Take that, Nate Silver!

[tinydancer]

Well well well. I added this piece of data to my "Five-30-Ate" analysis (my very own "poll aggregation" site) and it is the final piece of "science" that puts Mitt way over the top - It now appears that Romney has an 84.9% chance of winning the electoral college and popular vote. Once I get the data from the Pizza Hut and Dunkin Donuts coffee cup surveys, the analysis will be complete, but at this point, it's really over. Obama will be unemployed soon....

Since election day was standardized in 1845 there have been 6 presidential elections held on November 6th and Republicans have won all six.


1860 - Abraham Lincoln over Stephen Douglas
1888 - Benjamin Harrison over incumbent Grover Cleveland
1900 - William McKinley over William Jennings Bryan
1928 - Herbert Hoover over Al Smith
1956 - Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson
1984 - Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale
2012- Mitt Romney over Obama

Obviously that is just a scientific as Nate's "analysis" - which is to say it is non-scientific.


Republicans Have Won Every November 6th Presidential Election Since 1860

Apologies. I just started a thread on this. I didn't connect your thread title with the trivia.

I'll let mine fall off the page. Pretty neat though.

 

[AceRothstein]

Its on the header to his other EV Map, the header is red.

That isn't part of Silver's blog, it is a general NYT page.

LOL....ok.

Denial.

Sorry man, there is nothing on this page that associates it with Silver.

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Nate Silver is a hack. I don't care if he called 49 of 50 states right in 08. That was the easiest race to call, I've ever seen. And I never looked into it, but I bet the one state he lost was Missouri b/c he was desperately hoping for Obama there.

It was Indiana. I was gonna guess that too b/c that was probably the biggest shocker. But it didn't fit my mood Anyways, like I was saying; 08 was the easiest race ever to call. Libs start getting a hard-on that he was 49 of 50 in 08. He was just calling what he wanted to see. He's still calling what he wants to see and he'll be exposed as the hack he is.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yet, you're here pimping Rasmussen, who was horribly off in 10.

I can't say I know what you're talking about. 10 states? What? Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster in the last two presidential elections. No pollster is 100 percent accurate.

 

[Toro]

Yet, you're here pimping Rasmussen, who was horribly off in 10.

I can't say I know what you're talking about. 10 states? What? Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster in the last two presidential elections. No pollster is 100 percent accurate.

2010

On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates. ...

What follows is a preliminary analysis of polls released to the public in the final 21 days of the campaign. Our process here is quite simple: we’ve taken all such polls in our database, and assessed how accurate they were, on average, in predicting the margin separating the two leading candidates in each race. For instance, a poll that had the Democrat winning by 2 percentage points in a race where the Republican actually won by 4 would have an error of 6 points.

We’ve also assessed whether a company’s polls consistently missed in either a Democratic or Republican direction — that is, whether they were biased. The hypothetical poll I just described would have had a 6 point Democratic bias, for instance.

The analysis covers all polls issued by firms in the final three weeks of the campaign, even if a company surveyed a particular state multiple times. In our view, this provides for a more comprehensive analysis than focusing solely on a firm’s final poll in each state, since polling has a tendency to converge in the final days of the campaign, perhaps because some firms fear that their results are an outlier and adjust them accordingly. ...

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

Now, maybe Rasmussen has adjusted their methodology and will wind up as much better this year. But holding that group up as an accurate pollster after 2010 is pretty silly.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Funny that Nate Silver makes such sharp accusations and only calls it preliminary research. Makes you wonder what he's not telling you. For instance, he's not telling you that many of those polls he's cherry picking were done weeks and even months before the elction. He's a cherry-picking a-hole.

 

[AceRothstein]

Funny that Nate Silver makes such sharp accusations and only calls it preliminary research. Makes you wonder what he's not telling you. For instance, he's not telling you that many of those polls he's cherry picking were done weeks and even months before the elction. He's a cherry-picking a-hole.

Says right in the article, 3 weeks before the election.

 

[Toro]

Funny that Nate Silver makes such sharp accusations and only calls it preliminary research. Makes you wonder what he's not telling you. For instance, he's not telling you that many of those polls he's cherry picking were done weeks and even months before the elction. He's a cherry-picking a-hole.

That's wrong.

 

[Zander]

Well well well. I added this piece of data to my "Five-30-Ate" analysis (my very own "poll aggregation" site) and it is the final piece of "science" that puts Mitt way over the top - It now appears that Romney has an 84.9% chance of winning the electoral college and popular vote. Once I get the data from the Pizza Hut and Dunkin Donuts coffee cup surveys, the analysis will be complete, but at this point, it's really over. Obama will be unemployed soon....

Since election day was standardized in 1845 there have been 6 presidential elections held on November 6th and Republicans have won all six.


1860 - Abraham Lincoln over Stephen Douglas
1888 - Benjamin Harrison over incumbent Grover Cleveland
1900 - William McKinley over William Jennings Bryan
1928 - Herbert Hoover over Al Smith
1956 - Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson
1984 - Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale
2012- Mitt Romney over Obama

Obviously that is just a scientific as Nate's "analysis" - which is to say it is non-scientific.


Republicans Have Won Every November 6th Presidential Election Since 1860

Why do you say Silver is non-scientific?

Lighten up Toro, it's a parody...

In 5 days Nate Silver will be remembered as the "boy genius" or the "fool". My money is on the latter.......

Here is the face of the man that the left has placed all of their hopes and dreams on....a 35 year old geek. Maybe you guys can run him for POTUS in 2016?

 

[Toro]

Well well well. I added this piece of data to my "Five-30-Ate" analysis (my very own "poll aggregation" site) and it is the final piece of "science" that puts Mitt way over the top - It now appears that Romney has an 84.9% chance of winning the electoral college and popular vote. Once I get the data from the Pizza Hut and Dunkin Donuts coffee cup surveys, the analysis will be complete, but at this point, it's really over. Obama will be unemployed soon....



Obviously that is just a scientific as Nate's "analysis" - which is to say it is non-scientific.


Republicans Have Won Every November 6th Presidential Election Since 1860

Why do you say Silver is non-scientific?

Lighten up Toro, it's a parody...

In 5 days Nate Silver will be remembered as the "boy genius" or the "fool". My money is on the latter.......

Here is the face of the man that the left has placed all of their hopes and dreams on....a 35 year old geek. Maybe you guys can run him for POTUS in 2016?

Listen, Zander, I know the Kings aren't playing right now, but you have to put those pom-poms away!

You misunderstand what he does. Silver does statistical analyses of polls, and applies probabilities of outcomes from his analyses. I think that's interesting. I haven't seen any evidence that his partisanship affects his analysis. He said during the 2010 election that the Republicans were probably going to win big in the House.

 

[Liability]

Why do you say Silver is non-scientific?

Lighten up Toro, it's a parody...

In 5 days Nate Silver will be remembered as the "boy genius" or the "fool". My money is on the latter.......

Here is the face of the man that the left has placed all of their hopes and dreams on....a 35 year old geek. Maybe you guys can run him for POTUS in 2016?

Listen, Zander, I know the Kings aren't playing right now, but you have to put those pom-poms away!

You misunderstand what he does. Silver does statistical analyses of polls, and applies probabilities of outcomes from his analyses. I think that's interesting. I haven't seen any evidence that his partisanship affects his analysis. He said during the 2010 election that the Republicans were probably going to win big in the House.

He analyzes a number of polls.

He's a geek, but there is no real good science underlying his "work."

I didn't "analyze" a bunch of polls and yet I too thought that the GOP would win big in the midterms. Not exactly a difficult bit of prognostication.

So what?

 

[JimH52]

Lighten up Toro, it's a parody...

In 5 days Nate Silver will be remembered as the "boy genius" or the "fool". My money is on the latter.......

Here is the face of the man that the left has placed all of their hopes and dreams on....a 35 year old geek. Maybe you guys can run him for POTUS in 2016?

Listen, Zander, I know the Kings aren't playing right now, but you have to put those pom-poms away!

You misunderstand what he does. Silver does statistical analyses of polls, and applies probabilities of outcomes from his analyses. I think that's interesting. I haven't seen any evidence that his partisanship affects his analysis. He said during the 2010 election that the Republicans were probably going to win big in the House.

He analyzes a number of polls.

He's a geek, but there is no real good science underlying his "work."

I didn't "analyze" a bunch of polls and yet I too thought that the GOP would win big in the midterms. Not exactly a difficult bit of prognostication.

So what?

Gee, your insight is INCREDIBLE! You should start your own polling service.

Seriously....get a life

 

[JimH52]

Before 10:00 pm ET Tuesday night, it will be over...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Lighten up Toro, it's a parody...

In 5 days Nate Silver will be remembered as the "boy genius" or the "fool". My money is on the latter.......

Here is the face of the man that the left has placed all of their hopes and dreams on....a 35 year old geek. Maybe you guys can run him for POTUS in 2016?

