What will be the most popular excuse if Romney loses?

• BoatShoes

  Gut...the "statistics expert"
  
  The rest of us are just amateurs :laugh:
• gut

  BoatShoes;1315906 wrote:Gut...the "statistics expert"
  
  The rest of us are just amateurs :laugh:

  No, you're just a clown.
  
  But you want to start talking confidence intervals, heteroskedacity, fat tails, SSE, MSE, serial autocorrelation, lagged residuals....or do you not know shit about stats?
• gut

  BoatShoes;1315904 wrote:LOL. The final electoral college tally essentially matches the RCP no-toss up result based on poll aggregation with no lame analysis from your own biased gut feelings like you did. The lame winger pundits who made the same claims you did...**** morris etc. are admitting their fail. Own the fail. LOL.
  
  Hopefully you didn't put any money on your own intuition :laugh::laugh::laugh:

  Like I said, you don't have any clue what you are talking about.
  
  Baselines were wrong. Turnouts were wrong. The error was offset by a polling error in independents. And most of the polls had the same biases, and STILL they were all biased toward Obama as the actual MOE was all skewed that way.
  
  Yes, I was wrong because I assumed the polling data to actually be accurate. I assumed their polling results on independents were correct, because I was right about baseline and turnout.
• isadore

  gut;1315917 wrote:Like I said, you don't have any clue what you are talking about.
  
  Baselines were wrong. Turnouts were wrong. The error was offset by a polling error in independents. And most of the polls had the same biases, and STILL they were all biased toward Obama as the actual MOE was all skewed that way.
  
  Yes, I was wrong because I assumed the polling data to actually be accurate. I assumed their polling results on independents were correct, because I was right about baseline and turnout.

  why thank you mr. rove \ morris for that input about your screw up
• rmolin73

  

  Guys gut will never admit defeat no matter how much he is getting handled. He is like that on every issue.
• gut

  rmolin73;1316066 wrote:Guys gut will never admit defeat no matter how much he is getting handled. He is like that on every issue.

  No, you guys just don't know what you are talking about. I rarely admit I'm wrong wrong because I'm rarely wrong. Unlike the clowns here I don't generally jump in and talk out my ass. You guys clearly don't understand statistics. Nothing I said was wrong. My projection was wrong because - shock - bad polling data on independents (when you guys swore the polls had to be correct). Everything else I've said is correct.
  
  Sure, in hindsight the independent data was too big of a spread to be taken at face value. My mistake (and I'll note not a single pundit questioned the spread on independents). Happy now?
  
  I mean, you guys wouldn't attempt to read a medical book and then argue with a doctor and insist he's wrong because the arguments are too complex for you to comprehend.
• rmolin73

  

  Lol dude I was one of the people that stated that polls are not as effective as either side made them out to be. If I'm not mistaken sleeper has said that as well. But finally you have admitted the error of your ways. Hopefully the Republican party can do the same.
• isadore

  but obviously some on here looked at the data were able to arrive at the correct answer. our African American President was REELECTED. :thumbup::laugh:
• gut

  rmolin73;1316079 wrote:Lol dude I was one of the people that stated that polls are not as effective as either side made them out to be. If I'm not mistaken sleeper has said that as well. But finally you have admitted the error of your ways. Hopefully the Republican party can do the same.

  Fair enough - I'm not sure what you thought I was denying as obviously Obama won and I figured it to go to Romney. I did say if it was D+3/4 it was a complete toss-up, and it was and within the margin of error. I was hoping for R+2 and that might have been enough, but Romney didn't get that turnout. That was the big surprise. The turnout did come down on Obama, but Romney didn't even hold McCain's which was unexpected.
  
  A lot of what I said about the polls was correct. Interesting that Rasmussen and Gallup ended-up being the worst. I don't know if they adjusted their baselines to reflect what most expected or not.
  
  I'd normally say what they poll is pretty good. They can't poll or predict baseline, and in a very divided election that's why no one really knew what to expect. That's probably why they missed the independents badly as well - divided election like this and some of those "likely voter" independents might have stayed home and vice versa. Saw a blurb also that independents broke late more evenly, or possibly even for Obama, and they normally go to the incumbents. Could have been a very late move the polls didn't catch - 3% of independents switch at the last minute and that's +2 for Obama.
  
