Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 49 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 >  Last ›
   4801. Swoboda is freedom Posted: October 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4282998)
Trump made his money 30+ years ago.

No, he inherited it. I have at times read that Trump would have been better off financially just investing in the stock market. Not sure if true. He would be less famous, which is of obvious import to him.
   4802. greenback calls it soccer Posted: October 25, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4283005)
**Besides, even if it came down to religion, better the Mormon than the "Muslim," right?

Does anybody else play weird scenarios in their head where Romney admits a week before the election that he's a Muslim from Kenya who belonged to the socialist party? Of course now he professes he's a devoted (R), so the next day Fox News and the rest of the (R) tribe would continue to support him anyway. None of this is to say the (D) tribe would behave differently if Obama announced he's actually a clone of W.
   4803. bobm Posted: October 25, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4283006)
CBS News:

President Obama had some choice words for his competitor Mitt Romney in an interview with presidential historian Douglas Brinkley that will be published in Rolling Stone Friday.

In an excerpt of the interview published in Politico today, Brinkley describes a conversation between Mr. Obama and Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates. Bates told the president his six-year old daughter was cheering him on.

"Obama grinned," Brinkley wrote. "'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bulls****er, I can tell.''"
   4804. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4283014)
That word, it does not mean what you think it means.


The difference between Ray talking about Bill Clinton and Ray talking about Barry Bonds is really all you need to know on the subject.
   4805. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4283021)
The difference between Ray talking about Bill Clinton and Ray talking about Barry Bonds is really all you need to know on the subject.


Troll attempt #2 by Bitter Mouse.
   4806. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4283023)
You have to actually watch the 56 seconds of video to get just how devastating it was---the text alone doesn't begin to to it justice.

...

"Obama grinned," Brinkley wrote. "'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bulls****er, I can tell.''"

The Kenya line is good, but VERY obviously prepped in advance. BHO seems a little to anxious to get the rest out before the conversation moves elsewhere.

My all-time favorite Obama line was during the primaries when some clowns somewhere were questioning whether Obama was "really" black, or "black enough."
A reporter went to Obama with this, and Obama said, "Well, I lived in Chicago for a long time, and I can tell you, cab drivers know I'm black."

I wish that guy would show up more often.
   4807. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4283027)
The problem was that the witness doesn't get to decide what was relevant to the matter; the judge does.
Which explains why Clinton was convicted of perjury. Oh, wait, that's right. He was actually never convicted of perjury.
   4808. The District Attorney Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4283028)
It doesn't seem impossible that there could be what would inevitably be labeled the "Romney effect", analogous to the Bradley effect. Christian bigots can't bring themselves to vote for a Mormon, but they certainly aren't going to tell a pollster that they're voting for Obama either, so they tell the pollster they're voting for Romney and then stay home.

Still, since I don't think there is a Bradley effect, it'd be hard to argue why there would be a Romney effect. I guess you could come up with reasons why there would be Romney and not Bradley (people are more comfortable admitting anti-Mormonism than racism? the people who would feel this way are so loony they don't care what the pollster thinks of them?), but I'm not convincing myself.

"Obama grinned," Brinkley wrote. "'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bulls****er, I can tell.''"
Oh, jeez, that wasn't too smart.
   4809. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4283029)
My all-time favorite Obama line was during the primaries when some clowns somewhere were questioning whether Obama was "really" black, or "black enough."
A reporter went to Obama with this, and Obama said, "Well, I lived in Chicago for a long time, and I can tell you, cab drivers know I'm black."
This is what I find ridiculous about the nutters who like to claim Obama isn't really black because he's only half black. They say this as though in the Jim Crow South, he would have been able to get half a drink from a white's only drinking fountain, or half a dinner from a restaurant that didn't serve black people, or maybe he'd get to join a country club, but only play nine holes at a time.
   4810. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4283031)
Troll attempt #2 by Bitter Mouse.


Pointing out your hypocrisy is not trolling.
   4811. JL Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4283033)
Ugh. Am I the only person who does this? I'll be thinking of a word and I'll write a homophone instead of the actual correct word? I catch myself doing that all the time for some reason. I suppose these days I can just claim that I was using voice recognition software and it screwed up. For the time being I'll ignore the hatchet I took the English language in that sentence, but I'll just claim I was trying to write colloquially.

I am glad to see eye am not the only person who does this. For some reason, my fingers type the sound instead of the word at times. Not sure y this occurs, but it does. The worst is when I miss it when trying to edit my righting.
   4812. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4283037)
Pointing out your hypocrisy is not trolling.


You've pointed out nothing; you've made no statements showing anything; the most you've said is that there is some "difference between" me talking about Clinton and Bonds, but you haven't actually identified what the "difference" is. You've vomited up Clinton and Bonds in the same sentence as if that shows something, then have patted yourself on your back and sat down as you await the applause from your liberal friends.

You're trolling again. You're offered up nothing of substance about anything.
   4813. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4283043)
Ray, if you want to pretend you have a consistent opinion on the two witchhunts (why one was a terrible waste of tax money and the other an awesome use of tax money) then sure I will let it pass. You are right your complete outrage at the Bonds sensless inquisition and your support of the Clinton senseless inquisisition is completely consistent.

I don't want to root around in your various and sundry positions on the two subjects both of which are long past and have been talked about plenty. So I apologize, you clearly are 100% consistent - what you believe is what you believe.
   4814. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4283047)
Below the window in the street, laying where they had been thrown, were a pile of tiny, replicated albums from Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull, ELP and the like.
"The Defenestration of Prog."

