• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rove calls it for Romney

LOL @ the idea Silver would lose his job if Romney wins. The guy has made his name. He will continue to be employed. Hell, he'll probably get to replace Snuffalofagus on Meet The Press.
 
it's not like Silver is saying it's 100% for Obama. He'll still have a job, likely with NYT, even if Romney wins. If that happens then he'll likely be able to tweak his methodology and hopefully improve it before the next go around
 
DeacLaw05 said:
Really the only conclusion I can draw from reading this thread is that of all of those that are polling the electorate or taking positions regarding the likely outcome of the election, Nate Silver is the only one whose professional reputation is riding on the outcome of his predictions, and thus he is the only person likely to tell the truth. Amrite?
Click to expand...

It's not like we're talking about Silver vs. some genius Republican statistician with a great track record who is also collating and weighting all the polls. It's Silver vs. the gut feeling of Karl Rove. At best, it's Silver vs. Rasmussen.
 
Well at least when the election is over someone will have to eat some crow. Either the Silver defenders or the Silver attackers. My personal opinion is that Silver is somewhat biased and that it is reflected in his numbers. Does this mean that I think Romney is going to win? No - but I do think it is close. It really all comes down to Ohio. Right now Obama has a slight advantage, but election days are funny things. Sometimes the person with the advantage doesn't win. I think Silver knows what he is doing, and I think he also knows that he has some influence on voters. Go's post regarding the weighting of scales pretty clearly outlines some inconsistent weighting of the polls. There is no sense in weighting a poll 2 weeks ago more than a poll 2 days ago when they are conducted by the same polling agency. To me that is pretty clear evidence of him cooking the numbers a bit to prop up his guy. Momentum and polls matter in elections. Since the 1st debate momentum has been on Romney's side. He was WAY back at that point but he has made up a lot of ground. If a guy like Silver suddenly shows a 50/50 race it is going to supercharge the Republican base even more because they are clearly dying for positive information.

I think this election is going to come down to the wire, and in my head I feel Obama just barely holds on. But I think it is ridiculously close in a lot of states, and I think Romney probably gets VA, NC, FL, and CO to go to his count.
 
I don't think Wrangor is dumb, but the fact is that pretty much everybody except Karl Rove's gut feeling has the odds on an Obama victory. Even Real Clear Politics has Obama getting to 290.
 
It is such a blessing to be able to ignore a poster. But I also expect Obama to get to almost 290, Deacon923. I think it will come down to Ohio with the winner taking home the victory. I predict Romney will be in the Mid 250s at that point and Obama will be in the Mid 260's (I am not working out all the little scenarios to get an exact number but based on the polling I have looked at that is what I expect. If Obama wins he will be sitting somewhere north of 280 and south of 290 in my opinion. If Romney wins he will squeak out a victory with a margin less than 10.

It all comes down to Ohio. If Romney's last 2 weeks of work there have been able to swing the tide or motivate some usual stay at home voters then Romney could pull it out. Chances are that Obama will take Ohio by a slim margin and retain the presidency. No way that either winner of Ohio has a margin of victory of 5% in my opinion.
 
Wrangor said:
Well at least when the election is over someone will have to eat some crow. Either the Silver defenders or the Silver attackers.
Click to expand...

Silver has Romney at a 20% chance of winning, how does a win mean his defenders will have to eat crow?
 
And there we have the deflection even before the result.

If you give someone a 1 in 5 chance of winning, and they win that means you seriously underestimated their chances of winning. If you give someone a 40% chance of winning and they win that means nothing, because you almost gave them a coin flip chance to win. 20% is basically saying the guy has no chance.
 
Wrangor said:
And there we have the deflection even before the result.

If you give someone a 1 in 5 chance of winning, and they win that means you seriously underestimated their chances of winning. If you give someone a 40% chance of winning and they win that means nothing, because you almost gave them a coin flip chance to win. 20% is basically saying the guy has no chance.
Click to expand...

No, 0% is saying the guy has no chance. 20% is saying he has a small chance.
 
Wrangor said:
And there we have the deflection even before the result.

If you give someone a 1 in 5 chance of winning, and they win that means you seriously underestimated their chances of winning. If you give someone a 40% chance of winning and they win that means nothing, because you almost gave them a coin flip chance to win. 20% is basically saying the guy has no chance.
Click to expand...

See guys?
 
BeachBumDeac said:
No, 0% is saying the guy has no chance. 20% is saying he has a small chance.
Click to expand...

Yes. What it says is Nate (and e-v.com, RCP, Sabato...) could all have bad models. The polls and their predictions are at least somewhat based on projected turnout based on past turnouts. They could all be off. Or more of 1 party than the other could just fail to show up on Tuesday. This isn't 1984, or even 2008 for that matter. It's closer. Just not as close as it was last week when Nate and others had Obama's % in the 60s instead of high 70s. The last few days of polling and news stories have not been good for Romney.
 
cville deac said:
Yes. What it says is Nate (and e-v.com, RCP, Sabato...) could all have bad models. The polls and their predictions are at least somewhat based on projected turnout based on past turnouts. They could all be off. Or more of 1 party than the other could just fail to show up on Tuesday. This isn't 1984, or even 2008 for that matter. It's closer. Just not as close as it was last week when Nate and others had Obama's % in the 60s instead of high 70s. The last few days of polling and news stories have not been good for Romney.
Click to expand...

I think the news has not been good for Romney in Ohio but it has been decent in Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Hampshire. Not that I think he will win all (or any) of those states but it does point to a Wednesday morning where I would not be shocked if we have a President Elect Romney. He has more paths than just Ohio...although the others are a tougher road.
 
20% is hardly statistically insignificant. If it was a poll where he predicted Obama would get 80% of the vote, then yeah, he'd be saying Romney had no chance. But that's not the argument.

And I'm not some die hard Nate Silver fan. I don't follow the polls at all, really. I just follow Silver because he boils all the many polls down to a language I can understand - math.
 
Shoo might be the biggest asshole on this website...with apologies to Milhouse who wants to be, but is too funny to garner the title.

And apologies to DV&7, who I would have included if he wasn't so invested in this ponzi scheme! And why hasn't someone made the parody Bernie "DV7" Madoff?
 
Last edited:
I think I have to agree with Rove. I live in a middle-class neighborhood. Counting yard signs on my runs, I've noticed around a 60-40 split for Romney. As of last night, nearly all of the Obama supporters (including me) decided to pull up our yard signs and throw them away somewhere far away. All the Romney signs are still up.

That puts the neighborhoods around me at 86-14. It's amazing how quickly things can change.
 
TR1982 said:
The only thing more amusing than the idea that Silver is intentionally skewing his numbers for Obama is the idea that his model is flawless. The same people who challenge Republicans to present proof that there is a flaw in his methodology can only bring up his performance in 2008 and the fact that he has a blog on the New York Times website as evidence that his model is actually any good. Guess what? Rasmussen had a nearly flawless 2008. I don't see you guys falling over yourselves to show the flaws in his methodology. And while there may be some, his polling methods overall undoubtedly hold up to the same low level of scrutiny you guys subject Silver's model to.
Click to expand...


Rasmussen was consistently off by 2-3 points to right, then dove toward Obama just before the election. They were accurate then, however.

I've yet to hear an argument that Silver's model is flawless. It's just rigorous, and better than his competitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top