Quote :

"NY Times can say whatever they want"

this isn't coming from your favorite boogeyman the NY Times

it's coming from one of the most respected statisticians in the game who happened to be hired by the NY Times in 2010 because of his insane accuracy in predicting the 2008 election

8/10/2012 11:49:46 AM

dude - everything the NYT said is a verifiable fact.

[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 12:16 PM. Reason : \/ was replying to prep-e]

8/10/2012 12:02:23 PM

I realize that...

8/10/2012 12:10:20 PM

538 was beyond wrong in their polling of our recent governor's election here in maine. like really really really bad wrong. its like they polled a handful of major party officials or something.

i wouldnt trust them for anything

8/10/2012 12:10:32 PM

they don't poll.......

8/10/2012 12:27:22 PM

funny, here's 538's 5 month forecast of the 2010 election in Maine

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/governor/maine

LePage won...LePage was in the lead of their forecast the entire time.

8/10/2012 12:33:29 PM

goalielax, my point still stands

Rasmussen predicted the last two presidential races within 1 percent.

Don't let your Obama Kool Aid get in the way of your ability to reason.

8/10/2012 12:35:22 PM

lol - I never said they didn't predict those two elections.

YOU'RE the one dismissing the NYT reporting on how awful rasmussen was in their polling 2 years ago.

i mean christ man, your argument has gone from posting self-promoting articles from rasmussen to linking to wikipedia to calling names. it's LOL

[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2012 12:40:54 PM

Yeah ..... I wouldn't dispute the credibility of 538. While his opinion pieces are just that, opinions, his forecasting models are based on proven statistical methodology and have damn near nailed the last two major election cycles. In the last midterm, his models predicted the GOP would pick up 7 seats in the Senate, and 54 in the House. He was off by 1 and 8 respectively. He got 36 out of the 37 governorship races right. You can't argue with those results.

8/10/2012 12:49:55 PM

Quote :

"they don't poll......."

ok i guess it makes more sense if they just make up the data.

Quote :

"funny, here's 538's 5 month forecast of the 2010 election in Maine http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/governor/maine LePage won...LePage was in the lead of their forecast the entire time."

cutler (the independent) was a big deal inside the state and they didnt even have him on their site for maine until like a week before the election. since alot of total morons had faith in their numbers, they decided to vote for the horrific democrat because they thought cutler didnt have a chance.

538 is shit.

e: like look at how wrong their election results prediction is vs the actual results

[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2012 1:35:45 PM

what a crazy world you live in

8/10/2012 1:51:29 PM

Quote :

"lol - I never said they didn't predict those two elections. YOU'RE the one dismissing the NYT reporting on how awful rasmussen was in their polling 2 years ago. i mean christ man, your argument has gone from posting self-promoting articles from rasmussen to linking to wikipedia to calling names. it's LOL"

So, let me get this straight. You have a problem with me citing Rasmussen's write up as well as Wikipedia's article stating verifiable facts about the accuracy of Rasmussen's polling. Yet you site an article written by Nate Silver, possibly Rasmussen's biggest competitor, as your end-all source about how inaccurate Rasmussen's polling is. And then you have the nerve to tell me I'm guilty of confirmation bias. Yeah, okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

and furthermore, you said I resorted to name-calling...which I did not. How dishonest are you?

[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM. Reason : /]

8/10/2012 1:52:57 PM

I am amazed that conservatives are in here disputing facts.

8/10/2012 1:55:29 PM

please explain how Nate Silver is Rasmussen's biggest competitor

I'm due for a few laughs

8/10/2012 1:55:45 PM

^perhaps competitor is not the best word

he works for the NY Times, who absolutely despises any outlet who does not lean wayyy left

8/10/2012 1:59:22 PM

^^^I'm amazed that you're amazed at conservatives disputing facts

[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ^]

8/10/2012 1:59:41 PM

I'm not going to break it all down for you, because it seems to be a complete waste, but how is the aggregation of polling numbers political?

