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 50 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 >  Last ›
   4901. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4283263)
It was both of them, but Joe was first. See #3884.

That's accurate, if you completely ignore everything else that was said.

I didn't say that Nate's model was little more than a fancy RCP. I asked why Nate's model would be saying the same thing about Ohio as RCP if Nate's model uses historical data and RCP's does not.

According to Nate's historical data, a two-point lead for Obama in Ohio is actually a tie, since Ohio historically goes +2.0 for the Republican relative to the national vote.
   4902. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4283264)
Flip
   4903. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4283265)
Flip
   4904. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4283268)
-aldelphia

edit: Damned you Joe ; )
   4905. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4283269)
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.

I either misread your comment or you edited it. Either way, I've never claimed that Nate is rigging his model, so the basis of your outraged commentary has been wrong.
   4906. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4283270)
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.
No, but ya know, I think there something that does. I'm trying to think of what they could be? It's on the tip of my tongue, but I think the word starts with "P" and ends with "rimaries".
   4907. Morty Causa Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4283272)
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


As a couple of other posters have pointed out, lying is not enough. There are other elements to the crime.

It's not a matter of personal belief, faith, or feeling. You have to know and acknowledge the specific universe you are dealing with?

The universe for perjury is the legal system. What institution in our legal system convicted him of perjury? Answer: none. You can think them wrong (see Ray, et al and various court and SC pronouncements that don't go like they like), but what gives reality is an effect on the issue in question. You can think he should have been. You can think other reprimands mean that he did. But the fact is he was not convicted of perjury. And that should, rationally speaking, have meaning and effect. In a rational mindset (talking to you, Ray) that should mean something. But, that someone has their license, etc., doesn't resolve the issue of perjury. You can think it does, but that's all that is: you thinking that.
   4908. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4283274)
No, but ya know, I think there something that does. I'm trying to think of what they could be? It's on the tip of my tongue, but I think the word starts with "P" and ends with "rimaries".


No, Shredder. It's clearly because he agreed to sign the secret liberal media bias agreement to elect Democrats. Don't you understand how the Elders of Zion work?
   4909. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4283275)
No, but ya know, I think there something that does. I'm trying to think of what they could be? It's on the tip of my tongue, but I think the word starts with "P" and ends with "rimaries".

Right, he predicted the outcome of the 2008 Dem primary correctly — just like Dick Morris.
   4910. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4283276)
You can think it does, but that's all that is: you thinking that.


You're dealing with an audience where at least a subset of them believe that "you thinking that" is enough to prove SCOTUS decisions unconstitutional despite the outcome of the decisions themselves.
   4911. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4283277)
According to Nate's historical data, a two-point lead for Obama in Ohio is actually a tie, since Ohio historically goes +2.0 for the Republican relative to the national vote.


I don't know where that says that, but if he does in fact believe that, it might already be baked into his predictions, right?
Or do you think his only prediction for Ohio would be "National + 2 R" and leave it at that?
   4912. Morty Causa Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4283280)
Right, he predicted the outcome of the 2008 Dem primary correctly — just like Dick Morris.


As an example of thinking, or an attempt at same, that's pathetic. That's like holding someone's hunch about a finding in science is the same as something being shown according to the scientific method.
   4913. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4283282)
Right, he predicted the outcome of the 2008 Dem primary correctly — just like Dick Morris.


Um. What?

He wrote a whole book about how Hillary Clinton was going to lose to Condi Rice in the 2008 election.

How is that getting the 2008 Democratic primary "correct"?
   4914. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4283283)
just like Dick Morris


Did Dick Morris really get the 2008 Primaries right? I am not saying he did or did not, just I would think I would remember something as remarkable as him getting something - anything - right.

EDIT: Coke to RTG, not because you got there first, but because you reaffirmed one of the foundational pillars of my universe. Dick Morris is always wrong.
   4915. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4283286)
I am going to almost feel sorry for Mitt if he loses. If you think John McCain suffered a backlash for being a RINO, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch is going to get the moral equivalent of a Firestone necklace.
   4916. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4283288)
EDIT: Coke to RTG, not because you got there first, but because you reaffirmed one of the foundational pillars of my universe. Dick Morris is always wrong.


You're damn right he is...
   4917. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4283289)
I don't know where that says that, but if he does in fact believe that, it might already be baked into his predictions, right?

If RCP has Obama at +2.0 in Ohio and Nate has Obama at +2.0 in Ohio, it appears Nate's historical data isn't baked in or was offset by some other unexplained data/factors. Over every election for which we have data, Ohio has never gone less for the GOP candidate than the GOP candidate secured in the national vote, and the average is +2.0 for the GOP.

***
No, Shredder. It's clearly because he agreed to sign the secret liberal media bias agreement to elect Democrats.

Speaking of secret agreements, it's kind of amazing how little attention was paid to the Buzzfeed story that confirmed that Nate was actually a consultant to the Obama campaign in 2008, while working under a non-disclosure agreement. The entire storyline for Nate's success in 2008 was that he was analyzing the same publicly available information as everyone else, and this turned out to be completely untrue. Nate had access to hundreds of polls from the Obama campaign that no one else was allowed to see.
   4918. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4283290)
Right, he predicted the outcome of the 2008 Dem primary correctly — just like Dick Morris.

As you you often pretend to forget, forecasting individual states is not the same as forecasting an overall election winner.
   4919. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4283292)
Um. What?

