Romney Looks Like the Next Pres

.
October 27, 2012

SouthAmerica: CNN / IBN

Reuters - Oct 27, 2012 at 10:27am IST

“US Presidential election: Up to 40 pc may vote early; Barack Obama ahead”

...Obama leads Romney 54 per cent to 39 per cent among voters who already have cast ballots, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data...
 
Quote from jem:


Nate is really showing himself to be a joke.
More...




The accuracy of his(Nate Silver) November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.

In April 2009, he was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People by Time.






Of the 37 Senate seats contested in the November 2, 2010 elections, 36 were resolved by November 4, including very close outcomes in several states. Of these 36, the FiveThirtyEight model had correctly predicted the winner in 34.





In final vote tallys as of December 10, 2010, the Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the House, 8 more than the total predicted on election eve though still within the reported confidence interval




Of the 37 gubernatorial races, FiveThirtyEight correctly predicted the winner of 36. Only in Illinois, in which the Democratic candidate Pat Quinn defeated the Republican Bill Brady 46.6% to 46.1%, was the FiveThirtyEight prediction wrong.
 
82368503.png




83663210.png
 
let me respost what was just posted....


If you drill down on that, you quickly realize that Silver’s predictive abilities are largely due to his performance in the 2008 election cycle; during the 2010 cycle his earliest predictions about Congress (and his insights about how Republicans were thinking about the issues) first turned out to be laughably bad, then became extremely low-key until it became clear to EVERYBODY that the Republicans were going to win big. Still, getting 2008 right is good, yes?
Well. It turns out that the Obama campaign fed Silver huge amounts (H/T: AoSHQ) of their internal polling material during the 2008 cycle. Nate Silver did not disclose this, due to a confidentiality agreement.
I would like to note at this moment that there is nothing illegal about the previous bullet point.
Whether this was ethical, however, is a completely different story. Presidential internal polls are gold-standard; campaigns can afford the best data, expect the best data, and get the best data. If Nate Silver was able to cross-check outside polls with the stuff being fed him by Obama for America, he would be in a position to better detect polls and results whose flaws were hidden. In other words: insider access likely allowed Silver improve his ability to sort through the chaff for the wheat, and thus improve his reputation.
I hear people going “So what?” at this point. Well, there’s two reasons why this is problematical. The first is that Nate Silver is playing the part of the independent blogger with a system. Putting aside for the moment where ‘insider access’ is a legitimate system, such a pose allowed Silver to write things like this attack on Scott Rasmussen’s professional ethics because Rasmussen openly did some work for the Republican party during the 2004 election cycle. The impact of that particular post – which the Online Left has run with ever since – would have been much different if it had been disclosed that Nate Silver had had a formal special relationship with the Democratic party*.





Quote from AK Forty Seven:

The accuracy of his(Nate Silver) November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.

In April 2009, he was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People by Time.






Of the 37 Senate seats contested in the November 2, 2010 elections, 36 were resolved by November 4, including very close outcomes in several states. Of these 36, the FiveThirtyEight model had correctly predicted the winner in 34.





In final vote tallys as of December 10, 2010, the Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the House, 8 more than the total predicted on election eve though still within the reported confidence interval




Of the 37 gubernatorial races, FiveThirtyEight correctly predicted the winner of 36. Only in Illinois, in which the Democratic candidate Pat Quinn defeated the Republican Bill Brady 46.6% to 46.1%, was the FiveThirtyEight prediction wrong.
More...
 
Quote from jem:



during the 2010 cycle his earliest predictions about Congress (and his insights about how Republicans were thinking about the issues) first turned out to be laughably bad, then became extremely low-key until it became clear to EVERYBODY that the Republicans were going to win big.
More...

Source ?
 
Quote from jem:

let me respost what was just posted....


If you drill down on that, you quickly realize that Silver’s predictive abilities are largely due to his performance in the 2008 election cycle; during the 2010 cycle his earliest predictions about Congress (and his insights about how Republicans were thinking about the issues) first turned out to be laughably bad, then became extremely low-key until it became clear to EVERYBODY that the Republicans were going to win big. Still, getting 2008 right is good, yes?
Well. It turns out that the Obama campaign fed Silver huge amounts (H/T: AoSHQ) of their internal polling material during the 2008 cycle. Nate Silver did not disclose this, due to a confidentiality agreement.
I would like to note at this moment that there is nothing illegal about the previous bullet point.
Whether this was ethical, however, is a completely different story. Presidential internal polls are gold-standard; campaigns can afford the best data, expect the best data, and get the best data. If Nate Silver was able to cross-check outside polls with the stuff being fed him by Obama for America, he would be in a position to better detect polls and results whose flaws were hidden. In other words: insider access likely allowed Silver improve his ability to sort through the chaff for the wheat, and thus improve his reputation.
I hear people going “So what?” at this point. Well, there’s two reasons why this is problematical. The first is that Nate Silver is playing the part of the independent blogger with a system. Putting aside for the moment where ‘insider access’ is a legitimate system, such a pose allowed Silver to write things like this attack on Scott Rasmussen’s professional ethics because Rasmussen openly did some work for the Republican party during the 2004 election cycle. The impact of that particular post – which the Online Left has run with ever since – would have been much different if it had been disclosed that Nate Silver had had a formal special relationship with the Democratic party*.
More...

1.Assuming he didnt get it right until late,his accuracy in 2010 was amazing close to the election.It is now close to 2012 election day

2.Obama might still be feeding Nate his polling
 
a broken leftist clock would have gotten it right in 2008...
he is about to get smoked in 2012.

No legitimate person with a brain... could be saying Romney has very little chance in ohio when the polls there are showing he has up to a 21 point lead with independents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top