11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

by **thephan** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:38:45

I took a look at MD's Ballot Measure 7. It authorizes table gaming at ALL MD casinos. So it comes down to Penn National not being in the running to put in a casino at the *new* Marriott holdings in PG county, just a quick drive out of D.C.

It's new because Marriott bought the Gaylord properties a few months back.

by **dajafi** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:46:07

This isn't a perfect analogy, but the swing states are kind of like dominoes. Given a whole host of factors, it's very unlikely that North Carolina falls for Obama but he doesn't win Nevada.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:56:15

JUburton wrote:Where can you see scenarios like that broken down on 538? I can't seem to find it. I'll take your word for it, but I'm interested to see it. It just doesn't make intuitive sense to me that they would be that related. I understand the logic that 'well if he's polling that well in 3 of the swing states, he is very likely polling well in the 4th', but it seems like a big jump.

You have to look at the chart of probable EV totals and extrapolate what each numerical total means. The chart is called "Electoral Vote Distribution" and is right under the "state by state probability" map on the right side of the main page.

by **td11** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:58:21

The Morning Plum: Can a ‘post-truth’ candidate be elected president?

from the WaPo factchecker guy

by **td11** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:02:24

maybe my favorite ad this campaign

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:13:42

td11 wrote:The Morning Plum: Can a ‘post-truth’ candidate be elected president?

from the WaPo factchecker guy

Fact check: Four Pinocchios - It's from their liberal blogger, Greg Sargent

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:14:17

Bucky wrote:how are they dependent, he asks, statistically curious and non-politically....

docsmooth posted something somewhere the other day about it. Can't find it at the moment.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:25:17

jerseyhoya wrote:
Bucky wrote:how are they dependent, he asks, statistically curious and non-politically....

docsmooth posted something somewhere the other day about it. Can't find it at the moment.

oh ffs people please DO try to keep up

by **Bucky** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:30:12

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Bucky wrote:how are they dependent, he asks, statistically curious and non-politically....

docsmooth posted something somewhere the other day about it. Can't find it at the moment.

oh ffs people please DO try to keep up

but this is explaining that the statewide races and the presidential counts in each state are related; not that the results from separate states are related

by **td11** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:31:31

jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:The Morning Plum: Can a ‘post-truth’ candidate be elected president?

from the WaPo factchecker guy

Fact check: Four Pinocchios - It's from their liberal blogger, Greg Sargent

urgh, my b, dunno why i thought it was kessler.

by **td11** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:49:03

Sean Davis ‏@seanmdav
This whole thing is an exercise to prove that any idiot with Excel, a Monte Carlo plug-in, and Internet access can be Nate Silver.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:51:22

Bucky wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Bucky wrote:how are they dependent, he asks, statistically curious and non-politically....

docsmooth posted something somewhere the other day about it. Can't find it at the moment.

oh ffs people please DO try to keep up

but this is explaining that the statewide races and the presidential counts in each state are related; not that the results from separate states are related

Nice clarification, Buck, thank you. You originally asked how the results from 1 state to another are dependent. That, they are not.

But results from one state to another are ARE related; that is, the results will move in predictable directions relative to one another.

Correlation is not causation, etc.

by **phatj** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:53:09

seke2 wrote:After dealing with my first daylight savings time with an infant in the house, I am now willing to vote for whichever candidate will promise to abolish daylight savings time.

Congrats. Did you post about that in the parenting thread?

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:53:18

Starting to feel confident, which makes me nervous. Vicious cycle.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:57:36

td11 wrote:Sean Davis ‏@seanmdav
This whole thing is an exercise to prove that any idiot with Excel, a Monte Carlo plug-in, and Internet access can be Nate Silver.

So do it then and quit complaining about him.

The funny part is when this assclown then turns around and says that the fact that his numbers bolster Silver's numbers doesn't matter because ALL state polls are garbage. Uh huh.

by **td11** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:59:40

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
td11 wrote:Sean Davis ‏@seanmdav
This whole thing is an exercise to prove that any idiot with Excel, a Monte Carlo plug-in, and Internet access can be Nate Silver.

So do it then and quit complaining about him.

The funny part is when this assclown then turns around and says that the fact that his numbers bolster Silver's numbers doesn't matter because ALL state polls are garbage. Uh huh.

right, exactly. i thought he was being reasonable up until the last week or so, just seems like he's out to try and malign nate.

i got faith in nasty nate tho

by **JFLNYC** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:02:43

What I like about Republicans is that they never whine.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:03:04

seke2 wrote:After dealing with my first daylight savings time with an infant in the house, I am now willing to vote for whichever candidate will promise to abolish daylight savings time.

My wife and I usually do our Costco/Sam's Club runs on Sunday morning when most people are at church. Plus we can feed our toddler off of the samples. Get there between 10 and 11 (both open at 10), shop/snack for about an hour, then go home and put her down for her nap.

Normally both stores are pretty dead until around noon. Despite being tired ourselves on Sunday morning thanks to our daughter waking up at 6:15 (new time), we got a pretty good laugh at how crowded it was... and that nearly all of the extra people seemed to have young children.

by **td11** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:06:46

John Nolte ‏@NolteNC
Chris Christie is dead to me.
Retweeted by James Pethokoukis

ahahaha

by **Bucky** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:16:07

drsmooth wrote:
Bucky wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Bucky wrote:how are they dependent, he asks, statistically curious and non-politically....

docsmooth posted something somewhere the other day about it. Can't find it at the moment.

oh ffs people please DO try to keep up

but this is explaining that the statewide races and the presidential counts in each state are related; not that the results from separate states are related

Nice clarification, Buck, thank you. You originally asked how the results from 1 state to another are dependent. That, they are not.

But results from one state to another are ARE related; that is, the results will move in predictable directions relative to one another.

Correlation is not causation, etc.

OK, I buy that as intrinsically obvious. But that doesn't seem to be the gist of how we got here: that the results of the 4 states are not quantifiable as 4 independent events: i.e. when JL computed the chance of 70/73/45/23 events ALL happening at around 5%, it's the common multiple of the percentages of INDEPENDENT events. That only changes if the events are DEPENDENT, not "related". So their relativity means the aggregate likelihood would move lineally in either direction, but doesn't change the total composite likelihood....

Archived

11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney

Re: 11.6.2012 GDT President Obama v. Mitt Romney