|
|
On November 04 2012 07:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:28 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 07:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 07:21 Defacer wrote:On November 04 2012 07:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 07:03 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 07:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:53 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
No there is no such "conventional wisdom". It's been debunked time and time again for presidential elections. when has it been "debunked"? On November 04 2012 06:55 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
Behind in..... according to..... you?
according to RCP. Romney is ahead in VA. So..... if the RCP says Romney is ahead while 5 other polls show Romney being behind, those other polls must all be wrong, since they are going against the all powerful truth known as RCP am I right? RCP is an aggregate. On November 04 2012 06:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:45 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
How can you possibly know who the undecided vote is favoring lol.
the undecided vote traditionally breaks away from the incumbent. conventional wisdom holds that they will likely break to Romney by a about 3 to 1 or maybe even higher. his odds say Obama has a 67 percent chance of winning a state he is behind in.... you'll forgive me if I think Nate Silver is a bit biased in which polls he uses. You predict wins in states where Obama has huge leads. Might as well declare California for red while you're at it. within the MoE is not "huge leads"... On November 04 2012 06:57 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:53 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
No there is no such "conventional wisdom". It's been debunked time and time again for presidential elections. when has it been "debunked"? It's up to you to bring up consistent cases of the phenomena being true, then for me to show how the correlation does not exist. unless conventional wisdom would suggest that it is so, than the burden usually falls on the challenger of that wisdom. 538 is also an aggregate. as far as I know, RCP doesn't let partisanship dictate which polls they use and don't use. I am not so sure that the same claim could be made for Nate Silver. All Nate Silver does is calculate odds. He has his on model for statistical analysis, similar to what Bill James did for baseball or Hollinger did for basketball. Nate Silver's model is going to be inherently less reliable because he doesn't have the benefit of hundreds and thousands of 'games' being played in a single year. There's nothing partisan about what Nate Silver does. he has to choose which polls to use and which not to use. his model is almost certainly legitimate (I suck at math so I wouldn't know), but the numbers he feeds into the model are probably not accurate. I think they are all oversampling Democrats by far. This is how polling works ---> you call x people see what y% support one side and what z% support the other. This is how you think polling works ---> you know 55% of voters are democrats, you call 0.55x democrats and 0.45x republicans. If they knew that 55% are democrats, they wouldn't bother doing a poll. oh really? that's how it works huh? well, I'm glad you're here to let me know how it works... and you know how I think it works?! wow, you're like a mind reader!
lol, your argument that democrats are oversampled implies this. I'm sorry I assumed you can make the simple connection between what I'm saying and what I'm referring to. Next time I'll make sure to slow it down.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro.
Indeed, there's a rift amongst the Republican party that I love watching. The more reasonable Republicans are all hoping Romney is just pandering for votes and will be a great, compromising leader when he takes office. The more staunch conservatives back him and his message without too much hesitation.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are pretty much united behind the same message: Obama came off as a bit of a disappointment, and although he shares some of the blame it's not all his fault, and he is hands-down a better candidate than Romney.
|
I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example.
|
On November 04 2012 07:24 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:03 DoubleReed wrote:On November 04 2012 06:56 johny23 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2012 06:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 04 2012 06:18 Defacer wrote:
If Romney loses:
This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years. lol, what? Are you serious in this post? He prevented a great depression? He liberated Libya? Talk about mythology, what world are you living in? And just because something occurs while a person is in office does not mean that person did it. What a simplistic way to view things. The partisan bubble is what needs to burst. Guess what everyone: Neither Bush nor Obama destroyed nor saved the US economy. The shock and horror of common sense! apply austerity to the u.s. and watch it burn. You say that like austerity is the problem or inheritably a bad thing, when in reality the problem is that were already in such a big mess that we have no other choice but to go all in on pro debt policies, because no president wants to see another great depression on his watch. Pro-debt policies is what you're supposed to do when the economy tanks. That's Keynesian Economics, also known as the only model of capitalism to have any kind of success. Massive spending cuts during a recession is almost guaranteed to cause a double-dip recession (or depression), like what happened in the UK, Spain, Portugal, etc. etc. Technically raising taxes on the rich is 'austerity,' which is what Obama is suggesting. Hence how he's suggesting a 'balanced approach.' If anything, this is an area where Obama has shown fiscal restraint. Keynesian economics isn't the answer to everything there are also examples of economies that used austerity and are growing again though admittedly they're small. ![[image loading]](http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/gdp.jpg) The baltic states ( Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania ) economies tanked heavily but trough help from Europe, austerity and privitazation they're already growing again. I know they're just small states and the ongoing crisis does have it's negative effects on these countries too but I just wanted to show that Keynesian isn't the only thing that has worked.
