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

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

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 4 of 114 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   301. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4290363)
zonk,

Do you think it's possible that the fact that you refer to them as "wasteland states" is one reason they might be hesitant to hand over some of the power they have to you?

The history of world politics is a history of the majority screwing with the minority because they can. When it comes to New York and California vs Montana and Idaho in a pure democracy, which pair do you think should be more concerned?


I'm not zonk and I wouldn't call them wasteland states but I can say with absolute certainty that the Great Plains and Far West were using their power to stick the rest of the country with the bill before zonk's grandparents first blinked at each other. So as for me, I'm going to doubt your causality.

It's just not that complicated. Rural states have extra power. Rural states use extra power to their benefit. There's no missing step where you need to insert name-calling from other people to explain the outcome.

It isn't their fault they have extra power--mostly it's the fault of 19th century Republicans scrambling to save their bacon. But it does have real and not always good consequences.


I am zonk and I'll cosign GregD's response...

Like I said - grew up in a rural area and Indiana, while not Wyoming, isn't an NY or CA either.

I just ultimately object to all the cake and eating it too that goes on... inordinate power over the population via the structure of our federal government, while at the same time, benefitting from the exact imbalance that they fantasize exists, but in reality, they benefit from.

I've said many times that I AM willing to subsidize rural services and infrastructure -- and in fact, as a federal proponent -- I'm very much on the "one nation" side of things rather than collection of states... but something's just got to give here.
   302. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4290364)
Steady rise
   303. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4290365)
Steady rise


Major Momentum!
   304. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4290367)
Rural states have extra power.

"Extra" compared to what? How much they "should" have, and who gets to do decide that? If we were to go to pure democracy, do you really think they should just sit back and take it?

This idea that 51% of the population should run everything is crazy. The seemingly odd and diverse ways power is scrambled about the country is a feature, not a bug. Brookyln hipster whackjobs can sell artisanal peanut butter at cardboard tube swordfights and survivalist whackjobs in Monatana can live in a fallout shelter with 90 years of canned goods and ammunition, and enough power is localized to each that one can't prevent the other from doing so. And the history of the world suggests without such measures, eventually one would succeed in doing so.

To me, that's a good thing.
   305. McCoy Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4290369)
Not that it means you punt the 2012 election but an Obama victory in 2012 probably hands the White House to the Republicans in 2016.

No way is Biden going to be the nominee in 2016 and either Hillary will be attached to this administration or she will have left and done nothing for 4 years. I know they are building up Cuomo but I don't see that happening either.

The only silver lining is that the Republicans don't really have anyone lined up for 2016 either.
   306. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4290370)
I'm pointing out that one of the most obvious reasons for not requiring parental consent in these cases is that the 13-year-old won't seek the care she needs if she knows that her parents will be notified, and that sometimes goes along with her not consenting. And that, in a (presumably) small but tragic fraction of these cases, it's because her parents were in some way culpable. It would be nice to believe that would we would never, ever have to consider that arrangement of events when making policy, but, outrageously, this is a thing that happens.

If a parent is somehow culpable, that's a criminal matter that will require the involvement of law enforcement and the courts, plus child welfare. That's one of the best reasons to require adult involvement in such situations.

***
At what age do you think a female should be allowed to make her own reproductive decisions free from parental, religious, or governmental interference?

If 13-year-olds aren't mature enough to buy a beer or go tanning, then 13-year-olds certainly aren't mature enough to make major medical decisions without parental involvement.
   307. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4290371)
If Christie loses 150 pounds over the next 4 years, he might be the clear favorite.
   308. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:37 PM (#4290372)

"Extra" compared to what? How much they "should" have, and who gets to do decide that? If we were to go to pure democracy, do you really think they should just sit back and take it?

This idea that 51% of the population should run everything is crazy. The seemingly odd and diverse ways power is scrambled about the country is a feature, not a bug. Brookyln hipster whackjobs can sell artisanal peanut butter at cardboard tube swordfights and survivalist whackjobs in Monatana can live in a fallout shelter with 90 years of canned goods and ammunition, and enough power is localized to each that one can't prevent the other from doing so. And the history of the world suggests without such measures, eventually one would succeed in doing so.

To me, that's a good thing.


But I just don't see things working that way --

Pick an issue, any issue --

Where would say that urban preferences on any number of policies are being forced upon rural denizens?

I can rattle off plenty of instances where rural preferences are being forced upon urban denizens -- gay rights, female reproductive rights, gun control, etc -- and that's even before we get into the whole inlay/outlay thing.

Doesn't matter if we're talking federal or state level -- solely on a pure per person democratic basis, our system is set up (beyond maybe Nebraska, which I think is the only state that doesn't have a bicameral model) such if you live in a sparsely populated area, you have a disproportionately louder voice than one who lives in a dense urban enclave.
   309. Eddo Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4290374)
At what age do you think a female should be allowed to make her own reproductive decisions free from parental, religious, or governmental interference?

If 13-year-olds aren't mature enough to drink a beer or go tanning, then 13-year-olds certainly aren't mature enough to make major medical decisions without parental involvement.

So, your answer is "twenty-one", then?
   310. Tilden Katz Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4290375)
No way is Biden going to be the nominee in 2016 and either Hillary will be attached to this administration or she will have left and done nothing for 4 years. I know they are building up Cuomo but I don't see that happening either.

The only silver lining is that the Republicans don't really have anyone lined up for 2016 either.


It will be an interesting race. Who in '04 would have guessed that Obama would have even run in '08 let alone win the whole thing? In a non-Hilary world Cuomo is probably the favorite, but O'Malley and Mark Warner are probably up there too. A dark horse like Brian Schweitzer could also make a run.
   311. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4290376)
Romney's in FL today. Remember all those pre-Sandy posts about Joe Biden going to PA?

Yeah.
   312. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4290377)

If 13-year-olds aren't mature enough to drink a beer or go tanning, then 13-year-olds certainly aren't mature enough to make major medical decisions without parental involvement.


What if the 13 yo was impregnated/raped by one of the parents? In such circumstances -- see something akin to the Sandusky's, for example -- I can't imagine the other parent is a particularly good option, either.
   313. Tilden Katz Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4290378)
If 13-year-olds aren't mature enough to drink a beer or go tanning, then 13-year-olds certainly aren't mature enough to make major medical decisions without parental involvement.


So we require parental consent up to age 21, lower the drinking age to 13, or...?
   314. formerly dp Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4290379)
Makes me wonder how long Silver is for the Times, post-election.