He wrote a whole book about how Hillary Clinton was going to lose to Condi Rice in the 2008 election.

How is that getting the 2008 Democratic primary "correct"?

Uh, that book was from 2006.
   4920. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4283294)
Nate had access to hundreds of polls from the Obama campaign that no one else was allowed to see.


It's only fair since Dick Morris has his own secret polls that no one else has access to...
   4921. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4283298)
Uh, that book was from 2006.


So where did Morris make his primary prediction that you say he got right?

At what time did he make this prediction?

I'm curious to know when he went from being so confident that Clinton was going to win the nomination (against even unknown opponents) that he was willing to write a book about it, to saying that Obama would win. Hopefully it was before the Democratic National Convention that year...
   4922. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4283299)
That's accurate, if you completely ignore everything else that was said.

No, it's exactly what happened.

You: Silver's biased weighting of Ohio polls is the only thing keeping libs sane.

Me: As has been explained to you, repeatedly, his forecast for Ohio is the same as your precious RCP's.

You: Then how is Nate's model any better than the RCP average?

You (later): Silver's forecast is such an outlier!!one
   4923. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4283300)
As you you often pretend to forget, forecasting individual states is not the same as forecasting an overall election winner.

True, but the biggest part of Nate's success in 2008 was that he — like Obama — understood the primary process better than Hillary's people. Hillary didn't lose because of a few percentage points in one state or another; she lost because her strategy cost her in a big way in the proportional-allocation primary system.
   4924. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4283301)
538: 50.1 to 48.7 Obama
Pollster: 47.1 to 46.9 Romney
RCP: 47.7 to 47.0 Romney

EC:
538: 290.7 to 247.3 Obama
Pollster: 303 to 235 Obama
RCP: 281 to 257 Obama
These numbers posted yesterday get at something useful that the 538 model does. Look at the RCP and Pollster numbers - they have Romney with a very small lead nationally and Obama with a small to medium lead in the state-by-state polling. That's really odd. Silver, by contract, has Obama with a smallish lead in both the EC and the national popular vote. That makes a lot more sense.

His model uses state-by-state data as part of his calculation of the national race, and uses national data as part of his calculation of the race in individual states. This makes perfect logical sense - the nation is composed of states - and it's not the world's most complex programming job to fit the information together, but no one else is doing it. So that's a clear little piece of value added by the 538 model.
   4925. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4283304)
You're damn right he is...


Some of those are whoppers, but some are pretty weak. Morris predicted that the R's would gain 80 seats in the 2010 elections and got only 63? Wow, history's greatest monster he is.
   4926. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4283306)
I'm curious to know when he went from being so confident that Clinton was going to win the nomination (against even unknown opponents) that he was willing to write a book about it, to saying that Obama would win. Hopefully it was before the Democratic National Convention that year...

You're not unaware that political types write books more to make money than to inform the citizenry, are you?

***
No, it's exactly what happened.

You: Silver's biased weighting of Ohio polls is the only thing keeping libs sane.

You lie!

Me: As has been explained to you, repeatedly, his forecast for Ohio is the same as your precious RCP's.

You: Then how is Nate's model any better than the RCP average?

You (later): Silver's forecast is such an outlier!!one

I'll ask again: How can Nate's model and RCP be at parity if Nate's model uses historical data and RCP's does not?
   4927. Shredder Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4283307)
Right, he predicted the outcome of the 2008 Dem primary correctly — just like Dick Morris.
Umm, as was pointed out above, you're either ignorant of what actually happened, or being deliberately obtuse. He didn't predict the nominee. He predicted winners state by state, and was remarkably close with the final vote percentages, even when they didn't track closely to the polls (by using things like demographics and such in addition to published polls). That's pretty hard. That's why he gained attention.
In March 2008, still using the pseudonym "Poblano", Silver established his own blog FiveThirtyEight.com, in which he developed a system for tracking polls and forecasting the outcome of the 2008 general election. At the same time, he continued making forecasts of the 2008 Democratic primary elections. That several of his forecasts based on demographic analysis proved to be substantially more accurate than those of the professional pollsters gained visibility and professional credibility for "Poblano".
After the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on May 6 the popularity of FiveThirtyEight.com "really exploded. Silver recalls the scenario: 'I know the polls show it's really tight in NC, but we think Obama is going to win by thirteen, fourteen points, and he did.
... Any time you make a prediction like that people give you probably too much credit for it.... But after that [Silver's and the website's popularity] started to really take off. It's pretty nonlinear, once you get one mention in the mainstream media, other people [quickly follow suit]'"
   4928. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4283312)
I'll ask again: How can Nate's model and RCP be at parity if Nate's model uses historical data and RCP's does not?


When I am looking at different models that use a diffeent methodology and different inputs and they arrive at the same answer then either both are reaching some underlying truth or both are hitting the same underlying bias/issue or both happen to be wrong the same by coincidence.

Why is it a great mystery they have the same answer when using different inputs and a different method? Am I misunderstanding the question?
   4929. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4283313)
Umm, as was pointed out above, you're either ignorant of what actually happened, or being deliberately obtuse. He didn't predict the nominee. He predicted winners state by state, and was remarkably close with the final vote percentages, even when they didn't track closely to the polls (by using things like demographics and such in addition to published polls). That's pretty hard. That's why he gained attention.

No, I know what he did. And it was great. But the idea that analyzing a single Dem primary election was enough to elevate someone from political unknown to the go-to expert and analyst is kind of amazing.

