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 52 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >  Last ›
   5101. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 26, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4284629)
I like how Sam starts out kind of reasonably discussing things in 5098 and then progressively devolves into his bomb throwing persona
   5102. McCoy Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4284633)
nm
   5103. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4284634)
So we're back to arguing this was a demonstration rather than terrorist attack?
These can happen simultaneously, ya know.
   5104. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4284637)
This is an excellent political ad.
   5105. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4284640)
So we're back to arguing this was a demonstration rather than terrorist attack?


The primary problem with right-wing debaters is their complete inability to read the English language.
   5106. Steve Treder Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4284642)
These can happen simultaneously, ya know.

The utter incapability of acknowledging this basic fact is what I've found particularly amusing about this particular kerfuffle.
   5107. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4284647)
I like how Sam starts out kind of reasonably discussing things in 5098 and then progressively devolves into his bomb throwing persona


I'm like Finnegan's Wake. Complex. Densely packed. Utterly impenetrable. Highly overrated.
   5108. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4284648)
Seems like an obvious tactic for a sneak attack.
   5109. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4284652)
The utter incapability of acknowledging this basic fact is what I've found particularly amusing about this particular kerfuffle.


My favorite bit of this bit of kabuki theater is the fact that the administration never failed to acknowledge the militant nature of the Benghazi attack. Never. Not even for a little bit.
   5110. DA Baracus Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4284662)
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.


The argument with Snapper was that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about in regards to an AC-130 and the morality of killing innocents so long as your aiming at the bad guy. It wasn't about calling it a riot or demonstration or act of terror or terrorist attack. If you want to jump onto the AC-130 crazy train though, there are plenty of good seats still available.
   5111. spike Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4284666)
Innocents, hell, they would have had a damn good chance of killing our folks in the building.

//the notion that we have these magic weapons systems that can "surgically" engage the enemy in extreme close quarter encounters is based in fantasy.
   5112. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 26, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4284667)
The argument with Snapper was that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about in regards to an AC-130 and the morality of killing innocents so long as your aiming at the bad guy. It wasn't about calling it a riot or demonstration or act of terror or terrorist attack. If you want to jump onto the AC-130 crazy train though, there are plenty of good seats still available.


I don't think snapper has been back to this thread since I asked him if it would be moral to use a nuke to flatten the city if that was the only weapon available.
   5113. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 26, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4284672)
I don't think snapper has been back to this thread since I asked him if it would be moral to use a nuke to flatten the city if that was the only weapon available.
From orbit? It's the only way to be sure.
   5114. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: October 26, 2012 at 08:12 PM (#4284673)
I'm like Finnegan's Wake. Complex. Densely packed. Utterly impenetrable. Highly overrated.


And burdened by an extraneous apostrophe.
   5115. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 26, 2012 at 08:28 PM (#4284684)
My favorite bit of this bit of kabuki theater is the fact that the administration never failed to acknowledge the militant nature of the Benghazi attack. Never. Not even for a little bit.
Personally, I liked Rep. Peter King complaining Obama didn't mention terrorism until... four minutes into his first statement.
   5116. spike Posted: October 26, 2012 at 08:31 PM (#4284685)
   5117. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 26, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4284705)
And burdened by an extraneous apostrophe.


*heartsparkdollarsign*
   5118. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 26, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4284706)
Noted Communist Condi Rice on the subject.


Have you noticed anything about Condi Rice's complexion, spike? A certain...tone. Remind you of someone? Maybe, Colin Powell? And...? C'mon, man! This is obvious. They're all so totally in this together!
   5119. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 26, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4284707)
My not so fearless predictions: POTUS: Popular vote within 0.5, whoever wins EC will do so by ONE state.

Could happen, and it would seem to be a scenario that favors Romney. Since WWII, Presidents that were re-elected equaled or bettered the showing they made when first elected - Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton & Bush all did about as well or better in their re-election campaigns. Obama's best-case scenario would now seem to have him considerably behind his 2008 performance, which isn't the normal path to being re-elected.
   5120. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 26, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4284712)
Could happen, and it would seem to be a scenario that favors Romney.


I for one am *shocked* that you would find a scenario that favors Romney.
   5121. Morty Causa Posted: October 26, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4284732)
I'm like Finnegan's Wake. Complex. Densely packed. Utterly impenetrable. Highly overrated.


I wouldn't characterize Finnegans Wake as overrated. No one has yet been found who is remotely competent to render such an ultimate verdict. Ulysses forced the literary culture and its readers to evolve. Finnegans Wake, however, is a saltation--a hopeful monster. It's too big a jump to have progeny. It may always be like that. But as curiosity it can be fun, even instructive. And it's a great artist perfectly communicating, giving no quarter/taking no prisoners, with the only audience capable of appreciating his creation-himself. That is unique in the truly Joycean sense.
   5122. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 26, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4284741)
No one has yet been found who is remotely competent to render such an ultimate verdict. Ulysses forced the literary culture and its readers to evolve. Finnegans Wake, however, is a saltation--a hopeful monster. It's too big a jump to have progeny. It may always be like that. But as curiosity it can be fun, even instructive. And it's a great artist perfectly communicating, giving no quarter/taking no prisoners, with the only audience capable of appreciating his creation-himself.