Out-#######-standing.
   4815. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4283052)
the witness doesn't get to decide what was relevant to the matter; the judge does
Unless we're talking about ObamaCare. Then, judges be crazy.
   4816. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4283053)
"Obama grinned," Brinkley wrote. "'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bulls****er, I can tell.''"


Oh, jeez, that wasn't too smart.

Admittedly the truth is too blunt for some people to face, but I can't imagine anyone switching their votes because of a lighthearted crack like that.

----------------------------------------------

Ugh. Am I the only person who does this? I'll be thinking of a word and I'll write a homophone instead of the actual correct word? I catch myself doing that all the time for some reason. I suppose these days I can just claim that I was using voice recognition software and it screwed up. For the time being I'll ignore the hatchet I took the English language in that sentence, but I'll just claim I was trying to write colloquially.


I am glad to see eye am not the only person who does this. For some reason, my fingers type the sound instead of the word at times. Not sure y this occurs, but it does. The worst is when I miss it when trying to edit my righting.

It's not quite the same thing, but I must have caught myself typing "that" for "than" about a thousand times by now, and "Romeny" instead of "Romney" at least a dozen times. I think I've always caught myself in time, but I kind of identify with the 3 or 4 other Primates who've used "Romeny" themselves.
   4817. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4283058)
Bitter Mouse: I'm not rising any more to your bait. You brought up two issues that have nothing to do with each other and have claimed hypocrisy. There's nothing rational there for me to waste my time responding to.
   4818. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4283062)
Bitter Mouse: I'm not rising any more to your bait. You brought up two issues that have nothing to do with each other and have claimed hypocrisy. There's nothing rational there for me to waste my time responding to.

Odds on Ray sticking to that solemn vow: About the same as Clinton sticking to his marriage vows.
   4819. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4283064)
It's not quite the same thing, but I must have caught myself typing "that" for "than" about a thousand times by now, and "Romeny" instead of "Romney" at least a dozen times. I think I've always caught myself in time, but I kind of identify with the 3 or 4 other Primates who've used "Romeny" themselves.
The one that always gets me is ratio vs. ration. I almost always catch it, but so many words end in "-tion" that I can't help myself from typing the "n" at the end of ratio. I work in tax, so I actually write the word ratio more than one might think.

As to the homophones, one and won tends to get me a lot. And of course "there/their/they're". Obviously I know the difference, but that doesn't always come out when typing quickly.
   4820. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4283067)
Bitter Mouse: I'm not rising any more to your bait.
SOMETHING NEW HAS HAPPENED.
   4821. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4283068)
I'm not rising any more to your bait.


Good. It was never for you (not everything is). I was (and still am) amused by the disconnect in your feelings about the two witchhunts. I think they are good analogues, but clearly you do not. Works for me.
   4822. JL Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4283069)
It's not quite the same thing, but I must have caught myself typing "that" for "than" about a thousand times by now, and "Romeny" instead of "Romney" at least a dozen times. I think I've always caught myself in time, but I kind of identify with the 3 or 4 other Primates who've used "Romeny" themselves.

Although I am right-handed, I am told I have some strong left-handed tendancies (apparently I file paper copies in a left-handed way - who knew). One of them I do see is the tendency to miss type such that the left hand is quicker to the letter than the right-hand. This results in typed words like Romeny, teh and liek, for example.
   4823. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4283070)
Odds on Ray sticking to that solemn vow: About the same as Clinton sticking to his marriage vows.


HRC is going to cheat? :)

Seriously though what would the reaction to her being discovered in an affair? That would be awesome, there would be something for everyone in that tempest I should think. Maybe that is why she won't run for president in 2016 (I kid).

EDIT: And yes I know you said "his vows" but my take is still more amusing.
   4824. The Good Face Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4283077)
Seriously though what would the reaction to her being discovered in an affair? That would be awesome, there would be something for everyone in that tempest I should think. Maybe that is why she won't run for president in 2016 (I kid).


HRC caught in steamy affair with Dick Cheney.
   4825. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4283079)
I just saw McCain is hammering Colin Powell for endorsing Obama. He seems to think it will harm his legacy. Dude, that is not what has and will hurt his legacy. That McCain is one goofy guy.
   4826. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4283080)
HRC caught in steamy affair with Dick Cheney.
You can bet he'd shoot her, but I don't want to know with what.
   4827. BDC Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4283082)
Didn't Powell endorse Obama in '08? Can't see what would have happened to make him switch back to the GOP in the meantime.
   4828. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4283086)
Didn't Powell endorse Obama in '08? Can't see what would have happened to make him switch back to the GOP in the meantime.


Yes. I think the theory is he could easily be a classic dissapointed 08 voter. Sad because of the economy and the "huge" cuts to the military that Obama tricked the GOP into voting for (or something).
   4829. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4283093)
The Kenya line is good, but VERY obviously prepped in advance. BHO seems a little to anxious to get the rest out before the conversation moves elsewhere.

My all-time favorite Obama line was during the primaries when some clowns somewhere were questioning whether Obama was "really" black, or "black enough."
A reporter went to Obama with this, and Obama said, "Well, I lived in Chicago for a long time, and I can tell you, cab drivers know I'm black."

I wish that guy would show up more often.


So do most Democrats, and by all appearances, the GOP would really prefer that that guy not show up. As evidenced by the clutching of pearls and the trotting out of the Hillaryland* feinting couches over the sarcasm evident in the FP debate. As with moderators or formats, if once side is complaining about tone, it means they got punched hard and want to pretend it was below the belt.

