Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Nate Silver and the 538 blog

Nate Silver Elections 2012 538 blog NYTimes

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#1 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:17 PM

We've been touching on Nate Silver in the MoveOn.Org thread, but I think it's a good idea to separate it out now.  These last few posts before the election are probably going to be interesting.

Today's caught my attention..

http://fivethirtyeig...tically-biased/


Quote

Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.


Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#2 Mr. Synystyr

Mr. Synystyr

    Watching from the shadows...

  • Islander
  • 459 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:35 PM

I find the anger directed at Nate Silver both amusing and distressing - amusing because he is just running the math on the poll data others are collecting, distressing because people either don't seem to understand that or are in severe denial about it (or quite possibly both).

I am more distressed than amused.
Feel the velvet darkness caressing you...

#3 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:58 PM

I'm more distressed as well.  

I had a cynical thought about it a few days ago.  I admit it was cynical and I don't like to have that kind of cynicism, so forgive me ahead of time.  Anyway, I thought some of the anger directed at Nate was because it makes the post election "They stole the election" a harder meme to sell to their base.

I say this because I was listening to Hannity the other night [yes, I watch Fox sometimes, so you don't have to] and Hannity was saying that all the polls showed Romney ahead in the swing states.  He was railing about Nate and his blog because all the polls had Romney ahead.  It dawned on me that Hannity needs to say that Romney is ahead so he has post election fodder and conspiracy theories to broadcast.  

I mean if Romney really was ahead, and Obama wins the election  then 'the election was stolen".  VOTER FRAUD becomes the battle cry, and the election is de-legitimized.  Something I think that divides the country even more, and makes the hard governing choices ahead, all the more difficult to achieve..

Yes, I told you it was cynical, but think about it.  I have no clue what polls Hannity is referring to, and Nate Silver doesn't do poling himself, he analyzes all the polls combined.  Something I find very beneficial BTW, because most people do not understand polling and statistics   Everyone should know that in College, Statistics is an individual class.  It's not lumped in with other math subjects, it's a stand alone.  It's that complex.

In any event, maybe the pundit class is only protecting their "gut" analysis and I don't need to be so cynical after all. [Well maybe]

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#4 Mr. Synystyr

Mr. Synystyr

    Watching from the shadows...

  • Islander
  • 459 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:18 PM

Here's an even more cynical thought - it makes it harder for the GOP to believably steal the election themselves.

Look at the voting machine stories in Ohio.

Look at the lengths the GOP has gone through to attempt to win the election by manipulating who will be able to vote in the first place.

Look at the stories about "poll watchers" GOP groups are planning to have at the polls on election day.

I'm not trying to out-cynical you, just voicing my concern.
Feel the velvet darkness caressing you...

#5 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:48 PM

WOW, you make good [cynical] points.  LOL  And, I know you are not trying to outdo me, but you express the concerns that a lot of people share.  The concentration of effort to at least control the electorate through voter ID law etc is worrisome indeed.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#6 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:52 PM

Meh. At this point, it is like cheering for your favorite sports team.
After it is over, nate either gets vindicated, or gets to re-examine his model.
I've been prepared for an Obama win for about 2 years.
I don't like it, and hope it doesn't happen, but plenty of others want it.
And good for them if they get their wish.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#7 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 04:01 PM

View PostMr. Synystyr, on 03 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Here's an even more cynical thought - it makes it harder for the GOP to believably steal the election themselves.

Look at the voting machine stories in Ohio.

Look at the lengths the GOP has gone through to attempt to win the election by manipulating who will be able to vote in the first place.

Look at the stories about "poll watchers" GOP groups are planning to have at the polls on election day.

I'm not trying to out-cynical you, just voicing my concern.

And there I throw a penalty flag.
These kinds of claims devolve into paranoid conspiracy theory.

There are ballot and voting machine irregularities, and some favor the Dems.
Are the Dems trying to "steal this election" or not?
The myth of "voter suppression" cannot withstand honest scrutiny. Requiring I.D. is not voter suppression.
And in my state, and many others, GOP poll watchers are a rarity. Suggesting that increasing their numbers is somehow sinister strikes me as absurd.
Why should there be any instance of a Dem poll watcher being on duty without a GOP poll watcher also there?
Or doees that interfere with the Dems ability to credibly steal the election?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#8 Mr. Synystyr

Mr. Synystyr

    Watching from the shadows...

  • Islander
  • 459 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

Ha, I did say it was cynical!

The voting machine stories I refer to are that major Romney campaign donors may be heavily invested in the company that provides the voting machines in Ohio.  At the very least, this would be a conflict of interest, not a criminal one, but a concerning one.

As for voter suppression, it was a Republican official who declared that voter ID laws would deliver his state to Romney, not me.

And the poll watchers?  Election officials in the states GOP poll watchers are mobilizing in are challenging the instructions the GOP poll watchers are being given as both misleading and wrong. I have not heard or seen any similar stories regarding Democratic poll watchers; if you have, I would like to see them, sincerely.

Again, this was the more-cynical flip-side to Cait's concern.  Personally, I hope that even the most bitterly partisan Republicans respect our democratic process too much to corrupt it in such a way.  Unfortunately, I've seen both parties play a bit too fast and loose with rules and law to not be a bit cynical.
Feel the velvet darkness caressing you...

#9 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 04:43 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 03 November 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:


I've been prepared for an Obama win for about 2 years.


I've been expecting a one term Presidency since before the 2008 election.  From my POV, it's more than the disappointing term of Obama.  There were also way too many indicators in my field [astrology--yes, I am a professional astrologer, don't laugh too much] that indicated a one term President no matter who was elected.  

