I thought this was pretty interesting: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-can-that-be-more-on-the-they-cant-both-be-right-saga/264024/
What do you all make of it? What are the consequences in either case?
If it looks like either American left or right have to be perceiving reality in a highly alternative way, my money's on the left having it closer to the bullseye. Sometimes past performance does predict future behavior.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2012, 01:02:40 AM
If it looks like either American left or right have to be perceiving reality in a highly alternative way, my money's on the left having it closer to the bullseye. Sometimes past performance does predict future behavior.
Reality is that the votes(well, most of them) haven't been cast yet, and all the polls are showing a nearly even split yet again. Of course, even if their guy was behind 10 points, pundits and party operatives would be publicly optimistic about their chances.
Yeah, if you're a public figure (or better yet involved with either campaign) you can't be negative about your own side's chances in these things-- otherwise you'll depress your own side's vote and lessen your chances. On the other hand, you have to keep your voters and donors 'scared' just enough so that they'll make sure to vote/donate.
The reality is that despite all of James Fallows's protestations, he's still in the bag for Barry, and he's a partisan hack.
Do most people not understand how probability forecasts work? Yes, including many people doing those forecasts.
The reality is that elections have become big business with big money. Those people raking in the cash have to make it appear close so that more money is spent. And, like what was previously stated, you have to have swings back and forth to scare donors and encourage more spending.
There has been more argument about polls and how to interpret them and probability models in this election than in any before it, that much is for sure.
A big part of it is an intrinsic misunderstanding of what it means when Nate Silver says Obama's likelihood of carrying 270+ electoral votes on e-day is say, 65% or 70%. Some people just can't in their mind grasp that this means essentially that in Silver's model, Romney still wins 3-3.5 times out of 10. A lot of people on the left are exaggerating what such a probability means, for one, and them some people on the right are rejecting the whole premise of probability modeling and just keep repeating "it's a close election." I don't really like Nate Silver on a personal level, but even his own model considers 60% probability or less to essentially be a "tossup" (and that kind of almost literally makes sense), so the representation of his percent probability as being a sign of an election that "won't be close" is more the lefties who have run with those numbers to a place where those numbers don't lead.
I recall a while ago OvB mentioning how models come and go, being able to perfectly predict the past, but then failing to predict the next election, and going away. Turns out Nate Silver is very keenly aware of the problem of overfitting: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/models-can-be-superficial-in-politics-too/ . This is a very good layman explanation of the pretty subtle but fatal error a statistician can commit.
My confidence in Nate Silver has gone up even higher. Sure, his model may still get it wrong (though I think it's least likely among all candidates to do so), but at least it won't get it wrong because of him being a statistics noob.
As is typical DGuller failed to understand my earlier point. Models like the Fair Model have not failed to predict elections because their creators were "statistics noobs." Professor Fair is a statistics professor at Yale. They have failed to always be right because no model is always going to be right.
The first job of the model is to not always be right in predicting the future, that's impossible. Its job is to be least wrong out of all the alternatives on average.
It's also worth mentioning Silver is different from Fair. Fair looks at economic data and tries to correlate it to election results, with good success generally but over the years (he's been at it a lot longer than Silver) his model has been wrong.
Silver basically creates probabilities based on polling. But any student of history is aware that periodically there is "massive polling fail", since any serious model based on aggregating and analyzing polls is going to be spitting out numbers based on how those polls have worked in the past anytime there is a large deviation between the polls and the actual result these models will break down. In 2008 Obama won comfortably in almost every State he won, and the polls more or less had reflected that.
Fair has been doing his gig since 1980, Silver had one really good election and it was not a hotly contested election. If Silver gets 49 out of 50 States in 2012 I'll be a lot more impressed, but the reality is an honest Silver would probably admit that such a result would be luck, that every "coin flip" in all 50 States went for his most likely result. Any statistician would admit that is in fact, unlikely.
