User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6900 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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.
There's no trap. The claim here is that Dick Morris was a shameless bandwagon-jumper while Nate/"Poblano" was ahead of the curve. If this is true, it shouldn't take more than a link or two to prove it.
I can't find a percentage chance of winning the primary in his DailyKos diaries, but he thought Obama was the front runner on December 10th, 2007, and he predicted Obama winning on Super Tuesday.
I don't know if there is any point in his diaries where he thinks Clinton is the favourite, but you can scour them yourself.
William Kristol was already talking about him (by his pseudonym) on February 11th.
He also lays out that Barack Obama had a 63% chance of winning the general election on February 26th.
Actually, Nate still had Clinton as the frontrunner in that article, while a guy named Chris Bowers had Obama in the lead.
(Thanks for the links. I liked that "Poblano" mention in The New York Times.)
That's some weapons-grade stupid right there.
Well, Nate does say:
One final note about Obama. I have written before that if Obama pulls within the margin of error in New Hampshire, he becomes the favorite to win the nomination. This analysis actually bears that out. If we take the result of today's Mason-Dixon poll, which shows him within 3 points, and plug it into our model, it shows Obama with a 50.3% chance of winning the nomination to Hillary's 46.0%.
Considering he's making the prediction just under a month before the first primary, and he's making a statement about the nomination chances based on the results of the second primary (also a month away), and that since the results of those first two primaries met his requirement for the overall nomination prediction (Obamam 50.3% favourite to win), I'm gonna say he guessed it well in advance of Morris.
(Those first two primaries account for 87 of the over 4400 delegates. Making a prediction about an overall nomination winner that early is risky.)
I've been highly amused for well over an hour now
//seriously, non-stop I can't breathe level lulz.
Well, at least the Albanians are sort of white. Better than those Kenyans and North Koreans.
This has GOT to be a plant to try and snag the birthers in a honey pot.
That woman would have been ripped in two if she gave birth to that child.
You say that - but here's a perfectly serious congressional ad exposing the corndog conspiracy out to get America
Corndogs appear at 1:40
As your neighbours to the north, I have to ask...
What the #### is going on down there?!
With pink eyes?
With pink eyes?
Ssssshhhhhhh! We don't want them to find out about the future Commissar of Iris Implants. Not an Act of God, but an Act of Hoxha!
Well, if he'd been born about 30 years later, and in the meantime had managed to abort all of his prospective competitors, ya never know.....But OTOH given what I've seen of a few of his unrelated rants, it's probably good that he's stuck to baseball statistics.
In 1957, the year Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" was published, the top tax rate was 91%. Makes you wonder why she let the world have it.
It's either a joke or someone attempting to bait Birthers. No one could possibly have made that with the intent of trying to trick people into believing that Obama was born in Kenya.
This seems to be a misplaced faith in humanity.
We know what religion those Albanians are, don't we?
I was starting to follow RCP in 2006, then I started following Nate every now qwnand then, because well, I used to have a BPro subscription... I had no idea how soon it was after Nate began doing polling analysis that the MSM found him, but it seems that since I started following Nate almost immediately after he started 538.com that it wasn't long at all.
Was anyone aggregating polls on a regular basis prior to RCP in 2000?
You'd think that someone would be doing that before- I strongly suspect that some of the better organized campaigns were doing it internally for some time, but it's like the MSM never had an inkling that you could or should do that
If there were, they wouldn't have had nearly as many to aggregate as today. I've got to think that RCP and its imitators are a wholly internet-accelerated phenomenon. Fifteen years ago, pollsters like Rasmussen and Zogby would have been doing strictly eyes-only internal polling for their respective parties.
Pollster had the race hitting 50/50 back about 10/6, and holding pretty steady since then, neither Obama nor Romney able to get more than 1.0 up on the other
RCP actually had the race hitting dead even a little later 10/8 to 10/9, since then it's had it either tied or Romney ahead by up to 1.3 or so
Pollster and RCP actually show pretty much the same trend line- Pollster is a little more favorable to Obama than RCP, but the two are tracking eachother pretty well
538 on the other hand does no show the same trend, at least since 10/12- that's when 538 saw the race at it's tightest (now cast), 538 shows a slow steady drift towards Obama since then that Pollster and RCP simply do not show.