8/10/2012 2:02:07 PM

Shaggy thinks 538 conducts polls, that's funny. What's funnier is he expects us to take his opinions on 538 at all seriously after revealing this.

Quote :

"e: like look at how wrong their election results prediction is vs the actual results"

Why don't you show us? I'm guessing that if you're so confident you must have some numbers in front of you right now. I recall him being extremely accurate in both 2008 and 2010, and did a good job with the Oscars as well.

[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2012 2:03:13 PM

Please tell me what facts I'm disputing. Please do tell.

8/10/2012 2:04:07 PM

it's pretty apparent that you didn't read the original 538 link I posted on Rasmussen so what's the point of explaining things to you when you could easily just read the article?

8/10/2012 2:13:11 PM

You should know that Nate Silver was a respected sports statistician/predictor for almost a decade, and got into political forecasting just for shits and giggles at first. Since you like wikipedia so much:

Quote :

"The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year."

It was two years after this the NYT picked him up, and basically all they did was pay him to keep using his model but put it on their site to bring them traffic.

He's really good, practically a savant, and I'd love to see you point out any individual poll that outperforms his model.

8/10/2012 2:14:20 PM

^since you like Wikipedia so much...

Quote :

"Silver named Quinnipiac University Poll as the most accurate poll of the election cycle. However, according to RealClearPolitics, in toss-up races where both Rasmussen Reports and Quinnipiac polled, the Rasmussen Reports final poll was closer to the mark in every race.[65][66][67] The two firms projected the same candidate to win every race but the Florida gubernatorial race, where Rasmussen correctly projected Rick Scott's victory, while Quinnipiac showed Alex Sink with the lead.[68] "

8/10/2012 2:24:11 PM

here is an article about this whole thing, written by a former Bill Clinton advisor/pollster...

http://www.dickmorris.com/the-real-poll-numbers/

8/10/2012 2:29:01 PM

Nate Silver said Quinnipiac was the most accurate overall.

RCP said Rasmussen was most accurate in the toss-ups.


How is this supposed to be a rebuttal of the accuracy of Silver's own predictions is a mystery to me?

8/10/2012 2:29:23 PM

come the fuck on man

8/10/2012 2:29:37 PM

You forget to mention that former Clinton advisor/pollster later made an entire bookwriting and commentary career out of trashing the Clintons and doing campaign work for Republican candidates.

8/10/2012 2:31:11 PM

it boggles my mind that there are millions and millions of people out there who refuse to think outside of their bubbles

it shouldn't, but it does

8/10/2012 2:33:05 PM

What boggles my mind is how they can be shot down 20x over and they just keep slogging along with the next talking point in their bag of tricks. When they run out, they just throw them all back in the bag and start from scratch. Never once does it cross their mind that maybe all of these errors are indicative of a broader flaw in their worldview and the information sources they trust.

[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2012 2:38:49 PM

k

I'll leave you guys alone to enjoy your Obama Kool Aid fest

8/10/2012 2:59:38 PM

Quote :

"Why don't you show us? I'm guessing that if you're so confident you must have some numbers in front of you right now. I recall him being extremely accurate in both 2008 and 2010, and did a good job with the Oscars as well. "

its in the link dumbass

the predictions (right before the election) were:
41% lepage (republican)
28.5% mitchell (democrat)
27.2% cutler (independent)

the actual results
38.2% lepage
36.5% cutler
19.2% mitchell

a week prior to the elections they had mitchell at ~37% and culter at ~16%. They didnt even have him listed at all on their predictions page at that time because their flawed model didnt consider him a candidate. then someone must have pointed that out and they massaged the model to get it closer (but still far off) the results. but so many people believe in the model that it was too late to change their minds.

"the model says its lepage vs mitchell so i better vote for mitchell instead of cutler"



[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM. Reason : a]

8/10/2012 3:23:08 PM

there is a zero percent chance that the voters of Maine were swayed by fivethirtyeight

zero

8/10/2012 3:25:55 PM

you're wrong, but whatever lets you keep believing.