FWIW I'm a lot more impressed with Fair's models because he actually makes real predictions of popular vote totals. Silver just signs his name to "probabilities" of a candidate winning a given State and a candidate winning the overall election. Fair's model is thus a lot more aggressive in what it is trying to predict, it's a true prediction model whereas Silver is basically the equivalent of someone who sets the odds at a horse race.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2012, 01:26:51 PM
Silver basically creates probabilities based on polling. But any student of history is aware that periodically there is "massive polling fail", since any serious model based on aggregating and analyzing polls is going to be spitting out numbers based on how those polls have worked in the past anytime there is a large deviation between the polls and the actual result these models will break down. In 2008 Obama won comfortably in almost every State he won, and the polls more or less had reflected that.
Fair point, but the science of polling has advanced very far as well. You have way more polls now, the results of which if used correctly would give a better estimate. You also have polls that are much better designed than in the past. IMO, the big reason why polls in the past failed to predict the results sometimes is because polls in the past were very poorly designed. Take Gallup: they don't know their ass from their face, and yet they're the ones who are the venerable pollsters, and whose numbers are often looked at throughout time.
QuoteFair has been doing his gig since 1980, Silver had one really good election and it was not a hotly contested election. If Silver gets 49 out of 50 States in 2012 I'll be a lot more impressed, but the reality is an honest Silver would probably admit that such a result would be luck, that every "coin flip" in all 50 States went for his most likely result. Any statistician would admit that is in fact, unlikely.
Silver did state as much numerous times. If you call every single state as a 60% likely to vote for Obama, and Obama wins all 50 states, you technically did call all 50 state results correctly. However, you nevertheless did a very horrible job handicapping them, because Obama was supposed to win only 30 of those state if you did the math correctly. *
* This is a simplification, because state results are almost assuredly not independent from each other, but that would muddy up the point.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2012, 12:11:44 PM
I don't really like Nate Silver on a personal level
Is it the New York Times thing? The Jew thing? Or is it the PECOTA thing? It certainly can't be his academic pedigree from Chicago.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2012, 01:28:25 PM
FWIW I'm a lot more impressed with Fair's models because he actually makes real predictions of popular vote totals. Silver just signs his name to "probabilities" of a candidate winning a given State and a candidate winning the overall election. Fair's model is thus a lot more aggressive in what it is trying to predict, it's a true prediction model whereas Silver is basically the equivalent of someone who sets the odds at a horse race.
Aggressive is not necessarily good. A competent statistician is as confident as the data lets him be, and not more than that. It may sound like hedging, but reality is uncertain, and overconfidence doesn't really change that.
I'm going to trust Dguller here. This is the kind of stuff he's trained for.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 01:37:07 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2012, 12:11:44 PM
I don't really like Nate Silver on a personal level
Is it the New York Times thing? The Jew thing? Or is it the PECOTA thing? It certainly can't be his academic pedigree from Chicago.
The New York Times thing for sure, I'm fine with his academic and Jewish background. Anyone prominently cheerleading Obama I dislike, simple as that. His history as a sabermetrician also means on a personal level he's probably a douchebag. I like sabermetrics and think they are a better way to analyze ballplayers, but at the same time I've never liked the bloodless and smarmy nerds who make up the rank of sabermetrician and seem to revel in taking all casual fun out of the game.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2012, 04:25:09 PM
but at the same time I've never liked the bloodless and smarmy nerds who make up the rank of sabermetrician and seem to revel in taking all casual fun out of the game.
:lol:
Gawker seems to like this Silver fella, so I now hate him.
Gawker = Kiss of death to me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 04:34:37 PM
Gawker seems to like this Silver fella, so I now hate him.
Gawker = Kiss of death to me.
What the hell is this Gawker thing?
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2012, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 04:34:37 PM
Gawker seems to like this Silver fella, so I now hate him.
Gawker = Kiss of death to me.
What the hell is this Gawker thing?
New Yorkers. Homos. Plus the most annoying of thier sites, Jezebel. Which is inflamed vaginas whining about evil men.