Like me!
   5123. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 26, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4284744)
Some of you may understand this post in a hundred years. Some of you.
   5124. Morty Causa Posted: October 27, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4284755)
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
   5125. Morty Causa Posted: October 27, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4284759)
Like me!


Just like you--whatever the hell that is.
   5126. Steve Treder Posted: October 27, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4284760)
I for one am *shocked* that you would find a scenario that favors Romney.

I see your shocked, and raise you a stunned. No, the hell with it, make it a gobsmacked.
   5127. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 27, 2012 at 08:20 AM (#4284812)
After all these many months of campaigning, it wouldn't surprise me if Hurricane Sandy winds up being the greatest October Surprise ever. I can't see any easy way to calculate her effect on the voting, especially if the predicted power outages extent into election week, as may well be the case in some areas.

In the meantime, here are just a few previews of what will likely be hundreds or thousands of musings on this topic before and after the end of the campaign:

How Hurricane Sandy could test Obama’s leadership

Hurricane Sandy Could Be Obama’s October Surprise

Hurricane Sandy: Will Obama and Romney talk about climate change now?

In fact, we might even say that this is a more important factor than "poll bias".

But nah, that's just silly.
   5128. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: October 27, 2012 at 09:18 AM (#4284825)
And it's a great artist perfectly communicating, giving no quarter/taking no prisoners, with the only audience capable of appreciating his creation-himself.


Solipsism should not be the artist's goal, and let's hope it wasn't Joyce's.
   5129. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 27, 2012 at 09:28 AM (#4284829)
Solipsism should not be the artist's goal, and let's hope it wasn't Joyce's.


The self that writes is not the self that reads. Identity is the world's longest running myth.
   5130. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: October 27, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4284833)
The self that writes is not the self that reads. Identity is the world's longest running myth.


Well right, which puts to rest Morty's contention that Joyce is the only audience capable of appreciating his creation. Others (and thank god there are others!) bring insight to and can add to another's creation.
   5131. Howie Menckel Posted: October 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4284845)

some answers from factcheck.org on Benghazi, some of which runs counter to what I've read here:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

"There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."
   5132. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4284862)
"There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere.


Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine the possibility that an "angry mob" might have formed *elsewhere* - perhaps some people gathered outside a mosque or something; I don't know, use your imagination. Then, maybe some militants in the city joined them and incited them to march on the embassy of the Satanic Americans.

Just, you know, as a thought experiment. Not that anything like that might have happened.

This is classic stupid.
   5133. Morty Causa Posted: October 27, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4284868)
Never wholly trust anyone who insists all should be made so as to be immediately entirely comprehensible. That’s a vampire’s view of literature and art—of existence.

There's something in what you say, but it’s so fear-driven it ends up as an attempt to evade understanding. Joyce had a revolutionary effect on literature. With that came for many (I'm excluding the popular read mindset here) a fear of a ”catastrophic collapsing consensus,” to borrow Daniel Dennett's phrase dealing with why the religious get so upset when their beliefs are attacked or even criticized, and an anger directed at that hopeful monster for daring to do what instills that fear.

Still, I would insist that Joyce's attitude and stance here is invigorating (at least theoretically), even thrilling. And he did want readers, readers, though, that would make a commitment no other author demanded. He was not willing so much to stoop to conquer. He expected you to attempt to rise to his level. Disregarding and subverting the time-honored conventions of story-telling and eschewing the devices and techniques of narrative conventions were a big part of that.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t say every writer should aspire to follow Joyce in that particular (although literature certainly has in other ways), certainly not to the radical extent he did. But somebody should, and I can't help feel that talk of identity as myth and solipsism would have amused him. It seems to be a close-minded, fear-driven attempt to miss the point and to discount the daringness. It's where his art and his particular talents lead him. Einstein and Quantum Mechanics are hard, too. Too ####### bad. That doesn't invalidate their holdings. Joyce is the equivalent of that. Somebody has to be. Let’s not prematurely conflate consumerism with esthetics.

But there will always be those who don’t understand that someone has to take it to the limit. That only excess is sufficient. Unless it happens to fall within what obsesses them. The puny included his wife, who would grow annoyed at his laughing deep into the night while working at FW: “Quit laughing,” She would tell him, “or quit writing.” He never did either.



   5134. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM (#4284870)
Who gives a crap? If this had happened in March of 2011 nobody except a few basement dwellers would care what it was called and when it was called that. This is the dumbest converstation you guys have had yet in these threads and we've had a lot of dumb conversations.
   5135. spike Posted: October 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4284902)
runs counter to what I've read here

So? I mean really, so what? Maybe there was a counterintel operation going on and this was part of the official cover. What exactly is the problem here? What would have changed if they had said something different? The petulance on display that this is only seen as a Watergate-level crime by those with a vested interest in doing so is just epic.
   5136. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4284904)

Americans die in Benghazi = "Who gives a crap?"

Big Bird, "binders," and bayonets = Major campaign issues.
   5137. Steve Treder Posted: October 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4284907)
The petulance on display that this is only seen as a Watergate-level crime by those with a vested interest in doing so is just epic.

It's a tempest in a teapot on a mountain of a molehill.
   5138. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: October 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4284921)
But there will always be those who don’t understand that someone has to take it to the limit. That only excess is sufficient. Unless it happens to fall within what obsesses them. The puny included his wife, who would grow annoyed at his laughing deep into the night while working at FW: “Quit laughing,” She would tell him, “or quit writing.” He never did either.