Given that blacks went overwhelmingly for Obama, the demographical influence wasn't half as amazing as people seem to believe. Now, if Nate had done his magic in a primary between two black guys or two white women, that would have been different.
   4930. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4283314)
538: 50.1 to 48.7 Obama
Pollster: 47.1 to 46.9 Romney
RCP: 47.7 to 47.0 Romney

EC:
538: 290.7 to 247.3 Obama
Pollster: 303 to 235 Obama
RCP: 281 to 257 Obama


So Pollster and RCP believe that the third parties are going to get between 5.3% and 6.0% of the vote?
The polling numbers are interesting, but that support virtually disappears at the voting booth.
   4931. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4283315)
Morris predicted that the R's would gain 80 seats in the 2010 elections and got only 63? Wow, history's greatest monster he is.

Given the amount of guff Nate takes for "only" predicting 54, some folks should by rights hold that position.
   4932. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4283320)
A couple of my favorite gems from Dick Morris:

Still beatable: DioGuardi can best Gillibrand

That was from September 16, 2010. Gillibrand won by 28 points.

And this from 2005:
Katrina has the capacity to shape the second Bush term in the same way Sept. 11 shaped his first term — not only in rebuilding New Orleans but in taking preventative steps around the nation to bolster our defenses against natural and manmade disasters and terror strikes. Responding to disasters is a source of presidential strength and popularity, and Bush is about to show how it is done.
   4933. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4283322)
So Pollster and RCP believe that the third parties are going to get between 5.3% and 6.0% of the vote?
No, Pollster and RCP are straight poll averages, while 538 is a projected vote. It's a bit apples and chairs. So most of those 5-6% are undecided voters. They are not projected third party voters.

538 allocates undecideds roughly evenly for its projection, while Pollster and RCP leave them untouched as undecideds for their poll averages.
   4934. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4283325)
So Pollster and RCP believe that the third parties are going to get between 5.3% and 6.0% of the vote?
The polling numbers are interesting, but that support virtually disappears at the voting booth.

RCP and Pollster don't project what will happen on election day; they just average the current polls, which still have undecideds.
   4935. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4283328)
When I am looking at different models that use a diffeent methodology and different inputs and they arrive at the same answer then either both are reaching some underlying truth or both are hitting the same underlying bias/issue or both happen to be wrong the same by coincidence.

Why is it a great mystery they have the same answer when using different inputs and a different method? Am I misunderstanding the question?

Yes, you're misunderstanding the question. RCP is an average, not a model. If the RCP average and Nate's model are at parity, as they are, then there appears to be an unexplained anomaly given that Nate's model uses historical data that shows an average of a +2.0 advantage for the GOP candidate in Ohio relative to the national popular vote.
   4936. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4283329)
No, I know what he did. And it was great. But the idea that analyzing a single primary was enough to elevate someone from political unknown to the go-to expert and analyst is kind of amazing.


You're not unaware that Newspapers and television networks hire analysts more to generate ratings and make money than to inform the citizenry, are you?

You have a well spoken, intelligent guy making bold predictions bucking the old tried and true, and was remarkably accurate. And just as important, he had an in. Frankly, it would be amazing if he wasn't given a shot. That he then continued to succeed cemented his position.

   4937. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4283333)
You lie!

Nope, here's you:
That issue aside, I hope Nate explains why he's giving the most weight to the oldest polls in some states. That bit about giving the most weight to the oldest of eight or nine Ohio polls seems very odd. It appears Nate's model might be more subjective than is commonly acknowledged.

This is undoubtedly true in the general sense, but if it's true that Nate's projections are seen on the left as something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, then this would be the time that Nate would be the most susceptible to allowing his bias to creep in. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the Dems will go into full-blown panic mode if Nate substantially downgrades Obama's chances in Ohio, so it's at least curious that Nate seems to be giving the most weight to the oldest and most pro-Obama polls in Ohio and a couple other key states.
   4938. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4283335)
You're not unaware that political types write books more to make money than to inform the citizenry, are you?


I am aware that if your livelihood as a political pundit is based on your ability to provide inside/insightful information, and you publish a book that is so completely out of reality that people still use it to make fun of you 6 years later, it might not be such a good thing.

Who was he writing that book for, counter-factual historians?

If a political type wants to write a book about how this political party is the devil, or that political figure is the second coming of the Messiah, then I understand why they do it.

If that person writes a book that says "THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN!" and then it doesn't happen, how many times can he get away with it without losing some credibility (and possibly his livelihood)?*

*Other than appearing on FOX News, of course. They don't seem to have much of a filter for that sort of insanity.
   4939. Tilden Katz Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4283336)
But the idea that analyzing a single primary was enough to elevate someone from political unknown to the go-to expert and analyst is kind of amazing.


I guess they say something in him, since his model was extremely accurate in the fall of 2008. Good scouting.
   4940. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4283340)
But the idea that analyzing a single primary was enough to elevate someone from political unknown to the go-to expert and analyst is kind of amazing.



I guess they say something in him, since his model was extremely accurate in the fall of 2008. Good scouting.


Seriously. I wonder what Joe thought about the Mets bringing a 19 year old Dwight Gooden to the majors in 1984 despite only 1 year in A ball.
   4941. Spahn Insane Posted: October 25, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4283341)
I hadn't seen that post-Katrina bit from 4932 before. That's golden.
   4942. Spahn Insane Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4283343)
Seriously. I wonder what Joe thought about the Mets bringing a 19 year old Dwight Gooden to the majors in 1984 despite only 1 year in A ball?

