[megatron]

(11-02-2012 12:22 PM)kosko Wrote:  

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]

(11-02-2012 12:22 PM)kosko Wrote:  

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]

(11-02-2012 12:28 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 12:22 PM)kosko Wrote:  

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]

(11-02-2012 10:16 AM)megatron Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 09:43 AM)painter Wrote:  

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."

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]

(11-02-2012 09:49 AM)IQVX Wrote:  

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.

Quote:

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]

(11-02-2012 12:33 PM)megatron Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 12:28 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 12:22 PM)kosko Wrote:  

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=JEcZ9G6r...ata_player

[porscheguy]

(11-02-2012 01:04 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 09:49 AM)IQVX Wrote:  

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.

Quote:

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]

(11-02-2012 04:15 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 01:04 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

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.

[quote]Quote:

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]

(11-02-2012 04:51 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 04:15 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 01:04 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

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.

[quote]Quote:

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.

[gringochileno]

(11-02-2012 06:51 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

@ Gringo. Agree more or less with your assessment.

Check out this article, though: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic"

I also read this yesterday: 538 is basically a Monte Carlo simulation

I would be betting on an Obama win simply because InTrades has him at +65%, but those two articles articulate the reason why I'm still uncertain of an Obama victory.

It's a somewhat interesting point but I don't find it all that persuasive because 538 actually does explicitly account for the possibility that the polls are systematically biased against Obama. In fact, most of Romney's ~20% chance of victory is probably coming from just this consideration, given that other models that don't make these adjustments to the raw polling data are predicting a much higher likelihood of an Obama win.

What this shows is that most of Romney's chances at this point rely on the assumption that the state-level polls are systematically biased against him by at least 2.5-3.5 points on average. While this is by no means impossible (there's a >15% difference in win probability between Silver's and Wang's models, after all), it does seem like a long shot given that basically the only reason to think it might be true is because the national polls show a tighter race, and historically national polls do a much worse job of predicting outcomes than state-level ones do. And if the state polls are accurate (or are biased against Obama--an easy to overlook possibility), then Obama is almost certain to win.

So in summary, even when you take into account the possibility of systematic poll bias I don't think 80% is an unreasonable estimate of Obama's chances of winning. If you disagree, since people have already gotten the gambling underway here I'll gladly bet you a book of your choice up to $20 off of Amazon that Obama wins--I'll even give you 2-1 odds (you buy me 1 book if Obama wins, I buy you 2 books if Romney wins).

[Excelsior]

(11-02-2012 04:51 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

I'm not saying Romney is going to win, but it's fool-hardy to think this is in the bag for Obama.

Even Silver himself is refusing to make that claim.

Quote:

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.

Silver addresses some of the points raised in those critiques (and the many, many others that have been coming from the right lately) here.
Like I said, I'll take Silver's reading with a grain of salt (he's doing the same himself), but that grain is going to be smaller than the one I apply with every other projection out there. I have yet to see a more credible and proven alternative model put forward by critics.

[ElJefe]

(11-02-2012 07:01 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

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.

Well, I'm not personally invested in the polls - after all, they really don't matter that much, it all comes down to Tuesday.

But I will say this about Silver: he underestimated the Republican landslide in 2010 by +3% points.

"In 2010, the 538 model fared well - but no better than the poll averages at RCP. And that was only after Nate was much slower to pick up on the coming GOP wave than Scott Rasmussen, who called it a lot earlier in the cycle."

No model can or ever will be perfect, and if financial moguls with billions to spend make mistakes, what makes Silver so impervious to errors?

(11-02-2012 07:39 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 06:51 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

@ Gringo. Agree more or less with your assessment.

Check out this article, though: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic"

I also read this yesterday: 538 is basically a Monte Carlo simulation

I would be betting on an Obama win simply because InTrades has him at +65%, but those two articles articulate the reason why I'm still uncertain of an Obama victory.

What this shows is that most of Romney's chances at this point rely on the assumption that the state-level polls are systematically biased against him by at least 2.5-3.5 points on average.

Exactly! For instance the Quinnipac/NYT poll had Party ID for Democrats up by +5-8 over Republicans. Given that Obama might lose the white vote by as much +20 points (that number fluctuates), if Gallup research is correct in assessing the voter make-up will be identical to 2008, then a 7-point Obama win turns around into a 5-point Romney win.

So all of this hinges on whether the State polls are weighting the electorate realistically. I'm not so sure.