  I think it also has to be questioned how accurate these polls are, and going forward, doing mostly phone surveys. Definitely puts an age and income bias in and might also explain the bias on independents toward Romney.
  
  Anyway, the polls were a nice distraction.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1315914 wrote:No, you're just a clown.
  
  But you want to start talking confidence intervals, heteroskedacity, fat tails, SSE, MSE, serial autocorrelation, lagged residuals....or do you not know shit about stats?

  
  Hahahahahahaha
  
  
  
  Brilliance from Gut that he pulled from his extensive knowledge of Statistics
  

  Why is Obama campaigning like a crazed madman that is losing an election? He really stepped up the vitriol and rhetoric a few dozen notches. I guess you don't need to worry about looking Presidential when you aren't going to be President much longer.

  I've been saying all along these polls don't make sense. There's actually a lot of support for it - much of it I've detailed, and which you can readily confirm by thinking and researching for yourself (but that requires you to seek information from places other than the left).

  OH, right now, is at best a complete 50/50 toss-up when you calibrate that number with the others and with the history. It's a state that went with Bush in 2000 and 2004, and saw a large swing in 2008 as the nation rejected the Repub agenda yet is somehow insulated from the movement the rest of the country is seeing in 2012. I don't buy it at all. I expect Obama to lose OH by 2-3pts.

  I have education and work experience in the areas I typically comment on. I don't need to get my talking points from ignorant or biased media because I actually know my shit and get paid pretty well for knowing my shit.
  
  The analysis I did is a pretty basic methodology for identifying outliers and where the model appears to be failing. It's very straightforward and unbiased just to look at the general movement from 2008, and OH is the only one (at least among swing states) without significant movement. That smells. And that's without even getting into oversampling.
  
  The simple fact is OH is a toss-up, and your margin of error is 2-3pts. But there is nothing in that data to show it's anything more than a dead heat at the moment (unless we get into oversampling). Aggregating uniformly biased polls does not remove bias from your sample. That's Statistics 101, but I've explained multiple times why pollsters are loath to deviate from the 2008 baseline.

  
  ​LOL
• BoatShoes

  The Santa Claus Meme is pretty wide spread. I think it's fair to say that the idea that the Democrats have bought off all teh p00rz and min0rities is the primary excuse being used.
  
  :laugh::laugh::laugh:
• gut

  BoatShoes;1316257 wrote:
  Hahahahahahaha

  LMAO... You can't read either in addition to you other well documented shortcomings. Look at the last paragraph you quoted:
  "The simple fact is OH is a toss-up, and your margin of error is 2-3pts. But there is nothing in that data to show it's anything more than a dead heat at the moment (unless we get into oversampling)."
  
  Shocking, I know.
  
  
  
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1316345 wrote:LMAO... You can't read either in addition to you other well documented shortcomings. Look at the last paragraph you quoted:
  "The simple fact is OH is a toss-up, and your margin of error is 2-3pts. But there is nothing in that data to show it's anything more than a dead heat at the moment (unless we get into oversampling)."
  
  Shocking, I know.
  
  
  

  But it wasn't a dead heat, the polls were by and large correct. I was wrong just like you in thinking that this was going to be much closer than it was and I thought, like you, that turnout would likely not be at the same levels as 2008. Hell, 18-24 vote increased by a percent to 11% of the electorate.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1316354 wrote:But it wasn't a dead heat, the polls were by and large correct. I was wrong just like you in thinking that this was going to be much closer than it was and I thought, like you, that turnout would likely not be at the same levels as 2008. Hell, 18-24 vote increased by a percent to 11% of the electorate.

  Number I saw was D+3. Demographics were similar, but there was a pick-up/shift to independents that those polls didn't catch (read: the polls ARE wrong). But because they overstated Romney's share of independents (wrong again), it offset the baseline error (still wrong). Having done very similar work for a living, that's a not a good model - all 3 things I mentioned had pretty uniform bias across polls. You would not rely on that. You would not make money with that model. And the election was very close - Obama had the narrowest of margins in 4 battleground states that would have given the win to Romney, and a total margin of 300k votes. Obama had a remarkable turnout machine, and Rommney underperformed, which is basically your margin of error.
  
  I get the average person only looks at the result. My mistake for thinking people might be interested to actually understand how this stuff works, especially when polls were all over the place.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1316354 wrote:But it wasn't a dead heat, the polls were by and large correct. I was wrong just like you in thinking that this was going to be much closer than it was and I thought, like you, that turnout would likely not be at the same levels as 2008. Hell, 18-24 vote increased by a percent to 11% of the electorate.

  The fact that the Dems were able to muster turnout ratios even close to 2008 should worry the GOP to no small degree. Yes, oversampling occurred, but not nearly to the degree as expected.
  
  I know Boatshoes and rmolin are having fun doing the happy dance, (as well they should) but the fact remains that Gut is pretty much spot on in his analysis. He's agreeing that the polls got the top line number correct, but the fact that they got 2 metrics wrong in getting there shows that they kinda backed into it.
• BoatShoes

  Gut's ad hoc conciliatory hand-jimmie analysis that makes him feel better for being completely wrong in his foresight is of no consequence. It was a simple proposition from an occam's razor type of perspective; do you rely on the aggregation of polls and their prediction of an Obama lead by taking them at face value or do you come up with some reason based upon one's own special insight into statistics or one's own arbitrary gut feelings about how the election surely must go or turn out that you pulled out of a deep dark corner of your ass and masquerade it as special insight.
  
  Could you get the correct result by relying on the polls with no special statistical insight or analysis? Yes. Could you get the correct result by betting on widespread, systematic polling failure and relying on the bullshit gut pulled out of his ass and spoon fed himself because he's just so smart?
  
  
  No.
  
  And it brings Teh Lulz :laugh:
  
  
  323 electoral votes.
  
  3-2-1 baby! LOL.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;1316504 wrote:Gut's ad hoc conciliatory hand-jimmie analysis that makes him feel better for being completely wrong in his foresight is of no consequence. It was a simple proposition from an occam's razor type of perspective; do you rely on the aggregation of polls and their prediction of an Obama lead by taking them at face value or do you come up with some reason based upon one's own special insight into statistics or one's own arbitrary gut feelings about how the election surely must go or turn out that you pulled out of a deep dark corner of your ass and masquerade it as special insight.

  I'm sure I'm not the only one here who finds this diatribe acutely ironic, considering the source.
  

  BoatShoes;1316504 wrote:Could you get the correct result by relying on the polls with no special statistical insight or analysis? Yes. Could you get the correct result by betting on widespread, systematic polling failure and relying on the bull**** gut pulled out of his ass and spoon fed himself because he's just so smart?
  
  
  No.

  You're confusing "could" with "did." Hope this helps.
  

  BoatShoes;1316504 wrote:And it brings Teh Lulz :laugh:

  So it would appear.
  
  

  BoatShoes;1316504 wrote:323 electoral votes.
  
  3-2-1 baby! LOL.

  332*
• gut

  BoatShoes;1316504 wrote:Gut's ad hoc conciliatory hand-jimmie analysis that makes him feel better for being completely wrong in his foresight is of no consequence. It was a simple proposition from an occam's razor type of perspective; do you rely on the aggregation of polls and their prediction of an Obama lead by taking them at face value or do you come up with some reason based upon one's own special insight into statistics or one's own arbitrary gut feelings about how the election surely must go or turn out that you pulled out of a deep dark corner of your ass and masquerade it as special insight.
  
  Could you get the correct result by relying on the polls with no special statistical insight or analysis? Yes. Could you get the correct result by betting on widespread, systematic polling failure and relying on the bull**** gut pulled out of his ass and spoon fed himself because he's just so smart?
  
  
  No.
  
  And it brings Teh Lulz :laugh:
  
  
  323 electoral votes.
  
  3-2-1 baby! LOL.

  Not a single thing you wrote demonstrates even the most elementary understanding of statistics - bashing me will never make you look any smarter, but you've clearly given up on appearances. Much like many of your posts regarding economics on this forum. You demonstrate the perspective of a simpleton, who has no real insight into why things work and so can be easily fooled and misled. You celebrate and cling to the occasional luck, which only sets you up for further deception and being fooled again and again. And, in essence, that's why politicians continue to lie and spin, because it works.
  
  Some day the fog of ignorance will clear for you and you might learn something.
• Heretic

  

  gut;1316069 wrote:No, you guys just don't know what you are talking about. I rarely admit I'm wrong wrong because I'm rarely wrong. Unlike the clowns here I don't generally jump in and talk out my ass. You guys clearly don't understand statistics. Nothing I said was wrong. My projection was wrong because - shock - bad polling data on independents (when you guys swore the polls had to be correct). Everything else I've said is correct.
  
  Sure, in hindsight the independent data was too big of a spread to be taken at face value. My mistake (and I'll note not a single pundit questioned the spread on independents). Happy now?
  
  I mean, you guys wouldn't attempt to read a medical book and then argue with a doctor and insist he's wrong because the arguments are too complex for you to comprehend.

  IT'S SQ!!!!
• 2kool4skool

  

  Yeah, between this thread and claiming he was going to stiff minimum wage workers since Obama was reelected, gut has been confirmed as douche-bag status.
• gut

  2kool4skool;1316751 wrote:Yeah, between this thread and claiming he was going to stiff minimum wage workers since Obama was reelected, gut has been confirmed as douche-bag status.

  LOL, I need to stop using sarcasm to illustrate a point. I'd wager I tip better than most on here.
  
  But tipping is a consumption choice, no? And what happens when you take more from people - they adjust their consumption? I don't suppose you're aware that in recessions tipping in Vegas drops dramatically, in frequency and amount? So while you think it's a dbag comment, the reality is when you continue to redistribute wealth people make choices that has the unintended consequence of offsetting it.
  
  Tipping is a rather extreme example, but the larger point is when you take take take and start demonizing people for their success, they start feeling and acting less generous (particularly when they perceive entitlement and ungratefulness).
• 2kool4skool

  

  gut;1316824 wrote:LOL, I need to stop using sarcasm to illustrate a point. I'd wager I tip better than most on here.

  It has nothing to do with being sarcastic or not, it was just a asshole-ish thing to say. You may very well be a successful guy, but desperately trying to cultivate an image as such on a message board is unbecoming.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1316562 wrote:Not a single thing you wrote demonstrates even the most elementary understanding of statistics - bashing me will never make you look any smarter, but you've clearly given up on appearances. Much like many of your posts regarding economics on this forum. You demonstrate the perspective of a simpleton, who has no real insight into why things work and so can be easily fooled and misled. You celebrate and cling to the occasional luck, which only sets you up for further deception and being fooled again and again. And, in essence, that's why politicians continue to lie and spin, because it works.
  
  Some day the fog of ignorance will clear for you and you might learn something.

  :laugh: this just keeps getting better.
• gut

  2kool4skool;1316840 wrote:It has nothing to do with being sarcastic or not, it was just a ****-ish thing to say. You may very well be a successful guy, but desperately trying to cultivate an image as such on a message board is unbecoming.

  It was a shitty comment, and I apologize. But imagine the frustration and irritation at some of the vitriol the other direction that, quite honestly, does sometimes make me wonder if I'm a sucker for being generous and compassionate. And I don't believe I've ever had an encounter with someone that makes me believe that for a second. But seeing the attitude around this country (and on this board) during this election, really does make me wonder that, if I knew, would I still consider them deserving of my generosity?
  
  Quite honestly, the pervasive attitude I see emerging in this country does make me increasingly feel like "ok, you voted with you wallet, now I'm voting with mine". I mean, would you feel a level of betrayal knowing that nice waitress secretly despises you because she thinks you're not paying your "fair share"? Begrudge me what I pay because you don't think it's enough (not talking about service here)? Would you really want to leave a generous tip for such a person? I'm not pretending to be a super generous tipper, but I like to believe the gratitude is sincere and don't hate their job and customers.