Quote from: Scipio on November 02, 2012, 09:12:06 AM
The reality is that despite all of James Fallows's protestations, he's still in the bag for Barry, and he's a partisan hack.
This is massive fucking bullshit. Fallow's coverage from China was some of the best reporting I've read on the country. He's not a lefty Tucker Carlson. Get real.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 02, 2012, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 02, 2012, 09:12:06 AM
The reality is that despite all of James Fallows's protestations, he's still in the bag for Barry, and he's a partisan hack.
This is massive fucking bullshit. Fallow's coverage from China was some of the best reporting I've read on the country. He's not a lefty Tucker Carlson. Get real.
I'm sorry. His reference to Rove as "Rover"? Is that serious journalism? I didn't realize calling political operatives names didn't violate journalistic ethics. No, wait, I'm pretty sure that in my fucking high-school journalism class we learned that people's names were to be printed as they themselves spell them, in order to preserve journalistic integrity. And don't give me that typographical error shit.
Fallows is a partisan hack. His China coverage had no partisan angle, because both parties fear the Yellow Peril, and are thus equally racist when it comes to the Chicoms.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2012, 04:25:09 PMI like sabermetrics and think they are a better way to analyze ballplayers, but at the same time I've never liked the bloodless and smarmy nerds who make up the rank of sabermetrician and seem to revel in taking all casual fun out of the game.
I feel the same about people like Silver writing about politics.
I also don't like Nate Silver on a personal level. I've only seen him once or twice on TV but he annoys me a lot. Arrogant and smug <_<
Nate Silver was a high-school debater from a wealthy white suburb in Michigan. So you can all dislike him for that, too.
Quote from: Scipio on November 02, 2012, 09:04:10 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 02, 2012, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 02, 2012, 09:12:06 AM
The reality is that despite all of James Fallows's protestations, he's still in the bag for Barry, and he's a partisan hack.
This is massive fucking bullshit. Fallow's coverage from China was some of the best reporting I've read on the country. He's not a lefty Tucker Carlson. Get real.
I'm sorry. His reference to Rove as "Rover"? Is that serious journalism? I didn't realize calling political operatives names didn't violate journalistic ethics. No, wait, I'm pretty sure that in my fucking high-school journalism class we learned that people's names were to be printed as they themselves spell them, in order to preserve journalistic integrity. And don't give me that typographical error shit.
Fallows is a partisan hack. His China coverage had no partisan angle, because both parties fear the Yellow Peril, and are thus equally racist when it comes to the Chicoms.
I'm pretty sure his cover article for The Atlantic on the debates predicted Romney's sizeable victory, and was generally held in as high a regard as anything this election.
He's slanted, maybe, but partisan hack is a term I reserve for Michael Moore or Ed Helms. He's a genuine intellectual. I don't really give a fuck what he called Karl Rove.
Sheilbh, a lot of the criticism of Silver makes me really uncomfortable. He's gay, Jewish and not particularly charismatic. A lot of the Republican "he's not a real man" shtick has a Der Stürmer vibe.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 02, 2012, 10:16:33 PM
Sheilbh, a lot of the criticism of Silver makes me really uncomfortable. He's gay, Jewish and not particularly charismatic. A lot of the Republican "he's not a real man" shtick has a Der Stürmer vibe.
I didn't know he was gay, though he does have a slight gay vicar vibe to him - though so do I and so does Nigel Slater and I love him. For me I think he's with Klein and Yglesias. Their tone, when they write, or when they're on TV is arrogant and unpleasantly so, they come across contemptuous.
They're young Turks. Yglesias has a sense of humor and an intellect that's substantially broader than most politicos, and I like that he is friends with Reihan. I think his blog on TP was substantially better than his current arrangement, too. Slate is truly awful.
Too bad Silver is quite unattractive.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2012, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 02, 2012, 04:34:37 PM
Gawker seems to like this Silver fella, so I now hate him.
Gawker = Kiss of death to me.
What the hell is this Gawker thing?
New Yorkers. Homos. Plus the most annoying of thier sites, Jezebel. Which is inflamed vaginas whining about evil men.