I think the bet is a terrible idea. I've watched Silver on Stewart and Real Time, and in both cases, he has been advancing biting critiques of main-stream media pundits (most of which I agree with). But they've been bluntly-worded, with snark appropriate to the comedy show format. That's not a good combo-- at the end of the day, much like the SABR debates, he's criticizing an industry he's trying to work in, essentially calling large swaths of pundits and journalists uninformed hacks. He might be dead-on in his criticism, but he's not doing himself any favors with the way he's making it. There were a few lines from the Stewart interview where I was really pleased to see the structural critique of narrative advanced on the television. However, in making that argument, he's essentially pulling the curtain off of the entire cable news industry. And they're going to try to do the same to him, without likely making any attempt to actually understand his model with any nuance (the TV format is sort of antithetical to understanding what he's doing anyway, as we've learned with how badly the Moneyball argument got mangled).
   315. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4290380)
If a parent is somehow culpable, that's a criminal matter that will require the involvement of law enforcement and the courts, plus child welfare. That's one of the best reasons to require adult involvement in such situations.


I don't think you've thought this through. You think the 13-year-old girl is equally likely to seek medical help if she is told that one of her abusers (or their close relatives, friends, etc.) will, by law, be part of the decision on what happens to her? You can't comprehend how such a policy frequently leads to incredibly bad outcomes for the hypothetical girl in question, including heightened risk of suicide or domestic abuse?

Having a brother studying to be a paediatrician is a wonderful gift for our family, but also an incredibly sobering experience once in a very long while. One of those occasions is when you realise just how appalling choices are in some circumstances, and how poorly we can put ourselves in others' shoes when we decide that our morality can easily encompass their problems.
   316. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4290381)
No way is Biden going to be the nominee in 2016 and either Hillary will be attached to this administration or she will have left and done nothing for 4 years. I know they are building up Cuomo but I don't see that happening either.
If Obama wins this year, and things aren't a total mess in 2016, Hillary's running. And if she runs, the nomination is hers.
   317. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4290382)
It will be an interesting race. Who in '04 would have guessed that Obama would have even run in '08 let alone win the whole thing? In a non-Hilary world Cuomo is probably the favorite, but O'Malley and MArk Warner are probably up there too. A dark horse like Brian Schweitzer could also make a run.


That'll be my guy if he does -- and I do hope he does.

I'd be fine getting behind HRC in 2016 should she choose to run, but I just have the distinct impression she won't.

I never really got the love for Mark Warner -- he seems like a Democratic version of Tim Pawlenty to me...

I will admit that ideologically, Schweitzer isn't my best match -- it's a style call, this far out -- but assuming he drifts more socially liberal (which I have to think he would to run a national Dem campaign), I'll be backing Schweitzer.
   318. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4290383)
Not that it means you punt the 2012 election but an Obama victory in 2012 probably hands the White House to the Republicans in 2016.


In 2004 - hell, in 2007 and 2008, I was told by *everyone* in the know that Hillary Clinton would be the next Democratic POTUS.

I would not write off her desire to be the first female POTUS and run in 2016, especially not if we're 4 more years into a recovery, have exited Afghanistan, and things are looking rosier than 2012.

I would also not write off some new face we don't talk about these days.

And even if it's a mediocre candidate like Cuomo or something, the Repubs have to run someone against him, and Cuomo isn't a bad bet against Michelle Bachmann.

If Jeb Bush runs in 2016, maybe.
   319. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4290384)
I can rattle off plenty of instances where rural preferences are being forced upon urban denizens -- gay rights, female reproductive rights, gun control, etc -- and that's even before we get into the whole inlay/outlay thing.

I don't understand what you think is being forced upon urban denizens? Laws outlawing gun control, maybe, but that actually has nothing to do with rural voting and everything to do with the constitution (and the same is true for abortion). And even then it seems to me with gun control, the 'force' works the other way. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy guns, they're just not letting you force someone to not own one.

As for gay rights, a gay man in Idaho probably has more rights than a gay man in New York City, simply because any man in Idaho has more rights than any man in New York City. Likely the same for women. The great news is that if you don't like one, you can move to the other, and vice versa. There are a set of rights everybody has everywhere (or at least they should), and then after that let folks sort it out locally.

As for inlay/outlay, well that's another kettle of fish entirely.

   320. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4290385)
Doesn't matter if we're talking federal or state level -- solely on a pure per person democratic basis, our system is set up (beyond maybe Nebraska, which I think is the only state that doesn't have a bicameral model) such if you live in a sparsely populated area, you have a disproportionately louder voice than one who lives in a dense urban enclave.

Other than the U.S. Senate, to which legislative bodies in the U.S. does this apply?
   321. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4290386)
I don't think you've thought this through. You think the 13-year-old girl is equally likely to seek medical help if she is told that one of her abusers (or their close relatives, friends, etc.) will, by law, be part of the decision on what happens to her? You can't comprehend how such a policy frequently leads to incredibly bad outcomes for the hypothetical girl in question, including heightened risk of suicide or domestic abuse?

Having a brother studying to be a paediatrician is a wonderful gift for our family, but also an incredibly sobering experience once in a very long while. One of those occasions is when you realise just how appalling choices are in some circumstances, and how poorly we can put ourselves in others' shoes when we decide that our morality can easily encompass their problems.


Precisely.

I mean, I suppose I don't have the data -- and it's not exactly a google search I'm going to do at work -- but I would be willing to bet that of the 13 yo that get pregnant and seek a morning after pill on their own, I'm betting there are a lot more who can't go a parent because the parents are either directly culpable, or, we're looking at a situation where the father is a relative or somesuch that the parents may not be quite willing to do the right thing about than we are dealing with promiscuous hordes of nubile 13 yos.

   322. Steve Treder Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4290387)
If Obama wins this year, and things aren't a total mess in 2016, Hillary's running. And if she runs, the nomination is hers.

While it's obviously possible that she'll run and that she'll get the nomination, Barack Obama's career (as someone already mentioned) is a vivid demonstration that in Presidential politics, four years is a very long time. All kinds of unforeseen things not only can happen, but likely will.
   323. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4290388)
So, your answer is "twenty-one", then?


Well that is what's in the bible.
   324. Tilden Katz Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4290389)
That'll be my guy if he does -- and I do hope he does.


Mine too. I think we'll have an idea of what he's planning after the election. If he takes a spot in a hypothetical Obama 2.0 Cabinet as Energy Secretary or something, he's probably not running. If he doesn't he's at least considering it.
   325. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4290392)

I don't understand what you think is being forced upon urban denizens? Laws outlawing gun control, maybe, but that actually has nothing to do with rural voting and everything to do with the constitution (and the same is true for abortion). And even then it seems to me with gun control, the 'force' works the other way. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy guns, they're just not letting you force someone to not own one.

As for gay rights, a gay man in Idaho probably has more rights than a gay man in New York City, simply because any man in Idaho has more rights than any man in New York City. Likely the same for women. The great news is that if you don't like one, you can move to the other, and vice versa. There are a set of rights everybody has everywhere (or at least they should), and then after that let folks sort it out locally.

As for inlay/outlay, well that's another kettle of fish entirely.


I would hope that we're not arguing about something like say... 'not being beaten up' -- but take gay marriage, for example... I'd be willing to bet that a city-wide referendum in most metropolises allowing gay marriage would pass easily, but they tend to struggle at the state level.

I really don't particularly care about gun control - or at least, as I've said previously, while I'd be fine with outlawing firearms, I've come to accept the constitutional arguments and the simple fact that a lot of Americans have small penises and guns make them feel big... but let's get into the granularity about something like say, an assault weapons ban. I believe, based on the previous law - this passes constitutional muster. I would likewise suspect that it's another area where most cities would prefer they be banned, but they're not.
   326. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4290393)
Would Andrew Cuomo run in '16?
   327. Tilden Katz Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4290394)
Other than the U.S. Senate, to which legislative bodies in the U.S. does this apply?


I believe, but don't have the data in front of me, that Senate seats in Upstate New York contain far fewer residents than those in the city or long island. But again, I'm not sure off the top of head if this is accurate.
   328. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4290395)
What if the 13 yo was impregnated/raped by one of the parents? In such circumstances -- see something akin to the Sandusky's, for example -- I can't imagine the other parent is a particularly good option, either.

Already covered this. If that 13-year-old is being raped by a parent, how does it help if adults are kept entirely out of the process?

***
So we require parental consent up to age 21, lower the drinking age to 13, or...?

Or redefine the age of adulthood in the U.S., which is currently 18. Otherwise, it's simply absurd to claim that 13-year-olds are too immature to give informed consent with regards to tanning and ear-piercing but they are mature enough to make an informed decision about abortion.
   329. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4290396)

Mine too. I think we'll have an idea of what he's planning after the election. If he takes a spot in a hypothetical Obama 2.0 Cabinet as Energy Secretary or something, he's probably not running. If he doesn't he's at least considering it.


I wonder, though... I do think he needs more of a national profile -- and two years in a cabinet post might do that for him.
   330. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4290397)
The only silver lining is that the Republicans don't really have anyone lined up for 2016 either.


Ladies and gentlemen, David Stern 2016!
   331. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4290398)

Or redefine the age of adulthood in the U.S., which is currently 18. Otherwise, it's simply absurd to claim that 13-year-olds are too immature to give informed consent with regards to tanning and ear-piercing but they are mature enough to make an informed decision about abortion.


Tanning and ear-piercing haven't been blessed as innate rights due under privacy that I'm aware, a female's rights to her own reproductive organs have been.
   332. JL Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4290399)
Ladies and gentlemen, David Stern 2016!

Up until he realizes he can't just lock out the Democrats.
   333. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: November 01, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4290400)
Already covered this. If that 13-year-old is being raped by a parent, how does it help if adults are kept entirely out of the process?


You're kidding, right? Sometimes, there is no process if the alternative is that an abusive parent must be part of the process. Or the brother or sister of an abusive uncle. Or a friend of an abusive family friend. If you prefer to think of it this way (and I certainly hope you don't), the process you're advocating for is one that will often result in a homeless teenager, an injured teenager, or, sometimes, a teenage corpse.

Seriously, step back a second and think about this a little. You've not covered this at all; you've jerked your knee.
   334. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4290402)
I don't think you've thought this through. You think the 13-year-old girl is equally likely to seek medical help if she is told that one of her abusers (or their close relatives, friends, etc.) will, by law, be part of the decision on what happens to her? You can't comprehend how such a policy frequently leads to incredibly bad outcomes for the hypothetical girl in question, including heightened risk of suicide or domestic abuse?

I never said anything like this. The idea that a father who's raping his daughter should be involved in any decision about the morning-after pill or abortion is ridiculous. It's standard for parental-notification laws to include a mechanism for avoiding a parent (or both parents) in cases of abuse — e.g., a court-ordered legal guardian. But if no adults are involved, how do such situations even begin to get solved?
   335. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4290404)
Actually it tells us twice, in their own words, that the "RCP Average" showed Romney at +1.3 points. If you don't want to refer to that number, then you have to go to the various individual polls, which is NOT what you were citing when you first made your original claim.

Good grief. The chart of RCP's averages is here and it plainly shows Romney +1.0, not +1.3, on Oct. 14. If you have a problem with this, take it up with RCP.


I'd think that RCP might want to take it up with itself, since their Archive Page for that date contradicts their current chart.

But anyhoo, according to that chart, Obama's gained 1.6 points since October 10th. I'll let you and Spike discuss the significance of that.
   336. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4290405)
A headline that's great for America but terrible for the GOP:
U.S. Unadjusted Unemployment Down to 7.0% in October
   337. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4290406)
Tanning and ear-piercing haven't been blessed as innate rights due under privacy that I'm aware, a female's rights to her own reproductive organs have been.

The tens of thousands of men and women currently in prison for non-forcible statutory rape will be thrilled to hear this. By this logic, they're all being unjustly imprisoned.

***
You're kidding, right? Sometimes, there is no process if the alternative is that an abusive parent must be part of the process. Or the brother or sister of an abusive uncle. Or a friend of an abusive family friend. If you prefer to think of it this way (and I certainly hope you don't), the process you're advocating for is one that will often result in a homeless teenager, an injured teenager, or, sometimes, a teenage corpse.

You're drawing the line at the morning-after pill? How many 13-year-old girls who are being raped by a family member are a morning-after pill away from suicide or homelessness? If they contemplate suicide or run away from home, it's almost assuredly because of the rape, not because an adult must consent to the morning-after pill or an abortion.

Situations like this are precisely why we have child welfare departments and family courts and guardians ad litem.
   338. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4290407)
But if no adults are involved, how do such situations even begin to get solved?


The problem you've got is that it's not as simple as knowing, on Day 1, what the true state of affairs is. The person most directly affected - the girl - needs impartial, expert help. Which comes in the form of medical personnel. Writing into law the need for parents to be involved by default deters people in these situations from getting that help.

It would be nice (well, not nice, but helpful) if the process started with everyone knowing who had done what to whom, and making decisions on that basis. It doesn't. And writing into law requirements for more people - people who aren't trained to, and honestly aren't capable of responding objectively and calmly to situations such as these - to be part of the process doesn't make the process better; it stops the process from happening.

But hey. I'm sure social conservatives know better than paediatricians.

EDIT:
You're drawing the line at the morning-after pill?


Where the hell did I say this? I said that girls who are forced to start a process that must, by law, include notification to their parents - even if their parents weren't directly or indirectly culpable - reduces the chance of that process starting at all. Which increases the risk of bad outcomes, including suicide. We do indeed have child welfare departments, family courts, and guardians ad litem. Letting them do their job well is more important than assuaging social conservatives' need for moral absolutism.
   339. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4290408)
[331] Which is quite frankly absurd. When I was 17 I had to get a parent signature for a tetanus shot shot after I gashed my forehead. And yet, a significant surgery doesn't need one. Total lunacy.
   340. GregD Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4290412)
Asking where, aside from the Senate, rural areas are overrepresented is a great other than that how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln moment. It's the more-powerful of the two legislative bodies and gives its assent to membership in the one of the other branches, and, because of its apportionment, has an extra weight on the election of the third branch of government. (Though I think the rural overrepresentation has a fairly minimal effect on the EC since it only matters when Dems win a really close popular vote like in 2000.)

But again a discussion has to start with the notion that the particular overrepresentation we have has nothing whatsoever to do with the Founders or Constitution. Until the 1850s there was a set of compromises about the size states should reach before entering the Union. (There were other issues about admitting states, of course, but not size.) That broke in the Republican ascendancy of the 1860s-1890s and that created many states that simply would never have been admitted or drawn as such in any other moment in American history. Had that not happened, it's very likely there would have been either longer periods of territory status or much geographically larger states or both. The excess power that the Founders gave Rhode Island doesn't speak to this.

Nor, for that matter, does the current status of Puerto Rico have any real comparison with US history, as no one contemplated keeping territories of such size in a semi-permanent status. Hawaii is the only correlative but the time lag and size of Puerto Rico are on a different plane by this point. Again the impact on the EC is minimal since PR would likely have about 5 Congressmen and 2 Senators and very very few elections come down to within 7 EVs, but the impact on Congress adds up.

Puerto Rico has quite a few more people than Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana combined and you could throw half of Idaho in there before you get in danger of passing it.
   341. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4290413)
Joe, you've changed your position. Your post 278 was about parental notification, not child welfare or family courts. You were arguing for a parent's right to give consent. Now your argument seems to be "But if no adults are involved, how do such situations even begin to get solved?" (post 334, also see post 328)

Slippery.
   342. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4290414)
Is one of the schools of thought that by taking away the power of the parent to decide about morning after pills and abortions, there will be a greater likelihood for the 13 year old to have sex?
   343. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4290420)
The problem you've got is that it's not as simple as knowing, on Day 1, what the true state of affairs is. The person most directly affected - the girl - needs impartial, expert help. Which comes in the form of medical personnel. Writing into law the need for parents to be involved by default deters people in these situations from getting that help.

This is the third time you've deliberately ignored a key part of my comments. I've never said a parent should be involved if they're the one who raped or impregnated the child.

But hey. I'm sure social conservatives know better than paediatricians.

Ha ha. And I'm sure the brother of a med student knows better than the 37 state legislatures and governors who've enacted and signed such laws.
   344. billyshears Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4290421)
No way is Biden going to be the nominee in 2016 and either Hillary will be attached to this administration or she will have left and done nothing for 4 years. I know they are building up Cuomo but I don't see that happening either.


I find Cuomo to be terribly uninspiring. Maybe he can get the nomination if the field is weak, but I don't see him winning a general election against a credible opponent. Speculation of this sort is interesting, but a lot of different things happen after people finally show up. Rick Perry proves to be an imbecile, Wesley Clark proves to have a pretty good resume for a personality, Bill Clinton proves to be a brilliant politician, etc. The idea of a candidate is so much less important than the actuality of a candidate, and we know very little about the actuality of a candidate until a person is actually a candidate.
   345. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4290424)
Joe, you've changed your position. Your post 278 was about parental notification, not child welfare or family courts. You were arguing for a parent's right to give consent. Now your argument seems to be "But if no adults are involved, how do such situations even begin to get solved?" (post 334, also see post 328)

How is it slippery? Is there a single parental-notification law in the U.S. that doesn't provide for a guardian ad litem when the minor child alleges she was raped by a parent or guardian?

I certainly didn't get the impression that you, Tilden Katz, Zonk, et al., were arguing for a guardian ad litem instead of a parent. It's been clear that you've been arguing that 13-year-olds should be able to walk into a clinic and get the morning-after pill and/or an abortion without any adult involvement or consent whatsoever.
   346. Mefisto Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4290426)
I believe, but don't have the data in front of me, that Senate seats in Upstate New York contain far fewer residents than those in the city or long island. But again, I'm not sure off the top of head if this is accurate.


Nope. The Supreme Court required equal districts in Reynolds v. Sims (1964). In state elections, it's one person, one vote. That's not true, obviously, for the Senate, and it's close but not quite true for the House.
   347. GregD Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4290427)
Cuomo kind of works because he can get away with his dickishness as a Democrat more easily than Christie will be able to. He's just an insufferable ####### but he's also pretty effective, and that's the kind of Democrat who can play well in a year where the Republicans kick the can down the road. Against a very charismatic Republican or in a year when other things are going the Republican way, then obviously he'd have trouble since he inspires zero enthusiasm in anyone ever.

If Hillary had come out against Iraq she would have won in 2008. Or if Obama hadn't remembered his 2003 speech in time to repost it on his website. It was the war that doomed her, too.

Cuomo can't really run against her as he'll have such fundraising challenges. If she's in, I guess you'd see O'Malley and one Real America candidate though I have a hard time seeing who.

Republicans will be amazing if Romney loses as you'll likely see the real battle for the soul of the party with Bush fighting for the old guard everyone and her sister running for the Tea Party and Rubio and maybe Jindal trying to unite the two wings.
   348. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4290428)
This is the third time you've deliberately ignored a key part of my comments. I've never said a parent should be involved if they're the one who impregnated the child.


What if the brother of a parent did it? Or a close friend? Or what if the actual story of who did what to whom isn't known yet? Unless you live in a world where people, particularly 13-year-old girls, happily and openly talk about this stuff without fear or trepidation, in which case: send up a flare; maybe we'll see it from Earth.

Ha ha. And I'm sure the brother of a med student knows better than the 37 state legislatures and governors who've enacted and signed such laws.


Oh, how I wish I could disagree with you on that one.

But anyway. I'm done; I had performed such a good job of not getting involved in this crap during this election cycle, and I let myself down at the last minute. The rank stupidity and myopic party-line touting was just too much tonight.

EDIT:
It's been clear that you've been arguing that 13-year-olds should be able to walk into a clinic and get the morning-after pill and/or an abortion without any adult involvement or consent whatsoever.