We can only hope Nate stays off the blow.
   4943. Greg K Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4283344)
I don't mean to be taking sides here, but for the purposes of clarity what are the two narratives being argued?

The "Nate Silver doing very well with the primaries and getting noticed" one has been put forward pretty comprehensively.

I'm unclear on what the other narrative is, except that it was a remarkable rise. There's more to it than that right? Otherwise it seems like a pretty inane argument.

EDIT: I should make clear, I mean "argument" as in the discussion as a whole would be an inane one, not the "argument" as in that particular proposition being put forward.
   4944. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4283347)
Nope, here's you:

That issue aside, I hope Nate explains why he's giving the most weight to the oldest polls in some states. That bit about giving the most weight to the oldest of eight or nine Ohio polls seems very odd. It appears Nate's model might be more subjective than is commonly acknowledged.

Yes, thanks for showing that asking a question isn't the same thing as accusing Nate of bias. (There was also no accusation of bias in the second quote, either.)
   4945. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4283349)
If that person writes a book that says "THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN!" and then it doesn't happen, how many times can he get away with it without losing some credibility (and possibly his livelihood)?*

Bill Kristol seems to have made quite the career out of it.
   4946. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4283351)
I'm unclear on what the other narrative is, except that it was a remarkable rise. There's more to it than that right? Otherwise it seems like a pretty inane argument.


Joe's trying to imply that the remarkable rise was due to some sort of media bias, and that Nate skews his model toward Obama in order to keep his masters happy and his position secure. The end result being that his unrealistic optimism keeps Dem hopes alive and boosts turnout for Obama. Or something.
   4947. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4283352)

Yes, thanks for showing that asking a question isn't the same thing as accusing Nate of bias.


Is JoeK trying to cover his ass with more misdirection?

I'm not saying he is, I'm just asking a question.
   4948. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4283354)
I'm unclear on what the other narrative is, except that it was a remarkable rise. There's more to it than that right? Otherwise it seems like a pretty inane argument.

It's not an "argument" at all; just a simple statement of fact. Someone claimed that Nate's rise really wasn't all that meteoric, and that the media didn't really notice him until after he had correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008. I pointed out that Nate, in fact, was making primetime TV appearances in the late summer and fall of 2008. The Nate defenders are using a simple statement of fact as a reason to do a lot of phony preening about things I've never said in the first place.

EDIT: Just saw Greg's edit, which might have mooted the above.
   4949. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4283358)
Joe's trying to imply that the remarkable rise was due to some sort of media bias, and that Nate skews his model toward Obama in order to keep his masters happy and his position secure. The end result being that his unrealistic optimism keeps Dem hopes alive and boosts turnout for Obama. Or something.

False.

***
Is JoeK trying to cover his ass with more misdirection?

I'm not saying he is, I'm just asking a question.

Yeah, I'm misdirecting people back to the truth. I've never accused Nate of rigging his model. Asking questions about Nate's model isn't remotely the same thing as accusing Nate of being dishonest. There are plenty of ways Nate can be wrong without bias having anything to do with it.
   4950. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4283359)
"Just asking questions" has a much more accurate ring to it than "fair and balanced"
   4951. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4283361)
It's not an "argument" at all; just a simple statement of fact. Someone claimed that Nate's rise really wasn't all that meteoric, and that the media didn't really notice him until after he had correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008. I pointed out that Nate, in fact, was making primetime TV appearances in the late summer and fall of 2008.


Jesus, let it go already. Someone said that, fine, they were wrong. Numerous people pointed out that it was his success in the primaries. And yet you keep coming back to it. Despite never overtly saying it, there is a clear implication in nearly every post that you think Nate is fudging his data, or his model, to Obama's benefit. It's gone well beyond correcting the someone who made an incorrect claim.
   4952. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4283367)
In further news Dems have a 55,000 person lead in ballots as of yesterday in Ohio.

In 2008, Ohio voters cast about 5,300,000 ballots. Obama's margin of victory was approximately 207,000. And older, whiter voters show up in person on Election Day more than any other demographic. As Harvey Keitel said of the Marvin cleanup in Quentin Tarantino's garage, "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet."

--------

#4864: 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).

Already posted in #3582 in response to Joe K's repeated chart cite:

Small sample size or not, if you have six data points and they're all pointing in one direction, you need more than a hunch to go in the opposite direction. Whether it's "breaking for the challenger" (conventional wisdom) or "regressing to the mean" (Nate Silver), the result has been consistent.

"True incumbent" elections, differences between the late polling and the voting results:
Nixon '72: not much movement either way; not much of a contest, either
Ford '76: noticeable break to Ford, not the challenger (Carter)
Carter '80: break to the challenger (Reagan); announced polling has been criticized, and it's believed that most of Reagan's gains came earlier in the year
Reagan '84: slight, meaningless break to Reagan, not the challenger (Mondale), turning a big wipeout into a slightly bigger wipeout
Bush '92: moderate break to Bush in late September, not the challenger (Clinton... or Perot); no movement thereafter
Clinton '96: noticeable break to the challenger (Dole, but not Perot), but Clinton's reelection was never in danger
Bush '04: moderate break to Bush, not the challenger (Kerry)

They're not all pointing in one direction.
   4953. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4283369)
Despite never overtly saying it, there is a clear implication in nearly every post that you think Nate is fudging his data, or his model, to Obama's benefit. It's gone well beyond correcting the someone who made an incorrect claim.

