Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 He didn't spend all his time watching Fox News and talking to people who told him what he wanted to hear.
Posted by ChuffingChuffChuff 2012-11-14 11:53||
Posted by Iblis 2012-11-14 11:58||
#3 That's how you don't predict elections. Thanks for your demonstration.
Shout down anything you disagree with, listen to only those that reassure you, and then act surprised that you didn't have your finger on the pulse of the nation.
Chuff: we don't permit trolling at the Burg. You're welcome to make a point, even an unpopular one, and then to defend yourself when people disagree with you.
But we're not interested in trolls except to use them as chew toys.
This is your one and only notice: straighten up and fly right or be gone.
Posted by ChuffingChuffChuff 2012-11-14 12:00||
#4 The pollsters didn't include the corruption/depravity/rot of Obama/democratic factor.
Posted by Voldemort Grereth1352 2012-11-14 12:24||
#5 ...of the dhimmocratic fascist controlled polling places.
Posted by Voldemort Grereth1352 2012-11-14 12:26||
#6 He was an insider to the Donk Party and privy to voter fraud information?
Posted by JohnQC 2012-11-14 12:33||
#7 The alternative explanation is that Silver correctly saw that 2012 was going to be a re-run of 2008, just with a smaller number of voters on both sides. That's something few other pollsters thought would happen.
Posted by Steve White 2012-11-14 13:03||
#8 Steve W., I suppose I acted viscerally to Silver. He seemed arrogant in his certainty of the outcome of the election. Turns out he was right. Interestingly, Intrade was accurate although not what one would consider a poll (betting odds). I wonder why the Pubs got it so wrong? Rasmussen was one of the most accurate in the last election but missed this one badly. Carl Rove and Dick Morris missed badly (both have been fairly good vote counters in the past). The NYTs had a summary of the best and worst polls of 2012. I don't have a URL.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-11-14 13:54||
#9 John, the answer is simple: Rove, Morris, etc (and me) made an erroneous assumption. We assumed that past performance predicted a future result. Silver simply looked at the data for what it was and ignored the various claims about over-sampling, adjusting for too many D's, etc.
Silver divined that 2012 was looking a lot like 2008, which many of the rest of us couldn't believe. It was hard to believe when we looked at the 2010 mid-term results, and the 2004 election, and so on. We looked at 'enthusiasm', the crowds at the Mitt and Champ rallies, and so on, and said heck 2012 CAN'T be a re-run of 2008, no way!
But it was, just with fewer voters.
I think that's one way Mitt missed the election (plus, he had a bunch of slugs on his staff, and his vaunted GOTV turned out to be hype). I certainly missed it.
Posted by Steve White 2012-11-14 14:06||
#10 Simple explanation here:
The underclass was smart enough to discern that they were being shafted by GOP rhetoric and disenfranchisement campaigns, and voted as an act of defiance.
As a math guy, I confess that there is nothing special about what Silver is doing. Any math guy could have done the same thing.
As a liberal (who voted in deference for Bush in '04 to give him some more time to clean up the mess), I am grateful to Rantburg as a font of insight into the machinations of the military-industrial complex, but I believe that the demonization of President Obama is unbecoming your forum. Was he a naive at the start? Yes. Has he learned from his mistakes? I would say 'yes', citing the bargaining advantage he enjoyes with Congress on the deficit and his recent demonstration of 'hardball' tactics.
Obama is, despite rhetoric to the contrary, in fact a moderate.
Folks, let's not forget that we are all on the same team ....
Posted by Hupitle Lover of the Hemps3045 2012-11-14 16:24||
#11 Hupitle Lover of the Hemps3045, I appreciate your comment --- but I'm not sure Obama has even a hint of a moderate in him.
And they are playing for a vastly different America than the one with which we have been accustomed for 224 years of this constitutional republic. Fight a war in Libya without even asking for a congressional resolution? No problem. Appoint executive officers without Senate approval, when the Senate is still in session? Sure. Issue executive orders directly contrary to law, on multiple occasions? Of course. Refuse to enforce duly constituted laws? Check. Repeatedly question the very legitimacy of the Supreme Court? Check. Refuse to honor congressional subpoenas and legitimate Freedom of Information requests? Ignore court orders (about offshore drilling) so flagrantly that you are found officially in contempt of court? Insult or even abandon allies? Whisper to foreign leaders of traditionally adversarial lands that you will have "more flexibility" after re-election? Deliberately cover up deadly mistakes on the Mexican border and in North Africa? Check, check, check, check, and check.
Posted by Sherry 2012-11-14 17:16||
#12 I don't buy it, Huptile. Wait until we see what he does about this fiscal cliff thingy. Will he compromise or will he double down and blame the House Republicans?
Have you heard about all the layoffs?
And, forgive me for rushing to judgement, but IMHO this Benghazi thing is stinking up the place real bad and getting worse every hour. Will he invoke executive privilege like he did with Fast&Furious? You can hide the rotten eggs but you can't hide the stench, er, unless you have the MSM in your pocket.
I think he's the same arrogant Marxist he's always been.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-14 17:16||
#13 What EU said. :-(
Posted by Barbara 2012-11-14 18:48||
#14 Was he a naive at the start? Yes
"I won" is naive?
Posted by Pappy 2012-11-14 19:04||
#15 Folks, let's not forget that we are all on the same team ....