US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveJ said:
It's a complete, unfunny joke that a candidate like Mitt Romney has a chance of winning. Will people never learn?
Click to expand...

When you see an educated person posting statements on FB like this below (from a Major in the USAF nonetheless, one that I stopped arguing against on politics and religion)...

--To all the people I know from my home state of Michigan, four days from now I hope that many of you will go to the polls and vote. I also hope that many of you will take a honest look at what has happened over the past four years and think about what the country needs for the next four and beyond.--

Yes he is voting for Romney.

And comments posted in response claiming they hope the next president will support the troops better than the current one (which is so fecking asinine to make a statement of that nature - Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq ffs).

Then you see him post a cartoon comparing Cindy Sheehan 2004 surrounded by dozens press microphones to Charles Woods 2012 with only a FOX reporter nearby you see the delusion.

Hardcore conservatives/GOP supporters have become a real-life RAWK.
 
Red Dreams said:
RCP is a waste of time.

Wang saying 322 EVs now for Obama with 99.8% he wins the elections.
Click to expand...

Ubik said:
The weird thing about RCP is the arbitrary way they include polls in their average.

Rasmussen I think weight to party ID, which coupled with their robo-calling is going to produce a rightward drift.
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
After the rise of people like Silver, Wang etc - I can even see the RCP average being less respected in coming elections. Simply showing an average of polls is increasingly unsatisfying in an age where others (like Silver) are actually spitting out preduction models that provide meaningful implications to elections.
Click to expand...

Are you mad or something? Just who uses RCP polling average as the gospel? The strength of RCP is that they transparently list all the polls and give an average. There's no model, there's no adjustment. People can clearly see what's going on and what polls are in the average. It's more informational/descriptive than predictive.

Is there a statistical risk of bias? Yes because it rates bad polls equally as much as good ones and doesn't take into account the differences between. However, the direction of the bias is unclear. In some cases, it will be for Obama, in some cases, for Romney.

On Nate, his prediction model takes into account a lot of variation and lots of sources of data. His reporting is not so bad, his methods are transparent, however, all data inputs and distributions for inputs should be fully listed on one page.

On Wang, Bayesian statistics. A decent methodology, but again, needs to properly report what polls he is considering.

Both Nate and Wang are superior to RCP. Nate and Wang are predicting the outcome, in my mind, RCP isn't really designed to do that.
 
MrMarcello said:
When you see an educated person posting statements on FB like this below (from a Major in the USAF nonetheless, one that I stopped arguing against on politics and religion)...

--To all the people I know from my home state of Michigan, four days from now I hope that many of you will go to the polls and vote. I also hope that many of you will take a honest look at what has happened over the past four years and think about what the country needs for the next four and beyond.--

Yes he is voting for Romney.

And comments posted in response claiming they hope the next president will support the troops better than the current one (which is so fecking asinine to make a statement of that nature - Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq ffs).

Then you see him post a cartoon comparing Cindy Sheehan 2004 surrounded by dozens press microphones to Charles Woods 2012 with only a FOX reporter nearby you see the delusion.

Hardcore conservatives/GOP supporters have become a real-life RAWK.
Click to expand...

there are so many people like that. They refuse to take responsibility for themselves. Any problem blame 'them'.

Talk about looking back....
 
Plenty of people cite the RCP average as the take of what's going on in a state. They're unquestionably right leaning, and I often notice strange choices in what to include in their average and it more often than not benefits Romney. But you're right, their main use is as a compiler, although Pollster does a better job of it.

Prof Wang is very transparent about what he's doing - he's using the Pollster state poll database and uses either the results from the last seven days or the last 3 individual polls, whichever number is greater.

I've said poll far too much in this post.
 
Jaz said:
Are you mad or something? Just who uses RCP polling average as the gospel? The strength of RCP is that they transparently list all the polls and give an average. There's no model, there's no adjustment. People can clearly see what's going on and what polls are in the average. It's more informational/descriptive than predictive.

Is there a statistical risk of bias? Yes because it rates bad polls equally as much as good ones and doesn't take into account the differences between. However, the direction of the bias is unclear. In some cases, it will be for Obama, in some cases, for Romney.

On Nate, his prediction model takes into account a lot of variation and lots of sources of data. His reporting is not so bad, his methods are transparent, however, all data inputs and distributions for inputs should be fully listed on one page.

On Wang, Bayesian statistics. A decent methodology, but again, needs to properly report what polls he is considering.

Both Nate and Wang are superior to RCP. Nate and Wang are predicting the outcome, in my mind, RCP isn't really designed to do that.
Click to expand...

That's precisely the point. The RCP average works well for people who aren't looking for any analysis beyond the surface - primarily journalists at places like CNN who are afraid to add any meaningful commentary to their coverage out of fear of being branded liberal. What Silver and his cohorts provide is far more insightful as to who will win, rather than simply spewing out generic numbers and allowing the pundits to spin it as they please.
 
Raoul said:
Nerds rush to Nate Silver's defense....

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/nerds-rush-nate-silvers-defense/58516/
Click to expand...

Silly article - it isn't actually a math v. humanities faceoff, but the usual nonsense from the right to delegitimize science and adopt 'truthiness' - especially when convenient (always).

Politico love to claim that they are completely non-partisan, but their entire founding management is ex-Repub strategists and their claim to fame is getting the latest, nonsenical bits of spin from their old colleagues and breathlessly conveying them as 'scoops that tell the inside story.'

There may be some truth to the idea that they're trying to save their profession from extinction, but that's only a second order concern. A simple question reveals it - are any of the 538-Truthers not Repubs?
 
From the NYT conversation:

David Brooks: I actually think people in less affluent times built their lives around this awareness. They saved more. Resisted debt more. Raised their kids more strictly because there was less of a cushion if you messed up.

If this storm has any cultural impact — and they usually only do in the most ephemeral sense — it will be to remind people to build low and sturdy. I wouldn’t say our government is built to withstand some future shock (too much debt, too much disunity). This election campaign suggests we’re not going to fix that soon.

Gail Collins: You know, we get along so well I sometimes forget we really do have different political worldviews. The message I take away from the storm is that in natural disasters, people can’t help themselves. They need a strong government to swoop in with a rescue operation. A government with a sturdy FEMA that has not been dismantled by a feckless White House of the future.
Click to expand...
 
radd said:
Silly article - it isn't actually a math v. humanities faceoff, but the usual nonsense from the right to delegitimize science and adopt 'truthiness' - especially when convenient (always).

Politico love to claim that they are completely non-partisan, but their entire founding management is ex-Repub strategists and their claim to fame is getting the latest, nonsenical bits of spin from their old colleagues and breathlessly conveying them as 'scoops that tell the inside story.'

There may be some truth to the idea that they're trying to save their profession from extinction, but that's only a second order concern. A simple question reveals it - are any of the 538-Truthers not Repubs?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I "majored" in a fairly abstract humanities subject but I can still understand statistical analysis. Quite a lot of people on the right have been criticising Silver and co on the basis they think their own maths is better as well. They look just as dumb from whatever approach they take.
 
Ubik said:
Yeah, I "majored" in a fairly abstract humanities subject but I can still understand statistical analysis. Quite a lot of people on the right have been criticising Silver and co on the basis they think their own maths is better as well. They look just as dumb from whatever approach they take.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the goal - to obscure whatever clarity any objectivity can present, and push their propaganda.
 
Is Pennsylvania really in-play or is Romney desperate? How bad is the damage in Philadelphia and is it likely to suppress the vote? I heard someone say that Pennsylvania is Pittsuburgh and Philly with Alabama in the middle; is that a fair comment?
 
CheadleBeagle said:
Is Pennsylvania really in-play or is Romney desperate? How bad is the damage in Philadelphia and is it likely to suppress the vote? I heard someone say that Pennsylvania is Pittsuburgh and Philly with Alabama in the middle; is that a fair comment?
Click to expand...

James Carville said that originally. Here's a good article on the electoral map of PA:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/109397/romneys-math-problem-in-pennsylvania

As to how bad it is in Philly, I posted an article a couple of pages back, but it wasn't very clear either. Looks like we'll only find out on Tuesday. But I wouldn't sweat it too much, Colorado and Virginia are looking good for Obama now and possibly even Florida.
 
Based on polling evidence it's not close to being in play. I'm not sure on the damage front but the Obama campaign is aware of it as a potential thorn and is no doubt planning around it. It would have to provide at least around 300,000 votes net to the Repubs to be a problem.
 
Trawling different sites, it appears Philly and nearby burbs are not too badly affected, most places got power back within 24 hours. Rural PA was worst hit, possibly affecting Repub voters. Also, the 6000 block of Carpenter Street in West Philadelphia won the Clean Block Contest.

Staten Island, Long Island, Jersey shore - Repub strongholds, might see lower turnout as might Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens for the Dems - a major chunk of NY electorate.
 
Ann Romney reminds me of one of those middle-aged rich white women that drive around in their $50k vehicles, spending $200 on salon treatment, and routinely lift their nose and alter their walking patterns to avoid people they see as lesser in status.
 
936full-bride-of-chucky-screenshot.jpg
 
Over 700,000 have already voted in Nevada. Democrat voters lead Republicans by 48,000. The total vote in 2008 was 946,000, predicted to be less than a million this time too. Obama huge favourite in Nevada.
 
Which is doubly nice because it confirms what the polls are saying. But yeah, that should be safe for him now, just Wisconsin and Ohio left.
 
Nevada was always a tough call for romney. It's also one of the few states where bush didn't really improve in 2004, from 2000.
 
That's a fair amount of of undecideds/third parties though, bit weird.
 
If Obama wins, there's probably good reason to open a GOP Meltdown thread and bathe in schadenfreude.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.