PPP was more accurate this time.
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website
Solutions wrote:
>
> Unless you have money riding on the game stats don't matter, just remember
> to use Nate's suggestions prior to absentee voting when you go the the UK
> to bet on the next elect
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:grussg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:20 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Nate Silver
I guess particle physicists got lucky with every single prediction over the
last century too...
Einstein didn't believe "God plays dice" but i guess
Unless you have money riding on the game stats don't matter, just remember
to use Nate's suggestions prior to absentee voting when you go the the UK
to bet on the next election...
Until then, you can always bet on the next secretary of state or another
odd political item prior to 2016 in the UK..
That's not it. Want another try?
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> They got the married female vote but didn't get the single mom vote.
>> Can you guess why?
>>
>
> Because married women whose husbands voted R lie about who they
> actually voted for?
>
~~
g that they were polling democrats, and that was including a
>> heavy bias in the polls.
>> What was it? Unskewedpolls.com or something like that?
>>
>> Interested in hearing what those people have to say now, since "their"
>> polls were quite clearly and totally
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> They got the married female vote but didn't get the single mom vote.
> Can you guess why?
>
Because married women whose husbands voted R lie about who they
actually voted for?
~|
"93% of black voters voted for Obama."
96% of black voters supported him in 2008.
39% of whites voted for Obama. He carried 43% of the white vote in 2008.
While both seem low, the 43% ties Bill Clinton's take of white voters.
Jimmy Carter is the only Democrat in recent history to top that wit
They got the married female vote but didn't get the single mom vote.
Can you guess why?
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I would say the republican party is out of touch. They relied on getting
> the white evangelical male vote to carry them and didn't count on the
> n
That's not true, Jerry posted the numbers.
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Conservatives hardly stayed home...both liberal and conservative pundits
> were saying that voters on the right were really fired up. Obama won the
> popular vote by around or less than a milli
12% decided the week of.
Most searches on google last week, who's running for president.
1st and second debate the state polls had a spike. Nate's didn't.
The third debate, Romney didn't mind that Obama let Americans get
murdered in Libya and said he would be the same as Obama on foreign
policy.
S
Please Sam...must you keep regurgitating the same party line bullshit?
On Nov 8, 2012 9:03 AM, "Sam" wrote:
>
> The poor, the unions and the minorities voted for free stuff, the
> workers stayed home.
>
> Funny how minorities vote for the Black guy and that's good but if a
> white guy doesn;t, h
I would say the republican party is out of touch. They relied on getting
the white evangelical male vote to carry them and didn't count on the
non-evangelical/non-affiliated vote being so high. They also really
discounted the female vote on female health and other feminine issues.
They have alwa
He predicted the republican sweep in 2010...so his stats haven't been
skewed.
On Nov 8, 2012 9:09 AM, "GMoney" wrote:
>
> I guess the answer i'm looking for is: When does luck end, and competence
> begin?
>
> Is it only when he correctly predicts a win for one of your guys?
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8,
Most pundits on both sides...dans the folks just spouting party line
bullshit agree that Sandy had little to no effect.
On Nov 8, 2012 9:05 AM, "Sam" wrote:
>
> They were in line with the State polls, same as Nate, but when the
> storm took politics off the news and Obama's Katrina was reported
While I agree to an extent G...is that race or just agreeing with policy/
realizing that the other guy really sucked badly?
On Nov 8, 2012 9:03 AM, "Sam" wrote:
>
> The poor, the unions and the minorities voted for free stuff, the
> workers stayed home.
>
> Funny how minorities vote for the Blac
Unsqewedpolls.com is apparently (from what I have been hearing and
reading), is a right leaning site that takes data and skews it quite a bit,
despite its name. I haven't checked the site personally... that is just
what I heard in reference to discussions about Nate Silver.
Please excus
6, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Sam wrote:
> >
> > He got one election right, that one was easy. We'll see how he does this
> time.
>
> So...here's how he did this time:
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-nate-silver-polls-rasmussen-20121107,0,3329
I would say genius. As stated earlier... this is the third election he got
right and in all three, they were either spot on or really close...within
the difference of a state's electoral votes.
On Nov 8, 2012 8:46 AM, "Sam" wrote:
>
> Nate used the individual states polls and this time they wer
polling democrats, and that was including a
> > heavy bias in the polls.
> > What was it? Unskewedpolls.com or something like that?
> >
> > Interested in hearing what those people have to say now, since "their"
> > polls were quite clearly and totally wrong an
You do get the mysticism behind polling don't you? Or do you believe
it's an exact science and Nate has the key? Again, he just parroted
existing state polls, no magic.
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> I guess particle physicists got lucky with every single prediction ov
WTF are you talking about? Obama made it about free condoms and nobody cared.