Throughout Obama's entire term I expected him to lose this election.  Not to bore you with the astrological details, let's just say there were plenty of indications that there would be obstacles to getting much of anything done, and that part was true.  What I didn't count on was how weak the GOP field of candidates would be in 2012.  I suppose even an astrologer can miss the mark when the challengers are so weak.

It seems Obama will win re-election, but he shouldn't have.  Not only will an Obama win put my political astrological predictions to shame, it will break the political record of any president being re-elected in an economy as bad as this one.  I suppose all records [and astrological predictions] were meant to be broken.

I will say this, I won't be surprised if Romney pulls this out.  It's a long shot, and the evidence is strong that Obama is indeed ahead, but I won't be surprised if there is an upset.  We'll all see on Election Day.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#10 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:14 PM

Quote

As for voter suppression, it was a Republican official who declared that voter ID laws would deliver his state to Romney, not me.
Sounds like this Republican official believes(as I do)that taking steps to ensue every vote is a legal one...indeed favors the GOP. But of course, under today's truly sick political rubric...asking for an ID is a sinister and racist attempt to steal elections.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#11 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:26 PM

Most people do not object to requiring some form of identification at the polls.   What people do object to is a well funded, coordinated effort on the far right to impose a new requirement designed (as you say) to favor Republicans a) without sufficiently communicating its existence to the public and b) without providing a means for people who have voted legally all their lives to meet the new standard in time to exercise their franchise in this election.  

That feels like a gotcha!, and with good reason.  Because it is one.  (Especially when taken in concert with all the other efforts by Republican-aligned groups and efforts, e.g., True the Vote.)

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#12 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

As a triple air sign, I can support the legitimate intent of voter I.D. laws, but want them to be enforced on future elections, perhaps not this one, and have methods for the poor to get required documents without paying a dime.

Even without being a social conservative, I am not shocked that many religious people oppose abortion, SSM, etc. Nor am I shocked that liberals support liberal policies, or even policiees and rules that make it more likely for more liberals to get elected.
Redistricting falls into that category on both sides of the aisle.

While some liberals and conservatives are occasionally both stupid and evil, it is an emotional trap to indulge thinking "They just beleive that because they are stupid and/or evil."
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#13 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

Quote

Most people do not object to requiring some form of identification at the polls.   What people do object to is a well funded, coordinated effort on the far right...
Look at that... 74% of the country are on the "far right".
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#14 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:56 PM

Quote

...to impose a new requirement designed (as you say) to favor Republicans
So when upholding the law "favors Republicans"...the law becomes a sinister instrument of dark forces.

Getting weird now...

Edited by scherzo, 03 November 2012 - 07:56 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#15 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:03 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 03 November 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

As a triple air sign,

Really?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#16 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:06 PM

View PostCait, on 03 November 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

View PostDarthMarley, on 03 November 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

As a triple air sign,

Really?

Unless that witch who turned me into a newt was really a fraud.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#17 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:08 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 03 November 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

View PostCait, on 03 November 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

View PostDarthMarley, on 03 November 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

As a triple air sign,

Really?

Unless that witch who turned me into a newt was really a fraud.

Well, there's always that possibility.  ;)  I won't ask for personal information, but what air signs are involved in the triplicity?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#18 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:10 PM

I really don't know. I may have provided a wrong time of birth, and only be a dual air sign, with the other probably being fire.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#19 Mr. Synystyr

Mr. Synystyr

    Watching from the shadows...

  • Islander
  • 459 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:58 PM

View Postscherzo, on 03 November 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Sounds like this Republican official believes(as I do)that taking steps to ensue every vote is a legal one...indeed favors the GOP. But of course, under today's truly sick political rubric...asking for an ID is a sinister and racist attempt to steal elections.

If there were evidence of Democratic voter fraud, I would agree with you.  As things are....
Feel the velvet darkness caressing you...

#20 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:50 PM

You can't have a democracy without free and fair elections.  Period.  

The integrity of the voting system is probably *the* most important thing we must fight to protect.  Whether your preferred candidate wins or loses, we're going to do this all over again in 4 years.  (and 2 for the house... 6 for the senate, maybe 2 or 4 for the other senator, etc, but you know what I mean)

View PostDarthMarley, on 03 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

There are ballot and voting machine irregularities, and some favor the Dems.

Can anybody anywhere give me a good reason why we ought to have voting "machines?"  Any transaction that matters in the business world either has an extensive paper trail or is publicly tracked by multiple entities and it's all audited, audited again, and then archived for future audits.  What's so hard about counting paper ballots?  Yeah, we might have to wait a few days for the final certified results, but it's still extremely doable.

I realize that paper isn't immune to tampering, but it's a lot harder to rig an election by stuffing ballot boxes with thousands of bogus ballots than it is to flip thousands of bits on a memory chip.  And it's a lot easier to identify the fraud when there's something that can physically be sifted through if the need arises.

The ease with which these supposedly secure voting systems have been tampered with should terrify everyone.

Quote

The myth of "voter suppression" cannot withstand honest scrutiny. Requiring I.D. is not voter suppression.

I'm with Scott.  I have no problem with requiring ID in order to vote... provided:
-Those who have voted their whole lives without IDs have ample warning and time to get the IDs they need
-Those who must now get IDs can actually do so (Puerto Rico birth certificate issue comes to mind)
-There's a no-cost means by which they can obtain these IDs.

View Postscherzo, on 03 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Quote

Most people do not object to requiring some form of identification at the polls.   What people do object to is a well funded, coordinated effort on the far right...
Look at that... 74% of the country are on the "far right".

He just said that most people (including myself) don't object to requiring ID.  Your link confirms as much.  The only thing I object to is pushing new requirements through right before a major election.  Phase it in by notifying and giving people ample opportunity to acquire whatever IDs they need, and you'll have no argument from me.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Nate Silver, Elections, 2012, 538 blog, NYTimes

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users