*Michelle Cottle over at the Daily Beast, *obviously* part of the 'liberal media' I'm sure.
   4830. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4283096)
Yes. I think the theory is he could easily be a classic dissapointed 08 voter. Sad because of the economy and the "huge" cuts to the military that Obama tricked the GOP into voting for (or something).


The GOP would forgive Colin Powell if he came back to the plantation and did his chores again. But if he stays up there in the free states and they have to send somebody after him...
   4831. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4283098)
Although I am right-handed, I am told I have some strong left-handed tendancies (apparently I file paper copies in a left-handed way - who knew). One of them I do see is the tendency to miss type such that the left hand is quicker to the letter than the right-hand. This results in typed words like Romeny, teh and liek, for example.

Interesting theory, though in my case I can't remember ever typing "teh" or "liek". What I do a lot , though, is type words like "sublilminal", adding an extra "l" between the two correct "l"s in the word.

---------------------------------------

I just saw McCain is hammering Colin Powell for endorsing Obama. He seems to think it will harm his legacy. Dude, that is not what has and will hurt his legacy. That McCain is one goofy guy.

McCain would probably react just as strongly in private if Powell had endorsed Romney, for obvious reasons.
   4832. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4283106)
About a hundred times a day (as most of you have noticed) I flip the 'n' and 'g' in various words, like "anythign". It flipping drives me crazy and it only started in the last year or so. Sigh. Of course I am also a terrible speller and geenrally slow and bad typist, so the flaws they are legion.

EDIT: The fact I mistyped generally in this post is so wonderful I have to leave it.
   4833. JL Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4283112)
So do most Democrats, and by all appearances, the GOP would really prefer that that guy not show up. As evidenced by the clutching of pearls and the trotting out of the Hillaryland* feinting couches over the sarcasm evident in the FP debate. As with moderators or formats, if once side is complaining about tone, it means they got punched hard and want to pretend it was below the belt.

To me, those type of comments deserve sarcastic replies (from either side). It was a weak and poorly thought out comment by Romney. There were good and thoughtful ways to make his point (whether or not you agree with it). Instead, he went for the cheap one liner and got caught. To me, you look weak and unpresidential when your response to getting called on it is that the other guy was too mean in the way he did it.
   4834. JL Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4283114)
Interesting theory, though in my case I can't remember ever typing "teh" or "liek". What I do a lot , though, is type words like "sublilminal", adding an extra "l" between the two correct "l"s in the word.

As I think about it, I should be clear that I have been told by others that this is a result of these left-hand tendencies. I would not be at all surprised if it was bunk and that my poor typing skills are to blame.
   4835. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4283115)
To me, those type of comments deserve sarcastic replies (from either side). It was a weak and poorly thought out comment by Romney. There were good and thoughtful ways to make his point (whether or not you agree with it). Instead, he went for the cheap one liner and got caught. To me, you look weak and unpresidential when your response to getting called on it is that the other guy was too mean in the way he did it.


If the choice is between vacuous, completely baseless talking points (such as "we have fewer ships than we did in 1916" - a talking point based fundamentally on the idea that the American public is simply too ####### stupid to recognized the difference between the WWI navy and our current flotilla of aircraft carriers) and mean-girl sarcasm, I'll go with the mean girls every time. Sometimes the only intellectually responsible retort is to point and laugh.
   4836. UCCF Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4283116)
Interesting theory, though in my case I can't remember ever typing "teh" or "liek". What I do a lot , though, is type words like "sublilminal", adding an extra "l" between the two correct "l"s in the word.

I don't realize how often I type "teh" until I'm working on a program that doesn't auto-correct like Word does. Turns out it's about half of the time.
   4837. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4283119)
Teh is a problem, yes. Fingers always faster than brain. Or other way around. Not sure.
   4838. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4283123)
The idea of the party of Atwater, Rove, Gingrich, Bachmann, Gomert et al calling anyone "mean" is alternatively laughable and depressing (when the media runs it with a straight face).
   4839. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4283132)
This is Onion-esque:

Why Romney Doesn’t Need a Poll Lead in Ohio

The race for Ohio is slowly tightening, but Mitt Romney does not hold a lead in a single poll in the current Real Clear Politics average (he is tied in two). Two polls from Time and CBS/Quinnipiac have grabbed headlines by showing Obama a five-point lead in each. Romney is chipping away at Obama’s poll lead, but the Democratic advantage in party-ID has increased across these polls. When looking at the polls in Ohio, it is becoming entirely possible that Mitt Romney should be able to win Ohio without ever showing a consistent lead in the polls, or any lead at all.

Where did they find this guy?
   4840. BDC Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4283138)
it is becoming entirely possible that Mitt Romney should be able to win Ohio without ever showing a consistent lead in the polls, or any lead at all


After watching Oakland win their division this year while being in first place only after it was all over, I'm prepared to accept this logic :)
   4841. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4283149)
It's an article of faith that nearly all pollsters are conspiring against the GOP. The NRO peddles this crap all the time so folks will keep their chin up.
   4842. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4283153)
Nate was getting national attention long before his Nov. 2008 projections proved accurate.
No, actually he wasn't, unless you want to completely ignore the primaries, which tend to be harder to predict, and where Nate made his reputation as a political prognosticator. But that wouldn't fit the narrative you've been creating about Nate in your head for the last two months (or longer), so it's probably just easier to pretend that the 2008 primaries never happened.