This just continues to prove my point: The lefties here seem to believe that it's beyond the pale to even raise questions about Nate's predictions. Asking why he's weighting the oldest Ohio polls the most isn't a reasonable question about his model; it's a clear allegation of bias or even a moral failing on Nate's part. How silly.
   4954. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4283372)
They're not all pointing in one direction.

But they average 3:1 gains in October and 2:1 gains in November for the challenger, do they not?
   4955. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4283374)
"Just asking questions" has a much more accurate ring to it than "fair and balanced"


It also reminds me of James Adomian's imitation of Jesse "The Body and the Mind" Ventura.
   4956. McCoy Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4283381)
In 2008, Ohio voters cast about 5,300,000 ballots. Obama's margin of victory was approximately 207,000. And older, whiter voters show up in person on Election Day more than any other demographic. As Harvey Keitel said of the Marvin cleanup in Quentin Tarantino's garage, "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet."

Sure but as the CNN poll put it yesterday if you count the votes already cast along with the likely to vote numbers then Obama is up substantially in one of the most important states in this election.
   4957. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4283385)
But they average 3:1 gains in October and 2:1 gains in November for the challenger, do they not?

Directly underneath that chart, Silver suggests the data represents "regression toward the mean." Go down to his third chart and read his analysis of it: "There has not been any bias in the polls toward either the incumbent candidate or the challenger: this has been an equal-opportunity phenomenon."

In this starkly limited pool of "true incumbent" elections, the largest late break to the challenger in percentage terms was for Bob Dole. That was in a more volatile three-way election, and it resulted in Dole's getting whomped anyway. Merging his gains with the lesser gains made by other challengers in other years will get you an average, yes. But it's not a predictive result I'd bet 20 cents on.
   4958. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4283388)
Sure but as the CNN poll put it yesterday if you count the votes already cast along with the likely to vote numbers then Obama is up substantially in one of the most important states in this election.

"Up substantially" in early voting or up substantially compared to Obama's numbers in early and absentee voting in 2008?

Unless early votes are worth 1.2 while Election Day votes are worth 1, it seems Dems are overvaluing the value of leading in early votes.
   4959. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4283390)
Directly underneath that chart, Silver suggests the data represents "regression toward the mean." Go down to his third chart and read his analysis of it: "There has not been any bias in the polls toward either the incumbent candidate or the challenger: this has been an equal-opportunity phenomenon."

So the numbers are the numbers, unless Nate overrides them with subjective analysis.

Whether you call it "breaking for the challenger" or "regression to the mean," those charts show 3:1 gains for the challenger in October and 2:1 gains for the challenger in November.
   4960. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 25, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4283407)
   4961. Greg K Posted: October 25, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4283411)
EDIT: Just saw Greg's edit, which might have mooted the above.

Apologies for that, a few minutes after I wrote it I realized it was ambiguous.

So is it a fair characterization to say this is merely a discussion about how surprising Silver's rise to fame was?
   4962. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4283423)
Yes, you're misunderstanding the question. RCP is an average, not a model. If the RCP average and Nate's model are at parity, as they are, then there appears to be an unexplained anomaly given that Nate's model uses historical data that shows an average of a +2.0 advantage for the GOP candidate in Ohio relative to the national popular vote.


So what is the question? RCP uses one method (model or avergae, who cares). 538 uses a different method. They come out with the same answer. So what? If the fact that they come out with the same answer is not the question then what is?

I guess I am confused because you keep mentioning RCP like it matters (in a negative way) that it agrees with 538 and that somehow the +2 must not be taken into account or something. What exactly are you suggesting (and repeating the same paragraph won't help, try a different explanation, please)?
   4963. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4283425)
I was surprised how quick Nate's rise was. Of course there are plenty of people who surprise me by being hired. If they turn out to be competent I don't care much (though I admit I assume it is nepotism or something similar - there seems to be too much of that in the media).
   4964. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4283429)
So is it a fair characterization to say this is merely a discussion about how surprising Silver's rise to fame was?

All I was trying to do was remind people that Nate hit the big time — e.g., primetime TV appearances — well before his projections for Election Day 2008 proved to be correct.

Personally, I remain surprised by how quickly Nate was accepted into the relatively insular world of political punditry back in 2008, but I certainly don't see him as some sort of charlatan or something. It was just kind of funny seeing Nate on CNN back in 2008 and thinking, Man, a month ago, he was writing about waiver claims.
   4965. The District Attorney Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4283433)
It also reminds me of James Adomian's imitation of Jesse "The Body and the Mind" Ventura.
Can't the Cake Boss see into the future, after being bitten by a cake bug? We should ask him who's gonna win.

If you have a question about Silver's methodology, although there's probably a lot less chance he'll be able to personally answer you than there would have been five years ago, it still wouldn't hurt to give it a shot...
   4966. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4283435)
So what is the question? RCP uses one method (model or avergae, who cares). 538 uses a different method. They come out with the same answer. So what? If the fact that they come out with the same answer is not the question then what is?

I explained the question in #4935:

If the RCP average and Nate's model are at parity, as they are, then there appears to be an unexplained anomaly given that Nate's model uses historical data that shows an average of a +2.0 advantage for the GOP candidate in Ohio relative to the national popular vote.

In other words, either Nate's not using historical data in his Ohio numbers or he's projecting the GOP's historical +2.0 advantage in Ohio will be offset by some other factor that apparently hasn't been explained.