Only if you make up my side of the conversation yourself.
   349. GregD Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4290429)
Nope. The Supreme Court required equal districts in Reynolds v. Sims (1964). In state elections, it's one person, one vote. That's not true, obviously, for the Senate, and it's close but not quite true for the House.
The issue is more complicated than that as the NY leg counts felons as persons in the district where the prisons are located, many of which are way upstate or in western NY, even though they are ineligible to vote, so you do get some rotten boroughs up there that would have to be combined if you didn't include inmates.

The details are that, even without dealing with the inmate issue, the far upstate Senate districts are all 4-5% below the standard for one-person one vote, while every district in NYC is above the standard, and all of Queens is 4-5% over it. So even aside from the inmates, the most-rural areas of NY are overrepresented. This stays just under the federal standard of an acceptable +- 5% swing.

Inmates add several thousand members to the least-populated districts even though the state constitution says the state cannot force someone to change their legal residence for voting or representation purposes. If you take out inmates, even before you put them back in their home districts, you get 7 districts with more than 5% too few people, beyond the federal standard.
   350. Lassus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4290431)
[Cuomo's] just an insufferable ####### but he's also pretty effective, and that's the kind of Democrat who can play well in a year where the Republicans kick the can down the road.

Weiner was my favorite angry jerk Democrat until he decided to stab himself in the heart with his dick, ####### moron.
   351. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4290432)
What if the brother of a parent did it? Or a close friend? Or what if the actual story of who did what to whom isn't known yet? Unless you live in a world where people, particularly 13-year-old girls, happily and openly talk about this stuff without fear or trepidation, in which case: send up a flare; maybe we'll see it from Earth.

What scenario are you arguing here? Do doctors routinely perform abortions on 13-year-olds without so much as inquiring about the child's sexual partner(s), etc.? And if a 13-year-old says she was raped (or otherwise had sex with) her uncle, what then? Is the doctor supposed to just perform the abortion and send her on her way?

Only if you make up my side of the conversation yourself.

If I've misrepresented your position, please tell me where. I haven't seen you argue for any adult involvement in these scenarios, aside from the medical provider(s). (You described the doctor as "impartial" above, so I'm assuming you don't consider the doctor to be both doctor and guardian.)

But anyway. I'm done; I had performed such a good job of not getting involved in this crap during this election cycle, and I let myself down at the last minute. The rank stupidity and myopic party-line touting was just too much tonight.

Hey, I'm not trying to make you mad here. It just seems incredible to me that anyone can argue that a 13-year-old can't give informed consent to getting her ears pierced but she can give informed consent to having an abortion (or to taking an ECP or abortifacient).
   352. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4290433)
The issue is more complicated than that as the NY leg counts felons as persons in the district where the prisons are located, many of which are way upstate or in western NY, even though they are ineligible to vote, so you do get some rotten boroughs up there that would have to be combined if you didn't include inmates.

Yes, but doesn't NYC also get credit for ~500,000 illegal immigrants who are also ineligible to vote?
   353. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4290435)
I would likewise suspect that it's another area where most cities would prefer they be banned, but they're not.

But that's exactly my point. To me there's a large difference between arguing "something that is banned should be allowed" and "something that is allowed should be banned." The system, as it is currently set up, is far more forgiving of the former than the latter. Because as it is set up, there's a good chance that somewhere in the country a banned activity in most states is allowed in at least one or two. This means for those for whom that activity is important, they have an option of living there. Gamblers living in Nevada for example.

The end result of this is that when the activity occurs and the world doesn't end in that state, folks elsewhere start to question the utility of banning it in the first place. Or if the allowed activity really does lead to chaos, then that's also an important data point. I _love_ that about our system, and a strict democracy is a real and genuine threat to that. New York city can ban 20 ounce sodas and Idaho can allow them, and then everyone who supports or opposes such things can then pick and choose how they want to live their lives.

I'm personally far more urbanite than Idahoan, but I can still empathize with folks who would rather have some level of local autonomy than be absorbed into a giant collective run by metropolises thousands of miles away.
   354. GregD Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4290436)
The Constitution, peskily, demands the census count people, not voters. The issue is not that the state senate counts inmates; it is that it counts their place of residence against their wishes, in order to save rotten boroughs that don't have enough people to meet constitutional muster for a legislative district.
   355. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4290440)
But other than home being where one's heart is, by what real-world definition is a person serving 20 years in Auburn Correctional Facility a "resident" of NYC?
   356. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4290443)
That broke in the Republican ascendancy of the 1860s-1890s and that created many states that simply would never have been admitted or drawn as such in any other moment in American history

Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and even Maine would seem to undermine that argument. Size has always been a factor in creating states. You were never going to have multiple states the size of Texas.
   357. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4290446)
The details are that, even without dealing with the inmate issue, the far upstate Senate districts are all 4-5% below the standard for one-person one vote, while every district in NYC is above the standard, and all of Queens is 4-5% over it. So even aside from the inmates, the most-rural areas of NY are overrepresented. This stays just under the federal standard of an acceptable +- 5% .

Perhaps New York should have built more prisons in Queens. Since that didn't happen, probably to the relief of the residents of Queens, they really can't complain about prisoners being counted in the jurisdictions they actually reside in. It's not like they are college students who can leave whenever they want.
   358. Lassus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4290456)
God Distances himself from Christian Right
THE HEAVENS—Responding to inflammatory remarks made by Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock during a debate Tuesday night, Our Lord God the Almighty Father sought today to distance Himself from both Mourdock and the entire right-wing fundamentalist Christian movement, sources confirmed.

“I want to make one thing absolutely clear: Mr. Mourdock’s comments from last night in no way reflect my position on this or any other issue,” said the Divine Creator, speaking at a press conference this afternoon to address Mourdock’s remarks that rape-induced pregnancies were God’s intent. “And furthermore, I would like to take this opportunity to say definitively that I, God, do not officially sanction or condone the words or actions of anyone involved in the fanatical, conservative Christian faction that Mr. Mourdock represents.”
   359. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4290459)
The thread was a lot better a hundred plus posts ago. (Though we are due for another BBQ thread.)


I hear you; but the Kehoskie-thread-destruction power is strong. Never underestimate the trolling capabilities of a mediocre laundry rooter.
   360. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4290460)
Nate didn't "predict" the GOP wave in 2010 until every other pollster had done so first. As late as Oct. 2010, Nate was giving higher odds to the Dems holding the House than he's currently giving Romney to win the White House.