Thanks for offering the bet. The money isn't so important as my dignity, so I'm not going to bet on a Romney win, simply say I really don't think it's in the bag for BO.

(11-03-2012 03:05 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Even Silver himself is refusing to make that claim.

(11-03-2012 03:05 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

I have yet to see a more credible and proven alternative model put forward by critics.

Yeah, but just about everyone else on the Left is, as if that's all anyone needed to know. Even you referred to it and assumed that basically settles the discussion. That's what I'm less sure about.

It all hinges on the accuracy of the state polls, and conservatives are hoping this time around they're off the mark (it's happened before), and Democrats are hoping they're right once again.

I haven't look at all the polls, but I've seen Gallup research believes the demographic make-up will be the same, and Obama will lose whites by a greater margin than in 2008 (where he lost by 12, but won nationally by 7). That means the break-even point, if Gallup is right, would be 7 divided by 2 divided by .75 + 12, ie. approx 16.8.

So MR needs to win the white vote by at least 17 to eke out a win. Is that so unlikely? Maybe... probably? We're sure going to find out.

[gringochileno]

(11-03-2012 03:47 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 07:01 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

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.

Well, I'm not personally invested in the polls - after all, they really don't matter that much, it all comes down to Tuesday.

But I will say this about Silver: he underestimated the Republican landslide in 2010 by +3% points.

"In 2010, the 538 model fared well - but no better than the poll averages at RCP. And that was only after Nate was much slower to pick up on the coming GOP wave than Scott Rasmussen, who called it a lot earlier in the cycle."

No model can or ever will be perfect, and if financial moguls with billions to spend make mistakes, what makes Silver so impervious to errors?

(11-02-2012 07:39 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(11-02-2012 06:51 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

@ Gringo. Agree more or less with your assessment.

Check out this article, though: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic"

I also read this yesterday: 538 is basically a Monte Carlo simulation

I would be betting on an Obama win simply because InTrades has him at +65%, but those two articles articulate the reason why I'm still uncertain of an Obama victory.

What this shows is that most of Romney's chances at this point rely on the assumption that the state-level polls are systematically biased against him by at least 2.5-3.5 points on average.

Exactly! For instance the Quinnipac/NYT poll had Party ID for Democrats up by +5-8 over Republicans. Given that Obama might lose the white vote by as much +20 points (that number fluctuates), if Gallup research is correct in assessing the voter make-up will be identical to 2008, then a 7-point Obama win turns around into a 5-point Romney win.

So all of this hinges on whether the State polls are weighting the electorate realistically. I'm not so sure.

Thanks for offering the bet. The money isn't so important as my dignity, so I'm not going to bet on a Romney win, simply say I really don't think it's in the bag for BO.

Well yeah, like I said, it's a possibility that the polls will be wrong. The question is how much, and in what direction. In order for Romney to win at this point, he needs the polls to have a systematic error of about 3 points or more in Obama's favor. In past elections, the state-level polls have historically been off by much less than this amount on average (more on the order of 1 percentage point). That's why 538, which takes the possibility of bias into account, is showing an 80% probability of an Obama win, while the Princeton Election Consortium, which takes the poll numbers a face value and doesn't consider the possibility of bias, is predicting a 97-99% chance of victory.

Basically, 538 is reflecting the same point that you're making, but it's doing it more quantitatively. It's conceivable that Obama's apparent lead in the polls is entirely due to systematic bias, but given that the amount of bias required in order to swing the election is several times the historical average, 538 calculates that the probability of that being the case is no more than 15-20%.

Again, the only glimmer of hope that Romney has at this point is if the polls are severely underestimating his position. If they are anywhere close to accurate he is virtually certain to lose.

[OkStudies]

Taken from the article:

Quote:

Objectivism is a philosophy for winners, leaders, producers, creators, alpha males and females and those on their way.

Pretty much sums it up. Ayn Rand's novels are basically projections of her alpha male fantasies. When you look at heroic characters such as Howard Roark and John Galt, it doesn't get any more "alpha" than that.

Quote:

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?

Business and government are *organizations* and all organizations follow the same basic principles of operations (i.e. hiring talent, don't spend more than you take in etc). The only difference is how they get their income. Government is from taxes, business is from trade.

A man who amasses for himself a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the competitive private sector vs a man who amassed his (smaller) fortune largely in politics and selling books based on politics is a *world* of difference.

Scorpion Wrote:

Quote:

Lol, I'm not sure how anyone can take Ayn Rand seriously.

No one with any background in philosophy can, that's for sure.

Appeal to authority. Not an argument.