Again, if RCP has Romney winning by ~1 point nationally but losing Ohio by more than 2 points when we also know that Ohio goes, on average, +2.0 for the GOP candidate relative to the national vote, that's precisely the type of anomaly that Nate's model is supposed to explain rather than expand.
   4967. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4283446)
Again, if RCP has Romney winning by ~1 point nationally but losing Ohio by more than 2 points when we also know that Ohio goes, on average, +2.0 for the GOP candidate relative to the national vote, that's precisely the type of anomaly that Nate's model is supposed to explain rather than expand.


I get what you are saying, but without burrowing into the numbers (I am too lazy, sorry) it seems like trying to decompose part of a model by looking at someone else's numbers and applying a random rule about Ohio is just asking for trouble. You can accept or deny Nate's numbers. You can look at his method and pick it apart. I am not sure it is reasonable to jump in the middle and semi-decompose it using other methods.

Sure you can, but I really would not know where to start to address the issue without completely looking at Nate's model and trying to figure out why his numbers ended up where they are.

Thanks for the explanation though. I think I get what you are saying, though as I said I don't think that is a good way to approach analysis of either the Ohio numbers or Nate's model (though it is perhaps better than my unwillingness to do anything because of laziness).
   4968. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4283462)
So the numbers are the numbers, unless Nate overrides them with subjective analysis.

The numbers are indeed the numbers. But there just aren't many of them. Nate Silver isn't overriding the numbers, he's explaining their context, noting their inconclusiveness, and then, being Silver, cautiously saying "[but] keep an open mind as we gather more data."

Whether you call it "breaking for the challenger" or "regression to the mean,"

Not so, because "breaking for the challenger" and "regression to the mean" aren't describing the same thing. Again, the Silver column you linked to explains this plainly.

Silver's analysis is actually more guarded and tentative than it needs to be. You're the one who (seemingly) wants to focus on seven contradictory sub-slivers of information extracted from much larger data sets from only those post-1968 elections that meet a particular criterion, and declare "Behold the Rosetta Stone."

It's okay to root. Everybody seems to be approaching the polls like that story of the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant, groping for that one feature which foretells victory. But it's an obvious overreach to take that one chart, dismiss what's around it, and assume that because this shift happened on average, therefore it will happen again, and in the time-honored proportions, and in October and November. Especially since the formula wouldn't even hold up for all seven of the elections covered by the chart.
   4969. spike Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:46 PM (#4283463)
Ohio goes, on average, +2.0 for the GOP candidate relative to the national vote

Wow, this one has started popping up all over today. That old stock market disclaimer about "past performances are no indicator of future returns" leaps to mind. Interpolating "how" you think Ohio should vote based on previous electoral outcomes is a very tricky business, especially when Romney hasn't led a poll since 10/6, and only in three out of 30+ since early September, by just about every pollster out there. Hope springs eternal I guess.
   4970. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4283464)
4967 and 4969 — The genius of Nate's model supposedly is that it regresses polling numbers to the historical mean. Nate is currently predicting Obama will beat Romney by 1.4 percentage points nationally, while also projecting that Obama will beat Romney by more than 2 points in Ohio. Nate might end up being right, but there's nothing historical about this result.

As I've said several times, Ohio has never gone for the GOP candidate by less than the GOP candidate got in the national vote, and Ohio goes, on average, +2.0 for the Republican relative to the national vote. Nate, however, is now predicting that Ohio will go more for the Dem than the Dem will get in the national vote, and I'm very curious as to why he's out on that limb without much, if any, of an explanation.
   4971. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4283474)
Silver's analysis is actually more guarded and tentative than it needs to be. You're the one who (seemingly) wants to focus on seven contradictory sub-slivers of information extracted from much larger data sets from only those post-1968 elections that meet a particular criterion, and declare "Behold the Rosetta Stone."

Well, Nate doesn't seem like a bashful guy when it comes to statistical analysis. If Nate is convinced that undecideds don't, indeed, break to the challenger in true-incumbent elections, it's unclear why Nate used such conservative language or why he included so many disclaimers in that article.

Again, in the very charts Nate presented in that article, he shows challengers making gains by an average of 3:1 in October and 2:1 in November. Whether this is "breaking to the challenger" or "regression to the mean" seems to be a distinction without a difference. In a zero-sum or nearly zero-sum game, gains are gains.

It's okay to root. Everybody seems to be approaching the polls like that story of the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant, groping for that one feature which foretells victory. But it's an obvious overreach to take that one chart, dismiss what's around it, and assume that because this shift happened on average, therefore it will happen again, and in the time-honored proportions, and in October and November.

I'm not accepting it as gospel; just as historical averages that seem instructive given Romney's major October gains.

I agree that there could have been a paradigm shift over the past decade vis-a-vis undecided voters — i.e., that there aren't as many of them and they now break evenly rather than toward the challenger — but if it's unreasonable to base a theory on just six or seven true-incumbent elections, it seems even more unreasonable to dispute that theory based on only one or two elections (2004 and 2008).
   4972. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4283476)
All I was trying to do was remind people that Nate hit the big time — e.g., primetime TV appearances — well before his projections for Election Day 2008 proved to be correct.


Except, we've been saying from the beginning that he became well known because of his primary predictions. Why do you keep ignoring or dismissing that?
The last time it was brought up, you compared it to Dick Morris.

