• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like the Times isn't happy with Silver's recent back-and-forth with Scarborough

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/11/sorry_margaret_you_need_to_get_out_more.php?ref=fpblg


Personally, have no problem with what Nate's been doing. He's been viciously attacked for simply using math and reading the polls without a filter.

Technically, the public editor doesn't speak for the Times; in a way the public editor's job is to *not* speak for the Times.

I doubt the editorial board has a problem with Silver. Public editor is an important position but the last two ombudsmen at the NYT have been.. weird.
 

Juice

Member
Technically, the public editor doesn't speak for the Times; in a way the public editor's job is to *not* speak for the Times.

I doubt the editorial board has a problem with Silver. Public editor is an important position but the last two ombudsmen at the NYT have been.. weird.

Your post sounds like bizarre points of order to some secret Elk Lodge society with two surviving members trying to keep tradition alive. God the NYT is stupid.
 

Trurl

Banned
I've noticed that a lot of the time when a Romney thread is posted on the general OT there are lots of comments like "I can't believe that a person like Romney has a chance to become president." People seem to think that Romney is an especially bad Republican, but in my opinion he's about the best the party has to offer. It's just that the Republicans are an especially bad party.

People need to become more comfortable with voting by party. This doesn't mean a blind allegiance to a party, but instead people should pay attention to what each party's broad goals are and base much of their vote on that. I am convinced that this notion that the responsible way to vote is voting by the individual politician is responsible for some demographics having such horrible turnouts during midterm elections where there are few visible personalities.
 

ido

Member
I just watched that rally video...

The guy at 1:40 seconds GIVES NO FUCKS who wins the Presidency. You can tell he came out with because his wife wanted to in hopes to get his dick wet later on that night.

Scary video, but obvious.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
I stopped reading here:
Their "endorsement" covers just about all of The Economist's most annoying qualities: their obsession with red tape, their false equivalence of blaming both sides, and their insistence, despite the lack of evidence, that Obama is less than tolerant to businesses, which amounts to little more than the charge that he spoke tough and looked at them funny, even though his praise of commerce has been effusive, and he's actually lowered taxes on small businesses. The claims about the ACA are also difficult to quantify. Surrendering to the left wing? Half the ideas in the bill have been endorsed by Republicans at some time in the past, and the bill is far less restrictive to businesses than it could have been. Overall, the US sections of The Economist have become unreadable since the start of the campaign season, another reason why I can't wait for the election to end.
 

Chichikov

Member
Your post sounds like bizarre points of order to some secret Elk Lodge society with two surviving members trying to keep tradition alive. God the NYT is stupid.
Wait, are you now against the very concept of a public editor?
The hell?
And it's not like new media don't have that function.

Also, I agree with Margaret Sullivan on that point completely.
It's not a huge deal, but Nate Silver definitely made the wrong call there.

If you haven't done so, I urge you to read the entire post she made and not just the tldr quote that TPM put (yet not linked) in that piece.
 

Tim-E

Member
Their "endorsement" covers just about all of The Economist's most annoying qualities: their obsession with red tape, their false equivalence of blaming both sides, and their insistence, despite the lack of evidence, that Obama is less than tolerant to businesses, which amounts to little more than the charge that he spoke tough and looked at them funny, even though his praise of commerce has been effusive, and he's actually lowered taxes on small businesses. The claims about the ACA are also difficult to quantify. Surrendering to the left wing? Half the ideas in the bill have been endorsed by Republicans at some time in the past, and the bill is far less restrictive to businesses than it could have been. Overall, the US sections of The Economist have become unreadable since the start of the campaign season, another reason why I can't wait for the election to end.
Yep this whole shitty "Obummer is anti-business" meme has no basis in fact whatsoever. These 1%ers are just pissed that he doesn't want them suckling the government teat as much as they have been.
 
So how do surveys and political calls in general work with cell phones?

I have a Boston area code, does that mean even if I move to Ohio Ill never be polled or robocalled?
 
I've noticed that a lot of the time when a Romney thread is posted on the general OT there are lots of comments like "I can't believe that a person like Romney has a chance to become president." People seem to think that Romney is an especially bad Republican, but in my opinion he's about the best the party has to offer. It's just that the Republicans are an especially bad party.

People need to become more comfortable with voting by party. This doesn't mean a blind allegiance to a party, but instead people should pay attention to what each party's broad goals are and base much of their vote on that. I am convinced that this notion that the responsible way to vote is voting by the individual politician is responsible for some demographics having such horrible turnouts during midterm elections where there are few visible personalities.

