A response to Pres. Obama's swipe at Rand

[painter]

If we're going to judge presidents on their athleticism I think I'll pick Bush for my team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSIwBWiPoU

 

[Avarence]

Nate Silver's forecasting has always been wildly pro-Obama... take 538 with a grain of salt.
That said, it does essentially come down to Ohio - which Obama has a good chance of winning.

Still, the last-minute affect could aid Romney in Ohio.
I'd say the odds are 60-40 in favor of Obama at the moment.

 

[ManAbout]

Still, the last-minute affect could aid Romney in Ohio.
I'd say the odds are 60-40 in favor of Obama at the moment.

Not gonna happen. O has the Mo.

Even the right's favourite pollster Rasmussen has the race tied today.

 

[megatron]

If we're going to judge presidents on their athleticism I think I'll pick Bush for my team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSIwBWiPoU

Heh. Bush was a jerkoff who went back on everything he stood for during his initial campaign (small government, no nation building, etc). but damn, that right there is an embarassing display by Obama "the Alpha." :dodgy:

 

[Menace]

I want Judge Judy to be president.

 

[Nineteen84]

I've got a feeling we're going to be in for a big surprise with this election

 

[Snok]

There can be a surprise, and there is ca 25% chance of a surprise.
Betfair's odds is the most accurate for these things. Its easy to call it an even race when talking to someone, but when you have to put your money where your mouth is, everything changes. Therefore the accuracy of the odds.

I bet a whole lot on Obama at 1.47 and will trade out some at 1.3.

But don’t really fear for my bet anyway. Even if there is some big cooperation’s trying to manipulate in favor of Romeny, I think most people are responsible enough to avoid another republican in office. The worldwide tragedy when Bush was in charge will not easily be forgotten.

 

[Snok]

The Economist just did as well.

But... but.. Romney is a big business man, he has made himself fabulously wealthy. He will be good for the economy. He knows how to trickle down stuff. How can they endorse Obama, who isn't qualified to be dog catcher, over one of the business titans of the century? :huh:

Being a business man would be an disadvantage in the country I live in and also in most western and northern european countries.

Why is it seen as an advantage in USA?

The principles of running a state and a buisness is very different.

 

[megatron]

Ayn Rand was a woman. When has a woman ever developed a coherent philosophical theory? It's just not in them.

She was a Russian (Jewish) woman, from the first half of the century: both reasons why she was much more logical than the typical American feminist-inspired chick.

You are aware that many prominent feminists have been Jewish women?

Gloria Steinem
Andrea Dworkin AKA "all men are rapists."
and many more.

Yes, and several prominent anti-feminists, Christina Hoff Summers for example, are also Jewish.

You can put Judge Judy in there too.

 

[kosko]

Bush is a political hack like the rest of them. No point arguing that he never followed through on his promises... none of them do.

Bush was (for a political silver spooned American Aristocrat) most definitely Alpha as hell.

That is the one reason I am balkish on Obama. Americans don't like Betas-in-cheif. They can smell one a mile away and boot him out after one term.

 

[megatron]

Bush is a political hack like the rest of them. No point arguing that he never followed through on his promises... none of them do.

Bush was (for a political silver spooned American Aristocrat) most definitely Alpha as hell.

That is the one reason I am balkish on Obama. Americans don't like Betas-in-cheif. They can smell one a mile away and boot him out after one term.

but but he's got this really awesome pimp walk, he must be an alpha!

 

[thegmanifesto]

Bush is a political hack like the rest of them. No point arguing that he never followed through on his promises... none of them do.

Bush was (for a political silver spooned American Aristocrat) most definitely Alpha as hell.

That is the one reason I am balkish on Obama. Americans don't like Betas-in-cheif. They can smell one a mile away and boot him out after one term.

Can male cheerleaders really be "alpha"?

The bar for alpha seems really low these days.

 

[megatron]

Bush is a political hack like the rest of them. No point arguing that he never followed through on his promises... none of them do.

Bush was (for a political silver spooned American Aristocrat) most definitely Alpha as hell.

That is the one reason I am balkish on Obama. Americans don't like Betas-in-cheif. They can smell one a mile away and boot him out after one term.