Nate's primary results + statistical/baseball background + writing style + mystery (at first) + outsider vibe + internet links = interest from media

Why is that so hard to accept?
   4973. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4283482)
As I've said several times, Ohio has never gone for the GOP candidate by less than the GOP candidate got in the national vote, and Ohio goes, on average, +2.0 for the Republican relative to the national vote. Nate, however, is now predicting that Ohio will go more for the Dem than the Dem will get in the national vote, and I'm very curious as to why he's out on that limb without much, if any, of an explanation.


Maybe he doesn't see the correlation between Ohio/Republicans/national vote as being anything important to consider.
I'm pretty sure there might be other connections that he ignores, like maybe the Redskins Rule.
   4974. Tilden Katz Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4283487)
The polls being inserted into the model also have Ohio running ahead of where it does relative to the popular vote. Rasmussen has the vote tied there, while giving Romney a three-point lead. PPP's most recent poll of the state gave Obama a 1-point lead in Ohio, while showing a tied national race.
   4975. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:13 PM (#4283491)
Except, we've been saying from the beginning that he became well known because of his primary predictions. Why do you keep ignoring or dismissing that?

Nonsense. The claim was that Nate didn't go big-time until after November 2008, and I simply pointed out that Nate was making national TV appearances in the late summer and fall of 2008. This was an entirely uncontroversial point, but for some reason, every time I mention Nate's name and/or model here, a bunch of people feel the need to do all sorts of phony preening. It's silly.

What's even more silly is that you're the one now leading the preening. A few hours ago, you apparently knew so little about Nate's model that you needed to ask if Nate worried about third-party candidates, and yet you're defending Nate as if you're his big brother and I'm the playground bully.
   4976. Lassus Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4283502)
Will either the right or left poll defenders come out afterwards in this thread and state "Jesus, was I wrong. Sorry."?
   4977. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:25 PM (#4283514)

Come on, Lassus, get with the program. If Romney loses, it will only be due to those sleazy Chicago operatives stealing the election somehow. Everyone knows that.







#sarcasm
   4978. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4283525)
Nonsense. The claim was that Nate didn't go big-time until after November 2008, and I simply pointed out that Nate was making national TV appearances in the late summer and fall of 2008. This was an entirely uncontroversial point, but for some reason, every time I mention Nate's name and/or model here, a bunch of people feel the need to do all sorts of phony preening. It's silly.


4951
   4979. Ron J2 Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4283540)
I don't know that I've ever met a Mormon who wasn't a really nice person


I really think South Park got this one letter perfect.
   4980. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:34 PM (#4283546)
4951

I addressed #4951 in #4953.

The idea that I'm trying to hurt Nate via a subtle smear campaign on a baseball site full of his biggest fans is beyond comical.
   4981. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4283570)
I addressed #4951 in #4953.

The idea that I'm trying to hurt Nate via a subtle smear campaign on a baseball site full of his biggest fans is beyond comical.


The first part. No one has defended the

"claim was that Nate didn't go big-time until after November 2008, and I simply pointed out that Nate was making national TV appearances in the late summer and fall of 2008. This was an entirely uncontroversial point, but for some reason, every time I mention Nate's name and/or model here, a bunch of people feel the need to do all sorts of phony preening. It's silly."

for over 200 posts now, but yet you keep on keeping on. Either let it go or be prepared for accusations of an ulterior motive.
   4982. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4283572)
BTW, can someone show me where Dick Morris got the 2008 primary correct?
I'd love to see some evidence that this guy:

In August 2012 Morris claimed that Bill Clinton was going to vote for Mitt Romney, but that he would still speak in favor of Obama because "his wife is hostage."

could possibly predict Obama winning the primary at any point prior to the Democratic National Convention.
   4983. DA Baracus Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4283588)
I'd love to see some evidence that this guy:

In August 2012 Morris claimed that Bill Clinton was going to vote for Mitt Romney, but that he would still speak in favor of Obama because "his wife is hostage."

could possibly predict Obama winning the primary at any point prior to the Democratic National Convention.


Spite. It's a bad reason for anything, but it's a reason.
   4984. Danny Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4283593)
Dick Morris on February 6, 2008:

Hillary Clinton’s victory in California restores her as the front-runner, a title that was in doubt as Barack Obama racked up victory after victory in states he was not supposed to win...Yesterday, inspiration confronted demographics. Charisma faced a laundry list of proposals that a large block of voters needed. The prosaic won. And the doctrinaire ideological construct that her candidacy represents is likely to sweep the remaining contests and land her in the White House.
   4985. Howie Menckel Posted: October 25, 2012 at 08:57 PM (#4283597)

"Every day of his life, Donald Trump is told by some very beautiful woman that he is sexy, attractive and better than all the other guys. That's all he ever hears; how smart he is; how attractive he is; how the other guys are just jealous. He lives in a completely self-contained feedback loop."

I dealt with Trump on business for months a few years back. He never said or did anything that anyone who watched "The Apprentice" would not expect. Slightly off-color jokes, the bravado, the hair, the energy....

He is a super-avid reader of newspapers, and the next thing he ever forgets will be a first. The guy he's closest buddies with that people may not expect is.... Tom Brady.

Then again, it adds up, doesn't it?