What did the above intend to refute? The claim was that Nate went big-time only after his Nov. 2008 predictions proved accurate. The reality is, he was making prime-time national TV appearances in the late summer and fall of 2008, when the entirety of Nate's political track record was as "Poblano" during the Dem primary.

Nate's rise in the political world was both meteoric and essentially unprecedented in recent times. When was the last time a baseball blogger popped up on February 1 and then was seen sitting on the set of "Baseball Tonight" two months later? It doesn't happen, and if it doesn't happen in baseball, it's even more incredible it happened in politics.

***
BTW if you don't like Nate's pollster quality ratings, here's ARG's rating of polls/aggregators based on 2010:

YouGov/Polimetrix 0.072
SurveyUSA 0.077
RealClearPolitics.com 0.084
FiveThirtyEight.com 0.098
Pollster.com 0.100

If they have RCP as slightly more accurate than FiveThirtyEight, then 2012 will be a big test. There's an almost 3-point swing between Romney and Obama between RCP and 538 right now, at least at the national level.

As of today, Nate still has Obama getting 50.2 percent of the popular vote despite Obama not even sniffing 50 percent in the tracking polls.
   4843. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4283155)
I almost always type woudl and coudl, and then have to go back and correct them.
   4844. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4283164)
When was the last time a baseball blogger popped up on February 1 and then was seen sitting on the set of "Baseball Tonight" two months later? It doesn't happen, and if it doesn't happen in baseball, it's even more incredible it happened in politics.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove. If a baseball blogger had developed a projection model that accurately predicted the outcomes of a whole slew of games over the first two months of the season, he'd probably generate a lot of attention, and may even be invited to appear on Baseball Tonight. Nate developed a system that predicted the outcome of many of the Democratic primaries with remarkable accuracy. It got him a fair amount of attention. The point is, he got that attention AFTER he had established at least some sort of track record, unlike the Colorado professors that you seem to feel are being unfairly ignored. If Nate, in 2008, had developed a model that he claimed accurately predicted the 1992 Democratic primaries, I'm guessing no one would have paid any attention. My guess is that this is why Nate didn't include it in his post with regard what he feels is the conservative nature of his projection system. Largely because it appears to be a joke with no actual track record.

All of this proves what, exactly? Are you denying his record? Are you implying he was some sort of Democratic plant? Is your position that Nate deliberately skews his model so that Democrats will like him? You're claiming his model is biased, but your only evidence seems to be "he got invited to be on MSNBC".
   4845. Langer Monk Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4283170)
I found this interesting.

Say what you will about religion, and I'm sure we can all say quite a bit, not all religious people are quite so Mourdockian in their mouth-breather stupidity.
   4846. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4283171)
From that NRO link:

If a pollster calls someone who says they voted already, they are automatically passed through the likely-voter screen since they have, after all, voted. The problem with this can be best summed up by Gregory House: “Everybody lies.”


And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all you really need to know about that post.
   4847. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4283177)
I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove.

I've twice explained what I'm "trying to prove," in plain English. Contrary to what others have said, Nate was getting major attention before he predicted "49 out of 50 states" in November 2008. The idea that predicting the outcome of a two-person primary in which one of them made a huge tactical error should be enough to make a previous unknown the media's go-to expert on polling is kind of amazing. I guess sample sizes don't matter as long as Nate's a friend.

All of this proves what, exactly? Are you denying his record? Are you implying he was some sort of Democratic plant? Is your position that Nate deliberate skews his model so that Democrats will like him? You're claiming his model is biased, but your only evidence seems to be "he got invited to be on MSNBC".

Whoa, you're getting very worked up here. I didn't believe it was even controversial to say that Nate's rise in the political world was both meteoric and unprecedented, but I guess some of Nate's friends or alleged friends feel like they need to put on a show every time his name is mentioned here.

Also, I've never claimed that Nate's "model is biased." I simply don't buy into the lefties' apparent belief that Nate's model is flawless to the point of being immune to being questioned.
   4848. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4283178)
I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove

The right has decided that facts having a liberal bias is not only wrong, but the result of collusion and treason from the media - and as of today, has decided it is a capital offense

WND calls for executions of liberals, journalists as traitors
   4849. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4283179)
As of today, Nate still has Obama getting 50.2 percent of the popular vote despite Obama not even sniffing 50 percent in the tracking polls.


Well, in the RCP national polls list, Obama has 50% in one, while Romney has 50% in two, and the rest of them neither has 50%.
We're pretty sure that ONE of them is going to get 50%, right? Is it that unusual to assume that 538.com's system reads this, plus some state information, and decides that Obama is going to win the popular vote? If so, is 0.2% over the 50 point line really that outrageous? It's not like he has Obama with 53% of the vote.
   4850. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4283182)
All of this proves what, exactly? Are you denying his record? Are you implying he was some sort of Democratic plant? Is your position that Nate deliberately skews his model so that Democrats will like him? You're claiming his model is biased, but your only evidence seems to be "he got invited to be on MSNBC".


The claim is that Nate roots for the Democrats and, simultaneously, runs a "model" that requires a lot of subjective adjustments to the inputs. Even though he's clearly trying to be scrupulously fair, it's almost impossible not to let the bias subconsciously seep into your subjective judgments.
   4851. McCoy Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4283186)
Nate was already a known entity in that he was a published author (almost wrote "other" because of all this talk) that had business connections with ESPN/ABC/Disney and had done radio and other media work before looking into political polls. So Nate had already broken through the glass ceiling and that is the hardest part. If someone is trying to create some sort of narrative that Nate was an unnknown blogger sitting in his mother's basement cranking out posts on some forum and then the next day he was writing for WSJ and getting media interviews left and right they are either trolling or incredibly ignorant.
   4852. Morty Causa Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4283188)
All because he perjured himself and obstructed justice.


