lol Romney adviser says he won middle class (white voters?)

[Ausm]

Maybe not to you, but you proved you suck at math.

+1

 

[peonyu]

The black vote won the election, if the black voter turnout was the same as it was prior to having a black man run as President [every election prior to 2008] then Romney would have won. Ohio and the other swing states Obama won were close as hell, the black vote turned up for Obama in droves and secured his 2nd term. Their absence would have meant a red Ohio, a Red Virginia etc.

It feels weird even bringing that up since a vote is a vote, but the Republican projections for winning were all based on past voter trends this election...They were just completely wrong in thinking that black people would do as they tended to do in the past and leave voting up to white people.

Obama said hell no to that! And looking back at the Gore / Bush election...If Gore were black he would have won florida. A meager 500 more votes for Bush was nothing if a million+ extra people came out solidly on Gore's side [if he were black].

 

[Lemon law]

It should bring a smile to all of our faces because Stuart Stevens has found something to be happy about in losing. As we can just leave it at that.

But some skeptics could bring back that frown to Stuart by pointing out his two defects in his long term reasoning. (1) Part of the reason Mitt lost was due to slow and inevitable demographic changes in the American voting population. Its not due to a loss of "white male voters", and instead due to a bigger increase in non-lily minorities that dilutes the importance of the white male voter. And if Mr. Stevens bothered to look ahead to 2014, 2016, and beyond, the same demographic changes will bite the GOP ever harder in the future. (2) The GOP, if it wants retain its status as national party, must broaden its base to better appeal to those that are less affluent. Instead the GOP really appeals to only the top 2%, as everyone else does not really benefit. And that too will get worse for the GOP into the future.

 

[First]

Not really.

This is a turnout election now. Who is going to show up to vote (or have voted already)? If there are normal levels of Republicans vs Democrats and given that Romney has a close to double digit lead amongst independents this will be an easy win for Romney. - November 2012

Bump.

 

[buckshot24]

Bump.

This is a turnout election now. Who is going to show up to vote (or have voted already)? If there are normal levels of Republicans vs Democrats and given that Romney has a close to double digit lead amongst independents this will be an easy win for Romney. - November 2012

That "if" makes a difference. Plus that has nothing to do with my mathematical skills.

 

[First]

That "if" makes a difference. Plus that has nothing to do with my mathematical skills.

Nope, that statement has everything to do with your mathematical skills, as virtually all the state polling showed clearly that D, R and I turnout would be exactly what it ended up being with a very very high probability (i.e. more D, less R, roughly the same I). But you ignored the overwhelming probabilities that the state polls were accurately sampling voters, and instead postulated the nonsense I just quoted, claiming Romney would therefore win, and win big at that, with over 300 electoral votes based on some layman notion of a 2004-type of electorate, openly deriding any notion that 2012 would look like 2008, and even more hilariously, making references to 2010 mid-terms. lulz.

So, as I've proven above, you fail at math. Or more specifically, you fail at understanding confidence intervals in the field of statistics.

 

[buckshot24]

Nope, that statement has everything to do with your mathematical skills, as virtually all the state polling showed clearly that D, R and I turnout would be exactly what it ended up being with a very very high probability (i.e. more D, less R, roughly the same I). But you ignored the overwhelming probabilities that the state polls were accurately sampling voters, and instead postulated the nonsense I just quoted, claiming Romney would therefore win, and win big at that, with over 300 electoral votes based on some layman notion of a 2004-type of electorate, openly deriding any notion that 2012 would look like 2008, and even more hilariously, making references to 2010 mid-terms. lulz.

The fact of the matter is the statement that you have in your sig was correct. The IF portion of the IF/THEN statement turned out to be false.

So, as I've proven above, you fail at math. Or more specifically, you fail at understanding confidence intervals in the field of statistics.

You've proven shit.

 

[MixMasterTang]

That "if" makes a difference. Plus that has nothing to do with my mathematical skills.

There are around 40 million african americans in the US, 60% (24 million) voted in 2004. 65% (26 million) voted in 2008. Not even taking the upward % of African American voters trend from 1980 to 2004 and only using the difference between 2004 and 2008 Obama would have still won the popular election. Obama had 62.6 million voters and Romney had 59.1 million voters, a difference of 3.5 million. If we compare the amount of African Americans that voted in 2004 compared to 2008 and 2012 there was less than a 3.5 million vote flucuation so Obama would have still won the popular vote by over 1.5 million votes.