They tanked their economies, brought their GDP to about 60% of what could be considered potential, and now people are suddenly satisfied that their growth is comparable to how it was before. Never mind that the immediate response to most market shocks are giant corrections that slow considerably after time (note the U.S. recovery). Notice the downward trend at the end of the graph, showing they're not even going to come close to approaching pre-crash growth after suffering self-inflicted wounds. It's ridiculous you would even try to paint them as a positive example.
|
On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example.
What gives you this idea, may I ask? How do you know you aren't suffering confirmation bias?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 04 2012 07:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:30 Souma wrote:On November 04 2012 07:27 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2012 07:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 04 2012 07:19 oneofthem wrote:
total credit market debt is not govt debt. it reflects the level of leverage in the economy and that's not stimulus. Credit markets are manipulated to a large extent by monetary policy and the interest rates set by the federal reserve. You ought to read up on the federal reserve and credit markets so you don't keep misunderstanding. when the discussion is about federal fiscal spending your tangent is irrelevant. ^ This. What the heck jd. Stop conflating everything. This is what I mean when I say "black and white arguments." You, me and oneofthem were all talking about austerity and stimulus. My post was about stimulus. Federal reserve policy is stimulus. The more I read oneofthem's posts the more I wonder if he is high or something, he forget that he was talking about austerity just a couple pages ago. It seems like you couldn't muster an actual response to my post either so you just went for the satisfaction of saying "yeah, what the heck jd, stop conflating!"
I didn't respond to your post because there's nothing worth responding to (and this Jack-in-the-Box is delicious). You're conflating two different things, as if all government policy and spending are the same drops in a bucket. It's what I've mentioned a couple times already to you as a "black and white" argument, arguments which I have no desire to respond to.
|
On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example.
SC2superfan: 538 cannot be trusted because it disagrees with RCP, an aggregate that shows Republicans are gonna win. Oh wait, RCP doesn't show that? pfft I never really believed it anyways, see here's a single poll that shows Republicans winning, this is the one I believed all along.
|
On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example.
So the site that averages every poll is wrong. The one poll that shows your candidate doing well is the one that is right.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2012 07:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:30 Souma wrote:On November 04 2012 07:27 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2012 07:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 04 2012 07:19 oneofthem wrote:
total credit market debt is not govt debt. it reflects the level of leverage in the economy and that's not stimulus. Credit markets are manipulated to a large extent by monetary policy and the interest rates set by the federal reserve. You ought to read up on the federal reserve and credit markets so you don't keep misunderstanding. when the discussion is about federal fiscal spending your tangent is irrelevant. ^ This. What the heck jd. Stop conflating everything. This is what I mean when I say "black and white arguments." You, me and oneofthem were all talking about austerity and stimulus. My post was about stimulus. Federal reserve policy is stimulus. The more I read oneofthem's posts the more I wonder if he is high or something, he forget that he was talking about austerity just a couple pages ago. It seems like you couldn't muster an actual response to my post either so you just went for the satisfaction of saying "yeah, what the heck jd, stop conflating!"
when you say federal reserve policy for the last 30 years is stimulus then you are no longer talking about the same thing.
and trying to figure out what you are talking about is no longer within the bounds of this thread.
but it does seem that you are pretty vexed.
|
On November 04 2012 07:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. What gives you this idea, may I ask? How do you know you aren't suffering confirmation bias?
I recognize fully that I suffer from confirmation bias. I just happen to think my bias more accurately reflects reality than not. sure, I'm being a bit optimistic with Romney's chances, but that's because at worst Romney is in a dead-heat. I was semi-right about 2010, which I predicted almost immediately after the 2008 election, and I've maintained this whole time that I think Obama will be widely rejected in the general. didn't he almost lose a primary to a convicted felon or something?
|
On November 04 2012 07:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:41 DoubleReed wrote:On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. What gives you this idea, may I ask? How do you know you aren't suffering confirmation bias? I recognize fully that I suffer from confirmation bias. I just happen to think my bias more accurately reflects reality than not. sure, I'm being a bit optimistic with Romney's chances, but that's because at worst Romney is in a dead-heat. I was semi-right about 2010, which I predicted almost immediately after the 2008 election, and I've maintained this whole time that I think Obama will be widely rejected in the general. didn't he almost lose a primary to a convicted felon or something?