Both are just awful. Although I think unfortunately the gif link I liked about reactions to the hurricane was on jezebel. -_-
It was. :blush:
http://updates.jezebel.com/post/34765568302/a-new-yorkers-hurricane-experience-as-told-through
IMO, I believe this country will see an armed insurrection in my lifetime.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 03, 2012, 01:30:53 AM
IMO, I believe this country will see an armed insurrection in my lifetime.
I believe that's a strong possibility as well. It seems like half of Americans are living in an increasingly different reality from the other half, and in the long run the potential is there for tensions to boil over. In the age of cable news networks and Internet, there is enough information out there that anyone can cherrypick enough of it to reinforce their echo chambers.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 03, 2012, 01:30:53 AM
IMO, I believe this country will see an armed insurrection in my lifetime.
Trigger/conditions?
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 01:37:49 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 03, 2012, 01:30:53 AM
IMO, I believe this country will see an armed insurrection in my lifetime.
I believe that's a strong possibility as well. It seems like half of Americans are living in an increasingly different reality from the other half, and in the long run the potential is there for tensions to boil over. In the age of cable news networks and Internet, there is enough information out there that anyone can cherrypick enough of it to reinforce their echo chambers.
If they live in a different reality how could they affect the rest of us?
Depending on the scope there have already been a few. Waco for instance.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2012, 10:33:07 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 02, 2012, 10:16:33 PM
Sheilbh, a lot of the criticism of Silver makes me really uncomfortable. He's gay, Jewish and not particularly charismatic. A lot of the Republican "he's not a real man" shtick has a Der Stürmer vibe.
I didn't know he was gay, though he does have a slight gay vicar vibe to him - though so do I and so does Nigel Slater and I love him. For me I think he's with Klein and Yglesias. Their tone, when they write, or when they're on TV is arrogant and unpleasantly so, they come across contemptuous.
I wasn't accusing you of homophobia, but rather that I think a lot of the specific rhetoric used against Silver is really peculiarly nasty.
Quote
Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be.
This is really, really nasty. (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles)
Rude? Yes. Really, really nasty? Seems like a stretch.
Garbon apologizing for raging homophobe conservative. Film at 11.
Not apologizing as it's inappropriate. Just saying that you're doing your typical drama queen thing.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2012, 03:26:35 PM
Not apologizing as it's inappropriate. Just saying that you're doing your typical drama queen thing.
I think drama queen as a criticism of Spellus is quite constrained. He is after all the guy who crosses the street when he sees a Turk is following him.
Speaking of Silver, he's called the race for Obama, unless all the polls are systematically biased (which he says is a 16% chance).
Quote from: Kleves on November 03, 2012, 05:15:59 PM
Speaking of Silver, he's called the race for Obama, unless all the polls are systematically biased (which he says is a 16% chance).
Hear that, Obama voters? No need to go put and vote now. It's in the bag.
Quote from: Scipio on November 03, 2012, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2012, 03:26:35 PM
Not apologizing as it's inappropriate. Just saying that you're doing your typical drama queen thing.
I think drama queen as a criticism of Spellus is quite constrained. He is after all the guy who crosses the street when he sees a Turk is following him.
:rolleyes:
You remember that I lived there, right?
Must've had to cross a lot of streets.
Why would crossing the street whe someone is following you be a strange reaction, anyway?
I know i would have crossed the street if Spellus was coming.
Wasn't squeelus the one accosted by a pack of 5th graders?
I was in 7th Grade.
Obama's clearly the favorite based on favorable state polls but the margin is so close that Silver or no I'm still only cautiously optimistic.
Fallows is a great and very informative writer. His debate previews are must reads every four years (he was very prescient about what would happen in the first debate). He's also a liberal. There's a difference between having a viewpoint and being a partisan hack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/opinions/outlook-crystal-ball-contest/
Jim Cramer thinks Obama will win 440 electoral votes. :lol:
Otherwise I think this is a fairly good look at the consensus: Obama's favored, Dems likely to retain the Senate, Republicans very likely to retain the House.