 

[buckshot24]

There are around 40 million african americans in the US, 60% (24 million) voted in 2004. 65% (26 million) voted in 2008. Not even taking the upward % of African American voters trend from 1980 to 2004 and only using the difference between 2004 and 2008 Obama would have still won the popular election. Obama had 62.6 million voters and Romney had 59.1 million voters, a difference of 3.5 million. If we compare the amount of African Americans that voted in 2004 compared to 2008 and 2012 there was less than a 3.5 million vote flucuation so Obama would have still won the popular vote by over 1.5 million votes.

Keep doing that for all demographics and you'll see that I was right. I wasn't only talking about the black vote.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Keep doing that for all demographics and you'll see that I was right. I wasn't only talking about the black vote.

You're the one trying to prove your point, I have glanced over the statistics of all minority voters and my conclusion above still holds strong.

Edit: Ohh and by the way I used the number of ALL African Americans in the country, not actual eligible voters, so my previous calculations were actually skewed in your favor, but if I corrected the numbers there would have been even better proof that Obama still would have won.

 

[buckshot24]

You're the one trying to prove your point, I have glanced over the statistics of all minority voters and my conclusion above still holds strong.

Why would you only look at minority voters?

You have to look at all demographics, including those that favor Romney. Protestant turnout was down about 2 points over 2004. Youth vote (18-29) was up 2 points. White vote was down 5 points. Black vote up 2 points. Asian up a point. Latino vote was up 2 points.

Whats interesting is that in 2004 those who said they were conservative was at 34% and in 2012 it was 35%

17% of conservatives voted for Obama and 15% voted for Kerry.

There has been a 4 point jump in self identified liberals from 21% to 25%.

 

[First]

The fact of the matter is the statement that you have in your sig was correct. The IF portion of the IF/THEN statement turned out to be false.

Just try reading what I wrote again; your if/then statement was nonsensical because there was no statistical basis for it based on the state polling. None. Yet you still predicted 300+ electoral votes for Romney. This proves unequivocally you believed your if/then statement. Try denying this, I'll be interested in the obfuscation.

You've proven shit.

No, I quite substantially proved it. And you certainly cannot refute it your life depended on it.

 

[buckshot24]

Just try reading what I wrote again; your if/then statement was nonsensical because there was no statistical basis for it based on the state polling. None. Yet you still predicted 300+ electoral votes for Romney. This proves unequivocally you believed your if/then statement. Try denying this, I'll be interested in the obfuscation.

There were a few polls that showed a voter ID turnout model quite different than 2008. I wasn't just pulling it out of my ass. They turned out to be wrong. Also I believe I posted that after I pointed out those polls. I made a prediction based on my gut. Turns out I needed some Peptol instead of it telling me Romney would win.

As it turned out Obama outperformed his polling. If Romney outperformed his polling like Obama did then Romney very well could have won.

No, I quite substantially proved it. And you certainly cannot refute it your life depended on it.

I probably couldn't convince you that water is wet.

 

[First]

There were a few polls that showed a voter ID turnout model quite different than 2008. I wasn't just pulling it out of my ass. They turned out to be wrong. Also I believe I posted that after I pointed out those polls. I made a prediction based on my gut. Turns out I needed some Peptol instead of it telling me Romney would win.

So now that you know your gut was wrong, does your head now tell you that voluminous polling with >95% confidence intervals in statistics should be relied upon instead of your feelings?

As it turned out Obama outperformed his polling.

A pointless statement to make as he would have won the exact same number of states in the electoral college if he matched his state polling numbers, with the possible exception of Florida (still netting 300+ electoral votes either way).

If Romney outperformed his polling like Obama did then Romney very well could have won.

The probability of which was basically single digit low, not worthy of consideration and frankly pie-in-the-sky hoping.

I probably couldn't convince you that water is wet.

A tacit admission that you are not willing to support any of your previous stances rejecting polling and statistics as extremely reliable and predictable fields of study, which you in fact did by rejecting state polls and handpicking polls based on your gut. You lost, lost big and embarrassingly, kiddo.

 

[buckshot24]

A pointless statement to make as he would have won the exact same number of states in the electoral college if he matched his state polling numbers, with the possible exception of Florida (still netting 300+ electoral votes either way).

What does stats have to do with the EC?

A tacit admission that you are not willing to support any of your previous stances rejecting polling and statistics as extremely reliable and predictable fields of study, which you in fact did by rejecting state polls and handpicking polls based on your gut. You lost, lost big and embarrassingly, kiddo.

Not really. You will never believe me that I wasn't ignoring polls (which weren't that accurate anyway) and I wasn't using mathematics for my belief that Romney would win. I think I said over and over that if the polls were accurate then Romney was toast. Turns out that they weren't that accurate but he was still toast.

 

[First]

What does stats have to do with the EC?

You read that wrong; I wrote states. Reply to that.

Also make sure to reply my first quote, since you apparently missed that too: "So now that you know your gut was wrong, does your head now tell you that voluminous polling with >95% confidence intervals in statistics should be relied upon instead of your feelings?"

Not really. You will never believe me that I wasn't ignoring polls

You literally just said minutes ago: "There were a few polls that showed a voter ID turnout model quite different than 2008". If you only referenced a few polls (a few is generally considered no more than a handful), then by pure definition you were ignoring literally thousands of other polls out there. This isn't open for interpretation, this is literally what you did.

(which weren't that accurate anyway)

They were, in fact, accurate, and you couldn't show otherwise if your life depended on it.

and I wasn't using mathematics for my belief that Romney would win. I think I said over and over that if the polls were accurate then Romney was toast. Turns out that they weren't that accurate but he was still toast.

You said many, many times variations of Romney would win 300+ electoral votes, that there was no way an Obama-favorable 2008 electoral makeup would show up, made countless comparisons to 2004 and 2010 (both debunked, particularly the 2010 comparison), etc. You were told why you were wrong for all sorts of reasons; 2010 mid-terms has considerably less turn-out, incumbant nearly always lose mid-terms after their election, 2004 demographics were clearly more white than the 2012 reality as shown by the 2010 census, among other data etc.. You chose to ignore it.

 

[buckshot24]

You read that wrong; I wrote states. Reply to that.

Whether the error pushed enough states into another column doesn't make the polls any more accurate.

Also make sure to reply my first quote, since you apparently missed that too: "So now that you know your gut was wrong, does your head now tell you that voluminous polling with >95% confidence intervals in statistics should be relied upon instead of your feelings?

"
It wasn't an accident.

You literally just said minutes ago: "There were a few polls that showed a voter ID turnout model quite different than 2008". If you only referenced a few polls (a few is generally considered no more than a handful), then by pure definition you were ignoring literally thousands of other polls out there. This isn't open for interpretation, this is literally what you did.

Sigh, I never said those few polls were right and everything else was wrong. All I said was that those few polls (party ID polls) have been historically accurate in predicting voter ID turnout. Which was a fact. They were WAY off this year. I didn't say the state polls were wrong. In 2008 the state polls, national polls and those two party ID polls all converged. In 2012 there was divergence.

They were, in fact, accurate, and you couldn't show otherwise if your life depended on it.

Sure I could. Look at almost all the battleground aggregates at RCP and note the differences in actual vote spread vs the predicted spread. There is an average 3 point or so bias toward Romney in the polls. The national polls has around a 2.1 point bias.

All this being said I don't want to gloss over the parts that I was wrong on. I just didn't see 2008 type turnout occurring again. I was wrong. The evidence that it required (the election) couldn't be expressed in a thread. I thought the difficulty in getting in touch with voters may have skewed the polling in some way which one could make a case for given the election results, just not in my favor.

Hell, Romney couldn't even get McCain's votes which was totally unexpected by me.

 

[First]

Whether the error pushed enough states into another column doesn't make the polls any more accurate.

Your point is irrelevant, the polls weren't off by much compared historically. Fact.

It wasn't an accident.

Ah, so you're wimping out of replying. Fair enough.

Sigh, I never said those few polls were right and everything else was wrong.

Why did you cite them if you didn't think they were right or wrong? Because you were bored? Because you're unemployed? Bueller?

All I said was that those few polls (party ID polls) have been historically accurate in predicting voter ID turnout. Which was a fact.

Gallup/Rasmussen polled the same as the vast majority of the other polls during those prior elections. They didn't this year, they were outliers. Therefore your reliance on them lacked the context that they were outliers, which is an important concept in statistics that was your eventual downfall when the 2012 election results shat all over your face.

They were WAY off this year. I didn't say the state polls were wrong. In 2008 the state polls, national polls and those two party ID polls all converged. In 2012 there was divergence.

Lord you're sad.

Sure I could. Look at almost all the battleground aggregates at RCP and note the differences in actual vote spread vs the predicted spread. There is an average 3 point or so bias toward Romney in the polls. The national polls has around a 2.1 point bias.

RCP does not include a full range of polls, they exclude all sorts of online polls (Ipsos) and other accurate polling firms from 2008 (YouGov), so you citing them is an incomplete picture. You'll have to find different source material that proves your point, along with explaining why polls being biased in one direction or the other is uncommon (it isn't) and whether the margin was historically reasonable (it was). Please use links (you won't).

All this being said I don't want to gloss over the parts that I was wrong on. I just didn't see 2008 type turnout occurring again. I was wrong. The evidence that it required (the election) couldn't be expressed in a thread. I thought the difficulty in getting in touch with voters may have skewed the polling in some way which one could make a case for given the election results, just not in my favor.

