Topic: Nate Silver now gives Obama an almost 81% chance of winning
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc started this discussion 14 years ago #23,189
It's not that close in "reality" world.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
I'll still be volunteering all goddamn weekend though.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
I'll still be volunteering all goddamn weekend though.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #362,863
What's the volunteering been like? Have you met any crazy people?
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #362,867
@OP
It's been near that margin the entire race. I think it is absolutely absurd that the media has portrayed the race any other way.
It's been near that margin the entire race. I think it is absolutely absurd that the media has portrayed the race any other way.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #362,868
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 19 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #362,869
@362,867 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It's being portrayed as very close over here too, but usually with Obama having a slim lead.
It's being portrayed as very close over here too, but usually with Obama having a slim lead.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 58 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #362,870
@362,867 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It keeps the media relevant and protects them from conservative backlash for calling out the bullshit.
It keeps the media relevant and protects them from conservative backlash for calling out the bullshit.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #362,878
@OP
> It's not that close in "reality" world.
>
> http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
>
> I'll still be volunteering all goddamn weekend though.
Are you on good terms with Handle or Sim?
> It's not that close in "reality" world.
>
> http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
>
> I'll still be volunteering all goddamn weekend though.
Are you on good terms with Handle or Sim?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #362,880
@362,868 (D)
My god...
Most conservatives are out of touch with reality about so many things. It's hurting our country. This isn't a fucking game. :(
My god...
Most conservatives are out of touch with reality about so many things. It's hurting our country. This isn't a fucking game. :(
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 second later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #362,881
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,887
@previous (D)
Wot wot? Where do you think becky got
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Maybe a bit lazy @MC do to not so lazy at
http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/ ......Legal to use if in USA but requires money from any location, outside USA
http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/
http://betting.betfair.com/politics/us-politics/us-election-daily-update-early-indicator-states-to-spark-market-volatility-021112-186.html ..Legal but money must come from offshore USA
Betfair is Planet Earths largest On line bookmaker but Intrade did more better for predicting the winner and that includes every USA polling service - One exception was that CNN Senate races in 2008 was as accurate or even more better - Comedy of Al Franken took Months in court to play out.
tl;dr? CNN Senate race 2008 CNN hit all but one State on the Nose! Nate Silver beat EVERYONE that is EVERY Polling Service. More Accurate and now the Pundits are mad as hell at him and he is getting a great deal of TV air time as a result.
Ohio ends up a very profitable State in Play or is that To Play
And
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres12_Quotes.html 100% USA Legal to do this in USA but more difficult for placing the 1st bet.
becky if you should waste time reading the bookies take on Ohio, I suggest you do not They want people to think Romney is going to get Ohio ....Of course they do because if bookie can convince just a few people ...Money in the bank for them. Betfair currently is churning over $60 Million a week on USA Election.
ANON D other then Links none of dis is copypasta
Wot wot? Where do you think becky got
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Maybe a bit lazy @MC do to not so lazy at
http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/ ......Legal to use if in USA but requires money from any location, outside USA
http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/
http://betting.betfair.com/politics/us-politics/us-election-daily-update-early-indicator-states-to-spark-market-volatility-021112-186.html ..Legal but money must come from offshore USA
Betfair is Planet Earths largest On line bookmaker but Intrade did more better for predicting the winner and that includes every USA polling service - One exception was that CNN Senate races in 2008 was as accurate or even more better - Comedy of Al Franken took Months in court to play out.
tl;dr? CNN Senate race 2008 CNN hit all but one State on the Nose! Nate Silver beat EVERYONE that is EVERY Polling Service. More Accurate and now the Pundits are mad as hell at him and he is getting a great deal of TV air time as a result.
Ohio ends up a very profitable State in Play or is that To Play
And
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres12_Quotes.html 100% USA Legal to do this in USA but more difficult for placing the 1st bet.
becky if you should waste time reading the bookies take on Ohio, I suggest you do not They want people to think Romney is going to get Ohio ....Of course they do because if bookie can convince just a few people ...Money in the bank for them. Betfair currently is churning over $60 Million a week on USA Election.
ANON D other then Links none of dis is copypasta
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Ashe !bbKEtchUp. joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,890
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,891
Take into account that most people who participate in polls are younger. And democrats are typically younger, and blacker. The median age is over 40, and 72.4 percent of the population is white. I'm not saying Obama doesn't have decent support, I'm just saying that if you think he's really ahead by 81 percent, you're fucking retarded.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,892
@362,890 (Ashe !bbKEtchUp.)
