EPTEdit: I will say one more thing. Silver has gone way out of his way to defend the polls that are there, while often ignoring the fundamentals. If Romney wins, I will have some choice words for Silver on this point.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1184
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Edit: I will say one more thing. Silver has gone way out of his way to defend the polls that are there, while often ignoring the fundamentals. If Romney wins, I will have some choice words for Silver on this point. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On November 05 2012 04:08 Zaqwert wrote: Nate Silver is a former blogger for DailyKos and openly gay. Pretty funny how he's supposed to be some sort of impartial party. He tries to be fair with the numbers, but always slants his analysis in a pro-D way. Reading various articles or blogs at this point to make yourself feel better is stupid. Just wait 2 more days and you can either celebrate or cry, depending on how the chips fall. Hello my name is Zaqwert and I've never heard of Nate Silver or read his work but because he's gay he's biased. This just in: reading is good. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote: No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. Judicial. confirmations. And don't give me that "Oh they realize they needa fix that" bullshit. Just proves that they've been chumps utilizing petty tactics and they acknowledge it. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 05 2012 04:27 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't go so far as to say that Nate Silver is biased. He has a model, and he's sticking to it. For reasons that we have discussed to death, I think that it is a model that may be prone to "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome because his model is only as good as the polls that go into it. Still, we'll see what happens Tuesday. Edit: I will say one more thing. Silver has gone way out of his way to defend the polls that are there, while often ignoring the fundamentals. If Romney wins, I will have some choice words for Silver on this point. Shouldn't the choice words be for the pollsters? Silver is interpreting the polls. If your argument is that the polls are bogus then the "blame" (if there is any to be had from people trying, but failing to accurately poll voters to provide a snapshot in time) lies on their shoulders, not Silver. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 05 2012 06:01 p4NDemik wrote: Shouldn't the choice words be for the pollsters? Silver is interpreting the polls. If your argument is that the polls are bogus then the "blame" (if there is any to be had from people trying, but failing to accurately poll voters to provide a snapshot in time) lies on their shoulders, not Silver. If Silver hadn't made such an effort to defend the polls, I'd agree with you. | ||
|
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
On November 05 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote: If Silver hadn't made such an effort to defend the polls, I'd agree with you. Do you feel that he might be handcuffed into defending the polls? if his whole model is based on these polls he can't just simple go "eh, they might be crap." it would call into question his system which im sure he puts pride into. So could it be that he might of been put in a situation where he has no choice? of course if this is true it would almost 100% be his fault that he is in that situation | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Professor wan was just on cnn explaining it. Found a link wich suposedly links to an article about this also, http://election.princeton.edu/ Though i cant acces the site atm Think nate silver (who?) is biased off course, like almost anny politcal commentator. The line "Silver is interpreting the polls. If your argument is that the polls are bogus then the "blame" (if there is any to be had from people trying, but failing to accurately poll voters to provide a snapshot in time) lies on their shoulders, not Silver." Says it all realy, he is interpreting the polls, aka:he is valueing and adjusting them based on his own interpretation and opinions. Interpret mean to analyse. When you interpret a graph you don't change it. When you interpret polls you look at it for patterns He is not doing this in an objective way,there are no clear "rules" how to interpret or analyse polls. The best way would be to just take the polls at face value and not adjust annything,by adjusting and interpreting polls he is adding in his own bias. And he does actually change the graph i think example: if poll x shows democrats @ 60% and poll x has been overestimating democrats by 5% in the past, he will interpret that poll as giving the democrats 55% | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 05 2012 04:44 Souma wrote: Judicial. confirmations. And don't give me that "Oh they realize they needa fix that" bullshit. Just proves that they've been chumps utilizing petty tactics and they acknowledge it. Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- On November 05 2012 03:26 Risen wrote: There was no insinuation in my post. I presented my view, a view shared by others, and asked you what was wrong with my view. You proceeded to not answer my question at all. I didn't really expect you to answer it, I guess. Your view is wrong because it assumes that filibuster numbers are equivalent to the amount of obstructionism. This is false. On November 05 2012 02:43 DoubleReed wrote: Right, so what's your issue with saying that Republicans have become obstructionists against Obama moreso than Democrats under Bush, and moreso than Republicans under Clinton? Because, as i stated before, it's not this simple. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it, but obstructionism isn't just a minority party voting no. It involves a lost more political maneuvering than can be quantified. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote: Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- How many times do I have to post this? Confirmations of Bush's nominees took an average of 29 days and 21 days for the Circuit Court and District Court respectively to confirm. It took Obama on average 139 days and 99 days to get his judges confirmed. If Democrats stonewalled they didn't do a very good job at it (it was just one hissy-fit that they had because Bush decided to appoint two controversial judges during the Senate recess, nothing more). Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetty. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 05 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote: If Silver hadn't made such an effort to defend the polls, I'd agree with you. His model includes approximately a 15% chance that the polls are systematically biased against Romney. That's pretty generous. The bulk of his headlines involve justifying poll results, perhaps, but he has always tempered his comments with the possibility the polls are just hugely wrong. Edit: I do think he will get 1-2 states wrong, though, partly due to lower polling volumes. CO might not go Obama's way. | ||
|
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 05 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote: If Silver hadn't made such an effort to defend the polls, I'd agree with you. You're arguing in favor of a statistician adding more extraneous information (than he already is) on the basis that his actual data is faulty and should be disregarded or at least weighted differently? In this case Silver is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he does what you want you call him an unprofessional hack who doesn't properly observe the specifics of his field. If he continues as he is doing you still say he's a partisan hack because you don't like his numbers. You aren't making any feasible points as to why this man deserves ridicule, you just want to project discontent onto him because you don't like the results of his model. If you really take issue with anything you can take issue with the pollsters. Say they aren't properly gauging the ratio of Republican to Democratic interest or whatever. But you have no ground to stand on when it comes to these poll aggregating models and those who run them. Don't pretend that you do because you don't. Its in your head. edit: As the previous poster points out, Silvers' model even takes into account possible unmeasurable factors like overall poll bias, something that other statisticians don't agree with. You can go read the Princeton Electoral Consortium if you want a pure dissection of the numbers - the author of that model doesn't agree with those aspects of 538. The pure dissection of the numbers yields like 99% chance of Obama victory. Silver's addition of extra factors adds another 14% chance or so to Romney's side of things. 538 is actually more friendly regarding Romney's chances than competing models, yet he is the one getting the attacks because the New York Times is significantly more mainstream than a model ran by a Princeton Professor. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On November 05 2012 06:32 Rassy wrote: Princeton now gives obama 98% change to win,Princeton was only 1 collecteral vote of in the 2008 election. Professor wan was just on cnn explaining it. Found a link wich suposedly links to an article about this also, http://election.princeton.edu/ Though i cant acces the site atm Think nate silver (who?) is biased off course, like almost anny politcal commentator. The line "Silver is interpreting the polls. If your argument is that the polls are bogus then the "blame" (if there is any to be had from people trying, but failing to accurately poll voters to provide a snapshot in time) lies on their shoulders, not Silver." Says it all realy, he is interpreting the polls, aka:he is valueing and adjusting them based on his own interpretation and opinions. Interpret mean to analyse. When you interpret a graph you don't change it. When you interpret polls you look at it for patterns. This really isn't a difficult concept so I don't see where you're coming from. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
also, any Democrat who complains about Republicans "borking" Obama's court nominees needs to look up why it's called "borking". | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 05 2012 07:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: it's pretty unfair of Democrats to act like Obama has a mandate from the American people to pass his bullshit but the Republican Congress doesn't have a mandate from the people to stop it. obstructionism to Obama's specific agenda was precisely what they were elected to do, and it would be a mockery of liberty and freedom to suggest that the Republicans and the American people should have no power to stop the agenda of whomever it is that they've elected into office. mid-terms are often a way of gauging the degree to which people have accepted the agenda of the President and/or Congress. it is clear in 2010 that the voters, to some degree, had rejected the Democrat agenda and had exercised their electoral power to prevent that agenda from taking full form. also, any Democrat who complains about Republicans "borking" Obama's court nominees needs to look up why it's called "borking". Hey I don't care if they obstruct, that's their problem - just have the balls to admit that they're doing so at an unprecedented level and it's not the same as what the Democrats did to Bush. btw the Republicans aren't actually borking Obama's nominees, and don't even get me started on Reagan's appointees. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On November 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote: Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- Your view is wrong because it assumes that filibuster numbers are equivalent to the amount of obstructionism. This is false. Because, as i stated before, it's not this simple. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it, but obstructionism isn't just a minority party voting no. It involves a lost more political maneuvering than can be quantified. And this is false becauuuuuuse? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On November 05 2012 07:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: it's pretty unfair of Democrats to act like Obama has a mandate from the American people to pass his bullshit but the Republican Congress doesn't have a mandate from the people to stop it. obstructionism to Obama's specific agenda was precisely what they were elected to do, and it would be a mockery of liberty and freedom to suggest that the Republicans and the American people should have no power to stop the agenda of whomever it is that they've elected into office. mid-terms are often a way of gauging the degree to which people have accepted the agenda of the President and/or Congress. it is clear in 2010 that the voters, to some degree, had rejected the Democrat agenda and had exercised their electoral power to prevent that agenda from taking full form. also, any Democrat who complains about Republicans "borking" Obama's court nominees needs to look up why it's called "borking". This is what Republicans were elected to do? The 10% congressional approval rating would disagree with you. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
The reason Congress has such low approval ratings is because the liberals think Congress is not liberal enough, and the conservatives think it's not conservative enough, which both translate into "they are doing a bad job." Is passing legislation like the Affordable Care Act the meaning of "get things done," or is balancing the budget and making cuts? Obstructionism is good if you disagree with what's being obstructed, obviously. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 05 2012 07:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: You can't extrapolate congress' approval rating into blame for either party in particular. Nor can you extrapolate the low approval rating to "congress not getting things done." Because the problem after all is that people disagree on what should and should not be gotten done. The degree of influence the tea party achieved is proof of this fact. The reason Congress has such low approval ratings is because the liberals think Congress is not liberal enough, and the conservatives think it's not conservative enough, which both translate into "they are doing a bad job." Is passing legislation like the Affordable Care Act the meaning of "get things done," or is balancing the budget and making cuts? Obstructionism is good if you disagree with what's being obstructed, obviously. Pretty sure the bulk of the low approval ratings comes from the debt ceiling debacle, which has never been an issue before this Congress. Don't think it has much to do with how much the public perceives Congress as liberal/conservative. | ||
|
Stutters695
2610 Posts
On November 05 2012 07:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: it's pretty unfair of Democrats to act like Obama has a mandate from the American people to pass his bullshit but the Republican Congress doesn't have a mandate from the people to stop it. obstructionism to Obama's specific agenda was precisely what they were elected to do, and it would be a mockery of liberty and freedom to suggest that the Republicans and the American people should have no power to stop the agenda of whomever it is that they've elected into office. mid-terms are often a way of gauging the degree to which people have accepted the agenda of the President and/or Congress. it is clear in 2010 that the voters, to some degree, had rejected the Democrat agenda and had exercised their electoral power to prevent that agenda from taking full form. also, any Democrat who complains about Republicans "borking" Obama's court nominees needs to look up why it's called "borking". So your argument is that this is supposed to happen. Got it. So are you ok with them holding up the Violence Against Women Act that the Republican house wanted to drop provisions for LGBT, Indians, and Illegal Immigrants? Or the blocking of a bill that capped student loan interest that both sides agreed was needed and held it hostage by saying they'll pass it if there are cuts to preventative care from Obama's Healthcare? Their near failure to extend the highway bill? Or letting the farm bill lapse because they couldn't agree on a few provisions? These aren't "Obama's bullshit," these are things that have been in law for years before these guys even took office. And if you think what happened to Bork and the Republican blockings are close to the same look up "secret holds." It was abolished in 2011 but you can find plenty on it from 09-the ban. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On November 05 2012 07:32 jdseemoreglass wrote: You can't extrapolate congress' approval rating into blame for either party in particular. Nor can you extrapolate the low approval rating to "congress not getting things done." Because the problem after all is that people disagree on what should and should not be gotten done. The degree of influence the tea party achieved is proof of this fact. The reason Congress has such low approval ratings is because the liberals think Congress is not liberal enough, and the conservatives think it's not conservative enough, which both translate into "they are doing a bad job." Is passing legislation like the Affordable Care Act the meaning of "get things done," or is balancing the budget and making cuts? Obstructionism is good if you disagree with what's being obstructed, obviously. ...that's not what I extrapolated though. What I extrapolated was that "Republicans were not hired to obstruct Obama." Certainly if Republicans were hired to do so, they would not have such a low approval rating. Right? I mean, you're saying 'some obstructionism can be good.' Except 90% of the people seem to disagree that it's good. What, are you saying that Republicans are disapproving because they want Congress to be more obstructionist? 10% approval rating is an all-time low. To pretend that this is business as usual is fairly strange. | ||
| ||