Can male cheerleaders really be "alpha"?

The bar for alpha seems really low these days.

he's a captain of industry with a hot wife (for an older chick) and progeny of children in a patriarchial religion (one of the very few left in the Western World). Yeah, I'd say that supercedes any claims of "beta."

And this is coming from someone who thinks he's a war mongering, corporatist dickbag (just like your boy Barrack).

 

[Katatonic]

If we're going to judge presidents on their athleticism I think I'll pick Bush for my team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSIwBWiPoU

Heh. Bush was a jerkoff who went back on everything he stood for during his initial campaign (small government, no nation building, etc). but damn, that right there is an embarassing display by Obama "the Alpha." :dodgy:

Exactly, which is why I'm baffled that there is so much love for Obama out there. Obama can easily be defined as a neoconservative, yet partisan apologists (which this board has no shortage of) blissfully overlook that fact. The motherfucker lied about everything.

 

[Excelsior]

Nate Silver's forecasting has always been wildly pro-Obama... take 538 with a grain of salt.

These attempts to paint Nate Silver as some sort of leftist partisan are misplaced. The reality is that Silver's model is the most accurate we have available. It is based on solid mathematical fundamentals and has a proven track record of effectiveness, not just in politics (2008 election and 2008 senate races, 2010 elections, etc) but also in Baseball, Football, and a host of other sports.

If you're going to take 538 with a grain of salt, then that's fine-I think Silver will agree with that, hence his use of confidence intervals with his projections. But that grain of salt should be much smaller than the one you take when looking at any other model or projection.

That said, it does essentially come down to Ohio - which Obama has a good chance of winning.

Still, the last-minute affect could aid Romney in Ohio.
I'd say the odds are 60-40 in favor of Obama at the moment.

Silver (who has done a much more comprehensive analysis of the polling in the state while taking into account several mitigating factors) puts the odds at 80-20 in favor of Obama.

 

[thegmanifesto]

Bush is a political hack like the rest of them. No point arguing that he never followed through on his promises... none of them do.

Bush was (for a political silver spooned American Aristocrat) most definitely Alpha as hell.

That is the one reason I am balkish on Obama. Americans don't like Betas-in-cheif. They can smell one a mile away and boot him out after one term.

Can male cheerleaders really be "alpha"?

The bar for alpha seems really low these days.

he's a captain of industry with a hot wife (for an older chick) and progeny of children in a patriarchial religion (one of the very few left in the Western World). Yeah, I'd say that supercedes any claims of "beta."

And this is coming from someone who thinks he's a war mongering, corporatist dickbag (just like your boy Barrack).

In my book anyone who was a male cheerleader, is automatically borderline gay at best.

I mean we have to draw the line somewhere don't we?

If we don't, pretty soon guys on here are going to start calling male secretaries "alpha".

 

[painter]

I'll give Obama this, he definitely knows how to live it up! I was wondering how he could spend more in one term than every other president combined but it makes sense now. All that's missing is for Michelle to tell us to eat cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEcZ9G6rW-g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[porscheguy]

Nate Silver's forecasting has always been wildly pro-Obama... take 538 with a grain of salt.

These attempts to paint Nate Silver as some sort of leftist partisan are misplaced. The reality is that Silver's model is the most accurate we have available. It is based on solid mathematical fundamentals and has a proven track record of effectiveness, not just in politics (2008 election and 2008 senate races, 2010 elections, etc) but also in Baseball, Football, and a host of other sports.

If you're going to take 538 with a grain of salt, then that's fine-I think Silver will agree with that, hence his use of confidence intervals with his projections. But that grain of salt should be much smaller than the one you take when looking at any other model or projection.

That said, it does essentially come down to Ohio - which Obama has a good chance of winning.

Still, the last-minute affect could aid Romney in Ohio.
I'd say the odds are 60-40 in favor of Obama at the moment.

Silver (who has done a much more comprehensive analysis of the polling in the state while taking into account several mitigating factors) puts the odds at 80-20 in favor of Obama.

You're wasting your breath/keystrokes to explain how/why Nate Silver's methods are overall pretty solid and how he was able to score almost pinpoint accuracy with his predictions in the past 3 or 4 election cycles.

