drnykterstein
-
Posts
7,337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by drnykterstein
-
-
Christie 2016?
Probably, my money is on him. I even like watching him speak. The one wonky type political analyst type argument I've heard against him is that "Will America vote for a fat politician?". It's a real question to ask if you know anything about voter behaviors.
-
Where is OCinBuffalo. He needs to call out Nate Silver for being right on every state called so far.
-
Checks and balances????
Ya, it's a really good chance that America will swing back to a Republican President in 2016. That's just how we roll.
-
GOP House, Dem Senate and Presidency. Yay?
-
Are you being sarcastic or are you serious?
I'm afraid he's being serious.
As serious as a drive-by poster can be.
There have been lawsuits filed in both states already. You people need to pay attention to something other than Republican propaganda as your news sources.
http://www.csmonitor...-voting-lawsuit
-
I think it's funny that you doubt the man's calculations. What do you want to bet on this election OC?
I want you to make a thread saying "Republicans hate factual information" if you are wrong.
-
Again, this post betrays the fundamental misunderstanding of what this race has become. This no longer has anything to do with "what somebody said or did in September, or even October". This is now a "somebody has been wrong...for a very long time...about this election". It is now:
Axelrod Vs. Gallup(and Rassmussen now)...demographic and LV models. Tomorrow is the Thunderdome. 2 will enter, only one will leave.
The assclown part here is: now, even the scoreboard has become politicized, and that is horseshit. There are more polls now that ever before, by a factor of 3. I will have plenty to say about this, once I have the real data, the votes.
But, there can be no doubt about this: if Gallup is right, and this is in fact a R+3 election, with demos <= 2008...then Axelrod has been lying, blatantly, about this race...since ~June of 2011. Yeah...this means the debate never mattered, neither did the storm. Obama never, ever, had a chance, and has been done, for well over a year now. And, it also means that a whole lot of media people and pollsters that either innocently bought this lie, or, they actively participated in it.
The funniest thing I've heard said so far? "There will be executions on Wednesday!".
No. Sharon Angle lost because Sharon Angle is a moron. Nate Silver thinks that a candidate's "ideology score" = On Base % in baseball. So, somebody who is an "Arch-Conservative", in Silver's model, will always produce predictable results, the same way 2 players with identical OBPs against RHP will.
However, only a moron would put an = sign between Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. Nate Silver is that moron, because, by his system, using the 3 things he uses to determine that score, Dan Quayle = Newt Gingrich. This is as inescapable as it is wrong.
Newt Gingrich crushes Reid in that election, and both Dan Quayle and Sharon Angle lose by 5...because they are morons.
Then you are not choosing science. Period. Talk all you want, when you get done, you still won't be choosing science.
If you've spent 20 minutes on this board, you know the obvious MAJOR holes I've poked in his model myself like the above, or, you've seen the links I've provided of statistical masters debunking it as well. EDIT: (D-bag disclaimer: No, D-bag, I am saying I <<< Master Statistician. They are actually called "Master". I have worked with them. We would bring them in to review our modeling. You want to talk about crazy billable hours...)
Again, a lot of what Silver does is sound. This is not "all or nothing", and it is complicated. One thing that is not complicated: he is dependent on polls...that simply have no way of being accurate, or scientific. "Yeah...this is a +11 Democratic turnout year, Nate! Weight that CNN poll higher than Rassmussen!"
:lol: You said...."science".... There is nothing scientific about this at all, and Silver himself said it's based purely on what he "believes". 
Perhaps you can scour 538...and find Silver's poll-weighting methodology. And, no, I'm not talking about his "house effect" weighting. That's what he does per pollster. What I want is why today's poll gets less weight...than a poll from 4 weeks ago, that just happens to favor Obama. To save you the effort: you will not find it. He doesn't explain why he does this, anywhere, nor does he explain how.
Most "scientific" work I am familiar with puts ALL of its methods on the table...not just conveniently explaining the ones that suit the latest data, and saying nothing about the ones that don't.
The other problem with Silver: ALL science...requires the concept of falsification. It's the contrapostive in logic. It means you that not only can you prove why you are right, you can also prove why the opposite of what you are saying is wrong.
Nate Silver's entire work...is based on the premise that he can never be wrong. If you can never be wrong, you can never be right, either. Example, if Romney wins, Silver will simply claim that Romney beat the odds(Nate Silver Excuse #3), and therefore, he was not wrong. The only falsification that Silver has provided(that I have seen so far...this can change) is Nate Silver Excuse #1: the polls are biased. Which means of course...Silver STILL isn't wrong.