Silver: Number of Competitive House Races Doubles from Recent Years (Oct. 10, 2010)

"The House forecast that we released on Friday [Oct. 8] establishes an over-under line for Republican gains at a net of 47 or 48 seats. But, as I noted at the end of the article, the confidence interval on this forecast is very wide. Its margin of error is about ±30 seats — meaning that a gain of as few as 17 seats, or as many as 78, is entirely possible — and there is a small chance of even larger or smaller gains.
...
We currently project 85 House races to be decided by 10 points or fewer. At a comparable point in the 1998 through 2008 cycles, our model would have thought this to be true of an average of only about 45 races. According to just about every objective and subjective indicator, then, the number of competitive House districts is roughly twice as high as in recent years. This is why the margin of error on our House forecast is very wide. If the polling is off by just a little in one direction or another, it could have profound consequences for the number of seats that Republicans are likely to gain.
...
If anything, I worry that our model implies too little uncertainty."

Silver ultimately settled on 54 GOP pickups, again as a midpoint within a large range. Charlie Cook's final projection was 48 to 60. RealClearPolitics' final number was 45. Rasmussen's final number was 55.
   361. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4290461)
You can't predict what's going to happen in 2016. You can't even be sure what's going to happen next week.
   362. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4290463)
FWIW, my chatter in Jersey about Christie is very positive - he is, in spite of himself, a competent governor. I think that if you see him getting a gastric bypass in 2013, he's running hard in 2016. He'll have a lot of NYC money behind him, and that counts for a lot.
   363. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:46 PM (#4290468)
Mouse Man,
So it is not crazy to want to insert parents into the decision process.
Oh, absolutely. My reflex was to write of course you'd want parental notification'. Then I took it out of the abstract and thought about the actual effect of parental notification, of when it would change the decision of a 13 year-old seeking the morning-after pill. That's when I realized there's a lot of downside.

In terms of outcomes, let's imagine a 13 year old, consistent with seeking the MAP, wants to terminate a hypothetical pregnancy. Her parents are notified. This goes two ways, obviously. The parents back the girl's decision, she takes the pill, there's no possible pregnancy, life goes on. OR, the parents are notified, decline to give the girl permission to purchase the pill, and force her (or persuade her) to go through with the pregnancy.

If you take the categorical position, as I do, that a 13 year old bearing a pregancy to term when they'd rather take a pill to end that pregnancy, is a bad idea, then it's pretty easy to decide that parental notification never helps in terms of outcomes. I've admittedly described those outcomes in binary terms, and you could go ahead and argue that a 13 year old might be a lot better off terminating a possible pregnancy with their parents approval rather than terminating a possible pregancy in the absense of their parents approval. You'd probably be right in so arguing. But, that omits another outcome, an outcome that's likely to be very, very bad news. If you compel your 13 year old to bring a pregnancy to term, you've made that 13 year old live out the consequences of your religious agenda for the rest her life.

I often lean utilitarian on these things, or bring it into my thinking, so I have to ask, how many 'feels better about her decisions' does it take to outweigh one 'were compelled/persuaded to bring a pregnancy to term and raise the child'?

If they (parents) are not involved in the decison, the 13 year old decides to have the child aren't the grand parents basically financially on the hook for the kid and grandkid?
Sure, but I was assuming that a 13 year old asking for the MAP at the pharmacy counter was aiming to terminate the pregnancy. That makes it a very different issue from, say, a doc examining a 13 year old, realizing she's pregnant, and then having to decide whether to tell the parents (and whether we should compel that).

_______________________________________

Anyone know where I can go for info on the percentage of voters who absolutely WILL NOT vote for a pro-choice candidate?
   364. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4290471)
Nate didn't "predict" the GOP wave in 2010 until every other pollster had done so first. As late as Oct. 2010, Nate was giving higher odds to the Dems holding the House than he's currently giving Romney to win the White House.

Was #360 supposed to refute the above quote? If so, I don't see how it does. Nate was way late in predicting major gains for the GOP compared to people like Rasmussen, Cook, et al. Nate's good with numbers but there's not much evidence that he's better than average at reading political tea leaves.

***
I hear you; but the Kehoskie-thread-destruction power is strong. Never underestimate the trolling capabilities of a mediocre laundry rooter.

I know. It's ridiculous to talk about the actual election that's five days away when we can talk about a hypothetical revamping (or elimination) of the Electoral College for the hundredth time.
   365. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4290474)
But whatever the motivation behind it, the wager offer is a bad idea – giving ammunition to the critics who want to paint Mr. Silver as a partisan who is trying to sway the outcome.

It’s also inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he’s not a regular staff member.

Puh-shaw. This line, 'don't do anything the loony, hopelessly, endlessly, relentlessly partisan right might conceivably paint as partisan' makes as much sense as The Des Moines Register endorsing Romney because Republican intransigence stymied some of Obana's best efforts.

The right is going to go after Silver no matter what. As long as his neutral aggregating and interpreting show Obama ahead, he's a target. The idea that a friendly bet meant to put a hiccup in loudmouth Scarborough's prattling and that goes to charity is somehow unprofessional baffles me.
   366. spike Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4290476)
I agree with this, but have to concede prop bets involving donations to the Red Cross during a crisis is in questionable taste.
   367. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4290477)
The right is going to go after Silver no matter what. As long as his neutral aggregating and interpreting show Obama ahead, he's a target.

It's only allegedly neutral aggregating and interpreting, and if Nate didn't want to be a target, he should have been more careful about disclosing his rooting interests.

Nate's a smart guy. He couldn't possibly have thought he could enter the world of national politics and be exempt from second-guessing and negative comments after he openly rooted for Obama in 2008.

Anyway, the bet with Scarborough was a bad idea, but it also seems to betray some doubt in his model. If he was so confident, wouldn't he simply remain quiet and then bask in the glory of being right on Tuesday? Otherwise, a bet representing less than 1 percent of his income is hardly a major statement.
   368. Lassus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4290480)
Anyway, the bet with Scarborough was a bad idea, but it also seems to betray some doubt in his model. If he was so confident, wouldn't he simply remain quiet and then bask in the glory of being right on Tuesday?

Also, we've already seen that put up or shut up doesn't work with the right anyhow, wager-wise.
   369. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4290481)
Puh-shaw. This line, 'don't do anything the loony, hopelessly, endlessly, relentlessly partisan right might conceivably paint as partisan' makes as much sense as The Des Moines Register endorsing Romney because Republican intransigence stymied some of Obana's best efforts.

The right is going to go after Silver no matter what. As long as his neutral aggregating and interpreting show Obama ahead, he's a target. The idea that a friendly bet meant to put a hiccup in loudmouth Scarborough's prattling and that goes to charity is somehow unprofessional baffles me.


It's baffling to me, too, but the professionally offended can get offended at just about anything. The idea that every public figure has to put himself into a rhetorical straitjacket in order to be taken seriously is something I'll never be able to figure out. It sounds like something I'd expect to hear from David Brooks or George Will, the Bobbsey Twins of the Decorum Police.
   370. bookbook Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4290483)
It is because of the Senate, and the resultant effect on the electoral college (plus the winner-take-all effect on NY and CA) that the US is center-right politically, even though the populace as a whole is center or just slightly center-left.