I don't understand what those numbers mean. They're favouring Obama, I think?
I was referring to newspapers and news shows, anyway.
I don't understand what those numbers mean. They're favouring Obama, I think?
I was referring to newspapers and news shows, anyway.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,893
@362,887 (Syntax)
I'm very aware that Nate Silver is great and you view him highly.
You're still retarded.
I'm very aware that Nate Silver is great and you view him highly.
You're still retarded.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,894
@362,891 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)> I'm just saying that if you think he's really ahead by 81 percent, you're fucking retarded.
> Totally ignoring facts in favor of what you want to believe.
> accuse others of being retarded
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,897
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
A certain demographic that we already know is mostly democratic showed us that they are mostly democratic. If Obama wins by 81 percent I will be truly shocked.
Also, I like that reaction pic.
A certain demographic that we already know is mostly democratic showed us that they are mostly democratic. If Obama wins by 81 percent I will be truly shocked.
Also, I like that reaction pic.
Ashe !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,898
@362,892 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
You can make sense of it by thinking 'if I stake y and win, I will get y plus 1x for every multiple of y' when the odds are x/y. So for example, the William Hill odds on Mitt Romney winning are 16/5. This means that for every £5 you bet, you will get an additional £16 if you win the bet. So if you bet £30, you'll get £126 with a profit of £96. If you made the same bet on Obama at William Hill, you'd only get £36.67 for a total profit of £6.67. The best odds (as in, the odds that give him the worst probability of winning) you can get on Obama is 3/10, meaning that if you bet £30 and won you'd get £39 back.
Also with all due respect the only time I've ever seen Mitt Romney prominently mentioned here is when he came to London and did some seriously retarded shit.
You can make sense of it by thinking 'if I stake y and win, I will get y plus 1x for every multiple of y' when the odds are x/y. So for example, the William Hill odds on Mitt Romney winning are 16/5. This means that for every £5 you bet, you will get an additional £16 if you win the bet. So if you bet £30, you'll get £126 with a profit of £96. If you made the same bet on Obama at William Hill, you'd only get £36.67 for a total profit of £6.67. The best odds (as in, the odds that give him the worst probability of winning) you can get on Obama is 3/10, meaning that if you bet £30 and won you'd get £39 back.
Also with all due respect the only time I've ever seen Mitt Romney prominently mentioned here is when he came to London and did some seriously retarded shit.
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,899
@362,897 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
> A certain demographic that we already know is mostly democratic showed us that they are mostly democratic.
What are you talking about??
Nate Silver takes ALL demographics into account. Nate Silver is one of the most accurate statisticians alive, if not the most.
> A certain demographic that we already know is mostly democratic showed us that they are mostly democratic.
What are you talking about??
Nate Silver takes ALL demographics into account. Nate Silver is one of the most accurate statisticians alive, if not the most.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,900
@362,891 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
It's not that Obama is ahead by 81%. What he's saying is that when the votes are tallied, there is an 81% chance that Obama will win. Nate Silver is one of the best statisticians in the business. The potential biases are well-known and accounted for by his models. That's why he was so accurate in '08.
It's not that Obama is ahead by 81%. What he's saying is that when the votes are tallied, there is an 81% chance that Obama will win. Nate Silver is one of the best statisticians in the business. The potential biases are well-known and accounted for by his models. That's why he was so accurate in '08.
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,903
@362,899 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Doesn't take into account people who don't participate in polls.
@previous (H)
My mistake, that makes sense actually.
Doesn't take into account people who don't participate in polls.
@previous (H)
My mistake, that makes sense actually.
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,904
@362,890 (Ashe !bbKEtchUp.)
Close is not really important in THIS CASE
George W Bush vs Gore & George had 543,895 fewer votes then Bush. So maybe you know this? Others may not. How do you win a election if you ran behind the other guy? Popular vote means nothing in USA.
Its all about 538 total Electoral votes. People can look up the details on web. Some States like mine have a huge number of Votes but in 2004 as now my State does not count for 2012.
Bush won as a result of US Super court decision and it turned out, Bush won Florida E-College vote by a margin of 537 votes out of six million cast. To get around that 537 votes, Gore ended up in Super Court in order to get IBM type punch cards hanging chads counted. Court said no way - If people to lazy to punch a card most proper screw them.
tl;dr? Popular Vote odds from long list you have there Ashe - Not important - One can bet the States or who is going to have the most overall E-Votes - Of course one can play the game with popular vote and I sure am.