I think it's be combo of flip flopping, say anything, 47%, and the fact that he's mostly ran on bush's platform (especially on taxes) that make people wonder how his is possible.

I agree its partly the GOP but what forced him to push tax cuts on the wealthy?

Oh also tax returns.
 

Owzers

Member
Yep this whole shitty "Obummer is anti-business" meme has no basis in fact whatsoever. These 1%ers are just pissed that he doesn't want them suckling the government teat as much as they have been.

then why did he go around saying that people didn't build their businesses?
 
Probably one of the very few endorsements I give a shit about.

The Economist

I am generally a pretty avid reader of the Economist, but I lost some respect for them with that endorsement. I can't believe they said being cautious about the Arab spring is being "aloof, disenganged". It appears they wanted all caution thrown to the wind. "He surrendered too much control to left-wing Democrats in Congress," is another crazy line by them. Saying "he doesn't understand business and is left leaning". The other criticisms they had are valid but these were just plains stupid.

Economist is usually better than this, from my experience at least.
 
then why did he go around saying that people didn't build their businesses?
In case you're serious, he said they didn't build the infrastructure and police and fire departments that allow them to be so successful. Romney of course made similar remarks prior to that specific bout with Romnesia where he then went hard on that quote, taking it out of context.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
JERBS NUMBAHS MAN-YAH-NERS

Prediction:
One way or the other, there will be spin.

My money is on a decent amount of jobs created +150k, unemployment stays the same or goes down slightly and the GOP starts going on about Obama tampering with BLS numbers.

Even as web presense goes, the Times poop all over the new media.
ALL OVER.

Oh Grey Lady, the milf to end all milfs, I will cut anyone who badmouth you!

That is one crazy numbers thing, it's something I'm sure defenders would love to see for everyone.
 

Owzers

Member
In case you're serious, he said they didn't build the infrastructure and police and fire departments that allow them to be so successful. Romney of course made similar remarks prior to that specific bout with Romnesia where he then went hard on that quote, taking it out of context.

I told my father that and his response was a gop talking point of " but obama really meant that people didn't build their businesses"

Fox News Update: Greta,Talking about Libya, ignoring the CIA timeline. Panelist praising Fox for "going after the truth" and decrying the lack of journalists investigating this.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Wait, are you now against the very concept of a public editor?
The hell?
And it's not like new media don't have that function.

Also, I agree with Margaret Sullivan on that point completely.
It's not a huge deal, but Nate Silver definitely made the wrong call there.

If you haven't done so, I urge you to read the entire post she made and not just the tldr quote that TPM put (yet not linked) in that piece.
I can definitely sense Nate's exasperation with certain pundits and journalists. I'm exasperated too. But it must be especially tough to deal with people who obfuscate or fail to properly read the evidence when it's his job to clarify. However, I'm surprised at his outburst, since he seemed far more certain about an Obama win than his forecast currently allows. Up until now he's been very careful to analyze every possibility and provide caveats to each situation.
 
I told my father that and his response was a gop talking point of " but obama really meant that people didn't build their businesses"
Tell him to watch that entire speech and not just the clip that Fox News played repeatedly. If he still thinks that then I don't know what to tell you.
 

Chichikov

Member
I can definitely sense Nate's exasperation with certain pundits and journalists. I'm exasperated too. But it must be especially tough to deal with people who obfuscate or fail to properly read the evidence when it's his job to clarify. However, I'm surprised at his outburst, since he seemed far more certain about an Obama win than his forecast currently allows. Up until now he's been very careful to analyze every possibility and provide caveats to each situation.
Agreed, and the bolded is a very good point.
He of all people should know better.
 
Before I go further, let me re-state that Obama has a pretty safe path to victory and it's OK for those of you hyperventilating about his re-election and sweating every poll to just calm down a bit. Chill out. He's got this. However...