538 does use info other than polling data- but the info that may drive changes- such as economic data/news supposedly gets phased out the closer you get to the election
It could be different polls- pollster uses the most, RCP the least, 538 in the middle...
or weights? I don't know.
edit: The reason I bring this up now is because the gap between RCP and 538 is now 2.4- which I think is the greatest I've ever seen
I find that 6 of the Polling companies that released polls the past 5 days also released Polls the preceding week- 4 shwo movement to Obama, one is even, one shows movement to Romney
[movement to Obama]:
Ras: +1
PPP: +2
IPSOs: -2
IBD: 0
Gallup: +4
YouGov: +1
Pollster as a whole shows no movement towards Obama- because the current average include polls such as ABC (Romney +3), AP (Romeny +2) and ARG (Romney +2) that were not included/did not release polls last week, conversely last week's Pollster average includes the Wash Times (Obama +3) and Democracy Corps (Obama +2.0)- but not currently.
which is a long wonded way of saying:
if you look at polls released the last 3-4 days compared to the same time period last week there appears to be no appreciable movement for/against Obama/Romney
if you look ONLY at polls released in both time periods- then there appears to be movement towards Obama-
I'm now wondering if the biggest October Surprise of them all may turn out to be Hurricane Sandy, which is due to crash somewhere on the East Coast early next week, and how Obama in particular reacts to it.
The whole election is once again based on Ohio and Florida. If Obama wins either, he wins the presidency, more or less. Everything else is window dressing.
It's because Pollster and RCP's popular vote averages are just averages of national polls, whereas 538's popular vote projection is based mostly on state polls.
POTUS
HOUSE
SENATE
The House Vote as a whole has to go at least +2.0 Dem for Dems to have a chance at retaking - RCP generic Congressional has Dems +0.2
Senate: Like 2010 I suspect that the Teapers have cost the GOP the Senate, unlike 2010 I don't really see the Teapers helping the GOP in other ways.
My not so fearless predictions:
POTUS: Popular vote within 0.5, whoever wins EC will do so by ONE state.
House: GOP hold, Dems gain 5-10 seats
Senate: Dem hold, net gain of 1 seat for GOP
Just as likely, it comes down to how Ohio State does against Illinois...
I think people underestimate how much the 'rise' of such 'stars' has changed in the digital age... I remember arguing with 'Poblano' on the orange satan during primary season - before he had unmasked himself - when he was slicing and dicing the Democratic primary... and then always being wrong when the results came in. His DKos diaries during the 2008 primary were required reading and he was uncannily oracle-esque.
I think it goes to show how unsophisticated the 'mainstream media', pundits, and even consultants really were just a short while ago - don't forget HRC's chief strategist Mark Penn not even recognizing proportional allocation of delegates until it became a delegate gathering contest.
As such, it was hardly surprising Nate rose so quickly -- he was providing something no one else was really doing, certainly not with anything approaching that level of sophistication. Once he unmasked, it dovetailed with the surge of 'sabermetrics' in baseball (something even non-baseball fans of a certain intelligence at least tangentially recognized was afoot) - and voila... I'm frankly surprised it took an outlet like the NYT as long as it did to scoop him up.
The phrase Cold Civil War struck me for two reasons. The first is that this is the first time I've read that term applied to our current political economy. The second is that I think Sullivan is right. This *is* something like a Cold Civil War, centered around a hyper-partisan, radicalized reactionary right wing and, well, the rest of the United States.
I wasn't around for the Dixiecrats or the 60's and the rise of the hippies and the New Left and Goldwaterism, but I don't think government has experienced this sort of deadlock since the 19th century. This... this is something else.
EDIT: I suppose I have to include a sort of fringe, Truther and/or hyper-granola left as a counterbalance to the Teavangelicals.... but, well, even the Occupy folks seem more reasonable and, much more importantly, less mainstream than Austrian business cycle Birthers. Dittoheads make up a far more significant portion of the electorate, and their Millerite fantasies are essentially radical. There's a whole information ecosystem of falsehoods parading around as facts that just doesn't have a counterpart on the Left*, afaik.