All roads lead to Silver being right, and therefore, exactly 0 roads lead to "science" being done here.
You are an idiot. His models lead to him being right a majority of the time. If he puts down "90%" then in 9 out of ten elections he should be right. It's not science by the way, it is math you turd.
-
How horrible are Republicans? Willing to ruin a fair democracy and the choice of the people for the sake of getting their guys elected? .............. B-man horrible,
http://www.alternet.org/voter-fraud-rare-and-cycle-its-all-been-committed-republicans
"Voter Fraud is exceedingly rare. Democrats have been guilty in the past , but in 2012, all the fraud has apparently been on the Republican side of the aisle."
"Investigators today arrested a Southern Nevada woman suspected of trying to vote twice this week at two different polling locations."
"A Clackamas County elections worker is undercriminal investigation for tampering with ballots"
"Four campaign staffers of former Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich) face multiple criminal charges of allegedly perpetuating election fraud"
"A Republican precinct chairman running for a seat on the Fort Bend County Commissioner's Court has cast ballots in both Texas and Pennsylvania in the last three federal elections, official records in both states show."
"A Pennsylvania man employed by a company working for the Republican Party of Virginia was arrested by investigators from the Rockingham County Sheriff’s office on Thursday and charged with destroying voter registration forms."
"A third instance of fraudulent voter registration has been uncovered in the important swing state of Virginia, where a Republican consultant has been arrested and thousands of discarded voter registration forms were recovered from a dumpster earlier this week"
"The Republican Party of Florida’s top recipient of 2012 expenditures, a firm by the name of Strategic Allied Consulting, was just fired on Tuesday night, after more than 100 apparently fraudulent voter registration forms were discovered to have been turned in by the group"
.. and more ..
-
Why is it always the Republicans that commit voter fraud?
People left votes blank, this woman is filling them in for people on a straight Republican line.
-
http://www.redstate....obama-is-toast/
This is interesting....as "smaller" samples implies meddling, to me
This is fact-based, and extensive analysis. If you want to be critical of it, point out where it goes wrong with your own fact-based, extensive analysis. Go ahead and say Nate Silver...and see what I post.
Otherwise, accept that I have been right about the oversampling of the polls/idiocy of using 2008 as a model. (Suggestion: you might want to get that out of the way now, rather than waiting for Nov. 7th) The question of turnout reality vs. fantasy is now resolved. (With the caveat that Nevada...is Nevada...so who the F knows?)
Next question: what is the O/U on days until Nate Silver's 538 prediction models move away from this D+7 fantasy? Or, when he stops over-weighting polls from 4 weeks ago, and under-weighting polls from yesterday?
And, yes, I know that 538 is the only thing keeping you Ds from a meltdown...but...you might as well disabuse yourselves from Nate now, rather than later, as well.
Just sayin'
Nate Silver is first and foremost a statistical analyst. He happens to be a damn good one at that. This means that he goes very far out his way to avoid any sort of "bias" and simply analyze the numbers to the best of his ability. You can disagree with his analysis if you want, you are welcome to. There is a reason so many people trust him though, he's shown to be very accurate in the past elections.
-
Domestic spying programs
Jon Stewart is the only interviewer I've seen that even asked Obama about this. He didn't really push the issue that hard though.
-
A couple of things that I heard recently about both candidates, that may have more of an influence on the outcome of the election than one might think.
Some of this **** is floating around tangentially in the news. This weekend, though, I enjoyed some drinks and political conversations with a couple of "ok" connected political minds in Alexandria, VA and learned the following "not so inside," inside information about the campaigns:
1. Romney is spending a lot of time trying to figure out what BOs internal electoral map projections look like. He wants BO to give up in FL by repurposing his folks so that they (Romney) can pull their team and the lion share of their ad buys there and rededicate them to Ohio, WI and NV.
2. BO has ceded NC. Romney is pulling out his folks and repurposing them as I type this.
3. BO folks feel VERY confident that they have PA back under control. There is some consternation within the Romney campaign around the propriety of ceding PA. Don't know who is on which side of the argument but there is a little in-fighting.
4. BO feels that if they get VA or OH it's game over. They feel that both states are a bell weather for how the other toss ups will fall.
