The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Nate Silver talks some sense

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Marc Adin — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:52:04 -0000

i brought my s-detector in to the nearest bierce & swift i could find. they diagnosed the problem and repaired it. it was the fargin' oscillation overthruster. who would have thought?

"He'd kill you as soon as look at you." gwbush on mccnasty's temper, 1996.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:00:33 -0000

Or adjusting the flux-capacitor.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Tony Comstock — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:17:42 -0000

Marc, try reversing the polarity.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Marc Adin — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:43:24 -0000

ta-nehisi wrote:

"The sarcasm-detector is humanity's last hope."

i missed your sarcasm. either my s-detector has a blown motherboard, or you have to be more dripping in your sarcasm for the village idiots like me, who make up your 'base.' well, as my post attests, you sure energized me.

i am a little touchy these days [but never hopeless].

my humble apologies if i offended you. marc/

"it's not easy being green." kermit the frog

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Steel7 — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:20:57 -0000

Very good point about registrations in solidly Democratic (or Republican) states...a point which applies to polls as well. I really don't trust them, for this reason among many. This is part of my point, possibly inadequately expressed- this is no time to panic. We are in the dead zone between the conventions and the debates; there is little for the chattering class (does that include us?) to talk about besides polls; and a lot of people aren't paying that much attention right now, anyway. As for a rout, again, perhaps I was not clear. I- and more importantly, I'm sure, the Obama campaign- assume nothing. This is no time to coast. But no need to despair, either. Put another way, if I was going to give advice to the Republicans, it would be to not count their chickens just yet.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:47:05 -0000

They rank about the same, Doug. And it's true--we've heard these tales of voter registration before. I think, sometimes, folks just need to say "I really don't know."

Marc,

The sarcasm-detector is humanity's last hope.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

DougEFresh — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:30:54 -0000

I think Democrats overestimate their registration efforts every election. I read a recent poll that showed among newly registered voters, Obama holds only a slight lead. In a fifty fifty election, that might turn it, but it also might not. Like with an early discussion of the improvements in McCain's numbers, it depends where the registrations came from. A huge jump in registrations from Cal. or NY isn't going to tilt the election.

I do agree with Silver, too much blame and credit is given when the outcome can be given to random occurances. Obama's people were geniuses in the Spring, but now we are supposed to believe they are as dumb as Hillary's people? And proclaiming brilliance over poll results in mid Sept is even more foolish.

I am not quite sure what train of thought is more damaging; those who think Obama's campaign is destined to fail or those who assume he is going to win in a rout.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Steel7 — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:49:10 -0000

We need to stand back for a second- (just for a second)- and take a deep breath. I think Obama will win in November, and I don’t think it will be a close race, by recent standards. There are too many new voters out there that the pollsters aren’t capturing, and I think they will go overwhelmingly Democratic. But even if I’m wrong, a loss in November will be only a temporary setback. A deeply disappointing one, to be sure, but temporary. On social issues the country as a whole is moving to the left, and will continue to do so. On issues of intolerance, Obama’s candidacy shows the progress we have made- progress now may be more incremental than in the ‘60s, but it is progress nonetheless. In 2000 we thought we had the privilege to elect a president based on inconsequential bullshit- remember the “end of history”? If nothing else, the last 8 years have taken us to task for that misapprehension. There will never be another 2000, and Rove is a jackass.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”- Theodore Parker

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

anna perez — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:30:14 -0000

Can we talk!? He's tied (thank the gods) because he is a Black man named Barak Hussein Obama running for the presidency of the USA, some of the seed corn of the republic. When he was born his parent's union was still illegal in parts of the USA. (yes we can however make the preceeding irrelevant in November.) Sen. Obama can't and shouldn't try to "transcend his race." He must, however, work very hard to transcend our racism and that is a hard row to hoe. As Americans, much of our mythology, not least classic American movies, is at least in part premised, culturally, politically and artistically on White supremacy. Don't get me wrong, I've watched and loved "Yankee Doodle Dandy" since I was ten years old. And many years later after having worked in the White House for several years and becoming friends with many of the Black butlers there, I liked that great Jimmy Cagney movie even more. But lets be real, Elizabeth Taylor never had to compete with Dorothy Dandridge for a part.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Asher — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:15:56 -0000