Aw who am I kidding I think it'll look like this:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgAs
Take Count's map and give Romney Florida, Virginia and Ohio and he still loses. He *has* to win one of those Western or Midwestern tossup states. That's why he hasn't given up on campaigning in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 03, 2012, 10:07:31 PM
Take Count's map and give Romney Florida, Virginia and Ohio and he still loses. He *has* to win one of those Western or Midwestern tossup states. That's why he hasn't given up on campaigning in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
That's true, but if the polls are wrong and Romney wins nationally by 2 points then he'll win the EC. I would be surprised (and horrified) with another popular / electoral split. I guess on the plus side if the Republicans are screwed this time there might be momentum for changing the system
Quote from: Count on November 03, 2012, 09:50:01 PM
Aw who am I kidding I think it'll look like this:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgAs
I'll bet you a trillion internet quatloos that Romney wins Virginia.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 04, 2012, 12:37:26 AM
Quote from: Count on November 03, 2012, 09:50:01 PM
Aw who am I kidding I think it'll look like this:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgAs
I'll bet you a trillion internet quatloos that Romney wins Virginia.
What odds?
The Economist is reporting that Obama has given up on Florida and yanked most of his resources.
That caught be a bit by surprise. Florida has been the most battlegroundy of battleground states for as long as I can remember.
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this or not, but if Obama wins Ohio and the whole shebang, can anyone else see the parallel between Bush/steel and Obama/autos?
Obama doesn't need Florida to win.
I was going to say Obama/Oil. Prices around here have taken a steep dive.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 04, 2012, 03:44:23 AM
Obama doesn't need Florida to win.
True, but nailing up the coffin makes it harder for the zombie to escape.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 04, 2012, 12:37:26 AM
Quote from: Count on November 03, 2012, 09:50:01 PM
Aw who am I kidding I think it'll look like this:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgAs
I'll bet you a trillion internet quatloos that Romney wins Virginia.
Romney's a slight underdog in Virginia and a slight favorite in Florida.
Quote from: Count on November 03, 2012, 09:24:37 PM
Otherwise I think this is a fairly good look at the consensus: Obama's favored, Dems likely to retain the Senate, Republicans very likely to retain the House.
The sheer amount of money spent for this election on all levels, from the White House to Congress, from the campaigns to the Super PACs...all for a status quo election.
I really hope Romney's Jeep bullshit totally collapses him in Ohio.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 11:48:08 AM
Quote from: Count on November 03, 2012, 09:24:37 PM
Otherwise I think this is a fairly good look at the consensus: Obama's favored, Dems likely to retain the Senate, Republicans very likely to retain the House.
The sheer amount of money spent for this election on all levels, from the White House to Congress, from the campaigns to the Super PACs...all for a status quo election.
there's a lot of money being spent on state attorney general races and judicial elections, too.
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2012_judicial_campaign_spending_exceeds_13_million_surpasses_2010_spending/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
I really hope Romney's Jeep bullshit totally collapses him in Ohio.
What did he do?
Latest Nate Silver post compares pre-election state polls to the results:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/nov-3-romneys-reason-to-play-for-pennsylvania/
I have a question after looking at Silver's site. So per him Romney's chances of winning now (~15% chance) show that Romney is near his all time low in chance to win on Silver's tracker?
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 12:18:40 PM
I have a question after looking at Silver's site. So per him Romney's chances of winning now (~15% chance) show that Romney is near his all time low in chance to win on Silver's tracker?
Yeah, but that's more a function of their being so little time before the election. If the election was held the day before the first debate, Obama's chances would be much higher.
edit: you'll see that if you look at the "now-cast" which tells you what the model thinks would happen if the election happened right now. Before the first debate the now-cast was at almost 100%; now it's only slightly higher than the actual prediction.
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 12:18:40 PM
I have a question after looking at Silver's site. So per him Romney's chances of winning now (~15% chance) show that Romney is near his all time low in chance to win on Silver's tracker?