When was Clinton convicted of perjury? What lawfully-empowered adjudicating body found this as matter of law?
   4853. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4283189)
Say what you will about religion, and I'm sure we can all say quite a bit, not all religious people are quite so Mourdockian in their mouth-breather stupidity.

It's funny how the lefties feigning outrage over Mourdock's comments are conveniently overlooking the fact that Joe Donnelly cosponsored a bill that distinguished between rape and forcible rape:

But if we're going to treat this logically, we should note that Rep. Joe Donnelly, the conservative Democrat challenging Mourdock, co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of 2011. That was the bill that, in initial drafts, created a distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape." You've got a Republican candidate who believes that life starts at conception and won't make allowances for abortion, and a Democrat who believes that life starts at conception and HEY LOOK OVER THERE.
   4854. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4283192)
The idea that predicting the outcome of a two-person primary in which one of them made a huge tactical error should be enough to make a previous unknown the media's go-to expert on polling is kind of amazing.


It's not just that he predicted the outcome, but that he predicted the outcome extremely accurately AND against a lot of conventional wisdom at the time ("Hillary's a lock!"). Throw in the story about a baseball stats nerd turning his "spreadsheets and computer simulations" towards the political arena (plus a dash of interesting writing) and it's really not as stunning as you make it out to be.

The crazy story is why ANYONE still puts Dick Morris in front of a camera, if for no other reason than to mock him.

   4855. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4283193)
If someone is trying to create some sort of narrative that Nate was an unnknown blogger sitting in his mother's basement cranking out posts on some forum and then the next day he was writing for WSJ and getting media interviews left and right they are either trolling or incredibly ignorant.

Yeah, I'm just inventing the fact that Nate had zero track record in the political world prior to 2008. I guess, in the revisionist history being crafted, he and George Gallup were early rivals.
   4856. McCoy Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4283195)
Eerly voting

it is clear that President Obama has built up a broad lead in early voting in Ohio, where he is over-performing Romney across important demographics and geographies.

· Overall early vote turnout is comparable to turnout at the same date four years ago, and

· Likely Democrats outnumber likely Republicans amongst those that have requested absentee ballots in the state overall, as well as in 12 of the state's 15 most populous counties.

This clear lead amongst those that have already requested ballots suggests that Ohio's most intense and reliable voters support Democrats at much higher rates than they do Republicans, indicating an early lead for the President and the Democratic ticket in the state.

· We see strong evidence that Democrats are requesting and returning more early ballots than Republicans; this is evidence of superior Democratic voter mobilization programs.

· 49.5% of those that have requested absentee ballots in Ohio are likely to be Democrats. Moreover, of those that have already turned in their ballot, 55% are likely Democrats.

· Only 36.2% of those requesting ballots are likely Republicans. Of those that have returned ballots, only 33.7% are likely Republicans, implying that Republicans are facing a 13.3 percentage point partisan deficit in the early electorate, and a 21.3 percentage point deficit amongst those that have returned ballots.

· In early voting, Democrats are disproportionately turning out in Ohio.



Virginia

In Virginia, the President is leading amongst important demographics in a traditionally red state. If these trends extend to Election Day voting, the President will carry the state this fall.

The absentee voting data in Virginia show a closer race than what we're seeing in Ohio, but a distinct Democratic edge is also evident here:

· Likely Democrats have 1.4 % larger share of absentee ballot requests than likely Republicans. Among those that have returned a ballot, the Democratic edge more than doubles, to 3 percentage points.

· 42.6% of the women who have requested absentee ballots in Virginia are likely Democrats, compared with the 32% of overall requestors who are likely Republicans, indicating a 10.6 percentage point advantage for Democrats in this key constituency.

· Among unmarried women, who account for 29% of ballot requests, Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2.5 to 1, with 60.8% of requests coming from likely Democratic single women, while 24.2% come from Republicans. This gap widens further when we look to those that have returned their ballots, where Democrats lead more than threefold, 67% to 21.6%.

Not only are there more Democrats in the absentee voting pool, but the group of people who have already cast a ballot is more Democratic still. This is further evidence that the Democratic ground game is succeeding in getting their voters to take the actions necessary to cast a vote for the President, while Republicans are not keeping pace. If trends continue, Democrats should continue to hold an edge in absentee voting.




In further news Dems have a 55,000 person lead in ballots as of yesterday in Ohio.
   4857. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4283196)
It's funny how the lefties feigning outrage over Mourdock's comments are conveniently overlooking the fact that Joe Donnelly cosponsored a bill that distinguished between rape and forcible rape:


How are they "overlooking" it?
I'm pretty sure the "lefties" hated that bill when it was introduced. The fact that a "conservative Democrat" decided to put his name to it probably didn't make it any less disgusting.