Married woman voted Romney, single woman voted Obama. It's the freebees baby.
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> This sh** right here is why they lost.
>
> The party's platform is simply not viable.
Turn out was way down.
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
> I read (dont have a link or any actual facts) that black voters have voted
> for the DEMOCRATIC candidate 85%+ of the time in the last 7 elections.
>
> Regardless of the race of the candidate.
>
> If so, I d
This sh** right here is why they lost.
The party's platform is simply not viable. They made it about women's
rights, abortion, contraception.
And they signed a mandate stating that next year they will oppose or seek
to overturn many civil rights amendments, roe v wade etc.
And women said f* that
Sam wrote:
>
> food stamp crowd showed up in larger numbers than expected
Don't forget the "slut vote" silly!
http://gawker.com/5958728/fact+checking-the-slut-vote-with-the-christian-mens-defense-network
"this election cycle shows that the Slut Vote is real, and Republicans
lose because they d
I read (dont have a link or any actual facts) that black voters have voted
for the DEMOCRATIC candidate 85%+ of the time in the last 7 elections.
Regardless of the race of the candidate.
If so, I don't see that statement as being true.
What I DO expect the numbers will reflect is a greater-than
> > Just thought I'd revisit this:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Sam wrote:
> > >
> > > He got one election right, that one was easy. We'll see how he does
> this
> > time.
> >
> > So...here's how he did this ti
Like I said about Rasmussen.
No poll is always right, \they can't be.
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> I guess the answer i'm looking for is: When does luck end, and competence
> begin?
>
> Is it only when he correctly predicts a win for one of your guys?
>
>
~
Blacks, Single moms, Chinese, Latinos and food stamp recipients voted
overwhelmingly Obama.
On the Conservative side we had millions less than those that voted for McCain.
It's not only about race but I hear a lot of whites and blacks saying
the only reason someone didn't vote for Obama was beca
I guess the answer i'm looking for is: When does luck end, and competence
begin?
Is it only when he correctly predicts a win for one of your guys?
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> What's the point? Are we to believe him as an Oracle from now on?
> Rasmussen was the most accurate
What's the point? Are we to believe him as an Oracle from now on?
Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster for years and they were the
furthest from reality this go round.
What answer are you looking for?
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> I don't really know. I don't pretend
They were in line with the State polls, same as Nate, but when the
storm took politics off the news and Obama's Katrina was reported as a
success it all changed.
Did you know FEMA in NY is closed do to weather?
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Sam, what about the Republican p
93% of black voters voted for Obama.
That is a staggering number.
Any way you slice it, race still plays a big role in 21st century America.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> The poor, the unions and the minorities voted for free stuff, the
> workers stayed home.
>
> Funny how m
The poor, the unions and the minorities voted for free stuff, the
workers stayed home.
Funny how minorities vote for the Black guy and that's good but if a
white guy doesn;t, he's racist. Heard a lot of that yesterday.
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions
w
t;
> Interested in hearing what those people have to say now, since "their"
> polls were quite clearly and totally wrong and the outcome
> is far more in line with Nate Silver and all the rest.
>
> Do they recognise they were completely incorrect? Or do they find so
I don't really know. I don't pretend to be smart enough to understand that.
You said he got lucky once, and now, apparently, he's gotten lucky a second
time. I guess it's subjective as to when luck ends, and competence begins.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Nate used the indiv
Sam, what about the Republican polls. Those were COMPLETELY incorrect
bearing no resemblance to reality at all.
I see you have chosen the route of rationalising.
On 8 November 2012 10:46, Sam wrote:
>
> Nate used the individual states polls and this time they were all
> right. Those polls had
Youths, Hispanics, Blacks and anyone of color by majority voted for Obama,
So do you think it was luck or is the republican party out of reach with
large percentage of our population?
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Sam wrote:
> So do you think he's a genius rather than just a bit lucky?
Nate used the individual states polls and this time they were all
right. Those polls had Romney spiking until Katrina, I mean Sandy,
hit.
So do you think he's a genius rather than just a bit lucky?
.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Just thought I'd revisit this:
>
~~
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Sam wrote:
> >
> > He got one election right, that one was easy. We'll see how he does this
> time.
>
> So...here's how he did this time:
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-nate-silver-polls-rasmussen-
their"
polls were quite clearly and totally wrong and the outcome
is far more in line with Nate Silver and all the rest.
Do they recognise they were completely incorrect? Or do they find some
other way to rationalise it?
If they rationalise it then yeah, in 4 years time the Democrats win aga
Just thought I'd revisit this:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> He got one election right, that one was easy. We'll see how he does this
time.
So...here's how he did this time:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-nate-silver-polls-rasmussen-
41 matches
Mail list logo