Oh I think his wife was being perfectly reasonable. After all, her dream life might have been as expansive and brilliant as his writing, and he was being an unpleasant small-minded, even puny, obstacle. The published, like the victors, write history but that doesn't mean they write the whole truth.
   5139. tshipman Posted: October 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4284929)
Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”


Hindsight is 20/20. This wasn't the information that our intelligence community was telling people at the time.

President Barack Obama was told in his daily intelligence briefing for more than a week after the consulate siege in Benghazi that the assault grew out of a spontaneous protest, despite conflicting reports from witnesses and other sources that began to cast doubt on the accuracy of that assessment almost from the start.


That you keep on harping on this like it matters that the CIA initially said the wrong thing is beyond asinine.
   5140. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 27, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4284935)

Americans die in Benghazi = "Who gives a crap?"

Big Bird, "binders," and bayonets = Major campaign issues.


Well, those are the issues from the debates. I think it's weird that Romney didn't bring up Benghazi, but there you go.
   5141. Danny Posted: October 27, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4284955)
Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He also makes reference to the anti-Muslim video when he says: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.” He uses the term “act of terror” later that night when talking about the attack at a campaign event in Las Vegas.

Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled it a “terrorist attack.”

Eh?
   5142. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4284959)
It's semantics, Danny. They consider "act of terror" not equivalent to "terrorist attack".
   5143. tshipman Posted: October 27, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4284962)
It's semantics, Danny. They consider "act of terror" not equivalent to "terrorist attack".


Politics as catchphrase bingo.
   5144. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4284969)
Well, those are the issues from the debates. I think it's weird that Romney didn't bring up Benghazi, but there you go.

Romney brought up Benghazi in the second debate, but the media decided that "binders" was the more important issue.

***
It's semantics, Danny. They consider "act of terror" not equivalent to "terrorist attack".

I guess the word "semantics" now means "pretend to forget that both Obama and Susan Rice refused to use the word 'terror' when directly questioned."
   5145. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 27, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4284974)
Romney brought up Benghazi in the second debate


Oh, okay. I didn't watch the debates, so I only have people's reactions to go on.

I guess the word "semantics" now means "pretend to forget that both Obama and Susan Rice refused to use the word 'terror' when directly questioned."


I still think this is a dumb excuse for an issue. Is Romney's promise "I will say the word terror more than the other guy"? The thing about blaming a demonstration vs. blaming a planned attack is at least sort of relevant.
   5146. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4284985)
So apparently Benghazi would be a meaningless event if Obama an hour after the initial attack said it was a terrorisit attack and that it was planned. This is so stupid. People aren't even arguing about how we handled it or what we could have done anymore. We're arguing about what someone called it and when they called it that. That is so meaningless.
   5147. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4284986)
I still think this is a dumb excuse for an issue. Is Romney's promise "I will say the word terror more than the other guy"? The thing about blaming a demonstration vs. blaming a planned attack is at least sort of relevant.

While I dislike the idea that Obama & Co. misled people about Benghazi — a terror group took credit for the attack before Amb. Stevens had even died — I don't believe this is the biggest issue in the campaign. People on the right are making a big deal out of it simply because the media has afforded much more coverage to much lesser issues. It's bizarre for allegedly serious news organizations to ignore Benghazi while giving extensive front-page coverage to Big Bird, "binders," bayonets, Sandra Fluke, etc.

***
People aren't even arguing about how we handled it or what we could have done anymore. We're arguing about what someone called it and when they called it that. That is so meaningless.

Yes, they are:

Benghazi-gate continues: CIA operators were told to 'stand down'

SEAL father: Who denied backup during Benghazi attack?
   5148. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 27, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4284996)
It's bizarre for allegedly serious news organizations to ignore Benghazi while giving extensive front-page coverage to Big Bird, "binders," bayonets, Sandra Fluke, etc.

Not to mention the oh-so-pressing issue of "you didn't build that".

Anyway, don't you have enough to be preoccupied with, given how Nate's now got Obama's chances up to 74.4% while RCP has Romney a full point ahead? Sic em, baby!
   5149. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4284998)
Record amount of early voting

Obama leads Romney 54 percent to 39 percent among voters who already have cast ballots, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled in recent weeks

About 18 percent of registered voters already have cast ballots, the Reuters/Ipsos polling data showed.

Political scientists who specialize in early voting predict that a record 35 to 40 percent of all U.S. voters will cast their ballots before the November 6 election.

"In some of the battleground states, rates are even above that," said Michael McDonald, a political science professor at George Mason University in Virginia who runs the U.S. Elections Project and tracks all early votes
   5150. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4285003)
Anyway, don't you have enough to be preoccupied with, given how Nate's now got Obama's chances up to 74.4% while RCP has Romney a full point ahead? Sic em, baby!

Nate seems to be all-in based on Obama's 2-point lead in Ohio. I know he says he's not out on a limb, but it sure looks like he is. Bad economy, underwater approval ratings for Obama, Romney leading at RCP for 16 out of the last 19 days, Romney +2.2 at RCP in national polls conducted within the past 7 days ... it's a tough sale Nate is trying to make. It will be interesting to see what Nate says if Obama loses, which I'm increasingly confident will happen.
   5151. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4285015)
That the 3-1 longshot miraculously, impossibly came in?
   5152. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4285019)
That the 3-1 longshot miraculously, impossibly came in?