Others of you need to play it a little closer to you chest. I respect Silver and his calculus (my 270towin map is largely based on his {I'm giving FL to Obama},) but his model does show Romney as having a chance to win, however slight, and sure he was 49 of 50 last time, but a blind duck in France could've called about 25 of those. And yeah, it would call for some big swings, but that's not outside the realm of possibility. On a much smaller scale, I've seen a +5% polling average turn into a -9% deficit on Election Day in a weekend (the firm I was with at the time did their first IVR poll in the middle of the weekend to see if it was having an effect, and we threw out the poll as invalid because it showed such a huge swing.) For all the tie jokes, +/-3% is within most MoEs and is a statistical tie. Sure the aggregating helps gives a little more confidence, but we talking small enough margins that if there's some systemic factor that's causing them to have an unforeseen skew, it would turn the election on its head. It's possible, although highly unlikely, that Romney could win - without voter fraud/suppression/etc... (easy worrywarts, it's highly unlikely.) Don't be so ready with the Republican salty tear catching jugs lest they catch your own.

Stay frosty, vote if you haven't already, encourage your family, friends, and strangers you suspect will vote for your guy to vote, and relax, tune out even. Unless you're a political professional, the only thing (politically) more worthless than obsessing over daily polling is obsessing over incoming poll results (i.e. "We're up 20% with 2% of precincts reporting! We're going win!!")
 
That God Warrior woman was pretty funny. And the three guys, when asked to explain why they are voting for Romney, they all seemed shocked like they hadn't given it any thought. A lot of talking points without actualyl comprehending the argument. Sadly, I'm sure this is prevalent on both side.s


Edit - Oh, God. This video keeps getting better and better.
 
Your post sounds like bizarre points of order to some secret Elk Lodge society with two surviving members trying to keep tradition alive. God the NYT is stupid.

I literally have no idea what this means. A public editor criticizes the publication they work for on behalf of its readership.
 
Romney knows how to make this economy work. He knows. He said so. There's truth in advertising laws, so he couldn't say it if he didn't really know. You know? Obama said something similar, but he was lying.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
And, to copy what I just said about that video from Gchat:

Joel: I bet you go to a Dem rally you could find just as many ignorant people

me: I know. I'm not arguing that point at all. BUT, I think there's a difference between ignorance and outright dislike for the OTHER, whether that be the poor, "the moochers", muslims, immigrants, gays, etc. You can go to any Dem rally and get some stupid idiot that couldn't name one of Obama's policies. No one's arguing that. But on the whole, you'd be less likely to find racist, misogynistic, christianist, homophobic assholes who want to instill that particularly harmless and narrow minded world view on the country at large. That's, I think, the point of the video. That's Romney's base. That the Republican base. Those are its core values, at least now. So, that's the danger.
 
Before I go further, let me re-state that Obama has a pretty safe path to victory and it's OK for those of you hyperventilating about his re-election and sweating every poll to just calm down a bit. Chill out. He's got this. However...

Others of you need to play it a little closer to you chest. I respect Silver and his calculus (my 270towin map is largely based on his {I'm giving FL to Obama},) but his model does show Romney as having a chance to win, however slight, and sure he was 49 of 50 last time, but a blind duck in France could've called about 25 of those. And yeah, it would call for some big swings, but that's not outside the realm of possibility. On a much smaller scale, I've seen a +5% polling average turn into a -9% deficit on Election Day in a weekend (the firm I was with at the time did their first IVR poll in the middle of the weekend to see if it was having an effect, and we threw out the poll as invalid because it showed such a huge swing.) For all the tie jokes, +/-3% is within most MoEs and is a statistical tie. Sure the aggregating helps gives a little more confidence, but we talking small enough margins that if there's some systemic factor that's causing them to have an unforeseen skew, it would turn the election on its head. It's possible, although highly unlikely, that Romney could win - without voter fraud/suppression/etc... (easy worrywarts, it's highly unlikely.) Don't be so ready with the Republican salty tear catching jugs lest they catch your own.

Stay frosty, vote if you haven't already, encourage your family, friends, and strangers you suspect will vote for your guy to vote, and relax, tune out even. Unless you're a political professional, the only thing (politically) more worthless than obsessing over daily polling is obsessing over incoming poll results (i.e. "We're up 20% with 2% of precincts reporting! We're going win!!")
You know a 3% lead with 2 moe is over 90% to win. "Statistical tie" doesn't mean tied. It just means its within the confidence interval to have the other guy win or tie.

Anyway I think everyone here understands Nate's math mean one in five times Romney wins.

Most likely if he does it means pollsters have been using a faulty methodology.
 
The Buddhists are evil? WTF?

Haven't you heard? All religions that don't believe in Jesus as their Lord and savior is a sinner and must be banished to hell.

It just saddens me that there is still this many people in this country and world that still think like this. Equality for all, not just a few.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom