|
|
On November 01 2012 11:58 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Karl Rove is predicting that Romney will win 51-48 with 279 electoral votes or so. His interpretation of the polling numbers is interesting and basically in line with my thoughts. Source. This actually me me laugh out loud. A few weeks ago he downplayed the national polling numbers as highly misleading and now they're so accurate he can predict a 51-48 percent win? I think Romnesia is becoming an epidemic.
You should probably wait till Tuesday night to laugh.
You may be laughing, but you may also be crying.
|
|
|
Hillary/Pelosi Lesbian affair incoming.
Edit: Make that Harry Reid.
Double Edit: Damnit, Menendez is far less exciting. A divorced guy looking to get his dick wet? Call the Drudge report!
|
On November 01 2012 11:59 Zaqwert wrote:
You may be laughing, but you may also be crying.
I assent to this proposition.
|
Divorced New Jersey Senator who is up 20 points in his reelection bid?
Ugh, let down again.
|
Karl Rove throwing his weight in behind Romney? He must be sure of a Republican victory.
|
Well Nate Silver has Obama up over Romney 50.5-48.6 and 300 electoral votes, and his record speaks for itself.
|
On November 01 2012 11:59 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 11:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 01 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Karl Rove is predicting that Romney will win 51-48 with 279 electoral votes or so. His interpretation of the polling numbers is interesting and basically in line with my thoughts. Source. This actually me me laugh out loud. A few weeks ago he downplayed the national polling numbers as highly misleading and now they're so accurate he can predict a 51-48 percent win? I think Romnesia is becoming an epidemic. You should probably wait till Tuesday night to laugh. You may be laughing, but you may also be crying.
Na, I'd still be laughing, just at all of America.
Regardless, I found his sudden change in view point funny, not the idea of Romney winning, which is fully conceivable even though I find it unlikely.
|
This year's polls are consistent with 2004(when a Republican won).
|
|
|
On November 01 2012 12:49 madsweepslol wrote:
Well Nate Silver has Obama up over Romney 50.5-48.6 and 300 electoral votes, and his record speaks for itself.
I'm not that impressed with him yet. His claim to fame is picking 49 of 50 states right last time? I mean any buffoon can get 40-45 states right.
Hell I call California and New York for the not yet to be named Democrat nonimee in 2016.
The election was clearly a landslide and Obama winning just about every state in question was something anyone could see coming.
Now THIS election however is much dicer. You have conflicting polls, lots of outlier polls, lots more legitimately contested states, etc.
If his model predicts it damn near perfect this time THEN I'll be impressed.
|
On November 01 2012 12:05 Saryph wrote:
Divorced New Jersey Senator who is up 20 points in his reelection bid?
Ugh, let down again.
Yeah, I can't see him losing New Jersey.
|
On November 01 2012 13:10 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 12:49 madsweepslol wrote:
Well Nate Silver has Obama up over Romney 50.5-48.6 and 300 electoral votes, and his record speaks for itself. I'm not that impressed with him yet. His claim to fame is picking 49 of 50 states right last time? I mean any buffoon can get 40-45 states right. Hell I call California and New York for the not yet to be named Democrat nonimee in 2016. The election was clearly a landslide and Obama winning just about every state in question was something anyone could see coming. Now THIS election however is much dicer. You have conflicting polls, lots of outlier polls, lots more legitimately contested states, etc. If his model predicts it damn near perfect this time THEN I'll be impressed.
I thought his claim to fame was predictions made on super Tuesday in '08 when everyone thought that Hillary was going to run away with the nomination and he was one of the few people that correctly predicted that Obama would win and win BIG. He got picked up by the NY times in like 2010 and also has a baseball blog that was pretty popular.
|
On November 01 2012 13:39 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 13:10 Zaqwert wrote:On November 01 2012 12:49 madsweepslol wrote:
Well Nate Silver has Obama up over Romney 50.5-48.6 and 300 electoral votes, and his record speaks for itself. I'm not that impressed with him yet. His claim to fame is picking 49 of 50 states right last time? I mean any buffoon can get 40-45 states right. Hell I call California and New York for the not yet to be named Democrat nonimee in 2016. The election was clearly a landslide and Obama winning just about every state in question was something anyone could see coming. Now THIS election however is much dicer. You have conflicting polls, lots of outlier polls, lots more legitimately contested states, etc. If his model predicts it damn near perfect this time THEN I'll be impressed. I thought his claim to fame was predictions made on super Tuesday in '08 when everyone thought that Hillary was going to run away with the nomination and he was one of the few people that correctly predicted that Obama would win and win BIG. He got picked up by the NY times in like 2010 and also has a baseball blog that was pretty popular.
35/35 in Senate races in 2008 as well. But he missed 2 senate races in 2010 (CO and NV).
|
in the future we won't even bother to vote, it will be calculated. there's a philip dick story about that
|
Eh, humanity has maybe 60 years until the singularity.
|
singularity is bullshit
edit: I mean it depends what you mean. But the cheapest way to create an intelligence will always be to raise a child, you can quote me on that
edit: this idea of artificial intelligence assumes that we ourselves are not already artificial
|
That's just what the robots want us to believe!
[edit -- oh I'm just trolling around. Although I think it's likely that at some point this century, we'll create an artificial superintelligence.]
|
On November 01 2012 13:39 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 13:10 Zaqwert wrote:On November 01 2012 12:49 madsweepslol wrote:
Well Nate Silver has Obama up over Romney 50.5-48.6 and 300 electoral votes, and his record speaks for itself. I'm not that impressed with him yet. His claim to fame is picking 49 of 50 states right last time? I mean any buffoon can get 40-45 states right. Hell I call California and New York for the not yet to be named Democrat nonimee in 2016. The election was clearly a landslide and Obama winning just about every state in question was something anyone could see coming. Now THIS election however is much dicer. You have conflicting polls, lots of outlier polls, lots more legitimately contested states, etc. If his model predicts it damn near perfect this time THEN I'll be impressed. I thought his claim to fame was predictions made on super Tuesday in '08 when everyone thought that Hillary was going to run away with the nomination and he was one of the few people that correctly predicted that Obama would win and win BIG. He got picked up by the NY times in like 2010 and also has a baseball blog that was pretty popular.
He started his blog after Super Tuesday. After Obama won like 10 states in a row in February the race was pretty much over but the media still said it was close because of Ohio and Pennsylvania and "superdelegates". So he got a lot of hits by not only saying the race was over in March (the media didn't call it until May) but by calling the results of the remaining primaries accurately.
|
On November 01 2012 13:51 sam!zdat wrote:
singularity is bullshit
edit: I mean it depends what you mean. But the cheapest way to create an intelligence will always be to raise a child, you can quote me on that
I agree. I think, based on mankind's penchant for gross miscalculation as it pertains to "progress" as we know it, estimating the "singularity" as soon or even inevitable seems silly. Technology may take a turn to a direction we cannot estimate; we once imagined strange tubular moon colonies and robotic maids, and what we got were awesome cellphones, devastating weapons and munitions, and the giant sticky mess that is the internet. The direction progress takes is oftentimes very unexpected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