Edited tl;dr Popular Vote no count Electoral Vote is all that Counts!!!
Close is not really important in THIS CASE
George W Bush vs Gore & George had 543,895 fewer votes then Bush. So maybe you know this? Others may not. How do you win a election if you ran behind the other guy? Popular vote means nothing in USA.
Its all about 538 total Electoral votes. People can look up the details on web. Some States like mine have a huge number of Votes but in 2004 as now my State does not count for 2012.
Bush won as a result of US Super court decision and it turned out, Bush won Florida E-College vote by a margin of 537 votes out of six million cast. To get around that 537 votes, Gore ended up in Super Court in order to get IBM type punch cards hanging chads counted. Court said no way - If people to lazy to punch a card most proper screw them.
tl;dr? Popular Vote odds from long list you have there Ashe - Not important - One can bet the States or who is going to have the most overall E-Votes - Of course one can play the game with popular vote and I sure am.
Edited tl;dr Popular Vote no count Electoral Vote is all that Counts!!!
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,905
@362,891 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
> Take into account that most people who participate in polls are younger.
False. Polls typically are on landlines. The few including cell phones show a more liberal demographic.
> And democrats are typically younger, and blacker.
I know what you're saying, but you're tying to link these in a cumbersome manner.
> The median age is over 40, and 72.4 percent of the population is white. I'm not saying Obama doesn't have decent support, I'm just saying that if you think he's really ahead by 81 percent, you're fucking retarded.
You're retarded because you cannot read and misunderstand what probability means.
> Take into account that most people who participate in polls are younger.
False. Polls typically are on landlines. The few including cell phones show a more liberal demographic.
> And democrats are typically younger, and blacker.
I know what you're saying, but you're tying to link these in a cumbersome manner.
> The median age is over 40, and 72.4 percent of the population is white. I'm not saying Obama doesn't have decent support, I'm just saying that if you think he's really ahead by 81 percent, you're fucking retarded.
You're retarded because you cannot read and misunderstand what probability means.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,906
@362,903 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)> Doesn't take into account people who don't participate in polls.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,908
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,911
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,913
@362,908 (D)
To be fair there is a difference between ignorance and retardation.
But it is a willful ignorance, so it is kinda retarded.
I'm confident he thinks he has good grasp on politics, most people do. It's a common mistake.
To be fair there is a difference between ignorance and retardation.
But it is a willful ignorance, so it is kinda retarded.
I'm confident he thinks he has good grasp on politics, most people do. It's a common mistake.
Ks !KansasxqvM double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #362,914
@362,911 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)I do not think you understand demographics and statistics at all. Please, just stahp.
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 14 years ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,916
@362,913 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
You think it's all about some polls, that mean nothing. You only give them creedence because the polls agree with your opinion.
You think it's all about some polls, that mean nothing. You only give them creedence because the polls agree with your opinion.
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ double-posted this 14 years ago, 40 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,917
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,923
@362,916 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)@previous (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
Okay, I take back my statement from earlier. You are clearly retarded.
Kill yourself.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,924
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,927
@362,898 (Ashe !bbKEtchUp.)
> Also with all due respect the only time I've ever seen Mitt Romney prominently mentioned here is when he came to London and did some seriously retarded shit.
10/10
That was Romney doing his 4inPolicy antics n failed.
@362,899 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
10/10
No one is perfect and he has competition few know about but they also have terrific track records - and of course in order to bet on all of this I pay close attention to those who did super in 2000 2004 2008 so and I may be retarded if I get this wrong for 2012 cause I may have to move to a Tent and sleep out in the woods and hunt and gather but be close to T1 lines connect to run my Sun Solaris work stations and need beckys huge back up generator to keep it all going
@362,903 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
> Doesn't take into account people who don't participate in polls.
Don't need them don't want them - A sample of those that do with a discounting factor if they want to, to much and built in trick questions to locate them and degrade the result.
I admit I disliked the Stats course's I took at Uni. On rare occasions in Engineering I sure as hell needed that stuff and more.
@362,905 (D)
> You're retarded because you cannot read and misunderstand what probability means.
Perhaps its good that only a few do? I mean for me to gamble money its best when I can win money from them.
> Also with all due respect the only time I've ever seen Mitt Romney prominently mentioned here is when he came to London and did some seriously retarded shit.
10/10
That was Romney doing his 4inPolicy antics n failed.