If that's his best explanation, he'll deserve a slot below Dick Morris on the respectability scale.
   5153. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4285023)
Nate seems to be all-in based on Obama's 2-point lead in Ohio. I know he says he's not out on a limb, but it sure looks like he is. Bad economy, underwater approval ratings for Obama, Romney leading at RCP for 16 out of the last 19 days, Romney +2.2 at RCP in national polls conducted within the past 7 days ... it's a tough sale Nate is trying to make. It will be interesting to see what Nate says if Obama loses, which I'm increasingly confident will happen.

And if Obama manages to win in spite of his crushing RCP deficits, I'm sure your spin will be an Amazon bestseller.

What I still think is going to affect the race one way or the other is Hurricane Sandy. I just have absolutely no idea which way it'll affect it, since a lot will depend on the public's perception of the government's reaction to it, which is a complete unknown at this point.
   5154. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4285032)
Anyway, don't you have enough to be preoccupied with, given how Nate's now got Obama's chances up to 74.4% while RCP has Romney a full point ahead?

Nate Silver may call this election exactly, but I wouldn't think that a track record based on one Presidential election cycle guarantees that, especially when that election was a bit of an outlier with the strongest Democratic tilt in almost 50 years. Eleven days before the 2010 election, Silver said there was a 70% chance the Republicans would pick-up less than 60 House seats. They gained 63.

Gallup continues to have Romney up 5, 51-46; and Rasmussen has Romney up 4. Both of those margins are probably too big to allow Obama to thread the needle to an Electoral College victory even while losing the popular vote. Has anyone ever lost while holding a 5 point lead, and topping 50%, in the Gallup Poll? Don't think so. If the current Gallup margin holds, Obama has a problem.

   5155. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4285034)
From the link:

As we remind our readers with each update, there is considerable uncertainty in the forecast. Democrats have a 20 percent chance of holding the House — but Republicans have a 30 percent chance of winning at least 60 seats, a 12 percent chance of winning at least 70 seats, and a 3 percent chance of winning 80 or more seats. We would advise against interpreting our forecast as a prediction that Republicans will win some particular number of seats. Instead, it should be thought of as being equivalent to a point spread.



Facts? We can't let them get in the way of a good narrative.

At the state level and on the electoral map it looks like it is going to be an Obama win.
   5156. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4285037)
What I still think is going to affect the race one way or the other is Hurricane Sandy.

Why? Are folks going to blame Obama if they lose power? Credit him if power is restored in less than 72 hours? Just don't see it. There might be some minor disruptions if a tree falls on a polling place, but there's a week to clean up the mess before election day. Now if Obama goes on TV tonight saying he has ordered the storm out to sea, and delivers, it would likely help him with Evangelical voters, but I don't see that happening, either.
   5157. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4285043)
Basically if the storm is really bad, like Hurricane Andrews/Katrina bad, it will likely keep voters away from the polling stations and or if FEMA shows a level of ineptitude in the face of a Katrina/Andrews catastrophe it will turn voters away from the administration. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that this year we are seeing record highs in early voting and that the NE is pretty solidly blue with no swing states in the mix.
   5158. Steve Treder Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4285045)
If the current Gallup margin holds, Obama has a problem.

This isn't exactly a revelation. It's also the case that if whatever poll happens to favor Obama by the widest margin proves to be the one that precisely nails the result, Romney is in a world of hurt.

But what a model such as Silver's does is to not assume that any particular poll is the last word, and instead aggregates them all in a careful manner to distill the essence of the combined message. Because that combined message is very, very likely to be a closer approximation of the actual result than any specific poll -- especially any specific poll that stands as an outlier in either direction.

Surely you can grasp this.
   5159. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4285046)
. . . it should be thought of as being equivalent to a point spread.

The spread was a little off on that one, no? Not sure why some folks are so resistant to the idea that there is any uncertainty in the Presidential election, but there are a lot of things that suggest a different result, or closer odds, than Nate Silver's formula.
   5160. Steve Treder Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4285048)
Count me among those who don't expect Hurricane Sandy to have a particular impact on the outcome of the election.
   5161. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4285049)
What I still think is going to affect the race one way or the other is Hurricane Sandy. I just have absolutely no idea which way it'll affect it, since a lot will depend on the public's perception of the government's reaction to it, which is a complete unknown at this point.

I agree with #5156. I don't see how this storm will affect the election much, if at all. At most, there might be a slight drop-off in turnout in states that are solidly Obama.
   5162. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4285050)
Only in the fever swamps does "the semantics of the single word 'terrorism' is a pointless distraction by obvious partisan nutjobs" = "Americans die in Benghazi and 'who cares?'"
   5163. DA Baracus Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4285052)
The spread was a little off on that one, no?


The spread said there was a 30% chance of something happening. It happened.

I can't be the only person who finds it funny that on a baseball site people are acting like something succeeding with a .300 chance of happening means the model is flawed.
   5164. Jim Wisinski Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4285057)
Nate seems to be all-in based on Obama's 2-point lead in Ohio. I know he says he's not out on a limb, but it sure looks like he is. Bad economy, underwater approval ratings for Obama, Romney leading at RCP for 16 out of the last 19 days, Romney +2.2 at RCP in national polls conducted within the past 7 days ... it's a tough sale Nate is trying to make. It will be interesting to see what Nate says if Obama loses, which I'm increasingly confident will happen.