If a bias is more accurate then reality doesnt it stop being a bias? Your seriously contradicting yourself there
|
On November 04 2012 07:42 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. SC2superfan: 538 cannot be trusted because it disagrees with RCP, oh wait, that's inaccurate too.
is it really so painful to you that I happen to mistrust Nate Silver's polling data? most people agree with you, that Obama is likely to win. I happen to hold a different opinion, in part based on RCP and Rasmussen, and in part based on a gut feeling. I wonder why it is that you are SO positive that 538 is accurate? is it based on any real-time data that you posses, or is it largely the same as with me, which is mainly gut feeling and simple bias? it seems a bit hypocritical for you to cite 538 as absolute evidence, and I can't even cite RCP as a possible alternative.
On November 04 2012 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 07:41 DoubleReed wrote:On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. What gives you this idea, may I ask? How do you know you aren't suffering confirmation bias? I recognize fully that I suffer from confirmation bias. I just happen to think my bias more accurately reflects reality than not. sure, I'm being a bit optimistic with Romney's chances, but that's because at worst Romney is in a dead-heat. I was semi-right about 2010, which I predicted almost immediately after the 2008 election, and I've maintained this whole time that I think Obama will be widely rejected in the general. didn't he almost lose a primary to a convicted felon or something? If a bias is more accurate then reality doesnt it stop being a bias? Your seriously contradicting yourself there
it depends on your definition of "bias"
I think I'm a bit too optimistic, but also think that I'm largely correct in my perception that the country is generally center-right in it's political views. I would say that I have a small bias to the conservative side, and a strong bias against the liberal side. depending on the results of the election, I may or may not have to rethink my bias. if it turns out that I'm exactly or almost exactly right (Romney sweep and a Repub. Senate) than maybe it isn't so much bias as it is accurate perception. if Obama wins big and the Dems keep the Senate, than it's probably a lot of bias.
|
On November 04 2012 07:24 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:03 DoubleReed wrote:On November 04 2012 06:56 johny23 wrote:On November 04 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2012 06:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 04 2012 06:18 Defacer wrote:
If Romney loses:
This fucking Republican Bubble has to burst. IT NEEDS TO, if they ever plan on ever winning an election. This perception and mythology that Republicans and conservatives have created around the Obama presidency is fucking ridiculous.
Obama isn't perfect, but he did save the Auto industry, prevent a great depression, add 4.5 million jobs, reform health care, reform student loans, cut 1 trillion in spending, end the war in Iraq, liberate Libya, and killed Osama Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda's key operatives in four years.
Conservatives insist that Obama is an abomination, or the worst president in US history. Pffft. He isn't even the worst president in the last 8 years. lol, what? Are you serious in this post? He prevented a great depression? He liberated Libya? Talk about mythology, what world are you living in? And just because something occurs while a person is in office does not mean that person did it. What a simplistic way to view things. The partisan bubble is what needs to burst. Guess what everyone: Neither Bush nor Obama destroyed nor saved the US economy. The shock and horror of common sense! apply austerity to the u.s. and watch it burn. You say that like austerity is the problem or inheritably a bad thing, when in reality the problem is that were already in such a big mess that we have no other choice but to go all in on pro debt policies, because no president wants to see another great depression on his watch. Pro-debt policies is what you're supposed to do when the economy tanks. That's Keynesian Economics, also known as the only model of capitalism to have any kind of success. Massive spending cuts during a recession is almost guaranteed to cause a double-dip recession (or depression), like what happened in the UK, Spain, Portugal, etc. etc. Technically raising taxes on the rich is 'austerity,' which is what Obama is suggesting. Hence how he's suggesting a 'balanced approach.' If anything, this is an area where Obama has shown fiscal restraint. Keynesian economics isn't the answer to everything there are also examples of economies that used austerity and are growing again though admittedly they're small. The baltic states ( Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania ) economies tanked heavily but trough help from Europe, austerity and privitazation they're already growing again. I know they're just small states and the ongoing crisis does have it's negative effects on these countries too but I just wanted to show that Keynesian isn't the only thing that has worked.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/reinhart-rogoff-and-latvia/
As R-R say, rapid growth over a short period following a deep slump does not constitute a success story; by that measure, America was a tower of prosperity in the depths of the Great Depression. It’s much more informative to focus on levels, both of output and of unemployment, and compare them with the pre-crisis peak. So, people keep telling me that Latvia is an economic miracle that refutes Keynesianism and Krugmanism. How’s it doing on the level thing? (All data from Eurostat). Here’s real GDP: ![[image loading]](https://www.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/21/opinion/102112krugman1/102112krugman1-blog480.jpg) And here’s the unemployment rate: ![[image loading]](https://www.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/21/opinion/102112krugman2/102112krugman2-blog480.jpg) So in what reality is an economy whose real GDP is still 15 percent below the pre-crisis peak, and whose unemployment rate is still 9 points above the pre-crisis trough, a stunning success story that refutes the pessimists? I mean, better to be growing fairly fast than not, but surely this isn’t cause to break out the champagne.