*Beyond Reddit's politics tab.
Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Sorry - but it's just one of those bars that exists in the world for rational and meaningful discourse... there are others -- proclaiming any reality show your "favorite show", collecting beanie babies, or using the words "Michael Bolton" in a sentence without "sucks" are others -- but them's the rules...
What? You thought ensconced *baseball writers* were as bad as it could get for hating objective analysis when their status quo was on the line? Surely you've met some "conservatives" in the world, right?
I listen to Limbaugh sometimes. I can only last through about 10-15 minutes of it, but it's worth hearing what's going on in that world. I watch O'Reilly's talking points for the same reason. I also sometimes watch the final few minutes of the O'Reilly Factor for sheer entertainment value. I just plum don't hate the guy.
I'll even click through FoxNation and WND once in a while. It just reinforces that there's a whole 'nother world out there.
There's also an entire "nother world out there" that believes the world will end Dec 12.
That site is affiliated with the same QStarnews site that Unskewed is
more importantly the author, Dean Chambers IS the man behind unskewed
more breathtakingly, in the article Dean says:
but over at Unskewed Dean has Romney up +4.2- that's a decrease from +7 to +8 he had Romney at a few weeks ago...
"Perhaps" he was. Oh, only if there were some way of verifying whether he was or not.
That's correct. While there will always be nutters on every fringe, the right and left in the US today are not mirror images, at all.
Although its odd that he favors Obama and hates the White Sox.
Ah I remember the old days when traders were jailed and only fined millions.
RCP has Obama +2.1 in Ohio, but Obama winning is a fantasy-land pick...
Silver EC: 294- 244 Obama
RCP EC: 281-257 Obama
HUGE difference I tell ya, HUGE!!!!
I'll say this much for Dean, it doesn't appear that he censors the posts people make to his articles, to wit:
Oh sure, as do I... and I'd likewise say that same applies if you're using... whatever... that you heard on Ed Schultz/Randi Rhodes/whomever... from the left.
There's just a point where, if you're using such claptrap as a frame of reference, I feel entirely confidant your choice of frame alone eliminates the possibility that you have any sort of opinion worth minding.
I occasionally listen to Neal Boortz for this reason but mainly for a good laugh.
I have no need of this, as I can simply unmute some of the locals on my Facebook feed if I need to take a short dip in the cray cray.
Or, I could just unblock Kehoskie.
I only have a few Obama haters in my life. Unfortunately two of them are my housemates. But I'm rarely home so I have to go elsewhere for lunacy. I'd listen to leftwing nutbags too but they don't exist on the radio. I do have a few more of those on the Facebook however. One guy thinks we're headed progressively towards a violent uprising by the lower class.
And there's the guy at my work, and I've shared this before, that believes every conspiracy theory you can think of. My favorite one is that he thinks Katrina was created by giant turbines in the Gulf of Mexico. But he's good at his job.
That's new to me!
My favorite crazy, irrational, completely unsupported at any level of reality conspiracy theory is the notion that humans are rational and capable of "logical" decision making.
So, let's say the facts continue apace and the world wakes up on Nov 7 once again showing it's liberal bias, Obama wins, Nate is proved correct, and off we go into another four years of fun. What are the odds that even Kehoskie, much less this "Dean" fellow from "unskewed polls" or whatever the #### his crazy is called, admit they were wrong rather than finding some lever of conspiratorial/paranoid thinking to explain away the facts and avoid cognitive dissonance?
A million to one. The beauty of operating in a worldview in which facts and evidence are irrelevant is that they never have to admit being wrong. They just keep dreaming up new fantasies.
Case in point- In the past I saw two lefty conspiracy theorires regarding the 2000 and 2004 elections.
2004: Many on the left accused the polls of being skewed in favor of Bush- the evidence for this was the partisan makeup of the polls- this belief- in a somewhat more virulent form, popped up on the right thsi Augist/September
2000: I started seeing this idea get bantered about years after the fact- Gore was leading most polls (untrue, but stay with it), but the media only reported the polls favorable to Dubya, to give the false impression that he was winning, partly this was because the media was in the tank and partly because this was Rove's strategy- have his people talk CONSTANTLY about the favorable polls, and to ACT as if Dubya was winning, the idea was to dampen Dem enthusiasm and boost GOP enthusiasm and squeak out a come from behind win- and it worked (With an assist from Kathleen Harris and Scotus).