Joe, you keep quoting the RCP national average but what about their state-by-state averages? According to those (with every poll but Colorado having one of the candidates up at least 1.1%) Obama is likely to win the EC 281-248 with Colorado currently an unknown since it's tied.

Also, which states do you consider to be actual battlegrounds that are in play for this election?
   5165. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4285059)
I can't be the only person who finds it funny that on a baseball site people are acting like something succeeding with a .300 chance of happening means the model is flawed.

It's not so much this as the fact that Nate keeps lowering Romney's odds despite Romney gaining in the national trackers (and several vital swing states). If Nate's model was just a little slow in converging with the national polling numbers, that would be one thing, but Nate seems to be making a big show out of going in the opposite direction.

The genius of Nate's model was supposed to be that it looks beyond just polling to things like the economy, presidential approval ratings, historical state-by-state voting trends, etc., but none of those are positives for Obama at all this year, let alone positive enough to offset Romney's +2.2 lead at RCP (over the past week). Nate seems to be all-in based on Obama's slim lead in one swing state despite everything else being a headwind for Obama.
   5166. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4285062)
Joe, you keep quoting the RCP national average but what about their state-by-state averages? According to those (with every poll but Colorado having one of the candidates up at least 1.1%) Obama is likely to win the EC 281-248 with Colorado currently an unknown since it's tied.

At some point, the national polls and state polls have to converge. It's possible that Obama is doing better state-by-state than he is nationally, but there isn't much, if any, history of a candidate winning in the Electoral College when trailing by more than a point in the national tracking polls on Election Day.

Also, which states do you consider to be actual battlegrounds that are in play for this election?

I believe Romney has Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina essentially in the bag and believe he's likely to win Colorado.

Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa are probably the four remaining battleground states.
   5167. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4285064)
Because that combined message is very, very likely to be a closer approximation of the actual result than any specific poll -- especially any specific poll that stands as an outlier in either direction.

Surely you can grasp this.


Sure, but there is also the possibility that Silver's poll selection and weighting is not more accurate than what other aggregators come up with, or even the most accurate single poll, at least for 2012. Not every poll makes their cross tabs publicly available, and I don't claim to have checked all of them any how, but just from sampling, I see some that seem to have problems. Put too many of those in Silver's formula and you aren't going to get an accurate result, IMHO.

Gallup has a long record - longer than Nate's. I think folks should at least entertain the possibility that Gallup (and Rasmussen) are pretty close this year. Not giving 70% odds myself, but a lot of folks here are making the "IT'S OVER!" call way too early. How'd that work out for Ray?
   5168. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4285071)
Gallup has a long record - longer than Nate's. I think folks should at least entertain the possibility that Gallup (and Rasmussen) are pretty close this year.

Right. Just about everyone except that RAND tracker has a longer track record than Nate, and Nate bases his model on the polls these organizations churn out. But we're supposed to believe that Nate's subjective modeling is not only better but foolproof.

I'm still seeing a lot of people compare this election to 2004 as if that's a positive for Obama, but RCP's 2004 graph doesn't bring any good news for Obama. John Kerry's last lead at RCP in 2004 was around August 25; Romney, meanwhile, has led for 16 of the past 19 days with just 10 days left to go.
   5169. Steve Treder Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4285075)
Sure, but there is also the possibility that Silver's poll selection and weighting is not more accurate than what other aggregators come up with, or even the most accurate single poll, at least for 2012.

Of course it's possible. But possibility is a very different thing from probability. Obviously none of us knows what will happen, but what we're engaging in is the assessment of comparative probabilities.

It's possible that Nate Silver, who has chucked his previous career and gone all-in as an election predictor in the most high-profile fashion possible, and is devoting his efforts full-time in an elaborate and transparent manner to factoring everything in he reasonably can in order to get his prediction as accurate as it can be, will get it badly wrong and be enormously humiliated. It's possible. But how probable is it, when compared to the probability that a single outlying individual poll, which digests vastly fewer datapoints than Silver's comprehensive model, will more accurately predict the outcome?
   5170. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4285079)
That's a bingo!
   5171. Jim Wisinski Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4285080)
I believe Romney has Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina essentially in the bag and believe he's likely to win Colorado.

Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa are probably the four remaining battleground states.


So Nevada for Obama. I'll give you credit, your scenario does result in it all coming down to whether or not the Ohio polls favoring Obama are correct. Wisconsin might officially be a battleground but it's really hard to imagine Romney actually winning it so it's going to be Ohio or bust for either candidate under your terms.
   5172. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4285081)
Just for the record, since Joe seems to count RCP as more reliable / less subjective than Nate......

Nate's current electoral vote projection: Obama 295, Romney 243

RCP's "No toss-ups" electoral map: Obama 290, Romney 248

   5173. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4285083)
In regards to Nate and polls I think a few people are getting lost in the "big picture" while not bothering to look at the details. Nate didn't just predict who was going to be President or approximately how many seats a side was going to pick up. He called primaries, congressional elections, Presidential elections by state, so on and so on. He did all of this while being very accurate. That is something that can't be sneezed at.