I've said the very same thing on this site, to someone just last week. As I expected, I got no response. You won't get one either. Some people don't like his predictions, and therefore, they dispute them and claim he's some kind of liberal conspiracy.

 

[ElJefe]

These attempts to paint Nate Silver as some sort of leftist partisan are misplaced. The reality is that Silver's model is the most accurate we have available. It is based on solid mathematical fundamentals and has a proven track record of effectiveness, not just in politics (2008 election and 2008 senate races, 2010 elections, etc) but also in Baseball, Football, and a host of other sports.

If you're going to take 538 with a grain of salt, then that's fine-I think Silver will agree with that, hence his use of confidence intervals with his projections. But that grain of salt should be much smaller than the one you take when looking at any other model or projection.

That said, it does essentially come down to Ohio - which Obama has a good chance of winning.

Still, the last-minute affect could aid Romney in Ohio.
I'd say the odds are 60-40 in favor of Obama at the moment.

Silver (who has done a much more comprehensive analysis of the polling in the state while taking into account several mitigating factors) puts the odds at 80-20 in favor of Obama.

You're wasting your breath/keystrokes to explain how/why Nate Silver's methods are overall pretty solid and how he was able to score almost pinpoint accuracy with his predictions in the past 3 or 4 election cycles.

I've said the very same thing on this site, to someone just last week. As I expected, I got no response. You won't get one either. Some people don't like his predictions, and therefore, they dispute them and claim he's some kind of liberal conspiracy.

I linked to two articles further up that offered interesting critique of Silver's model. I suggest you read them in order to moderate your double standards.

I'm not saying Romney is going to win, but it's fool-hardy to think this is in the bag for Obama. I'm too timid to call it, but the blind and uncritical worshipping of Silver by liberals is as bad as the uninformed criticism from bigoted conservatives. The articles I link to are pretty interesting, but if you know enough statistics (at the graduate level) and are familiar with Silver's model you can completely refute those arguments, I'd sure love to know why.

 

[porscheguy]

These attempts to paint Nate Silver as some sort of leftist partisan are misplaced. The reality is that Silver's model is the most accurate we have available. It is based on solid mathematical fundamentals and has a proven track record of effectiveness, not just in politics (2008 election and 2008 senate races, 2010 elections, etc) but also in Baseball, Football, and a host of other sports.

If you're going to take 538 with a grain of salt, then that's fine-I think Silver will agree with that, hence his use of confidence intervals with his projections. But that grain of salt should be much smaller than the one you take when looking at any other model or projection.

That said, it does essentially come down to Ohio - which Obama has a good chance of winning.

Still, the last-minute affect could aid Romney in Ohio.
I'd say the odds are 60-40 in favor of Obama at the moment.

Silver (who has done a much more comprehensive analysis of the polling in the state while taking into account several mitigating factors) puts the odds at 80-20 in favor of Obama.

You're wasting your breath/keystrokes to explain how/why Nate Silver's methods are overall pretty solid and how he was able to score almost pinpoint accuracy with his predictions in the past 3 or 4 election cycles.

I've said the very same thing on this site, to someone just last week. As I expected, I got no response. You won't get one either. Some people don't like his predictions, and therefore, they dispute them and claim he's some kind of liberal conspiracy.

I linked to two articles further up that offered interesting critique of Silver's model. I suggest you read them in order to moderate your double standards.

I'm not saying Romney is going to win, but it's fool-hardy to think this is in the bag for Obama. I'm too timid to call it, but the blind and uncritical worshipping of Silver by liberals is as bad as the uninformed criticism from bigoted conservatives. The articles I link to are pretty interesting, but if you know enough statistics (at the graduate level) and are familiar with Silver's model you can completely refute those arguments, I'd sure love to know why.

And I'm going to tell you to go back and look at Nate Silver's predictions in '06, '08, and '10, and then come back here and continue to disagree. I find it ironic that no conservative took issue with him in '10 because he accurately predicted numerous Republican victories. But now you all consider him to be a part of some great liberal conspiracy because he's making predictions you don't like. And what happens next Tuesday and Wednesday as the results come in and once again prove the accuracy of his predictions. What will you say then?

You can discredit the guy any way you want. But look at his past track record.