That theory about 2000 is now being bantered about by both left and right (mostly the right) with respect to this year's election.
The umpires are always against your team.
In a close election, winning the "I'm winning" narrative can be the difference...
Case in point - Team Romney was making a big deal today about an ad buy in Minnesota... Of course - it's a paltry $30k ad buy, it actually bleeds into Iowa, and it was such a blatantly transparent "WE'RE EXPANDING THE MAP!!!" gambit that even the world's most reliable political stenography shop (Politico) saw through it.
Consider the birthers: Not once did I ever think a revelation of a new fact would cause a single one of them to say, "I am forced to admit this proves my allegations as totally unfounded. I apologize to President Obama, and to everyone else for wasting their time."
That would sound suspiciously like appeasement.
I can freely admit that I was a "JFK assassination conspiracy" believer in my late teens and early 20s. It wasn't until I did some more reading that I changed my mind and didn't believe that it was more than LHO. I used to love "JFK" (the movie) for a couple of years because I thought it was awesome that they were getting out the information that needed to be heard. Now, after my "conversion", I can't watch the movie at all.
Also, for a long time, I believed in the Roswell/UFO coverup conspiracy. Eventually "conspiracy physics" (too much conspiracy propped up on too small a point) and real physics (space travel, communication) eventually switched me over to "Nope, don't believe it."
(Note: I'm not looking to debate the truth of those conspiracies with anyone. There is no way I'm going to change anyone's mind, or they'll change mine.)
I was into Ayn Rand in high school. Does that count?
I'm not sure how much public opinion really mattered in the events that determined the outcome of the 2000 election, but I suspect it mattered a bit. I always thought that Bush benefited from (a) the perception that he was winning going into Election Day and (b) that Florida was initially called for him. Those two things created the impression that Gore was trying to take something from Bush, rather than fight the issue on equal footing. Maybe it didn't really matter.
To me that's just fanboyism applied to non-sports. What gets me is that seemingly otherwise normal people buy into this crackpot ####. The guy who believes that reptilian shapeshifting aliens that feed off of human blood and fear run the world comes across as a completely normal guy. He's not dumb, he's not socially awkward (within a work environment), he's not a loner or a loser. He interacts and gets along very well with a lot of people, he does his job well and even has other hobbies that are kind of cool (he makes his own wine and one of my employees also bounces at a bar so he brings him a half dozen empty wine bottles in exchange for a couple of full ones). And then one day I was working with him when some slackjaws down near Columbus said they had killed Bigfoot. It was a whole new world. He really believed it.
Oh I loved that movie, even while knowing it was complete crap.
Of course if you know it's complete crap you realize that the Movie's "hero" Jim Garrison is in reality the villain of a real life abuse of power story...
Oh, they'll establish those lines all right, they'll just move them when someone meets them there.
You also have to understand that for many conspiracy theorists, as it is for many very religious people, the belief in "XYZ" is core to their sense of reality, so central that if "ABC" contradicts XYZ, then ABC absolutely has to fit into one of these categories
1: ABC is simply no true, it is a lie, someone made it up, the eyewitness is lying, the scientist is faking the data;
2: ABC may be true but does not contradict or disprove XYZ, you need to commit some type of logical fallacy to reach that conclusion;
3: ABC supports XYZ (because EVERYTHING supports XYZ)
Evolutionists have trouble debating Creationists, because to creationists, EVERYTHING either supports Genesis/intelligent design or can be explained by Genesis/intelligent design. Plus creation scientists lie quite freely- they do so quite frankly because they assume that evolutionists are consciously lying- and it does not matter how often they are "corrected" on some factoid.
I was into the JFK theory for a while. And it wasn't until late teens that I started questioning the evolutionary viability of things like Bigfoot/Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster, etc.
And of course, I still believe that a secret cabal of Jewish bankers run the world. Naturally.