Were there any "lefties" that said "Oh, well since a Democrat co-sponsored that bill, I guess I'll just let it slide."?
   4858. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4283197)
The idea that predicting the outcome of a two-person primary in which one of them made a huge tactical error should be enough to make a previous unknown the media's go-to expert on polling is kind of amazing.
This displays pretty remarkable idiocy on your part, considering the unreliability in polling of primaries vs. a general election. Nate's model went beyond merely aggregating the polls, which is kind of the whole point.
Whoa, you're getting very worked up here. I didn't believe it was even controversial to say that Nate's rise in the political world was both meteoric and unprecedented, but I guess some of Nate's friends or alleged friends feel like they need to put on a show every time his name is mentioned here.
I think this is actually the first time I've even written anything here about Nate, and my comments with regard to this issue had nothing really to do with the reliability or lack thereof of his model. And of course, you weren't just commenting on his "meteoric and unprecedented" rise, but rather implying that it was somehow unearned. But I understand this to be nothing more than the typical backtracking and ad hominem that you deliver when you get all butthurt about something.
I simply don't buy into the lefties' apparent belief that Nate's model is immune to being questioned.
Another typical distortion of what has appeared here. We use various prediction models as reference points all the time, be it with regard to baseball or politics. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this site who has ever referred to any prediction model as "immune to being questioned", nor would you be able to find such a belief "apparent" (nice weasel word). But again, you attack strawmen when you get butthurt, so this too is expected.
   4859. Kurt Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4283198)
We're pretty sure that ONE of them is going to get 50%, right?

I'm not sure of that at all. In fact, I would be willing to bet a BBTF sponsorship (up to $20) that neither candiate gets 50% of the popular vote.

(which is not really to argue your main point. If Obama gets 49.8%, I wouldn't point at a 50.2% prediction and shout "WRONG!")
   4860. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4283199)

Yeah, I'm just inventing the fact that Nate had zero track record in the political world prior to 2008. I guess, in the revisionist history being crafted, he and George Gallup were early rivals.


That ####### octopus got international attention when it correctly predicted a slew of soccer matches in the World Cup.

A ####### monkey was the centerpiece for NHL playoff predictions on a national network for SIX YEARS.

You don't think that a rational human being with a history of working in predictions/statistics (and having a very recent track record of success) wouldn't get attention?
   4861. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4283201)
The crazy story is why ANYONE still puts Dick Morris in front of a camera, if for no other reason than to mock him.


QFT.

As to the Nate Silver Story (coming to LifeTime in the Spring), he had a popular website at a time when a bunch of folks with popular websites were getting attention (and snapped up by MSM). He writes well. He is smart. He was right fairly often with a new spin on things. He had a good narrative around him.

We will find out how well his model does I guess, but even if it fails, if he delivers the eyeballs he will be kept around.
   4862. Morty Causa Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4283203)
It's funny how the lefties feigning outrage over Mourdock's comments are conveniently overlooking the fact that Joe Donnelly cosponsored a bill that distinguished between rape and forcible rape:


What's even funnier is how some people like you don't seem to know that the law right now in various states recognizes different categories of rape. Of course, if this is like the perjury thing, everyone gets to decree what rape is, too. Still, though, I don't think any of these recognizes a God wanted it to happen exception to its consequences.

See:

God Distances Himself from the Righties
   4863. McCoy Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4283205)
Wasn't Truman the last Dem president to get 50+% of the vote before Obama in 2008? For whatever reason Dem presidential candidates seem to only get enough votes to become President when there is a third party drawing votes away.
   4864. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4283206)
Well, in the RCP national polls list, Obama has 50% in one, while Romney has 50% in two, and the rest of them neither has 50%.
We're pretty sure that ONE of them is going to get 50%, right? Is it that unusual to assume that 538.com's system reads this, plus some state information, and decides that Obama is going to win the popular vote? If so, is 0.2% over the 50 point line really that outrageous? It's not like he has Obama with 53% of the vote.

The only way Obama gets to 50 percent in the polls is if at least half of the undecideds break for Obama, which runs contrary to Nate's own historical data (see second chart).
   4865. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4283207)
Yeah, I'm just inventing the fact that Nate had zero track record in the political world prior to 2008.
This is the perfect example of the typical Joek "change the subject non-sequitur". Great use of meaningless and moveable endpoints.
   4866. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4283208)
I'm not sure of that at all. In fact, I would be willing to bet a BBTF sponsorship (up to $20) that neither candiate gets 50% of the popular vote.


Yes, right. The third party is going to generate enough votes that both sides might fall short of 50%.
I was basing that on a "D vs R" measurement only, which isn't correct.
I wonder if Nate's popular vote prediction only measures the outcome between Obama vs Romney (and doesn't factor in the 3rd party).
   4867. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4283211)
If Obama gets 49.8%, I wouldn't point at a 50.2% prediction and shout "WRONG!"


You should, but only if you use a Dana Carvey doing John McLaughlin voice.
   4868. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4283212)
In further news Dems have a 55,000 person lead in ballots as of yesterday in Ohio.

How come you keep posting raw numbers but not the splits?

In 2008, Dems had a D+20 advantage in early and absentee voting in Ohio. What's the split so far this year?
   4869. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4283215)
The only way Obama gets to 50 percent in the polls is if at least half of the undecideds break for Obama, which runs contrary to Nate's own historical data (see second chart).


I'm not sure that Nate says that really happens:

2. The evidence is not very convincing that polls break toward the challenger otherwise. (This seems to be true both for presidential elections and for other types of elections.)
   4870. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4283217)
When was Clinton convicted of perjury? What lawfully-empowered adjudicating body found this as matter of law?


He lied under oath and was found in contempt of court as a result, whether or not what he did was technically "perjury" or not depends upon the jurisdiction and the relevance standards, but if you are using "Clinton committed perjury" in the same sense that one may say, "OJ murdered two people" I see no problem
   4871. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4283218)
Here's the best part of that Onion article that Morty linked to in #4862, which they just slipped in at the end, I guess to show that they were fair and balanced:

At press time, God’s son, Jesus Christ, offered a countering view and confirmed He strongly believes pregnancies resulting from rape are, in fact, God’s gift.