From gun safety laws to protection of the right to--and genuine access to--abortion, birth control etc. To progressive taxation to gay marriage to ending the horrifically miscalculated war on drugs to preserving separation of church and state, to controlling carbon emissions to pesticide regulations etc. Etc. The nation's policies are consistently to the right of majority opinion. That is all almost entirely due to the massive overrepresentation of rural voters.

You can argue we're better off that way. To argue the systematic bias isn't baked into the system is difficult to fathom.
   371. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4290484)
Also, we've already seen that put up or shut up doesn't work with the right anyhow.

It doesn't work with lefties, either. Are you trying to make more money so you can pay higher taxes? Do you send extra money to the IRS?
   372. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4290486)
It doesn't work with lefties, either.


Let's face it, neither side is going to be all that excited about the "or shut up" side of things.
   373. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4290487)
In the interest of providing some bipartisan support to the somewhat beleaguered Nate Silver, I offer this excerpt, which seems right on the money:
In almost every competitive general election, the party that loses the contest has also lost independent voters. This is because most people (although less so in gubernatorial elections) vote strictly along party lines: the Democrat might be all but guaranteed 80 to 90 percent of the Democratic vote, and the Republican 80 to 90 percent of the Republican vote. Except in certain regions of the country where one or another party encompasses a particularly wide range of ideologies (such as NY-23?s Republicans or vestigial “Solid South” Democrats), it’s independents who swing the vote, since they represent the overwhelming majority of the votes which are up-for-grabs. This must necessarily be the case.

That's Nate in November, 2009.

As National Review noted when citing this passage, there is fair amount of evidence that Independents are going to Romney:
Romney lead among independents in NPR national poll: 51-39
Romney lead among independents in CBS/New York Times national poll: 51-39
Romney lead among independents in Pew national poll: 48-40
Romney lead among independents in Fox News national  poll: 46-39

   374. spike Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:36 PM (#4290488)
evidence that Independents are going to Romney

I sure you don't have to pay a nickel every time you use that.
   375. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4290489)
Was #360 supposed to refute the above quote? If so, I don't see how it does. Nate was way late in predicting major gains for the GOP compared to people like Rasmussen, Cook, et al. Nate's good with numbers but there's not much evidence that he's better than average at reading political tea leaves.

August 13, 2009:
Nate Silver Sees Major Gains for GOP in 2010
   376. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:45 PM (#4290491)
As National Review noted when citing this passage, there is fair amount of evidence that Independents are going to Romney:
Interesting. Do you have breakdowns for state polls?
   377. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4290493)
August 13, 2009:
Nate Silver Sees Major Gains for GOP in 2010

That's a quote, but what about his model? As I said earlier, in Oct. 2010, Nate was still giving the Dems higher odds of holding the House than he's giving Romney to win the presidency this year.
   378. Lassus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4290495)
It doesn't work with lefties, either.

Oh? Why, would you care to make a wager?


Are you trying to make more money so you can pay higher taxes? Do you send extra money to the IRS?

Oh, I guess not. I don't go here often, Joe, as you know, but this has to be the stupidest response to an accusation of reticence to make a wager that I've ever heard.
   379. Danny Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:57 PM (#4290497)
As I said earlier, in Oct. 2010, Nate was still giving the Dems higher odds of holding the House than he's giving Romney to win the presidency this year.

At some point in October? At his highest October projection for Dems in 2010? Compared to his projection for Romney now? Make a specific claim and provide a source.
   380. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4290498)
Oh? Why, would you care to make a wager?

Sure. I bet you haven't been sending extra money to the IRS for as long as you've been calling for higher taxes. What do I win?

Oh, I guess not. I don't go here often, Joe, as you know, but this has to be the stupidest response to an accusation of reticence to make a wager that I've ever heard.

You're not pretending you didn't edit #368, are you?
   381. Lassus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4290499)
BTW, Nate's made the front page of the Yahoo scroll with his wager, and the sub-headline states that his reputation is at stake.

This is probably a way bigger story now than Nate would like. Although, the way news works now, it could pretty easily be forgotten in the public aftermath, if Romney wins.

Just a note that the whole thing obviously got a decent amount of attention.
   382. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:05 PM (#4290501)
At some point in October? At his highest October projection for Dems in 2010? Compared to his projection for Romney now? Make a specific claim and provide a source.

We just went through this in the last thread. Something like a week before the 2010 election, Nate had the Dems with a ~30 percent chance of holding the House. (The charts seem to be offline, but the articles are still there.)

***
BTW, Nate's made the front page of the Yahoo scroll with his wager, and the sub-headline states that his reputation is at stake.

This is probably a way bigger story now than Nate would like. Although, the way news works now, it could pretty easily be forgotten in the public aftermath, if Romney wins.

Somewhere, MGL is raging.
   383. Lassus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:05 PM (#4290502)
Sure. I bet you haven't been sending extra money to the IRS for as long as you've been calling for higher taxes. What do I win?

Pity, for sounding like a 10-year-old who keeps saying the same thing over and over.


You're not pretending you didn't edit #368, are you?

Er, no, why would I? After I wrote it, I realized it was written poorly for comprehension, so I fixed it, adding the wager bit. It wasn't meant as anything else, and I most certainly DIDN'T edit it after your dumbass 6th-grade debate class WHY U NO PAY MORE TAXES OK? thing, if that's what you mean. Believe what you want.
   384. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4290504)
It’s also inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he’s not a regular staff member.

She also describes him as "probably [the Times'] most high-profile writer at this particular moment."


BTW, Nate's made the front page of the Yahoo scroll with his wager, and the sub-headline states that his reputation is at stake.

I'm sure the NY Times is just SO upset that one of its columnists is getting national attention.
   385. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4290508)
I'm sure the NY Times is just SO upset that one of its columnists is getting national attention.

The buzz is nice for the NYT, but with Nate making his accuracy more of an issue with his bet challenge, there is probably some concern that the Times will be painted as the 2012 version of the Literary Digest if Romney wins. Might not be what a company with sagging revenues in a declining industry is looking for.
   386. Lassus Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4290509)
It would be really really fascinating if Richard Tisei tries to eventually run for President.
   387. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:23 PM (#4290512)
   388. Danny Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4290513)
We just went through this in the last thread. Something like a week before the 2010 election, Nate had the Dems with a ~30 percent chance of holding the House. (The charts seem to be offline, but the articles are still there.)

Is this like your "Ohio always goes more R than the country" factoid?