To me, this election should have been over after the Palin interview. I'm a diehard Republican. I also dislike Obama so much that I almost switched my registration to vote for Hillary in the primary. But I couldn't bear to be a registered Democrat for so much as a day, so I didn't. Despite all that, I feel compelled to vote for Obama after seeing what an idiot Palin is. So I'm kind of stunned that the rest of the nation doesn't feel the same way, and that the media is by and large saying that she did a decent job. I'm fairly confident that Obama will win but it's disturbing that that's even in question. No one ought to be able to vote for McCain/Palin in good conscience.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

ty — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:13:54 -0000

sam: With his "too close to call" assertion, Nate made a good point badly. The winner of an election should be the guy who gets the most votes. However, our ability to determine that is imprecise, because of the mechanics of counting and validating votes.

In the case of Florida's 2000 presidential election, more votes were counted for Bush than Gore. Using slightly different (and still valid) methodology, more votes would have been counted for Gore than Bush. Regardless, the result was so close as to be beyond the ability of vote counting to determine. More votes may have been cast for Bush, more votes may have been cast for Gore. So to say that we don't know who really won is truthy, even if not legally accurate or relevant.

538 (Nate's site) attempts to project which presidential candidate will get the most votes in each state, and thereby project which presidential candidate will win. Because that task doesn't take into account vote counting methodology (who's the secretary of state in Florida, and who is the county commissioner of Miami-Dade, or which counties in Ohio use Diebold brand voting machines, both for instance), it only concern is vote casting, not number of votes counted. Thus, the truthy "too close to call" assertion is more relevant than Bush's ultimate certification as the winner of Florida's electoral votes.

Whew.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Incertus — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:28:15 -0000

About the premise, comparing this to 2000--the Electoral College result came down to 300 votes, but Gore won the popular vote by considerably more than that--half a million, as I recall--so to call it a coin-flip isn't really accurate.

And it's also important to remember that Bush didn't govern like the person he ran as--we didn't get what the Republicans paid for. Bush ran as, and was portrayed by the media as a responsible moderate, while Gore was portrayed as the guy who couldn't open his mouth without lying. All this worked together to get us an election that Gore won in every way but the one that mattered--the 5-4 decision he lost to at the Supreme Court.

But Nate's larger point is still good. We've still got two months to go, and McCain has peaked for the moment. If Obama is down five points across the board and McCain is over 50% in a month, then I'll worry.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

sam — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:15:00 -0000

ps - hoping for something to be a short term gain / long term loss is not a winning strategy. It's the strategy of the lucky loser.

The thing about trends is, absent any tactics by Obama, the trend will hold or continue. You just can't say "it may hurt in the long run" and leave it at that. Well you can, but its a pretty lame strategy.

Instead of voting present on this one and doing nothing, maybe you should take a stand one way or another, rather than put your fate in the hands of "well it may be bad long term".

I would hope Obama is for all his supporters sakes at least.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

sam — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:10:37 -0000

Couple thoughts to his talking sense. He may seem to sound sensable, but I don't think it's very accurate.

1. McCain should be getting crushed after 8 years of non-stop Bush bashing, which has grown progressively worse. Almost one wants to admit support for McCain publically while Obama supporters wear tshirts and design artwork with the guys face on it just for fun.

2. That strange point of the race being too close to call, where we don't really know who won is ridiculous. We know who won. Bush. Only a sore loser would imply otherwise. Both sides were certainly doing everything they could at that time to win. You may not like it, but just like a team that wins a game because of a bad ref call, those are the breaks. Maybe next time it will break your way. But if you can't admit clearly who won, then you need to grow up.

Now I was right with him at the 300 votes either way bit. That's pretty close to a toss up, but just because one team wins the world series by 1 game and 1 run doesn't mean they didn't win.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

rob! — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:19:14 -0000

"If August was a record donation month for Obama (it was for McCain!), why hasn't he said how much he made?"

Because A)they don't have to report it until Sept. 20, and B)they are great at dropping big news stories at the right moment, when it will have maximum impact.

The Obama campaign has already said they broke their one-month fundraising record, so unless they're lying (that's the McCain campaign's job), it'll be an awesome figure.

At least $150 of it is mine!

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Katherine — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:03:53 -0000

Adam: If August was a record donation month for Obama (it was for McCain!), why hasn't he said how much he made? I have to think he got close to what McCain got - maybe a little more, maybe even a little less. And that's deeply worrying, especially as McCain doesn't need to earn any more money.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Marc Adin — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:53:55 -0000

Doesn't Nate know that what the polls say today necessarily dictate the results in November? What is he thinking?

no, the real question is what the fuck are you thinking? you are becoming panicked, and a panic spreading fear monger. toughen up dood. where is your spine, your courage to overcome your fears? fear destroys optimism and hope. this election is a turning point in american history upon which hinges a coup by right wing, anti-democratic, zealots or their final destruction as a powerful political force. it is the difference between war and peace, racism triumphant and racism weakened, a progressive democracy and a putin style russian democracy.

get your shit together. you are beginning to sound like a wussified defeatist. show some fight, some courage, and get a grip. either that, or shut the fuck up.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Anne — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:36:51 -0000

Well, after reading that, I just went and donated. So there.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Adam — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:57:46 -0000

"If they're anything to go by"

They're not.

Stop concern trolling. Both August and September will be record donation months. What are you possibly trying to accomplish by your post?

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Matt McIrvin — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:23:53 -0000

I know Democrats who are already completely, and I mean completely, out of hope. They're talking about the race in the past tense, as a crazy dream that died. "He never had a chance--he's black, after all, this country is too racist--we were only fooling ourselves" and such statements.

If they're anything to go by, Obama's donations are probably going to drop to nil pretty soon, and then he will lose.

Our political faith is so weak.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

MoeLarryAndJesus — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:09:49 -0000

This is what the right is these days:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080913/D93620600.html

Pigs indeed. And if anyone thinks the table was pulled because the organizers were offended, I say bullshit. It was pulled (after two days) because it hit the media.

And guess who bought a box? Lou Dobbs.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

asl — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:58:29 -0000

Many of Obama's supporters don't own a land line so are unreachable for polling. When polls account for that, let me know and I'll pay attention.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Doctor Jay — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:51:22 -0000

What's really impressing me is that while McCain may be winning tactically in day-to-day stuff, Obama is winning strategically. By this I mean that certain words are now being used over and over. Obama talked about how McCain is now trying to be about "change". That's the whole "lipstick on a pig" thing. Which he stood by, and used to advance his message. Spot on.

"Serious" is another one of them. That's an Obama word. Whenever someone talks about being "serious", it doesn't help McCain, it helps Obama. And I'm hearing that word a lot. It isn't that Sarah Palin is dumb, she's not. It isn't that she has 5 children, or an pregnant teenage daughter. It's that she isn't serious enough about governing the country to know what "the Bush Doctrine" is. And if John McCain was willing to pick her to be his VP, neither is he.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Tony Comstock — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:45:20 -0000

In employing the Southern Strategy/Atwater/Rove approach the politics, the Republican party has mortgaged their ability to lead in the future in exchange for politically expedient demagogary in the present. It's a ponzi scheme they're playing on themselves. Even as the GOP become ever more beholden to the religious right, the wedge issues become less and less effective.

They've run against porn (Ed Messe), they've run against blacks (Regan's Cadilac-driving welfare queen and Willie Hortan); they've run against gays and lesbians; they've run against latino immigrants, now they're running against "urban elites". But like a overstretch spend thrift using one credit card to pay off another, their comes a point when you don't have another credit card, and the entire balance comes due.

Even if McCain/Palin manage to win in November; even if they manage to pack the Supreme Court with ideologues, there is simply no way they can deliver to their base (read the Atlantic Roe v. Wade cover artical from a few years back, or the very good article on Justice Renquist.)

And at the same time they are failing to deliver, a generation that doesn't care about who or how you fuck, or about race will take it's place at the center of American life. They'll be no one left to run against, because the Republicans' "other" will be us.

Re: Nate Silver talks some sense

Lesley — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:01:20 -0000

I keep hearing that the Obama campaign is out registering the GOP in voters. And that pollsters don't contact these newly registered voters because, according to their requirements for polling, they don't represent a "likely" voter. So don't look too hard at the polls.

But if you must, a diarist on Dkos tells about going into a GOP district in Ohio. 22 for Obama, 20 for McCain, 11 undecided. This in a Republican stronghold. It ain't over people. Keep your chins up.