8/10/2012 3:26:40 PM

you can say that

but it doesn't mean that you're right

8/10/2012 3:29:53 PM

8/10/2012 3:41:37 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/romney-wants-his-taxes-business-record-off-table-131665.html

This is just golden. Obama's had to deal with being called a Kenyan muslim socialist for 4 years, but now Romney is crying uncle over tax records. The debates are going to be awesome.

8/10/2012 3:53:00 PM

even after attempting to walk him through it, I still don't think Shaggy has any idea what FiveThirtyEight is

8/10/2012 4:25:02 PM

I've heard a lot about this "scandal" where some woman died because she didn't have health care....because her husband got fired...therefore Mitt Romney indirectly killed her.

It's only funny because Obama is directly responsible for the murder of hundreds or thousands, among them American citizens and toddlers.

[Edited on August 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2012 5:24:24 PM

el salvador death squads

8/10/2012 5:50:24 PM

I don't think anyone on here has supported the Obama ad. Certainly not directly, and only indirectly in the sense that it was a SuperPAC that ran the ad, which is completely legal now and Obama has no control over. Nobody cares.

8/10/2012 7:02:47 PM

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

8/10/2012 7:40:50 PM

really looking forward to the media freaking out over the shiny object that is the VP pick (Ryan) over the next couple of days

8/10/2012 11:20:53 PM

Paul Ryan will be a great pick.


Though I was hoping for Rubio.

8/10/2012 11:29:58 PM

Quote :

"Paul Ryan will be a great pick. Though I was hoping for Rubio. "

what possible knowledge do you have about these people that you would inject such a comment into the conversation?

8/11/2012 12:44:43 AM

Since Mitt is Obama-lite they needed a real conservative...unfortuanately for many republicans he is not at the top of the ticket....Ryan has threeish months to rehearse for 2016.

8/11/2012 1:00:40 AM

Obama's lead shall soon increase on this news: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-11/romney-paul-ryan-running-mate/56959466/1?csp=34news

Romney would have done better with a figure who could make the swing state of Ohio more competitive while seeming inoffensive enough to not make his national numbers any worse among the independents: Rob Portman.

8/11/2012 2:41:01 AM

I think Ryan is a smart pick. If you truly want to make this election about the economy and present two distinct options for the direction of governmental growth and federal spending Paul Ryan is your guy. Ryan presented a pretty bold budget plan that had a lot of people buzzing. He's popular for a legislator, has decent name recognition, and is palpable to both centrists and conservatives.

Honestly, I don't think this election will hinge on Mitt's VP pick though, just look at the October and November job numbers when those come out. If we're still at >8% unemployment Obama's done.

8/11/2012 3:36:01 AM

Quote :

"what possible knowledge do you have about these people that you would inject such a comment into the conversation?"

LOL

Just because I don't wax political on Tdub, you make an incorrect assumption that I'm somehow unaware of political issues or candidate profiles.

Interesting.

8/11/2012 9:35:37 AM

I don't think Ryan will do much for him, and might even possibly end up hurting him after Obama's campaign tears through that bullshit budget plan he presented. Tax cuts for the wealthy are incredibly unpopular.

^ Just ignore GeniusBoy

[Edited on August 11, 2012 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2012 3:19:03 PM

Proof nobody likes romney and nobody would vote for him except for an "anyone but obama" scenerio.
Proof that romney had no crowds.
Proof the people DO show up to candidates they like


One sign of Ryan’s impact on Romney campaign: Big crowds

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/one-sign-ryan-impact-romney-campaign-big-crowds-154925553.html

8/12/2012 12:50:39 PM

Quote :

"Just because I don't wax political on Tdub, you make an incorrect assumption that I'm somehow unaware of political issues or candidate profiles."

I'm asking you a serious question.

"what possible knowledge do you have about these people that you would inject such a comment into the conversation?"


Don't be an asshole this time.

8/12/2012 12:52:30 PM