@362,899 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
10/10
No one is perfect and he has competition few know about but they also have terrific track records - and of course in order to bet on all of this I pay close attention to those who did super in 2000 2004 2008 so and I may be retarded if I get this wrong for 2012 cause I may have to move to a Tent and sleep out in the woods and hunt and gather but be close to T1 lines connect to run my Sun Solaris work stations and need beckys huge back up generator to keep it all going
@362,903 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
> Doesn't take into account people who don't participate in polls.
Don't need them don't want them - A sample of those that do with a discounting factor if they want to, to much and built in trick questions to locate them and degrade the result.
I admit I disliked the Stats course's I took at Uni. On rare occasions in Engineering I sure as hell needed that stuff and more.
@362,905 (D)
> You're retarded because you cannot read and misunderstand what probability means.
Perhaps its good that only a few do? I mean for me to gamble money its best when I can win money from them.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,933
@362,911 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
You only need an appropriate sample of the population, you don't poll the entire population. You really only need a few thousand people to participate to have an accurate sampling. There's a whole science behind it, and believe me, they've worked out these kinds of problems a long time ago.
And actually the call landlines 50% of the time and cell phones 50% of the time. I heard a guy from rassmusen or somewhere on NPR the other day discussing it. They are well aware of who uses what kind of phones, and yes, more old people use and lines and more young people use cell phones, but he said specifically that that line is very blurred today (not as stark as it was 12 years ago) and it really doesn't make much difference to the polls anymore since they have been calling both types to get the most accurate sample possible.
I can't stress enough how scientific polling is, you can't just dismiss it out of pocket because you don't think they took something into consideration. They did.
You only need an appropriate sample of the population, you don't poll the entire population. You really only need a few thousand people to participate to have an accurate sampling. There's a whole science behind it, and believe me, they've worked out these kinds of problems a long time ago.
And actually the call landlines 50% of the time and cell phones 50% of the time. I heard a guy from rassmusen or somewhere on NPR the other day discussing it. They are well aware of who uses what kind of phones, and yes, more old people use and lines and more young people use cell phones, but he said specifically that that line is very blurred today (not as stark as it was 12 years ago) and it really doesn't make much difference to the polls anymore since they have been calling both types to get the most accurate sample possible.
I can't stress enough how scientific polling is, you can't just dismiss it out of pocket because you don't think they took something into consideration. They did.
Ashe !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 14 years ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,934
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,945
@362,933 (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
> I heard a guy from rassmusen or somewhere
Not EXACTLY Rasssmusen is a complex corp. He owns or is it they own him? [ Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research ]
http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/rasmussen.html
So some polls each run under a contract to Whomever - Some are only Robo calls to Land Lines - others more expensive for client with big bucks gets real people in field - Cell phone calls have to come from a special hard to buy list so its hardly random.
Bottom line is that Rassmusen can prove they were the best last election - Nate proves they were not. Numbers numbers who can play best with the numbers. This year Rasmussen is going to have a hard time showing they got it right - Currently they have the only poll in several states showing Romney winning - 8-10 polls show Obama by several points and Rasmussen even as a outliner.
So I have a side bet with a few friends on how far he will fall from his own home made grace.
> I heard a guy from rassmusen or somewhere
Not EXACTLY Rasssmusen is a complex corp. He owns or is it they own him? [ Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research ]
http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/rasmussen.html
So some polls each run under a contract to Whomever - Some are only Robo calls to Land Lines - others more expensive for client with big bucks gets real people in field - Cell phone calls have to come from a special hard to buy list so its hardly random.
Bottom line is that Rassmusen can prove they were the best last election - Nate proves they were not. Numbers numbers who can play best with the numbers. This year Rasmussen is going to have a hard time showing they got it right - Currently they have the only poll in several states showing Romney winning - 8-10 polls show Obama by several points and Rasmussen even as a outliner.
So I have a side bet with a few friends on how far he will fall from his own home made grace.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,946
@362,898 (Ashe !bbKEtchUp.)
Yeah, he's definitely less focused on than Obama. The media outlets still seem to be saying hat the race is close, though.
Also, I'm glad you prefaced that with all due respect. I would have been horribly offended otherwise.
Yeah, he's definitely less focused on than Obama. The media outlets still seem to be saying hat the race is close, though.
Also, I'm glad you prefaced that with all due respect. I would have been horribly offended otherwise.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,951
@362,934 (Ashe !bbKEtchUp.)
That's a real good question but truly hard to answer quickly without making it into a book - because there are so fucking many exceptions to the number based on each States rules.