Listen, Zander, I know the Kings aren't playing right now, but you have to put those pom-poms away!

You misunderstand what he does. Silver does statistical analyses of polls, and applies probabilities of outcomes from his analyses. I think that's interesting. I haven't seen any evidence that his partisanship affects his analysis. He said during the 2010 election that the Republicans were probably going to win big in the House.

It was only a "probably?" And that's not supposed to be partisan when it turns out to be a blowout? Why does an extreme partisan blogger get the benefit of the doubt and being held by you as playing it straight and Rasmusen who is not even registered Republican and not blogging on their behalf held to a higher standard? You're a hack toro.

 

[Dr.House]

Why do you say Silver is non-scientific?

Lighten up Toro, it's a parody...

In 5 days Nate Silver will be remembered as the "boy genius" or the "fool". My money is on the latter.......

Here is the face of the man that the left has placed all of their hopes and dreams on....a 35 year old geek. Maybe you guys can run him for POTUS in 2016?

Listen, Zander, I know the Kings aren't playing right now, but you have to put those pom-poms away!

You misunderstand what he does. Silver does statistical analyses of polls, and applies probabilities of outcomes from his analyses. I think that's interesting. I haven't seen any evidence that his partisanship affects his analysis. He said during the 2010 election that the Republicans were probably going to win big in the House.

Nate picks and chooses which polls to include in his analysis...

Conveniently, all of them are heavily oversampled to the D side...

GIGO....

 

[AceRothstein]

Lighten up Toro, it's a parody...

In 5 days Nate Silver will be remembered as the "boy genius" or the "fool". My money is on the latter.......

Here is the face of the man that the left has placed all of their hopes and dreams on....a 35 year old geek. Maybe you guys can run him for POTUS in 2016?

Listen, Zander, I know the Kings aren't playing right now, but you have to put those pom-poms away!

You misunderstand what he does. Silver does statistical analyses of polls, and applies probabilities of outcomes from his analyses. I think that's interesting. I haven't seen any evidence that his partisanship affects his analysis. He said during the 2010 election that the Republicans were probably going to win big in the House.

Nate picks and chooses which polls to include in his analysis...

Conveniently, all of them are heavily oversampled to the D side...

GIGO....

Have anything to back that statement up?

Silver actually uses everything you'll see on RCP and more.

 

[Dr.House]

Listen, Zander, I know the Kings aren't playing right now, but you have to put those pom-poms away!

You misunderstand what he does. Silver does statistical analyses of polls, and applies probabilities of outcomes from his analyses. I think that's interesting. I haven't seen any evidence that his partisanship affects his analysis. He said during the 2010 election that the Republicans were probably going to win big in the House.

Nate picks and chooses which polls to include in his analysis...

Conveniently, all of them are heavily oversampled to the D side...

GIGO....

Have anything to back that statement up?

Silver actually uses everything you'll see on RCP and more.

Already posted days ago...

Have anything to back your claims up?

 

[AceRothstein]

Nate picks and chooses which polls to include in his analysis...

Conveniently, all of them are heavily oversampled to the D side...

GIGO....

Have anything to back that statement up?

Silver actually uses everything you'll see on RCP and more.

Already posted days ago...

Have anything to back your claims up?

That seems to be a consistent claim of yours. Maybe you can share a link to that post.

Since the information I posted is easily verifiable by going to both sites, you can figure it out quite easily if you've been using the internet for a few years.

 

[Dr.House]

Have anything to back that statement up?

Silver actually uses everything you'll see on RCP and more.

Already posted days ago...

Have anything to back your claims up?

That seems to be a consistent claim of yours. Maybe you can share a link to that post.

Since the information I posted is easily verifiable by going to both sites, you can figure it out quite easily if you've been using the internet for a few years.

So you got nothing, huh?

I figured as much...

 

[AceRothstein]

Already posted days ago...

Have anything to back your claims up?

That seems to be a consistent claim of yours. Maybe you can share a link to that post.

Since the information I posted is easily verifiable by going to both sites, you can figure it out quite easily if you've been using the internet for a few years.

So you got nothing, huh?

I figured as much...

From the poster that never backs up anything he claims...

Here you go though you fucking stooge. We'll use Ohio for this example.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama

For the next one you'll have to do a little more work which I know you don't like doing. You'll have to go to state by state projections on the right side and find Ohio from the drop down. Then you'll have to click "more" to see all the polls Silver uses.

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

I'll keep waiting for you to back up any of your claims. I doubt you ever will.