• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Romney, Obama, Rasmussen

R.Mackey said:
The way I read that "critique" is that, since Silver's probability shows Obama with > 70% chance of winning, Silver has called the race for Obama (viz., he thinks Obama has a 100% chance of winning). :boggled:

And if Obama loses, then Silver's number is totally wrong. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yet he himself reserves the right not to be judged for saying he's certain when he's not saying he's certain: "Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s entirely possible that Obama will win re-election."

You're right though. He recognizes that Silver's probability changed from better than 80% in early October to just over 70% now, but claims that Silver's "going all in". What does that even mean?
 
AlBell said:
Speaking of cherry-picking.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/nate-silver-vs-the-world/

But the race changed dramatically, and my guess is that, right now, it’s probably a 50-50 proposition.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Uh... hello? Does this guy even know that there are other sources of data to consider? The people who put their money where their mouth is sure as hell don't think it's 50/50.

predictwise.jpg
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
The way I read that "critique" is that, since Silver's probability shows Obama with > 70% chance of winning, Silver has called the race for Obama (viz., he thinks Obama has a 100% chance of winning). :boggled:

And if Obama loses, then Silver's number is totally wrong. :rolleyes:

I wonder if these guys ever buy lottery tickets?
Click to expand...

Silver says Obama's position is strong so he needs to be discredited. I guess the easiest way to do that is to not even understand what Silver is doing.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Or does he think even though they couldn't say for sure whether it was pre-planned, it would have been a good idea to start saying that they could? Is that what a President Romney would have done differently?
Click to expand...
I think Romney is going to emphasize that the people in Libya asked for more security and Obama turned them down. Thus he doesn't defend America and is weak on the War on Terror. The implication being that Romney would have funded the extra security.

My problem with that is money. It's easy in hindsight to flog Obama for not providing extra security when something goes wrong. But that means that Romney would approve bolstered security requests at all consulates and embassies. OK, then that means he's going to increase the State Department budget to cover the additional expense. Everybody who thinks Romney is going to boost the funding of the State Department, raise your hand. Romney's interest in foreign affairs doesn't reach beyond the Export/Import bank.
 
remirol said:
I'll be surprised if Romney doesn't scream Libya Libya Libya Libya Benghazi Turrists the whole time. Emphasis on Turrists.
Click to expand...

A lot is going to come down to the content of the questions. If Mitt gets thrown a hard inside high one, he could do a Gerald Ford. He's got his talking points ready, I'm sure, on China, Russia, Syria, Israel, and Benghazi. What does he think of Poland and missile deployment?

How about the trending of the new leader in Burma. Could he even name him? What if someone loads a question...

"Uh, this is for you, Governor. What do you think of the moves towards open agreement and democracy offered this past year by Thein Sein?"
Romney: I'd like to say that I grew up... well, I didn't grow up, but I lived in Boston and our country has a great tradition of welcoming immigrants who are hard working and have family values. The Irish have long been a major part of my constituency, and it's a great thing that there is finally peace in Ireland.
"Uh, governor... the question was about Thein Fein, the head of Burma... Not Sinn Fein."
(Cut to Obama with his mouth agape, shaking his head in disbelief.)
Romney: I grew up in Michigan and Michigan, in addition to having trees that are the right height, loves us some Democracy. Do you know I remember riding through the state with my father during his campaigns, seeing those Burma Shave signs.
(Cut to moderator pulling out a .44 Magnum and shooting himself.)
 
Oops, this is the polls thread and not the debate thread. Sorry.

So let's look at the RCP averages. The tale is in the tape, as they say. Obama's got a mere .10 lead on the national level, but Romney's still up a notch here and there in the swing states.

But the national polls average tells the story, if you look closely. The only thing preventing Obama from being +2 is that they include a six-day-average poll from Gallup. That poll is Romney -1 from their previous six day effort. And the important thing is that the six days include five that were before this week's debate. The next few days should see Gallup going to +5, +3, Tied. And the state polls will be the same.

Colorado is currently Romney by a fraction of 1. Zero polls accounted for that have only post-debate data.
Iowa, Obama +2 but same sampling as above.
Virginia, tie but recent trending towards Romney - but zero post-debate polls.
Ohio, Obama + 2.5 but zero post-debate polls.
NH, Romney +1 but zero post-debate polls.
FL, Romney +2 but one post-debate poll makes it a little better in terms of info/data, but then you see that it's Rasmussen, so?

WI, PA, MI ? Don't make me laugh. They aren't in play and haven't been in play. Not pushing them to the Obama side merely makes the race look tighter, which sells more soap flakes. (Or is it corn flakes.)

I keep emphasizing exclusive post-debate polls because we saw the same thing when Romney took the first debate. It took almost a week before the polls were reporting exclusively on numbers from the days after the debate. We will probably need to get to about the 23rd before we see it for Obama.
 
Gravis Marketing just released a poll that has Ohio at a tie. The first poll since 10/8 that doesn't show an Obama lead. I'm not too familiar with Gravis Marketing or their methodology, so not sure about the accuracy of their results.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
....
BTW, what was Mitt's point anyway? What exactly was his criticism of the President's handling of this situation? ...
Click to expand...
The GOP was trying to manufacture an Obama coverup of a terrorist act against the embassy. They're also trying to whittle down his very successful al Qaeda dismantling by the claim this was the first ambassador killed since '94 or whenever the last fatality occurred. Never mind there were many more attacks on our foreign facilities during any 4 Bush years one chooses to compare to Obama's time in office.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
If Romney thinks that's a good campaign strategy, Obama has nothing to worry about.

Why would Obama try to cover up a terrorist attack?
Click to expand...
Where have you been. It's because he's a secret Muslim who hates and wants to destroy America. To that end he wants to deceive American's about Muslim's true intent and convey them as harmless and peaceful so there can be no talk of Muslim terrorists.

Oh, that OBL and other killing of AQ terrorists? A ruse to throw us off. To net it out. Obama kills terrorist to show us he's soft on terrorism, much like he's not taking away guns to show us he plans on taking away our guns.

Edit, as for campaign strategy, it was also a poor strategy to attack the patriotism and bravery of a Vietnam war veteran. Other then it worked, of course.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Where have you been. It's because he's a secret Muslim who hates and wants to destroy America. To that end he wants to deceive American's about Muslim's true intent and convey them as harmless and peaceful so there can be no talk of Muslim terrorists.

Oh, that OBL and other killing of AQ terrorists? A ruse to throw us off. To net it out. Obama kills terrorist to show us he's soft on terrorism, much like he's not taking away guns to show us he plans on taking away our guns.
Click to expand...

:D

And that will get him some 17% of registered voters, while turning off most everyone else. As I said, if that's Romney's campaign strategy, Obama has nothing to worry about.
 
DavidJames said:
Edit, as for campaign strategy, it was also a poor strategy to attack the patriotism and bravery of a Vietnam war veteran. Other then it worked, of course.
Click to expand...

Good point, but I think this is distinguished for two reasons. First, the Swift Boat thing was much harder (slower) for people to debunk. People were hearing testimony of men who claimed to be in position to know what went on. The transcript of the Rose Garden speech is there in black and white.

Second, if the Swift Boat smear story were true, it would have presented a coherent challenge to Kerry's patriotism and bravery. It was just false. Romney's challenge doesn't even make sense. No more than the Muslim-atheist thing makes sense. Incoherent smears only work on people who are already anti-Obama.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
...
Why would Obama try to cover up a terrorist attack?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter when you are manufacturing outrage for the sheeple to react to. Just act like outrage should follow and it works. You can find the usual right wingers in the politics forum frothing with knee-jerk outrage over this 'didn't get the news out fast enough' nonsense.

The thing I really don't get though, is the fact half the voting public believe Romney's 'everyone gets a free pony' claims despite the fact it's an obviously empty promise. Reminds me of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. Every year CB believes her promises and every year the promises turn out to be meaningless.

Going by the evidence, the last 4 years were tremendously better than the 8 which preceded them. Romney is bringing much of the Bush admin back with him. We're in big trouble if Romney wins.
 
R.Mackey said:
The way I read that "critique" is that, since Silver's probability shows Obama with > 70% chance of winning, Silver has called the race for Obama (viz., he thinks Obama has a 100% chance of winning). :boggled:

And if Obama loses, then Silver's number is totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope, just >70% wrong.
:p
 
Brainster said:
Nope, just >70% wrong.
:p
Click to expand...

I cited Silver's and Intrade's numbers to someone who asked if I'd bet at those odds. I said, no, since I'm a poor man and can't afford to gamble.

But I said I'd bet on Obama at even odds since I'm way too poor to pass up a chance like that!
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I cited Silver's and Intrade's numbers to someone who asked if I'd bet at those odds. I said, no, since I'm a poor man and can't afford to gamble.

But I said I'd bet on Obama at even odds since I'm way too poor to pass up a chance like that!
Click to expand...

So even you sense that there's something wrong with those odds?

I think where Silver goes off the rails is that his computer runs treat each state as an independent event. Thus if you look, say, at Ohio, where he has Romney at 30% to win, and Pennsylvania, where Romney's at 11%, his run will assess Romney's chances of taking both states at 3.3% (30% times 11%). If these were truly independent events, that would make sense.

The problem is that they are not independent. In the real world, if Romney wins Ohio, the odds that he wins Pennsylvania go up dramatically; not to 100% and maybe not to 50%, but certainly far higher than 11%. This is because whatever happens to make Romney win Ohio almost certainly is helping him in Pennsylvania as well.
 
Brainster said:
So even you sense that there's something wrong with those odds?
Click to expand...
Wow, you didn't even read what he wrote did you? Or maybe it's a comprehension issue or something related to poor thought process as this bit of convoluted (read hopeful) logic suggests.
Brainster said:
I think where Silver goes off the rails is that his computer runs treat each state as an independent event. Thus if you look, say, at Ohio, where he has Romney at 30% to win, and Pennsylvania, where Romney's at 11%, his run will assess Romney's chances of taking both states at 3.3% (30% times 11%). If these were truly independent events, that would make sense.

The problem is that they are not independent. In the real world, if Romney wins Ohio, the odds that he wins Pennsylvania go up dramatically; not to 100% and maybe not to 50%, but certainly far higher than 11%. This is because whatever happens to make Romney win Ohio almost certainly is helping him in Pennsylvania as well.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom