Let's talk Electoral College

[Oil Capital]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com

For those who are intelligent enough to understand Nate's and RCP's analyses (i.e., obviously not you, Hoss, given your misunderstanding of the state of the race in Wisconsin ;-) ), their analyses of the race do not look all that different:

In the "no-toss-ups" map, RCP shows Obama with 294 electoral votes vs. 244 for Romney.  Nate's "now-cast" shows 281.2 for Obama and 256.8 for Romney.

RCP shows Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia as "toss-up" states.  Nate shows Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and the Maine 2ne Congressional District as "competitive."

RCP shows its RCP average with Romney at 47.7 vs. Obama's 46.7 in the national popular vote.  Nate shows Romney at 49.1 vs. Obama's 49.8.

[Conan71]

I'm thinkin' you might be back on the Fox....

Nope.  I'm not hearing any agenda out of this guy.  All he does is call Romney a liar and poke fun at his gaffes.

It's getting annoying.

[Hoss]

Nope.  I'm not hearing any agenda out of this guy.  All he does is call Romney a liar and poke fun at his gaffes.

It's getting annoying.

Truth hurts sometimes...

[Hoss]

For those who are intelligent enough to understand Nate's and RCP's analyses (i.e., obviously not you, Hoss, given your misunderstanding of the state of the race in Wisconsin ;-) ), their analyses of the race do not look all that different:

In the "no-toss-ups" map, RCP shows Obama with 294 electoral votes vs. 244 for Romney.  Nate's "now-cast" shows 281.2 for Obama and 256.8 for Romney.

RCP shows Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia as "toss-up" states.  Nate shows Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and the Maine 2ne Congressional District as "competitive."

RCP shows its RCP average with Romney at 47.7 vs. Obama's 46.7 in the national popular vote.  Nate shows Romney at 49.1 vs. Obama's 49.8.

I'm not speaking to the race in Wisconsin and never did.  It's not about one state until election night.  Wow.  that's why I use 538.  That is an aggregation and weighing of polls.

[Townsend]

Nope.  I'm not hearing any agenda out of this guy.  All he does is call Romney a liar and poke fun at his gaffes.

It's getting annoying.

Romney lying and making all those gaffes is getting annoying too.  Reminds me of our state government too much I guess.

[Oil Capital]

I'm not speaking to the race in Wisconsin and never did.  It's not about one state until election night.  Wow.  that's why I use 538.  That is an aggregation and weighing of polls.

Oh but you did.  (Sometimes your dishonesty catches up with you)

You told us back on page 3 of this thread that the idea that Wisconsin was in play was "wishful thinking" and referred us to Nate Silver's analysis.

The following was copied and pasted from Hoss's post on page 3 of this thread, responding to (and quoting) my post contending that Wisconsin is in play:

"Wishful thinking.

No matter what anyone says on here, I do read Nate Silver's 538.  Once again, over the last two election cycles, he tends to be the closest tracker.  Romney had his big gains after the first presidential election, but now have shown in the last two days to be trending away from it.

But hell, what do I know.  Nate's only use fancy formulas and stuff...you know, that stuff that many Republicans don't know?  Math?"


Wow, indeed.  Again, if you understood Nate's analyses, you would see he does aggregations of individual state polls, not just aggregations of national voter surveys.

[erfalf]

Truth hurts sometimes...

It would if it was.

You of all people with your binder talk. Even the actual candidates are pulling that one.

[Hoss]

It would if it was.

You of all people with your binder talk. Even the actual candidates are pulling that one.

Someone has a sad.  Get over it.  It was funny.  Even if it was at the expense of your candidate.  Did he not say it?  Well?

I find it funny and hypocritical.  You guys make all the jokes you want at Biden's expense.  I laugh, because they're funny.  When a joke is made about Willard, however, boohoo.  Predictable.

[erfalf]

Someone has a sad.  Get over it.  It was funny.  Even if it was at the expense of your candidate.  Did he not say it?  Well?

But using it as a campaign fodder by actual candidates for President & Vice-President. This is something that 10 year-olds get a kick out of (which may be saying something). It's one thing for you and I to joke about it in passing, but I think it is well below the dignity of the office of the President. Do you not agree?

[guido911]

Haven't seen Nate's analysis.  Where is it?

Who gives two craps about Nate freakin Silver. Seriously, I guess its okay to cherry pick him but not any one else. And don't you just love the timing of his little rant, right after Romney starts leading in polls--which continue to suck as usual.

[erfalf]

Who gives two craps about Nate freakin Silver. Seriously, I guess its okay to cherry pick him but not any one else. And don't you just love the timing of his little rant, right after Romney starts leading in polls--which continue to suck as usual.

When Republican's claim about the polls, they need to just get over it. When Dems complain, it's critical analysis.

[guido911]

Truth hurts sometimes...

[Hoss]

Who gives two craps about Nate freakin Silver. Seriously, I guess its okay to cherry pick him but not any one else. And don't you just love the timing of his little rant, right after Romney starts leading in polls--which continue to suck as usual.

Once again, you don't understand.  Not surprising from you.  Nate .... read this slowly now.... A-G-G-R-E-G-A-T-E-S... polls from many sources.  He then weighs them based on many factors.

But just because his blog gets posted on the NYT you assume it's biased.  IT'S NOT HIS POLL.

Wow.

[guido911]

When Republican's claim about the polls, they need to just get over it. When Dems complain, it's critical analysis.

That's exactly the point. Silver was ranting about how unbiased the polls were just a few weeks ago and how the gop should get over it and accept Obama was leading. Now, the man-child is talking about cherry picking.

[Hoss]

When Republican's claim about the polls, they need to just get over it. When Dems complain, it's critical analysis.

Kinda like when a republican gets his donkey beat in a debate, Fox News calls it a draw.