You also can't simply pick a poll you like and then point to Nate's model and say he isn't getting it. As Steve said already, surely the people on BTF can grasp this stuff better than dinosaur baseball reporters did with sabermetrics.
   5174. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4285084)
It's possible that Nate Silver, [...] will get it badly wrong and be enormously humiliated. It's possible. But how probable is it, when compared to the probability that a single outlying individual poll, which digests vastly fewer datapoints than Silver's comprehensive model, will more accurately predict the outcome?

Nobody here is putting their faith in a single outlier poll. Romney is up +2.2 at RCP in polls taken over the past week, while Nate is telling us that Obama remains a ~75 percent favorite because he holds a 2-point lead in a single swing state — and not only a single swing state, but a single swing state that's increasingly difficult to poll due to early voting.
   5175. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4285085)
I wonder what odds RCP would list if they did that. Didn't Nate run RCP's numbers and come up with pretty much the exact same thing he had?
   5176. spike Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4285086)
I think folks should at least entertain the possibility that Gallup (and Rasmussen) are pretty close this year.


Based on what? Maybe you should entertain the possibility that they aren't, since they seem to dramatically differ from other results. Whatever, keep clapping - Tinkerbell is in serious trouble.
   5177. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4285090)
Just for the record, since Joe seems to count RCP as more reliable / less subjective than Nate......

Nate's current electoral vote projection: Obama 295, Romney 243

RCP's "No toss-ups" electoral map: Obama 290, Romney 248

Once again, RCP isn't a model, it's an average. Thus, almost by definition, it's "less subjective than Nate."

***
In regards to Nate and polls I think a few people are getting lost in the "big picture" while not bothering to look at the details. Nate didn't just predict who was going to be President or approximately how many seats a side was going to pick up. He called primaries, congressional elections, Presidential elections by state, so on and so on. He did all of this while being very accurate. That is something that can't be sneezed at.

Nate's U.S. track record in 2010 was mediocre, and some of his foreign efforts were a disaster. I follow Nate's work, but this idea that his model is far superior if not infallible is absurd.
   5178. rr Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4285091)
"IT'S OVER!" call way too early.


Nope. Most liberals here are saying:

1. They trust Silver more than the other polls/poll analysts, based on his method, his skillset, and his 2008 results.
2. Silver as of today says that Obama has roughly a 74% chance of winning, and that makes them feel better about Obama's chances.

I am in that group above, but I will not be at all surprised if Romney wins, nor will I be surprised if it comes down to recounts in a couple of counties in Ohio and we don't have a winner until Friday of election week, and I doubt those outcomes would surprise Silver all that much (he has already written that there is a 50/50 chance that Ohio decides it), either. 3-1 or 4-1 longshots come in all the time, and Obama's supposed lead in some swing states is very small.

You and Kehoskie are bothered by Silver's numbers and how much weight they carry in the discussion because you are partisan righties who really, really, really want Obama to lose, so you keep quoting other polls that make you feel better. That's all that's going on here at this point.

If we wake up Nov. 7 and Silver's numbers are off and Romney has won, you can crow and gloat then, and as Hutcheson said, the first thing Silver will do in that scenario is to try to figure out where he was off, and I am pretty sure that will include asking himself some questions about subjectvity and bias.

So, the ideas that tons of people here are saying it's over (some people were before the first debate, but not many really are now) is wrong, as is the idea that Silver is "out on a limb."

   5179. Jim Wisinski Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4285092)
the first thing Silver will do in that scenario is to try to figure out where he was off, and I am pretty sure that will include asking himself some questions about subjectvity and bias.


Which is a lot more than can be said about that unskewed idiot if Obama wins.
   5180. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4285093)
Based on what? Maybe you should entertain the possibility that they aren't, since they seem to dramatically differ from other results. Whatever, keep clapping - Tinkerbell is in serious trouble.

Have you visited RCP or Pollster lately? If you believe only Gallup and Rasmussen have Obama ahead, you're about two weeks behind in the polling.
   5181. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4285095)

Based on what? Maybe you should entertain the possibility that they aren't, since they seem to dramatically differ from other results. Whatever, keep clapping - Tinkerbell is in serious trouble.


Within the last week, Gallup, Rasmussen, ABC News/Wash. Post, AP/Gfk, Politico/GWU/Battleground, and Monmouth/Survey USA/Braun have all showed Romney ahead by 1 to 5 pts.

There are other polls that have shown a tie, or Obama slightly ahead, but let's not pretend this is a single outlier.

Coke to Joe.
   5182. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4285098)
I believe Romney has Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina essentially in the bag and believe he's likely to win Colorado.

Current RCP averages for those states:

Florida: Romney +1.8
Virginia: Romney +1.0
North Carolina: Romney +3.8
Colorado: Tie

Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa are probably the four remaining battleground states.

Again, the current RCP averages for these states:

Ohio: Obama +2.3
Wisconsin: Obama +2.3
New Hampshire: Obama +1.4
Iowa: Obama +2.3

Also, in other battleground states:

Nevada: Obama +2.4

IOW three of the four states that you say Romney has "essentially in the bag" have smaller Romney margins than the Obama margins in three of the four states that you call "battlegrounds".

