BigEd76 wrote:Romney's visit to Yardley
Seeing on FB that he showed up hours late and they wouldn't let anyone leave if they were freezing
jamiethekiller wrote:everyone talks about Nate alot, but what about this guy?
http://election.princeton.edu/
has a better and longer track record than Nate and has it as 98% Obama...
Bucky wrote: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....
jamiethekiller wrote:everyone talks about Nate alot, but what about this guy?
http://election.princeton.edu/
has a better and longer track record than Nate and has it as 98% Obama...
Bucky wrote:so i was gonna go get saladworks for lunch but it turns out that RUDY (along with "actor John Voight" and a couple other pols) will be at that same shopping center in a 'get out the vote' rally at 2:30. Probably not safe to go near there now, I guess. Are those two Ds or Rs? I know there's a Willard office in that shopping center, so I'm guessing "R"....
jamiethekiller wrote:everyone talks about Nate alot, but what about this guy?
http://election.princeton.edu/
has a better and longer track record than Nate and has it as 98% Obama...
The Nightman Cometh wrote:Nate is awfully confident about Obama's chances.
Trent Steele wrote:did we win?
jamiethekiller wrote:The Nightman Cometh wrote:Nate is awfully confident about Obama's chances.
this is the same fucking complain people have of head coaches. "HE'S AN ARROGANT SHITHEAD, HE DOESN'T THINK HE'S EVER WRONG!" don't think i'd want a person in that situation to really doubt himself everyday.
get a fucking grip dude
Bucky wrote:Trent Steele wrote:did we win?
yep, 7-2