Hell, Romney couldn't even get McCain's votes which was totally unexpected by me.

Yes, you were wrong a lot, because you cherry-picked polls and used your gut a lot. You were told this was stupid at the time. Maybe now you'll learn.

 

[buckshot24]

Your point is irrelevant, the polls weren't off by much compared historically. Fact.

You want to talk about irrelevant? This point is just that. Whether the polls were off within historical norms or off by historic margins is absolutely immaterial. The point is that they were off.

Why did you cite them if you didn't think they were right or wrong? Because you were bored? Because you're unemployed? Bueller?

I'm not unemployed, maybe I was bored but most likely it was because it was data that was in conflict to what the other polls were saying. I in no way ever argued that these ID polls were the correct representation of the electorate and the other polls weren't. The mere fact that I post them doesn't mean full throated support.

Gallup/Rasmussen polled the same as the vast majority of the other polls during those prior elections. They didn't this year, they were outliers. Therefore your reliance on them lacked the context that they were outliers, which is an important concept in statistics that was your eventual downfall when the 2012 election results shat all over your face.

Yeah they were wrong. I wasn't relying on them though.

Lord you're sad.

No, I'm quite happy as it turns out.

RCP does not include a full range of polls, they exclude all sorts of online polls (Ipsos) and other accurate polling firms from 2008 (YouGov), so you citing them is an incomplete picture. You'll have to find different source material that proves your point, along with explaining why polls being biased in one direction or the other is uncommon (it isn't) and whether the margin was historically reasonable (it was). Please use links (you won't).

LOL, if you have a more accurate aggregation then I'll be happy to see it. As it stands RCP usually gets the average close in the last few election cycles. If you don't like them then that is your problem.

Yes, you were wrong a lot, because you cherry-picked polls and used your gut a lot. You were told this was stupid at the time. Maybe now you'll learn.

Perhaps I used too little logic and too much emotion. The evidence that it required to convince me that the electorate would basically be the same as 2008 was the election itself.

 

[First]

You want to talk about irrelevant? This point is just that. Whether the polls were off within historical norms or off by historic margins is absolutely immaterial. The point is that they were off.

Your point is shit. By that inane definition polls are "off" every year. And they always are, except them being "off" (0.1% or whatever) isn't relevant. What matters is by how much, as the nature of statistics isn't that they get everything exactly right to the 10th or 100th decimal place. I can explain this again later if you're still confused.

I'm not unemployed, maybe I was bored but most likely it was because it was data that was in conflict to what the other polls were saying. I in no way ever argued that these ID polls were the correct representation of the electorate and the other polls weren't. The mere fact that I post them doesn't mean full throated support.

So you posted polls to show you don't support them, but that you also did support them. Sorry, no one intelligent buys this lame excuse.

Yeah they were wrong. I wasn't relying on them though.

You cited Gallup and Rasmussen more than any other polling firms during the election. http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=762555

Numerically, this shows you relied on them more than anything else. If you still feel you didn't, explain what you relied upon. Your gut is probably your best answer.

LOL, if you have a more accurate aggregation then I'll be happy to see it. As it stands RCP usually gets the average close in the last few election cycles. If you don't like them then that is your problem.

The blog you consistently derided but were nonetheless beaten over the head with has a full range of polls: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Let me know if you need me to write it out in crayon.

Perhaps I used too little logic and too much emotion. The evidence that it required to convince me that the electorate would basically be the same as 2008 was the election itself.

Yet you could have reached the same conclusion had you merely followed the state polls or read Nate Silver, as was consistently dictated to you by those who (in hindsight) were wasting their time.

Nonetheless, funny you're still obfuscating after your epic election beatdown. Shows a true cognitive dissonance.

 

[Farang]

The guy was too much a stereotype. Like Dukakis the short, weak northern liberal. I actually felt Kerry was a good candidate in a lot of ways and stronger than the campaign that was run. But Romney fits the bill of wealthy plutocrat Republican, it was in him to the bone, his mannerisms, his awkwardness and snearing and salesman-like radio voice.

Nobody else in the Republican primary would have won. Huntsman for as good as he looks on paper I don't think he has a great touch as a politician, reminds me of Bobby Jindal in that way.

I don't know if anyone else would have won.. I think the Republican party has carried a certain argument against Obama since '08 that has never stuck, and whoever was nominated was going to be forced to carry that

 

[CaptnKirk]

In an attempt to connect with women voters and the intelects in their party I expect them to run Honey Boo Boo as their next Presidential candidate.


Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

 

[Smoblikat]

If youre not white and rich then Romney isnt your guy.