|
On November 04 2012 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 07:41 DoubleReed wrote:On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. What gives you this idea, may I ask? How do you know you aren't suffering confirmation bias? I recognize fully that I suffer from confirmation bias. I just happen to think my bias more accurately reflects reality than not. sure, I'm being a bit optimistic with Romney's chances, but that's because at worst Romney is in a dead-heat. I was semi-right about 2010, which I predicted almost immediately after the 2008 election, and I've maintained this whole time that I think Obama will be widely rejected in the general. didn't he almost lose a primary to a convicted felon or something? If a bias is more accurate then reality doesnt it stop being a bias? Your seriously contradicting yourself there
Not really. That's pretty much the definition of how bias works. He said 'I think.' Obviously, if you are under bias, you believe your bias to be accurate. Otherwise, you aren't actually biased. It's circular, not contradictory. And circular is how confirmation bias works.
|
On November 04 2012 07:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. SC2superfan: 538 cannot be trusted because it disagrees with RCP, oh wait, that's inaccurate too. is it really so painful to you that I happen to mistrust Nate Silver's polling data? most people agree with you, that Obama is likely to win. I happen to hold a different opinion, in part based on RCP and Rasmussen, and in part based on a gut feeling. I wonder why it is that you are SO positive that 538 is accurate? is it based on any real-time data that you posses, or is it largely the same as with me, which is mainly gut feeling and simple bias? it seems a bit hypocritical for you to cite 538 as absolute evidence, and I can't even cite RCP as a possible alternative.
Read the stuff I've posted. I have not said a single thing to even suggest what my opinion is on the accuracy or lack there of, of 538. I've simply been pointing out the numerous fallacies in your reasoning for why 538 is inaccurate.
|
Not sure if this is new, but Buzzfeed brings us up to date about what we know about the Libya attack, and why the White House's administrations messaging has been so muddled -- basically, they're trying to protect classified information while covering their own asses while everyone else covers their asses.
To sum it up, the lack of preparation for the terrorist attack could be put on a lack of coordination of the State Department, the Military and the CIA. The 'cultural center' that the Ambassor was trying to establish was for CIA spies, and two of the Americans that died were actually CIA operatives.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/the-dumb-politics-of-benghazi
|
On November 04 2012 07:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 07:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 07:41 DoubleReed wrote:On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. What gives you this idea, may I ask? How do you know you aren't suffering confirmation bias? I recognize fully that I suffer from confirmation bias. I just happen to think my bias more accurately reflects reality than not. sure, I'm being a bit optimistic with Romney's chances, but that's because at worst Romney is in a dead-heat. I was semi-right about 2010, which I predicted almost immediately after the 2008 election, and I've maintained this whole time that I think Obama will be widely rejected in the general. didn't he almost lose a primary to a convicted felon or something? If a bias is more accurate then reality doesnt it stop being a bias? Your seriously contradicting yourself there Not really. That's pretty much the definition of how bias works. He said 'I think.' Obviously, if you are under bias, you believe your bias to be accurate. Otherwise, you aren't actually biased. It's circular, not contradictory. And circular is how confirmation bias works.
Good point :p
|
On November 04 2012 07:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. SC2superfan: 538 cannot be trusted because it disagrees with RCP, oh wait, that's inaccurate too. is it really so painful to you that I happen to mistrust Nate Silver's polling data? most people agree with you, that Obama is likely to win. I happen to hold a different opinion, in part based on RCP and Rasmussen, and in part based on a gut feeling. I wonder why it is that you are SO positive that 538 is accurate? is it based on any real-time data that you posses, or is it largely the same as with me, which is mainly gut feeling and simple bias? it seems a bit hypocritical for you to cite 538 as absolute evidence, and I can't even cite RCP as a possible alternative.
Because RCP uses an unweighted average and that's statistically wrong. Weighting by sample size reduces the standard error of an estimator. Nate Silver weights by sample size, time elapsed, and reliability. What you're doing is just denialism and anti-intellectualism.
|
On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example.
And they have Nevada with a +2 for Obama and Michigan+Pennsylvania handily in the hands of Obama. Their Ties in WI and OH makes the election close but not even they are showing a win for Romney unless he wins a tiebreaker...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
