This post has been removed.
How good was 538? 50 for 50!
-
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 5:28 PM EST
- Thesemenarecowards
- Posts: 3507
- First: 5/25/2011
- Last: 5/19/2013
Rasmussen on the other hand missed bad and missed often.
They had Wisconsin even Obama won by 6.
They had Iowa +1 for Romney, Obama won by 5.
They had Colorado +3 for Romney, Obama won by 4.
They had Virginia +2 for Romney, Obama won by 3.
Notice a pattern?
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 5:52 PM EST
- miscricket
- Posts: 3169
- First: 1/14/2011
- Last: 6/18/2013
Nate was pretty much spot on.. he took a lot of criticism and I guess now we know why. I have a feeling that Romney's inside polling numbers were not painting a good picture for him..which is why he went to PA and OH again on election day.
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 7:09 PM EST
- nhsteven
- Posts: 11588
- First: 9/23/2005
- Last: 6/19/2013
Remarkable
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 7:20 PM EST
- Sistersledge
- Posts: 3228
- First: 4/15/2011
- Last: 6/19/2013
So wasn't VOTAMATIC and Sam Wang of Princeton.
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 7:48 PM EST
- DamainAllen
- Posts: 3197
- First: 1/6/2009
- Last: 6/19/2013
Obviously Nate's model has a liberal bias
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 8:37 PM EST
- slomag
- Posts: 3657
- First: 8/31/2009
- Last: 6/19/2013
It wasn't just Nate Silver, though - the polls in general were very good. The RCP no toss-ups was right about every state but FL, which they gave to Romney +1.5. Rasmussen and Gallup should be embarrassed today, but the polling in general was pretty accurate.
But Dick Morris and Karl Rove should be laughed out of the business. If you fork up that badly, that should be the last time anybody asks your opinion.
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 10:47 PM EST
- TFefio
- Posts: 903
- First: 1/23/2011
- Last: 6/18/2013
In response to slomag's comment:
It wasn't just Nate Silver, though - the polls in general were very good. The RCP no toss-ups was right about every state but FL, which they gave to Romney +1.5. Rasmussen and Gallup should be embarrassed today, but the polling in general was pretty accurate.
But Dick Morris and Karl Rove should be laughed out of the business. If you fork up that badly, that should be the last time anybody asks your opinion.
I used to think the same about presidents but was proved wrong last night. Therefore rove and Morris get to f up all they want based on the new presidential model. It's now cool to be fing stupid. -
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 10:47 PM EST
- nhsteven
- Posts: 11588
- First: 9/23/2005
- Last: 6/19/2013
In response to slomag's comment:
It wasn't just Nate Silver, though - the polls in general were very good. The RCP no toss-ups was right about every state but FL, which they gave to Romney +1.5. Rasmussen and Gallup should be embarrassed today, but the polling in general was pretty accurate.
But Dick Morris and Karl Rove should be laughed out of the business. If you fork up that badly, that should be the last time anybody asks your opinion.
You really expect those 2 to be accurate? -
This post has been removed.
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 11:00 PM EST
- TFefio
- Posts: 903
- First: 1/23/2011
- Last: 6/18/2013
I don't know anyone f-ing stupider sounding than you.
-
This post has been removed.
-
Re: How good was 538? 50 for 50!
posted at 11/7/2012 11:07 PM EST
- TFefio
- Posts: 903
- First: 1/23/2011
- Last: 6/18/2013
What, because we have reduced the presidency to the equivalent of dancing with the stars you somehow get to spew your retardedness unopposed now. Dream on. Your still a major loon!