   4986. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:03 PM (#4283611)
BTW, can someone show me where Dick Morris got the 2008 primary correct?
Dick Morris on February 6, 2008:

Ha ha. Here's Dick Morris one week later:

Why Hillary Will Lose

Hillary Clinton has blown an almost sure shot at the Democratic presidential nomination. Having surrendered the lead to Obama, she is not likely ever to regain it. It is a fantasy that the Ohio and Texas primaries will be a “firewall” to contain the flames of enthusiasm for Obama and reverse her defeats of February. Just as with Giuliani’s supposed Florida firewall, Hillary’s will crumble as Obama’s momentum carries him forward to the nomination. ...
   4987. JE (Jason) Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:03 PM (#4283613)
If this is the mark of a winning campaign...
   4988. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4283646)
With #4984 (the day after Super Tuesday) and #4986 (the day after the Potomac Primaries), I'm going to say that Dick Morris didn't have a clue about what was going on in the 2008 Democratic primaries, and therefore should not be credited with "predicting" the Obama victory.
   4989. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4283647)
If this is the mark of a winning campaign...

Maybe it's just me, but I would not think borrowing campaign commercials from Vladimir Putin would help you much.

   4990. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4283648)
With #4984 (the day after Super Tuesday) and #4986 (the day after the Potomac Primaries), I'm going to say that Dick Morris didn't have a clue about what was going on in the 2008 Democratic primaries, and therefore should not be credited with "predicting" the Obama victory.

So what would you call it? He said Obama would win, and Obama won, thanks in large part to the demographics Morris outlined in the article I linked.
   4991. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4283650)
So the borrowing is "the first time" joke?

Maybe it's just an easy joke that lots of campaigns use.

I can see how double-entendres are definitely a Russian-only thing.
   4992. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4283656)
So what would you call it? He said Obama would win, and Obama won, thanks in large part to the demographics Morris outlined in the article I linked.


A week earlier he talked about how the demographics were lined up FOR CLINTON.
But through it all are the inexorable demographics in Democratic primaries where women cast upwards of 60 percent of the vote.

You're essentially saying that if someone picked St. Louis to win the World Series last Monday, watched them lose, and then picked the Giants to win the World Series, they were "right"?


   4993. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:36 PM (#4283669)
You're essentially saying that if someone picked St. Louis to win the World Series last Monday, watched them lose, and then picked the Giants to win the World Series, they were "right"?

Morris predicted an Obama win on Feb. 13, 2008, and the Dem primary then dragged on until early June and was only decided by superdelegates. It's not like Obama was some juggernaut and Morris hopped aboard late in the game.
   4994. Moeball Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4283682)
Hey, I'm 5000 posts late to this party, so this may have already been mentioned, but I thought the best predictor of the election was the sales of 7-11 coffee cups. So far I've heard that more Obama cups are selling than Romney cups, but I've also heard that Reps drink much more coffee than Dems in the month of November...
   4995. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4283683)
It's not like Obama was some juggernaut and Morris hopped aboard late in the game.


February 6th prediction: Clinton will sweep to victory. She was leading in delegates at that time (1056-1036).
February 13th prediction: Obama will sweep to victory. He took the lead at that time (1267-1184).

Sounds like a bandwagon jumper to me...

   4996. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4283686)
February 6th prediction: Clinton will sweep to victory. She was leading in delegates at that time (1056-1036).
February 13th prediction: Obama will sweep to victory. He took the lead at that time (1267-1184).

Sounds like a bandwagon jumper to me...

On what date did Nate predict Obama would be the 2008 Dem nominee?
   4997. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:57 PM (#4283691)
February 6th prediction: Clinton will sweep to victory. She was leading in delegates at that time (1056-1036).
February 13th prediction: Obama will sweep to victory. He took the lead at that time (1267-1184).

Sounds like a bandwagon jumper to me...


On what date did Nate predict Obama would be the 2008 Dem nominee?


Really? And you expect people to take you seriously?
   4998. DA Baracus Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4283692)
Really? And you expect people to take you seriously?


No, he just expects them to respond.
   4999. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 25, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4283694)
Really? And you expect people to take you seriously?

Huh? What's your objection here?

People just spent two or three pages saying over and over that Nate made his name by accurately predicting the outcome of the 2008 Dem primary. I'm asking how much ahead of the curve he was relative to Dick Morris.
   5000. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 25, 2012 at 10:02 PM (#4283698)
People just spent two or three pages saying over and over that Nate made his name by accurately predicting the outcome of the 2008 Dem primary.


Yeah, and I know the trap you're setting.
Page 50 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(8 - 5:50am, Sep 02)
Last: Bourbon Samurai in Asia

NewsblogNo-hitter! Four Phillies pitchers combine to blank the Braves
(11 - 5:17am, Sep 02)
Last: Steve N

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(29 - 4:12am, Sep 02)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(6 - 2:36am, Sep 02)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(103 - 2:27am, Sep 02)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogNitkowski: Wanted: Major League manager...sort of.
(8 - 2:07am, Sep 02)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-1-2014
(40 - 2:01am, Sep 02)
Last: MNB

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(57 - 1:54am, Sep 02)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogRobothal: Changed [Manny] Ramirez enjoyed helping Cubs prospects grow
(13 - 1:27am, Sep 02)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(10 - 1:12am, Sep 02)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogHBT: Jorge Soler with an extra-base hit in each of his first five games
(2 - 1:02am, Sep 02)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogRon Roenicke rips into home-plate umpire
(17 - 12:18am, Sep 02)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(7 - 12:10am, Sep 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(43 - 11:46pm, Sep 01)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(986 - 11:25pm, Sep 01)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Page rendered in 0.8993 seconds
52 querie(s) executed