5. The auto bailout may decide the election. It's sustaining BO's lead in MI and likely giving him the advantage in OH. Despite Romney's contentions that the administration did what he (Romney)suggested, the WH feels that they are successfully making the nuanced case in those states that GM and Chrysler would not have successfully emerged from bankruptcy without Government guarantees - essentially that government intervention was the key to that process happening successfully. Big Big Big distinction. The WH will owe Sherrod Brown huge if OH goes blue. He is stumping on that point like a man on a mission.
6. Expect to here "China" brought up many times tonight. Romney folks feel that may give them an in-road into an obstinate OH electorate.
7. A lost point from the second debate: many conservatives are annoyed at Romney for his "Binders full of Women" comment. Some feel that what he did was advocate and acknowledge the usefulness of affirmative action policies. This point is from a former colleague and republican strategist.
8. Romney has a 10 point lead among men. Obama has a 9 point lead among women. There are a couple more million women than men in this country. Romney is running ads blasting away at BOs claim about Romney's stance on contraception. The ads also attempt to broaden the scope of women's issues to encompass ancillary family economic considerations (where they feel that BO is demonstrably weak). Romney feels that within the penubras of the contraception issue is where the gender gap falls.
8a. BO feels that there is a certain substantive centrality to the contraception issue that Romney can't talk around or through. It affects women every moment of every day and therefore they feel that they have a talking point that isn't predicated on situation ethics.
If these statements are true .. this is the most interesting post I've seen on here in a long long long time.
-
I disagree with the results btw... I'm a Constitutionist first and foremost...but it was fun to do it again showing at least, I'm a consistent A hole... :-)
You have no relationship to the constitution and wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face. I bet you think the ACA is unconstitutional.
-
Barry is a Pro-Lie candidate.
That's President Barry to you.
-
Can you point out in the article you linked to where it says you will lose your job if you don't vote for Romney?
The companies cannot say those exact words. Well .. they could .. but then they would end up with tons of lawsuits on their hands and owe their former employees a lot of money. They only try to come as close to saying those words as they can without risking lawsuits.
-
Excellent post. Now could you post something that actually demonstrates voter intimidation by the right? We'll wait.
"Koch Industries, other CEOs warn employees of layoffs if Obama is reelected"
It's !@#$ing subtle (sort of). Obviously for legal reasons they cannot directly say "vote Romney or we'll fire you". If they did that they would end up getting sued.
-
Michigan CEO "Tells" Employees to Vote for Romney or Else - http://www.dailykos....-Romney-or-Else
Sounds like something out of North Korea. Sounds like an obvious case of voter intimidation. Those thugs.
... not saying that Unions should do this, they shouldn't. But the bad actions of a Union does not make you fact free Republicans any more correct regarding any of the plethora of topics you are completely wrong on.
-
"
."Those college graduates generally have brains, which means they know to point the blame in the right place, and not at Obama. You lack said vital organ, and you blame all the wrong people.
-
It's not a great report unless you have mediocre expectations.
For example, if the bills don't get creamed this weekend, most of us will be happy. This from a team that once dominated the afc
Did you read 1billsfan's post? He said "Seriously, who here believes this number?"
He's saying it's not factual. Same with Cinga above. He's a Republican, they don't really have a working relationship with factual data. The debate in the Republican mind is not whether its a good or bad report. They debate if you should believe the facts or not.
-
Seriously, who here believes this number?
It's a factual report from people who deal in facts. I wouldn't expect you Republicans to relate to it.
-
The times they are a changin'
-
Newsroom as I understand: what began as veiled hints at liberal sympathy has since spiraled into a full-on leftist manifesto against the right.
Accurate?
Yeah that last episode is something to think about. What if a Brian Williams type news show really did what the fictional ACN show did? Would that be correct? I can't argue with the facts that were presented. But, it did seem dishonest in presentation to me. There are more aspects to the Tea-Party than what was presented.
-
The final say: Paul Ryan is a hugely successful pick for VP, and Obama et al ranges from very concerned....to scared shiteless of him.
No. Pretty sure Obama high fived Biden when the pick was announced. Ryan pretty much ensured that Romney would lose the election. You make like him, but you are not the only person who votes in this country.
-
So, the occupy movement is an extension of government?
This guy votes Republican.
Republicans Retain House
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I wish. But I do dream about that day. You conservatives are not sane.
Case and point.