This kind of reminds me of Nikita Khrushchev's old maxim: What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.

   5183. spike Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4285099)
it's a tough sale Nate is trying to make.

I love this. Nate doesn't try to "sell" anything, especially a particular result. He puts the data into the model and lets the chips fall where they may. Other aggregator results and "16 of 19 days!!!" is exactly the sort of bullshiat tweaking and turd polishing that other partisans, not statisticians. engage in
   5184. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4285100)
Nope. Most liberals here are saying:

1. They trust Silver more than the other polls/poll analysts, based on his method, his skillset, and his 2008 results.
2. Silver as of today says that Obama has roughly a 74% chance of winning, and that makes them feel better about Obama's chances.



You and Kehoskie are bothered by Silver's numbers and how much weight they carry in the discussion because you are partisan righties who really, really, really want Obama to lose, so you keep quoting other polls that make you feel better. That's all that's going on here at this point.


Of course liberals trust in Silver couldn't possibly be because they really, really want Obama to win.

Only conservatives are ever influenced by their desires, liberals are all clear thinking and logical, 100% of the time.
   5185. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4285104)
This kind of reminds me of Nikita Khrushchev's old maxim: What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.


How does that differ from modern liberals philosophy on taxation and Gov't spending?
   5186. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4285105)
You and Kehoskie are bothered by Silver's numbers and how much weight they carry in the discussion because you are partisan righties who really, really, really want Obama to lose, so you keep quoting other polls that make you feel better. That's all that's going on here at this point.

If you use Rasmussen as your guiding light then it comes down to 8 "toss-up" states holding 95 electoral votes. Obama would need 33 votes and Romney would need 64 votes to win the election. Of those 8 states Ras has it as a tie in 3 of those states and have Obama leading 1 state and Romney leading in 4 states. Those 4 states give him 55 votes and the one state gives Obama 6 votes. So now it is 27 votes needed to 9 votes needed. At that point Romney would need to win either Ohio or Wisconsin while Obama would need to take them all or all but Iowa.

I don't know what Gallup is saying in terms of the electoral map.
   5187. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4285108)
You and Kehoskie are bothered by Silver's numbers and how much weight they carry in the discussion because you are partisan righties who really, really, really want Obama to lose, so you keep quoting other polls that make you feel better. That's all that's going on here at this point.

There's no reason for a subjective model to get so much attention when it was right once and substantially wrong the second time around.

So, the ideas that tons of people here are saying it's over (some people were before the first debate, but not many really are now) is wrong, as is the idea that Silver is "out on a limb."

Nate has Obama as a 3:1 favorite — despite a bad economy, despite underwater approval ratings, and despite trailing at RCP for 16 of the last 19 days — simply on the basis of Obama having a ~2-point lead in a single difficult-to-poll swing state. That seems like the very definition of "out on a limb."
   5188. spike Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4285110)
There are other polls that have shown a tie, or Obama slightly ahead, but let's not pretend this is a single outlier.

Gallup and Rassmussen have +5 and +4 respectively. Nobody else has it more than 3 in either direction.

Rasmussen Reports 10/24 - 10/26 1500 LV 3.0 50 46 Romney +4
IBD/TIPP 10/21 - 10/26 930 LV 3.5 45 47 Obama +2
Gallup 10/20 - 10/26 2700 LV 2.0 51 46 Romney +5
ABC News/Wash Post 10/22 - 10/25 1382 LV 3.0 49 48 Romney +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/19 - 10/23 839 LV 4.2 47 45 Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 - 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 - 10/20 816 LV 3.4 47 47 Tie
CBS News 10/17 - 10/20 790 LV 4.0 46 48 Obama +2
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 10/18 - 10/20 800 LV 3.5 47 50 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/15 - 10/18 1000 LV 3.1 49 47 Romney +2
   5189. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4285112)
So are those RCP state polls also "out on a limb", Joe? Or do you think that the election is going to be decided by a popular vote? If so, I'm sure President Gore would agree with you.

And how, exactly, does your math spin those RCP state numbers I quoted in #5182?
   5190. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4285114)
IOW three of the four states that you say Romney has "essentially in the bag" have smaller Romney margins than the Obama margins in three of the four states that you call "battlegrounds".

Perhaps, but stories suggest Obama has pulled back in at least a couple of those states, and some pollsters have stopped polling in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. When one or both of those things happen, it's usually a good sign that a state has turned and is no longer expected to be competitive.
   5191. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 27, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4285116)
. . . nor will I be surprised if it comes down to recounts in a couple of counties in Ohio and we don't have a winner until Friday of election week

If Ohio is close, we may be waiting considerably longer than that. Ohio takes 10 days to process provisional ballots & late arriving absentee ballots postmarked by election day. They don't start a recount until those votes are tabulated and certified. This could be a difficult scenario for those that have trouble staying calm.
   5192. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4285118)
Nate has Obama as a 3:1 favorite — despite a bad economy, despite underwater approval ratings, and despite trailing at RCP for 16 of the last 19 days — simply on the basis of Obama having a ~2-point lead in a single difficult-to-poll swing state. That seems like the very definition of "out on a limb."


Apparently, Joe missed this:

Current RCP averages for those states:

Florida: Romney +1.8
Virginia: Romney +1.0
North Carolina: Romney +3.8
Colorado: Tie

Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa are probably the four remaining battleground states.

