2012-11-06, 03:24 | Link #2141 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-11-06, 03:50 | Link #2144 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
... this is from the same man that tried to obsesively de-legitimize Rasmussen?
The New York Times’ statistics guru, Nate Silver, is infallible. You see, Silver doesn’t predict election winners and losers; he only gives odds of winning and losing. So even if Silver gave Obama a 99% chance of winning, an Obama loss would still be perfectly consistent with Silver’s projections. In other words, when it comes to measuring Silver’s performance, heads Silver wins, tails his critics lose. But while his statistical methodology might give Silver cover against charges of liberal bias in his projections, it does little to explain the double standard he applies to Rasmussen’s polling. Dating back to his blogging days at FiveThirtyEight.com, Silver has been on a mission to discredit Rasmussen’s polls, which Silver views as biased in favor of Republican candidates. What’s more, Silver has allowed his Rasmussen obsession to influence his supposedly objective statistical analysis..... Spoiler for continue...:
Quote:
... as for me, I'll just sit it out (in safe, undisclosed location) and best tune in to Track 4 of The Chronic IF it really does hit the fan... Last edited by flying ^; 2012-11-06 at 04:09. |
|
2012-11-06, 04:57 | Link #2146 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
flying: That's a pure opinion piece pretty much devoid of any relevant facts.
That Rasmussen is - to put it lightly - GOP-leaning is a simple undisputable fact. His polls are almost consistently the right outlier, plain to see for everyone involved. What's worse: There's enough empirical evidence that he is purposely skewing his results towards his GOP clients all the time, and in the last 2 days before the election "jumping back into the pack" (to protect his reputation). Now the problem is that if you feed data which you know is skewed by an unknown amount into what's supposed to be an objective statistical model, it's getting diluted. By refusing to add Rasmussen, Nate Silver essentially says "I don't trust your numbers to be genuine". I understand very well why Silver would think so (nobody but the GOP believes Rasmussen to be genuine). I think we should just wait and see tomorrow. By raising the Obama probability above 90%, he essentially said "Obama will win". |
2012-11-06, 05:00 | Link #2147 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
... just substitute a *female dog* with *Mitt*
|
|
2012-11-06, 05:36 | Link #2148 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Heh... I saw the "credits" you listed as evidence against Silver. A Corporate Attourney and Jonah Goldberg, a well-known conservative hack. Both of them with as much knowledge in statistical analysis as I have in brain surgery
Look: Just to explain the reasoning in a placative example: I start "ObamaRoxPolling (ORP)". No matter what the poll, Obama ends up with 100% of the votes. Now, would Nate Silver have to include me in his analysis? He would be a fool if he did, and it would damage the accuracy of his model. It's not that Nate Silver and his model would "have a problem with ORP", it's just that he doesn't deem my numbers to be credible. And it's entirely up to him to make this decision. So, if he believes that his model works better without Rasmussen, that's entirely within his prerogative to omit him. Whether or not he's "more correct" remains to be seen. Rasmussen has Romney+1 nationally. Silver has Obama+2.6 |
2012-11-06, 08:13 | Link #2149 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
It's Election Time (in a America, but I'm sure some other regions as well)! Polls open at 6AM wherever you are in the country, and they promptly close at 7PM, so be prepared. Please go out and vote and have fun (the presidential election can be more fun to watch than any Super Bowl or World Series).
That being said, please try to be at you most civil today. I'd hate for anyone to miss out on the fun on these forums simply because they couldn't handle their opinions being questioned/disagreed with. Despite what anyone may think, tomorrow is not the beginning of the end of the world. |
2012-11-06, 08:52 | Link #2150 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-11-06, 09:15 | Link #2151 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Mayans didn't have leap years. Their actual projected end of the world date was something like October 2011. Btw, anyone know if Daily Show is doing a live coverage this year like usual? |
||
2012-11-06, 09:38 | Link #2152 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
^Yes the Daily Show/Colbert Report will be live tonight. And, it will probably be sometime during the time their shows are on that the election results will be confirmed (I remember watching in 2008 as Colbert, obviously elated by the news, tried to stay in character all the while wanting to jump up and down with excitement).
|
2012-11-06, 10:23 | Link #2157 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Hoping that Romney loses the EC but wins popular vote. I think most people agree that the EC system doesn't work well and that it has the best chance of being removed for 2016 in this scenario.
__________________
|
2012-11-06, 10:48 | Link #2159 |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
I am not voting for either great flip-floppers or Failbama.
Obama lost my vote when he went he thought expanded reckless CIA drone- bombing was a good idea. Then he cross the line and start bombing American citizens without due process. Even if his heart is in the right place to protect America, he started the slippery slope toward the Reichstag fire act by allowing this. Who knows what would the NEXT president expand on this? As for Romney, well, his words and acts explain themselves. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|