• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Some polls now have Romney ahead.

Page 44 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Rasmussen's national tracker shows a tie today.

Rasmussen is a hack, but trend matters. The national polls are moving towards the state polls. This is actually pretty big news for Obama.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Rasmussen's national tracker shows a tie today.

Rasmussen is a hack, but trend matters. The national polls are moving towards the state polls. This is actually pretty big news for Obama.
Click to expand...

They have to get back in line with other polls before election da so they can claim they were accurate. Can't schill for Romney too long
 
Could be that, could be Sandy, could be noise. No way to know.

It's still possible that the pollsters showing Obama ahead are overcounting Democrats. I don't think so, but this is far from over.
 
Finally got an Indiana senate poll today... wow. Republicans handed Democrats two freebies. If Democrats can pull out more than half of these toss-ups it will be a disaster for conservatives.

I mean imagine they lose MT, IN, MO.. I don't expect NE but that would be icing
 
^ Yup. With no toss-ups RCP has Dems gaining a Senate seat for a total of 54, which includes the independents that will caucus and therefore vote with them.

Early this year it looked unlikely Dems would hold the Senate, now it'd be a shocking upset if they didn't hold the Senate (and indeed, they're going to gain seat(s)). Shows you the importance of running quality candidates in the Senate. Tea Party candidates bowled over moderate Repubs from a possible majority in two straight elections (NV, DE, MO, IN, etc.). That's gotta be frustrating.
 
shira said:
But the most ridiculous part of Scarborough's attitude is his belief that the opinions of the campaigns themselves are more accurate than polling data. I mean, WTF? That's just incredibly stupid. What the campaigns think has NOTHING whatever to do with reality. Want proof? Well, I guarantee that both campaigns believe in their hearts that they're going to win. How can that possibly be more accurate than polling data, which favors one candidate or the other?
Click to expand...

Read that Scarborough and Silver now have a $2000 bet on the outcome of the election. The proceeds go to charity.
 
stlc8tr said:
Read that Scarborough and Silver now have a $2000 bet on the outcome of the election. The proceeds go to charity.
Click to expand...

Did they up it? I thought it was $1000 and I think it was going to the Red Cross. I think Joe had a mustache bet with Axelrod as well over a few different swing state results. Fun times.
 
First said:
^ Yup. With no toss-ups RCP has Dems gaining a Senate seat for a total of 54, which includes the independents that will caucus and therefore vote with them.

Early this year it looked unlikely Dems would hold the Senate, now it'd be a shocking upset if they didn't hold the Senate (and indeed, they're going to gain seat(s)). Shows you the importance of running quality candidates in the Senate. Tea Party candidates bowled over moderate Repubs from a possible majority in two straight elections (NV, DE, MO, IN, etc.). That's gotta be frustrating.
Click to expand...

First impression is Dems will be playing defense in 2014 though. A lot of those incumbents have Obama to thank for getting elected in '08. For example I have no idea who Shaheen is but apparently she beat a Sunnunu in New Hampshire. Merkley had a competitive race but I can't remember an incumbent Democrat ever losing in the Northwest.

Possibly competitive:

Mary Landrieu (D)
Al Franken (D)
Jeanne Shaheen (D)
Kay Hagan (D)
Jeff Merkley (D)

Susan Collins (R)
 
xBiffx said:
Susan Collins seat will never be competitive. She is the perfect wolf in sheep's clothing for Maine. Although, she has aged a bit......

BTW same goes for Snowe.
Click to expand...

That's true, I guess I just assumed she would retire like Snowe. Republicans like them are being pushed out of the party

Snowe's seat will be in the Democratic caucus next year
 
monovillage said:
Interesting piece. Thanks.
Click to expand...

There's a very, very simple reason why many political journalists don't like Nate Silver: Silver reduces to a science what journalists want to remain a source of income for themselves.

Honestly, why read the ramblings of a bunch of hare-brained political wonks when all that matters is the cold equations?
 
shira said:
There's a very, very simple reason why many political journalists don't like Nate Silver: Silver reduces to a science what journalists want to remain a source of income for themselves.

Honestly, why read the ramblings of a bunch of hare-brained political wonks when all that matters is the cold equations?
Click to expand...

I read all 4,663 words and let me save you some time. He uses extremely blustery language to whine that not enough Republicans are being sampled and too many Democrats are being sampled. He offers no testable prediction on the outcome of any of the state races.
 
Blackjack200 said:
I read all 4,663 words and let me save you some time. He uses extremely blustery language to whine that not enough Republicans are being sampled and too many Democrats are being sampled. He offers no testable prediction on the outcome of any of the state races.
Click to expand...
It isn't like silver has any testable predictions either. We'd need 400 years of elections (presidential) to make any conclusions on how accurate he is.

On election day we will be able to see if he was correct where as Silver could have Romney win and he's still not wrong.
 
Last edited:
CharlesKozierok said:
This guy just isn't very bright. Nothing penetrates.
Click to expand...
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You can't test probabilities on unique events that happen once. If he says 100% and he's wrong then sure. But if he says Romney has a 25% chance to win and he wins then he's right. If he says Obama will win then he's right. He can't lose.
 
buckshot24 said:
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You can't test probabilities on unique events that happen once. If he says 100% and he's wrong then sure. But if he says Romney has a 25% chance to win and he wins then he's right. If he says Obama will win then he's right. He can't lose.
Click to expand...

I think you just doubled down dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top