Again, the current RCP averages for these states:

Ohio: Obama +2.3
Wisconsin: Obama +2.3
New Hampshire: Obama +1.4
Iowa: Obama +2.3

Also, in other battleground states:

Nevada: Obama +2.4


Go to CNN's electoral map thingie and assign the states to whoever is leading above, leaving CO as a toss up, and you get Obama 281, Romney 248. Basically, Romney has to win 2 states where his lead is less than 2 points, and the state where he is behind by 2 points, and the tossup. Obama only has the win the state where he's up by 2 points. I'm not a stat talking guy, but given that, 3-1 favorite sounds like it's in the ballpark.
   5193. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4285121)
So are those RCP state polls also "out on a limb", Joe? Or do you think that the election is going to be decided by a popular vote? If so, I'm sure President Gore would agree with you.

Individual polls aren't "out on a limb," they're just individual polls. A polling model that aggregates dozens of national polls, applies some subjective weighting, and then makes the trailing candidate not only the favorite but a 3:1 favorite is way out on a limb.

Also, Gore won the national popular vote by 0.5 points, which isn't anything close to the 2.2-point lead Romney now enjoys.

And how, exactly, does your math spin those RCP state numbers I quoted in #5182?

See #5190.
   5194. tshipman Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4285122)
Nate is telling us that Obama remains a ~75 percent favorite because he holds a 2-point lead in a single swing state — and not only a single swing state, but a single swing state that's increasingly difficult to poll due to early voting


I enjoy this. Ohio isn't getting harder to poll--it's getting easier with early voting. There's less uncertainty in the polling because rather than having to rely on a likely voter screen, you can just ask people if they've already voted.

If you concede Nevada (which you appear to have above, Obama can win Ohio + (NH and Iowa) or Ohio + Wisconsin. For Romney to win without Ohio would require him to win in all the states where he's currently slightly ahead or tied (NC, VA, CO, FL), as well as sweep all the other non-OH swing states where he is currently behind more than in Ohio (IA, WI, NH).

Romney does not have a realistic path to victory that does not include Ohio. That's why it matters more than how Romney is doing in Florida or Virginia. Romney needs to win ALL the swing states to win.
   5195. spike Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4285124)
And I wouldn't go putting Florida in anyones bag yet -

Republican Voter Suppression In Florida May Have Backfired
   5196. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4285127)
Romney does not have a realistic path to victory that does not include Ohio. That's why it matters more than how Romney is doing in Florida or Virginia. Romney needs to win ALL the swing states to win.

If Rasmussen is THE correct poll then Romney could win without winning Ohio.
   5197. rr Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4285128)
Of course liberals trust in Silver couldn't possibly be because they really, really want Obama to win.


Only conservatives are ever influenced by their desires, liberals are all clear thinking and logical, 100% of the time.


Of course, I didn't say that liberals aren't biased. But I did point out that there are other reasons to trust Silver, as I explained, and you predictably ignored them, since you are just venting and bloviating here. Personally, I can say that if Silver's numbers were telling us that Romney was in the driver's seat right now, I would tend to believe that he was. If Silver misses on this election, I will pay attention to how he re-evaluates his model and adjust expectations accordingly.

At this point, a lot of the poll-watching on both sides is simply an exercise in the kind of faux-sabermetric fanboyism we sometimes see around here before post-season series and rivalry series: guys interpreting data points about close and difficult-to-call outcomes based on what they hope will happen. If you trust Gallup more than you trust Silver, power to you. We will see who was right in ten days.
   5198. McCoy Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4285130)
And I wouldn't go putting Florida in anyones bag yet -

Republican Voter Suppression In Florida May Have Backfired


I don't think that article means much.
   5199. JE (Jason) Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4285131)
One of the challenges with many polls tilting Obama's way is they offer up a party sample breakdown very close to or even exceeding the '08 electorate, which was +7D.

And for what it's worth, the GOP standard bearer has done better in Ohio than his vote nationally in the past nine presidential elections.
   5200. tshipman Posted: October 27, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4285133)
If Rasmussen is THE correct poll then Romney could win without winning Ohio.


Yes. If Rasmussen is correct, and Romney were actually able to win WI (Ras has it, as well as Iowa as a tie), then Romney could theoretically win without Ohio.

But if Romney wins Wisconsin, he's almost certainly winning Ohio as well.
Page 52 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3450 - 11:00am, Oct 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(373 - 10:55am, Oct 24)
Last: AROM

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(907 - 10:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(1 - 10:40am, Oct 24)
Last: BDC

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(1 - 10:35am, Oct 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(10 - 10:33am, Oct 24)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogFor Royals' Game 3 starter, road to World Series has been long and winding | FOX Sports
(2 - 10:32am, Oct 24)
Last: Roger McDowell spit on me!

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(47 - 10:30am, Oct 24)
Last: Nasty Nate

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(2 - 10:26am, Oct 24)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(10 - 10:23am, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Furtado

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-24-2014
(2 - 9:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Batman

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(34 - 9:49am, Oct 24)
Last: Roger McDowell spit on me!

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(870 - 9:48am, Oct 24)
Last: zonk

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(10 - 8:58am, Oct 24)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(14 - 7:43am, Oct 24)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

Page rendered in 2.7211 seconds
52 querie(s) executed