We call this "doing the Kehoskie."
I was in the same position. In the end, once you find out how a high-powered rifle actually affects the human body, the conspiracy can no longer hold itself together.
Oh the existence of a North American "Great Ape" is evolutionarily viable, there's just no good evidence for such a critter- the Loch Ness Monster on the other hand... pretty much non-viable- the Loch is simply not THAT old for such a critter to have evolved in the lake, and it tends to be food/oxygen poor, both pretty much putting the kibosh on any large critter living in there...
Next thing you'll tell me Dan Brown novels are fiction.
What I believe is that there are enough conspiracy theories out there that one is almost certainly true. Fun to imagine which one.
Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing, apparently.
Not to sound like Snapper, but Dan Brown is both an anti-Catholic bigot and a wholly unimaginative plagiarist (yeah sure he got sued for plagiarism and won- because the judge ruled that since the guys he stole from had marked their bogus work as "fact" and Brown's was marketed as fiction...).
We should call in an AC-130 on him.
Especially if he's in a large urban crowd. Serves those people right for being anywhere within his general vicinity.
It's only fair to ask the question from the opposite perspective. What will the Democratic partisans do if the actual electorate doesn't reflect the D+9 tilt of the polls barely favorable to Obama, and instead reverts to the historically typical D+2 or 3, causing Obama's double-digit loss of Independents to send the election to Romney by a significant margin? Will we have a repeat of the "stolen election" rhetoric from 2000 & 2004? A rush to belittle the voters, who were so smart in 2006 & 2008, but now must be "stupid" since they didn't return Obama to office? I certainly hope those folks will react as civilly as I would if the election goes against my preference, but I have considerable doubt about that.
He was hammering Obama for not calling in the gunship to break up the attack on the consulate in Benghazi.
Snapper wanted to send in an AC-130 to mow down the Benghazi rioters during the riot. Since he would be aiming to kill them, it would have been morally acceptable to him that innocents were killed. In explaining his position he demonstrated that he has no idea what he was talking about since he based his knowledge off of The Green Berets.
1: Despite what you may be reading very very few polls are actually showing a D+9 partisan composition- and those that are tend to show Obama with a bit more than a "barely favorable" lead for Obama
2: Right now the aggregator spread (unskewed excluded) seems to run from Obama +1.5 to Romney +0.9
What do you mean by a "significant" margin- Romney by more than 1.5? More than 5?
The people who were talking about stolen elections in 2004 were a small and foolish minority.
2000 is obviously a different story since the only fair way to read is that the election was a tie and neither side was going to feel easy about losing a tie, especially the party that won the popular majority. Even with that, Congress moved smoothly through the count, unlike in 1876.
As a Canadian, I dispassionately shake my head in disappointment, bemoan the first debate performance, and then settle down for a few more years living under my own "Conservative" government.*
*However, if someone can present an airtight statistical case that there is some funny business involving Ohio county vote totals, all bets are off.
Specifically, Nate will reassess his model and fold the new data into his forecasting assumptions. That's what Nate does. Numbers. Folks here will probably have a bit of a "WTF" moment, and then figure out how to deal with a four-year administration of nutjobs again.
If you look for that you'll be able to find it, sure. I can point you to petitions to fund feinting couches over election machines and Tag (?) Romney in Ohio today. So yeah, some of that. Probably not a lot of that here, unless you get something truly ###### up like FL 2000.
(By the way, I love how you conflate FL 2000 with OH 2004, as if they're remotely similar events. Way to move the cheese, Dickweed.)
I personally promise you that, regardless of outcome or effect, I will belittle the #### out of some voters, and pretty much everyone else. The people are stupid and easily led. I will mock you mouth breathing monkeyboys incessantly, no matter who wins.
We can only hope that people will be as civil as you, Chlamydia.
So we're back to arguing this was a demonstration rather than terrorist attack? Thought that ship had sailed. The former Seals who were killed at the CIA Annex apparently died in a mortar attack - something that might have been taken out by an AC-130, BTW.
Way to ignore my post, which was first BTW, in which I called it an attack. And no, we shouldn't have killed and wounded hundreds of innocents to stop the attack.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main