I think it's what Count says, the percentage shifts as the polls get closer to election day because there's more chance of them tallying to actual votes. So the forecast goes from one that takes into account the potential of intervening events into a more concrete prediction that Obama/Romney will win these states giving a certain result.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
I really hope Romney's Jeep bullshit totally collapses him in Ohio.
That stuff may really resonate in the area where I'm in, where the auto plants got gutted. I don't know how the ex GM and Delphi workers are gonna take it.
Gotcha, thanks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
I really hope Romney's Jeep bullshit totally collapses him in Ohio.
That stuff may really resonate in the area where I'm in, where the auto plants got gutted. I don't know how the ex GM and Delphi workers are gonna take it.
But it's a fucking lie. :lol: The worst he's dropped yet, and there have been some real wing dingers. And when Chrysler, GM and every paper from Detroit to Cleveland call you on your bullshit, you know you've piled it up. :lol:
http://youtu.be/Y-iYRtfOazE
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 01:26:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
I really hope Romney's Jeep bullshit totally collapses him in Ohio.
That stuff may really resonate in the area where I'm in, where the auto plants got gutted. I don't know how the ex GM and Delphi workers are gonna take it.
But it's a fucking lie. :lol: The worst he's dropped yet, and there have been some real wing dingers. And when Chrysler, GM and every paper from Detroit to Cleveland call you on your bullshit, you know you've piled it up. :lol:
http://youtu.be/Y-iYRtfOazE
But not an issue if it resonates. Isn't that how we got Mr. Hope and Change 2008?
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 01:34:02 PM
But not an issue if it resonates. Isn't that how we got Mr. Hope and Change 2008?
Explain, or I'll just take it you're trying to start bullshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 01:35:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 01:34:02 PM
But not an issue if it resonates. Isn't that how we got Mr. Hope and Change 2008?
Explain, or I'll just take it you're trying to start bullshit.
Lying. Both use/used lying in presidential contests.
False equivalency.
How so? Yes one is lying about others and one is lying about self but still lying, no? After all, several have said here that Obama never really planned to do most of the things far out libs wanted / rather than Obama was prevented from doing those things.
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 01:35:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 01:34:02 PM
But not an issue if it resonates. Isn't that how we got Mr. Hope and Change 2008?
Explain, or I'll just take it you're trying to start bullshit.
Lying. Both use/used lying in presidential contests.
So, "Jeep is moving all production to China" is the same as "Hope and Change". You should've gone to law school.
If you don't actually plan to bring hope or change, that's even nor insidious.
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 05:05:15 PM
If you don't actually plan to bring hope or change, that's even nor insidious.
Yeah, "if".
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 05:05:15 PM
If you don't actually plan to bring hope or change, that's even nor insidious.
48.5 million uninsured Americans think it was hopied and changied.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 04:04:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 01:35:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 01:34:02 PM
But not an issue if it resonates. Isn't that how we got Mr. Hope and Change 2008?
Explain, or I'll just take it you're trying to start bullshit.
Lying. Both use/used lying in presidential contests.
So, "Jeep is moving all production to China" is the same as "Hope and Change". You should've gone to law school.
Who said who is moving what where?
Romney, Chrysler motors, jeep production, and China.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 05:05:15 PM
If you don't actually plan to bring hope or change, that's even nor insidious.
48.5 million uninsured Americans think it was hopied and changied.
Meh, some of us are uninsured by choice and want to stay that way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 04:04:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 01:35:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 01:34:02 PM
But not an issue if it resonates. Isn't that how we got Mr. Hope and Change 2008?
Explain, or I'll just take it you're trying to start bullshit.
Lying. Both use/used lying in presidential contests.
So, "Jeep is moving all production to China" is the same as "Hope and Change". You should've gone to law school.
Please no, we have enough scum on this board as it is.
Quote from: dps on November 04, 2012, 08:00:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 05:05:15 PM
If you don't actually plan to bring hope or change, that's even nor insidious.
