In response to:

Nate Silver's Numbers Racket

Mike1181 Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 8:40 AM
Jonah, you almost had me with your insightful second paragraph. But you lost me with "psephological". Maybe you should have paid attention in math class instead of flaunting your erudition with sesquipedalia. Seriously, you are usually a beacon of reason, Jonah. Attacking math because a charlatan misuses it is a loser's game. We lost because conservative intellectuals are just as uncomfortable with middle school math as liberals. Self-indulgent political gurus argued endlessly over the party breakdown of the electorate. Where was a vigorous defense of Bain Capital; of real capitalism, not the romantic entrepeneur in a garage, but of investment bankers who fund them? Where was the easy debunking of the $5T "cost" of the Romney tax cut plan?
jmonaco Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 12:20 PM
Mike --

I contend that the election, in all likelihood, resulted from mass insanity. Let's see if the paradise the Progressives are confident of bears out, or if the somewhat measurable metrics of the past 4 years continue to snowball into complete socioeconomic collapse.

I am convinced this is not going to be a very pleasant or entertaining ride.
Science Avenger Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 2:26 PM
You are simply projecting your own insanity onto others, and if the GOP does likewise they will never solve their current problems. You lost fair and square, because people rejected your political agenda, and frequently for very sound and empirical reasons. Change with the times, or die out as a relevant political force.
scrow Wrote: Nov 07, 2012 7:46 PM
49% of the American voters didn't reject the political agenda.

Obama won the electoral college fair and square - it's a fair cop. And the EC is designed to usually make it look like someone is a clear winner. But when using the EC to measure the success of political messages and agenda, you need to look at who voted for what, not just which way the state electorals went.

In the last week or so, an intense kerfuffle broke out over the poll-prognosticator Nate Silver and his blog at the New York Times, FiveThirtyEight. Silver, a statistician, has been predicting a decisive Obama victory for a very long time, based on his very complicated statistical model, which very, very few of his fans or detractors understand.

On any given day, Silver might have announced that -- given the new polling data -- "the model" was now finding that the president had an 86.3 percent chance of winning. Not 86.4 percent, you fools. Not 86.1 percent, you Philistines. But 86.3 percent,...