-------------------------------------------------

Wasn't Truman the last Dem president to get 50+% of the vote before Obama in 2008?

Well, there was one big exception to that otherwise accurate description. A tip of the cowboy hat to LBJ for showing us how it was done.
   4872. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4283219)
Wasn't Truman the last Dem president to get 50+% of the vote before Obama in 2008? For whatever reason Dem presidential candidates seem to only get enough votes to become President when there is a third party drawing votes away.


Carter got 50.1% in 1976, and Johnson got 61.1% in 1964.
   4873. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4283222)
The crazy story is why ANYONE still puts Dick Morris in front of a camera, if for no other reason than to mock him.


Is it me or is he really starting to sound a lot like Harvey Fierstein?
   4874. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4283223)
I swear poor Nate is undergoing the same "Anointed One/Messiah" meme from the right that Obama got. Sorest losers that ever walked the face of the earth.
   4875. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4283224)
I think this is actually the first time I've even written anything here about Nate, and my comments with regard to this issue had nothing really to do with the reliability or lack thereof of his model. And of course, you weren't just commenting on his "meteoric and unprecedented" rise, but rather implying that it was somehow unearned. But I understand this to be nothing more than the typical backtracking and ad hominem that you deliver when you get all butthurt about something.

If this is the first time you've seen me write anything about Nate, then why are you claiming that I allege that Nate's model is biased? I haven't made such allegations in the past, and I didn't do so last night.

Questioning Nate's model isn't the same thing as accusing Nate of some sort of moral failing.

Another typical distortion of what has appeared here. We use various prediction models as reference points all the time, be it with regard to baseball or politics. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this site who has ever referred to any prediction model as "immune to being questioned", nor would you be able to find such a belief "apparent" (nice weasel word). But again, you attack strawmen when you get butthurt, so this too is expected.

Then why all the screaming every time I mention Nate's name? Asking the simplest of questions re: Nate's model results in name-calling, allegations of "poll trutherism," etc.
   4876. Morty Causa Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4283225)
Wasn't Truman the last Dem president to get 50+% of the vote before Obama in 2008? For whatever reason Dem presidential candidates seem to only get enough votes to become President when there is a third party drawing votes away.


LBJ and Carter (barely, according to wiki) also did.
   4877. Kurt Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4283227)
I wonder if Nate's popular vote prediction only measures the outcome between Obama vs Romney (and doesn't factor in the 3rd party).

It looks like he does factor in third parties - he currently has Obama at 50.2% and Romney at 48.8%.

(as an aside, I would *definitely* bet on third parties collectively getting more than 1.0% of the popular vote)

IHe lied under oath and was found in contempt of court as a result, whether or not what he did was technically "perjury" or not depends upon the jurisdiction and the relevance standards, but if you are using "Clinton committed perjury" in the same sense that one may say, "OJ murdered two people" I see no problem

Oh God, please don't. Just no.
   4878. Morty Causa Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4283229)
Because we all know, when it comes to law, "technically" is irrelevant.
   4879. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4283230)
What's even funnier is how some people like you don't seem to know that the law right now in various states recognizes different categories of rape.

Yes, and Democrat Joe Donnelly cosponsored a bill to take that distinction national, at least with regards to funding.

***
This is the perfect example of the typical Joek "change the subject non-sequitur". Great use of meaningless and moveable endpoints.

This is comical. Nate's track record in the political world was the entire subject. You're the one who did the whole "I'm a friend of Nate and you're a dirty rotten scoundrel for claiming Nate's model is biased" routine — despite, of course, me not having made any such allegations.
   4880. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4283231)

In 2008, Dems had a D+20 advantage in early and absentee voting in Ohio. What's the split so far this year?


D+21.3

or so the article says


I still see a 50/50 race
I also see a lot of cherrypicking going on, you have NRO which either looks at only polls that show Romney up- or pooh poohs Obama up polls as having a bad partisan sample (while denying that they're engaging in the unskewed shtick)

Then at LGM you see the exact opposite- looking solely at Obama up Polls, and Nate and then point out that the RCP guy made some overtly partisan remarks back in 2000...
   4881. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4283232)
I wonder if Nate's popular vote prediction only measures the outcome between Obama vs Romney (and doesn't factor in the 3rd party).

Wow.

I'm not sure that Nate says that really happens:

2. The evidence is not very convincing that polls break toward the challenger otherwise. (This seems to be true both for presidential elections and for other types of elections.)

So we're supposed to trust Nate's objective data, except when it's trumped by his subjective analysis. OK.
   4882. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4283233)
Repbulicans haven't had a winner break 50.7 (or any candidate for that matter) in 24 years. Odds are low that they will get there this time either.
   4883. JL Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4283234)
Wasn't Truman the last Dem president to get 50+% of the vote before Obama in 2008? For whatever reason Dem presidential candidates seem to only get enough votes to become President when there is a third party drawing votes away.

Pretty sure Lyndon Johnson beat the 50% mark.

Edit - RC all around
   4884. Morty Causa Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4283235)
Yes, and Democrat Joe Donnelly cosponsored a bill to take that distinction national, at least with regards to funding.


Woooo. He took it national. How did the rape statute read before? How would read afterwards? You have something against criminal law parsing degrees of culpability or categories and sub-categories of crime?

Did Donnelly also have a God exception, too? Because that's the objection to the Republican's statement. What does you interpolation have to do with that?
   4885. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4283237)
WND calls for executions of liberals, journalists as traitors


This is incredibly batshit crazy.