48.5 million uninsured Americans think it was hopied and changied.
Meh, some of us are uninsured by choice and want to stay that way.
And that's why it's such a great program: so people like us don't have to see insurance rates go up because people like you are too stupid not to go through a windshield.
Quote from: sbr on November 04, 2012, 07:25:58 PM
Who said who is moving what where?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/30/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-obama-chrysler-sold-italians-china-ame/
QuoteThe Truth-O-Meter Says:
Romney
Says Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs.
Mitt Romney says Obama's Chrysler deal undermined U.S. workers
With Ohio's 18 electoral votes very much in play, the Mitt Romney campaign aims to blunt one of Barack Obama's key advantages in that state -- his rescue of the auto industry. The carmakers account for about one out of eight jobs there, and many Ohio assembly line workers are backing Obama for a second term.
The Romney campaign has produced a controversial ad that argues Romney would be better for the auto industry than Obama. In the ad, an announcer says, "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job." Images of cars being crushed accompany those words.
The not-so-subtle message is that American workers have suffered from the Chrysler deal. In this fact check, we examine whether the sale of Chrysler came at the cost of American jobs.
How Fiat got Chrysler
By early 2008, it was clear that GM and Chrysler were teetering. Both firms had huge debts and high costs. The recession had slowed car sales to a trickle. Chrysler's owner, Cerberus Capital Management, was hunting for a buyer and had been talking to Italian carmaker Fiat. In late 2008, President George W. Bush approved billion dollar loans to the companies to keep them afloat.
On Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama took the oath of office, Fiat announced it was interested in buying Chrysler. Obama created an auto task force and in March, the task force told Chrysler to cut a deal with Fiat or be cut off from further government loans. In early April, Chrysler filed for bankruptcy and at the same time, announced an alliance with Fiat.
By the end of April, the terms of the deal were complete and by June, it was finalized. Cerberus Capital had lost its stake, and Fiat held 20 percent of the new Chrysler and had full operational control.
Steve Rattner, chair of the president's auto task force, said Fiat was essential to Chrysler's survival.
"If we had been unable to strike this arrangement with Fiat, I believe that we would have allowed Chrysler to liquidate. So it was a great outcome for all concerned," Rattner said.
Aaron Bragman, a senior analyst with IHS Automotive, a financial research group, said the government couldn't sell Chrysler because it never owned it. In fact, the auto industry and Chrysler were in such bad shape, this wasn't a sale at all in the conventional sense.
"Fiat paid nothing for Chrysler," Bragman said, but "they poured MASSIVE resources into the company, such as design help, executive staff and personnel, joint development, engine technology, all sorts of non-cash things that helped Chrysler recover considerably."
Chrysler is now profitable. Laid-off union workers have been rehired, and the company is adding new personnel.
Fiat, Jeeps, and China
When Fiat got Chrysler, it got Jeep. Right before the ad came out, Romney told a crowd in Defiance, Ohio, that plans were afoot to shift the Jeep jobs in Ohio to China.
"I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production to China," Romney said.
Romney had been working off an article from Bloomberg News about Fiat's discussions to start making Jeeps again in China. The old Chrysler had assembly plants in China, but they had been idle since 2009.
Romney's words drew an immediate and firm denial from Chrysler headquarters. "Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China," the statement said. "A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments."
Bragman, the auto analyst, said Romney's notion that expansion in China comes at a cost to American workers runs counter to the facts. Chrysler's Toledo plant is running at full capacity, and its Detroit plant is at three shifts. Chrysler is building cars in the United States for sale here.
The production of cars in China is a sign of Chrysler's growing strength in overseas markets. It would like to build Jeeps in China to sell in China. It is not outsourcing American auto jobs.
"I'm astonished that more people aren't thrilled by the fact that an American company on the brink of literal oblivion has come back strong enough to now once again be making and selling its products in the hottest auto market in the world," Bragman said. "It is a phenomenal success story, quite frankly, and one that has sadly been bizarrely twisted out of shape for political expediency."
