmmph.
Omg a Black Conservative,
You were totally fucking wrong.
Woot.
Mwahaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
(am I allowed in this thread to wish OMG some Preparation H for his butthurt?)
And now that the election is over, I don’t see the point anymore in clinging to the Romney campaign mythology that Obama is single-handedly destroying the economy. Nor even the childish expectation that somehow he or anyone else could have single-handedly completely cleaned up the colossal and ingrained financial dysfunction that existed in late 2008. The fact is that the economy has in fact improved just enough, for just enough people, that Obama got enough votes to be re-elected.
Now is not the time for pouting because your mythology didn’t succeed in fooling the people. Now is the time to keep the improvement moving forward, and recognize the reality that the situation was so screwed up that it’s not going to magically and instantly get better overnight, no matter who is president.
Rommey defeats Truman
But doesn’t Nate’s model also evaluate the pollsters on
a) Their methodology
b) Their historical accuracy?
Isn’t he making a fairly explicit judgement call on which polls to trust and which not, rather than only crunching numbers?
This is false. Nate Silver is a known homosexual and thus will do anything in his power to hamper patriotic Americans from voting for a candidate not in thrall to the homosexual agenda, probably in concert with Chris Hughes.
Besides, OMG was largely right: Romney did win the independents by large margins. Either turnout was much higher than expected among democrats or there were improprieties at the polls.
Polls were right. Conservative pundits were wrong. End of story.
I…
This is parody, isn’t it? God, that Poe’s Law thing really IS true…