October 27:

In addition, Democratic odds of retaining the House dropped to 17 percent from 20 percent; their chances of doing so essentially boil down to there being systemic errors in the polling and the other indicators that the model uses, as it is likely too late for them to alter the fundamentals of the electoral landscape.


October 25:

Democratic chances of retaining control of the House are essentially unchanged in today’s FiveThirtyEight forecast. They have a 21 percent chance of doing so, up from 20 percent on Friday; that means Republicans have a 79 percent chance of instead claiming control.
   389. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:26 PM (#4290514)
Danny, stop bringing facts and information to the arguments. It just makes people angry.
   390. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4290515)
Something like a week before the 2010 election, Nate had the Dems with a ~30 percent chance of holding the House.

Nate Silver, Oct. 29, 2010:
Democrats are given a 16 percent chance of holding the House, down slightly from 17 percent on Wednesday.

Nate Silver, Oct. 22, 2010:
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.

Nate Silver, Oct. 16, 2010:
Republicans are given a 73 percent chance of taking over the House, up incrementally from 72 percent last week...However, there is considerable uncertainty in the forecast because of the unusually large number of House seats now in play. A gain of as large as 70-80 seats is not completely out of the question if everything broke right for Republicans.

Nate Silver, Oct. 8, 2010:
Our model now estimates that the Republicans have a 72 percent chance of taking over the House, up from 67 percent last week. Moreover, they have nearly even odds of a achieving a net gain of 50 seats.
   391. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4290518)
Danny, stop bringing facts and information to the arguments. It just makes people angry.

LOL. The quotes and links in #388 and #390 essentially confirm what I've been saying. Five days before the 2010 election, Nate had the Dems with a 20 percent chance of retaining the House. Today, five days before the election, Nate has Romney with a 19 percent chance of winning the presidency.

On Oct. 8, 2010, Nate had the Dems with a 28 percent chance of holding the House. On Oct. 8, 2012, Nate had Romney with just a 25 percent chance of winning the presidency.

Does anyone really believe 2010 was more of a toss-up than 2012?
   392. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4290519)
Might not be what a company with sagging revenues in a declining industry is looking for.
YC, you are a top-notch concern troll.
   393. spike Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:36 PM (#4290520)
It's contradictory to say that Silver's giving the Republicans a 70+ percent chance of winning the house in 2010 was less of a claim of probability to occur than giving Obama a 70+ chance of winning the presidency.
   394. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4290521)
FWIW, my chatter in Jersey about Christie is very positive - he is, in spite of himself, a competent governor. I think that if you see him getting a gastric bypass in 2013, he's running hard in 2016. He'll have a lot of NYC money behind him, and that counts for a lot.


There are a host of policies about which I hold diametrically opposite views compared to Christie, but frankly -- I go back to about a year or so ago when he came to the defense of an Muslim judge that he supported for a spot on the bench (don't recall if it was a state court or if the judge in question was up for a federal post).

It wasn't just a milquetoast, boilerplate defense -- it was a vigorous, loud, and typically Christie-esque defense -- and he specifically and loudly called out the worst elements of his party... when you say "I'm tired of dealing with the crazies" - well, amen, Chris, amen Chris.

He gained enormous respect in my eyes for that because there are a ton of politicians who wouldn't have done that... there are a ton of politicians who may have come to that judge's defense, but would have tried to do it in such a way that didn't piss off the 'base'.

I still prefer my Republicans of the more cerebral, Dick Lugar sort (actually, I generally prefer my Democrats that way, too) -- and I can't foresee myself actually voting for Christie because the things upon which we disagree are just to numerous and stark... but in my perfect world, I absolutely welcome Republicans like Chris Christie into prominent positions of power even if it means I lose sometimes on issues that I care about.

EDIT: A year ago from this past August... Here it is... The actual video of the presser is a thing of beauty.
   395. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4290524)
Christie's popularity with the GOP base puzzled me, considering he's fairly middle-of-the-road.

But then I realized the base loved his tone. He's being a jerk to people I don't like - Christie's my man!
   396. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4290527)
It's contradictory to say that Silver's giving the Republicans a 70+ percent chance of winning the house in 2010 was less of a claim of probability to occur than giving Obama a 70+ chance of winning the presidency.

How so? Nate gave lower odds to the GOP in 2010, despite 2010 being much less of a toss-up election than 2012.
   397. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4290528)
there is probably some concern that the Times will be painted as the 2012 version of the Literary Digest if Romney wins
The right already sees the NYT as Pravda. Pandering to them isn't going to get the Times anywhere.
   398. zonk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4290529)
How so? Nate gave lower odds to the GOP in 2010, despite 2010 being much less of a toss-up election than 2012.


How can you compare one single election to 435 of them? It's apples and oranges to compare the odds on a single election to aggregate odds on 435 of them.
   399. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4290533)
LOL. The quotes and links in #388 and #390 essentially confirm what I've been saying. Five days before the 2010 election, Nate had the Dems with a 20 percent chance of retaining the House. Today, five days before the election, Nate has Romney with a 19 percent chance of winning the presidency. Does anyone really believe 2010 was more of a toss-up than 2012?

Beyond the 1-vs.-435 snag, Silver's final estimate of the most likely 2010 GOP House gains was higher than Rasmussen's, notably higher than RCP's, and at the exact midpoint of Cook's.

Those other three estimates only show the "competing" prognosticators at their most flattering. I can't find the progression of their numbers in the 4-6 weeks leading to the election; one of Silver's selling points (or shticks) is the transparency of his process' changeability as data dictates. Somehow it seems that someone who got it so wrong on the timing of Silver's ~30% estimate -- a number which is both fixed and in the past -- would have more sympathy for real time statistical imprecision.
   400. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 01, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4290534)
Nate makes it BIG.
Page 4 of 114 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 18, 2014
(147 - 12:26am, Apr 19)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogMitchell: Now Playing First Base for the Yankees
(54 - 12:20am, Apr 19)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(332 - 12:20am, Apr 19)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(17 - 11:55pm, Apr 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogA's, Doolittle agree to 4-year extension
(1 - 11:54pm, Apr 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1680 - 11:44pm, Apr 18)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(330 - 11:28pm, Apr 18)
Last: Select Storage Device

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(33 - 11:18pm, Apr 18)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(81 - 10:42pm, Apr 18)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogEscape from Cuba: Yasiel Puig’s Untold Journey to the Dodgers
(24 - 10:41pm, Apr 18)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(143 - 10:25pm, Apr 18)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(899 - 10:11pm, Apr 18)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogFletcher: Foes have slowed Trout in one category so far - steals
(7 - 7:22pm, Apr 18)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-18-2014
(29 - 7:10pm, Apr 18)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(153 - 7:00pm, Apr 18)
Last: TerpNats

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.6368 seconds
52 querie(s) executed