Right wing: Obama is NOT a socialist. He is NOT a marxist. He does not hate America. For ##### sake.
   4886. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4283238)
I love how Joe and Co. keep trying to have a discussion about whether or not Silver should be credible when he's a Dem who's so far out on a limb for Obama despite the fact that it's been shown to them, repeatedly, that Silver isn't actually out on a limb.

RCP's electoral map, for example, has Obama winning the electoral college 281-257.

And this is the part where Joe asks "Then how is 538 any better than RCP" and then promptly forgets that 538 isn't actually an outlier so he can bring this all back up again tomorrow.
   4887. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4283239)
Oh God, please don't. Just no.


I get pissed off when people want to argue that Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.
HE LIED UNDER OATH
HE LIED UNDER OATH
HE LIED UNDER OATH
HE LIED UNDER OATH


and I'm not a rightwinger, just ask JoeK or Ray or whoever else posts here regularly.

   4888. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4283240)
And this is the part where Joe asks "Then how is 538 any better than RCP"


I thought that was Ray
   4889. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4283242)
I wonder if Nate's popular vote prediction only measures the outcome between Obama vs Romney (and doesn't factor in the 3rd party).


Wow.


And? A few posts later, the wondering was shown to be wrong.

I wonder if Romney tortures babies for fun.
   4890. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4283243)
Then at LGM you see the exact opposite- looking solely at Obama up Polls, and Nate and then point out that the RCP guy made some overtly partisan remarks back in 2000...

What's LGM?
   4891. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4283245)
This is comical. Nate's track record in the political world was the entire subject.
Actually, no. His track record before he started getting national attention was the subject. You conveniently moved that to "prior to 2008", as if nothing happened between December 31, 2007 his first appearance on television. That you either dismiss or ignore what happened in between is something I can't help with.
   4892. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4283247)
What's LGM?


A Warren Zevon fan site
   4893. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4283248)
What's LGM?
Lawyers, Guns, and Money, I'm guessing.
   4894. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4283249)
I get pissed off when people want to argue that Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.
HE LIED UNDER OATH


Perjury is not merely lying under oath. If you are under oath testifying that you were at home watching Masterpiece Theater when you heard the gunshot, and it is later proven that you were really on your computer watching porn, that is not perjury.
   4895. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4283251)
And this is the part where Joe asks "Then how is 538 any better than RCP"

I thought that was Ray

It was both of them, but Joe was first. See #3884.

There's absolutely nothing at all "interesting" or "fishy" about projecting Obama to narrowly win a state where he leads in the polls. Do you find the RCP polling average in Ohio--which, again, is the exact same 2 point advantage 538 gives him--to be a product of bias?

I thought one of the major purposes of Nate's model was to regress to the historical mean? If not, how is Nate's model any better than the RCP average?
   4896. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4283252)
HE LIED UNDER OATH
There's another element you're missing. Actually two, but I'll grant you the first one.
   4897. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4283253)
It looks like he does factor in third parties - he currently has Obama at 50.2% and Romney at 48.8%.


You're right. I glanced at it and saw 50.2% vs 49.8%, which led me to ask that (now silly) question about 3rd parties.
   4898. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4283258)
D+21.3

or so the article says

Which article? The articles I've read have the 2012 split at less than 10 percent.

***
Actually, no. His track record before he started getting national attention was the subject. You conveniently moved that to "prior to 2008", as if nothing happened between December 31, 2007 his first appearance on television. That you either dismiss or ignore what happened in between is something I can't help with.

Sorry, incorrect. The fact that Nate had some friends in the media who knew him from his baseball work doesn't remotely explain his meteoric rise to "polling expert" status in the political world in 2008.
   4899. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4283260)
If this is the first time you've seen me write anything about Nate, then why are you claiming that I allege that Nate's model is biased? I haven't made such allegations in the past, and I didn't do so last night.
Umm, what? How does my saying that I've never written here about a certain subject imply that I've never read YOU writing about a particular subject? I don't think I've ever written anything on BTF before about Babe Ruth, but I've certainly read other things written about him.
   4900. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4283262)
Flip
Page 49 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(562 - 10:07am, Aug 01)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogCliff Lee Re-Injures Elbow
(20 - 10:06am, Aug 01)
Last: AROM

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(4009 - 10:06am, Aug 01)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogAmaro says Phils didn't overvalue players at Deadline | phillies.com: News
(4 - 9:59am, Aug 01)
Last: Batman

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(153 - 9:43am, Aug 01)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-1-2014
(2 - 9:36am, Aug 01)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1076 - 9:34am, Aug 01)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogMariners notebook: Zduriencik fires back at critics | Mariners Insider - The News Tribune
(4 - 9:23am, Aug 01)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogRanking The Prospects Traded At The Deadline - BaseballAmerica.com
(2 - 9:23am, Aug 01)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogThe Dark Side of Booming Local TV Deals
(5 - 9:22am, Aug 01)
Last: bobm

NewsblogA's Acquire Lester, Gomes For Cespedes
(131 - 9:20am, Aug 01)
Last: Russ

NewsblogPlayoff contenders load up on dizzying Deadline day | MLB.com: News
(1 - 8:58am, Aug 01)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogJULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(366 - 8:49am, Aug 01)
Last: zonk

NewsblogBrewers acquire outfielder Gerardo Parra from D-backs
(6 - 8:00am, Aug 01)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr., on standing pat at deadline
(13 - 7:45am, Aug 01)
Last: Jeltzandini

Page rendered in 1.0553 seconds
52 querie(s) executed