Our ruling
The Romney campaign ad says Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs. The ad leaves the clear impression that Jeeps built in China come at the expense of American workers.
The ad miscasts the government's role in Fiat's acquisition of Chrysler, and it misrepresents the outcome. Chrysler's owners had been trying to sell to Italy-based Fiat before Obama took office. The ad ignores the return of American jobs to Chrysler Jeep plants in the United States, and it presents the manufacture of Jeeps in China as a threat, rather than an opportunity to sell cars made in China to Chinese consumers. It strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture.
We rate the statement Pants on Fire!
Of a presidential campaign full of turds, it was the biggest turd laid. Kudos for campaign conniving, releasing the TV and radio ads over a weekend without the usual pre-release to the media, though--and not even addressing responses.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 02:22:49 AM
Quote from: dps on November 04, 2012, 08:00:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2012, 05:05:15 PM
If you don't actually plan to bring hope or change, that's even nor insidious.
48.5 million uninsured Americans think it was hopied and changied.
Meh, some of us are uninsured by choice and want to stay that way.
And that's why it's such a great program: so people like us don't have to see insurance rates go up because people like you are too stupid not to go through a windshield.
Yeah, that's right--the people who actually pay their own bills are the freeriders who are making everything cost more for everybody. You just go on believing that.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Yeah, that's right--the people who actually pay their own bills are the freeriders who are making everything cost more for everybody. You just go on believing that.
Let's see you pay your bills when get really sick, and require several days of hospital stay.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Yeah, that's right--the people who actually pay their own bills are the freeriders who are making everything cost more for everybody. You just go on believing that.
If you pay cash like Ed Anger at the emergency room, then goody for you. America thanks you.
When your appendix ruptures, make sure you have your checkbook with you prior to discharge, mmmkaythx
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Yeah, that's right--the people who actually pay their own bills are the freeriders who are making everything cost more for everybody. You just go on believing that.
Since my three-hour trip to the ER to diagnose an ulcer came out to around $7000, I'm curious to know how you're going to manage that if something really serious happens to you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 08:03:46 AM
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Yeah, that's right--the people who actually pay their own bills are the freeriders who are making everything cost more for everybody. You just go on believing that.
If you pay cash like Ed Anger at the emergency room, then goody for you. America thanks you.
When your appendix ruptures, make sure you have your checkbook with you prior to discharge, mmmkaythx
What the fuck. I have insurance. Like I wanted to pay the 300K plus for my broke leg in '06.
He meant that you OWN an emergency room or two.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2012, 01:23:24 PM
Professor Fair is a statistics professor at Yale.
Economics.
But th point is well taken.
My take on Silver pretty much tracks Otto: partisans on both sides of the blogosphere are mis-reading/mis-understanding his analyses.
For a more serious criticism on Silver's work:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/04/tarnished-silver-assessing-the-new-king-of-stats/
this gets into some detail about Silver's previous forecasting work for Baseball Prospectus and his problems with the latest British election.
I think some of it is overly harsh - while Silver's model may be poorly optimized for the three party race, that shouldn't affect its application to the US. Re the the baseball stuff, conceptually the PECOTA system that Silver designed is pretty clever, because it can adjust for all sorts of factors that can impact career devleopment without formally modelling each one. There are basic theoretical shortcomings to that kind of approach of which the "Ichiro" problem is one. Some of the complaints Cosh raises may be more due to the fact that Baseball Prospectus is for profit and thus PECOTA was (and must be) proprietary, which therefore decreases transparency.
The broader point is that Silver is not some kind of unique wunderkind, but a clever kid with a decent background statistics who saw a market opportunity that a numbers-phobic media had left wide open.
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:43:54 AM
He meant that you OWN an emergency room or two.
In Theme Hopital I do.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2012, 06:41:19 PM
In Theme Hopital I do.
I know how the nurses are dressed....
Man,the nurses in '06 were great. The flirty Kentucky girl and the occupational therapist especially.
And the 2 that put the catheter in when I was having trouble from all the gas they pumped into me.