So just one example for you -
That 538 number - US House and Senate 435 Representatives and 100 Senators = 538
So depending on the US Citizen population Total vs State Population - Each state takes its pro rata share of the 435 number. Each State does get 2 Senators - So a State like Ohio gets 18 Electoral Votes. If becky becums fruit full and multiples other then cats - Number will increase one day or if people run from Ohio number will fall in future.
The problem re a full explain2U is - Not every chosen person who gets to place that vote HAS To vote based on who won the State - Often they do and in some States they fuck everyone over by going with their own party -- So some States with rules force the E-college person to cast the vote based on the Popular Vote of that State.
There are States that split the decision - So actually no one is 100% sure the day or week or month after who really Won. Its a mess, but somehow it usually works that the winner of the popular vote in just 11 USA States - Majority of them like Iowa and Ohio - Florida Wisconsin - What we call the Battle ground states - Those States make it all happen - and currently Romney ain't doing shit in those key States.
That's a real good question but truly hard to answer quickly without making it into a book - because there are so fucking many exceptions to the number based on each States rules.
So just one example for you -
That 538 number - US House and Senate 435 Representatives and 100 Senators = 538
So depending on the US Citizen population Total vs State Population - Each state takes its pro rata share of the 435 number. Each State does get 2 Senators - So a State like Ohio gets 18 Electoral Votes. If becky becums fruit full and multiples other then cats - Number will increase one day or if people run from Ohio number will fall in future.
The problem re a full explain2U is - Not every chosen person who gets to place that vote HAS To vote based on who won the State - Often they do and in some States they fuck everyone over by going with their own party -- So some States with rules force the E-college person to cast the vote based on the Popular Vote of that State.
There are States that split the decision - So actually no one is 100% sure the day or week or month after who really Won. Its a mess, but somehow it usually works that the winner of the popular vote in just 11 USA States - Majority of them like Iowa and Ohio - Florida Wisconsin - What we call the Battle ground states - Those States make it all happen - and currently Romney ain't doing shit in those key States.
Syntax double-posted this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,962
@362,946 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> The media outlets still seem to be saying hat the race is close, though.
They sure do, but its all for the ratings and sponsors. Close race by fudging, means more people will watch with baited breath. Means they can charge more for commercials.
CNN Poll watch makes it look close unless you click on each State and see the spread. One could claim Nate Silver could do the same for New York Times? He sure has driven up people paying for on line use of just his 538 NYT service. Use it to much and well I can tell ya how to get around the pay for it lol
> The media outlets still seem to be saying hat the race is close, though.
They sure do, but its all for the ratings and sponsors. Close race by fudging, means more people will watch with baited breath. Means they can charge more for commercials.
CNN Poll watch makes it look close unless you click on each State and see the spread. One could claim Nate Silver could do the same for New York Times? He sure has driven up people paying for on line use of just his 538 NYT service. Use it to much and well I can tell ya how to get around the pay for it lol
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,965
@previous (Syntax)
I'm talking about the UK media, sponsors/ratings are probably much less of am issue for them than the US media.
Though to be fair, the UK media's probably getting a lot of its info from the US media.
I'm talking about the UK media, sponsors/ratings are probably much less of am issue for them than the US media.
Though to be fair, the UK media's probably getting a lot of its info from the US media.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,969
@362,927 (Syntax)
> Perhaps its good that only a few do? I mean for me to gamble money its best when I can win money from them.
lol
> Perhaps its good that only a few do? I mean for me to gamble money its best when I can win money from them.
lol
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,971
@362,965 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Hey that was someWhat dumb of me - So tell me - I do listen to droll BBC a bit several times a week, but do you know if the print media is paying much attention?
I am sure your TV media is just using CNN Fox etc because that's cost effective. One would hope somewhere there are smarter people who can see past the value of turning it into a Circus that makes lots of money doing so.
Hey that was someWhat dumb of me - So tell me - I do listen to droll BBC a bit several times a week, but do you know if the print media is paying much attention?
I am sure your TV media is just using CNN Fox etc because that's cost effective. One would hope somewhere there are smarter people who can see past the value of turning it into a Circus that makes lots of money doing so.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,972
@previous (Syntax)
Yeah our print media's consistently paying attention. Not sure about BBC but I think so.
Yeah our print media's consistently paying attention. Not sure about BBC but I think so.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,974
Fox News has been screaming even harder in desperation as the election draws near. Their hamfisted attempts to make scandals out of Benghazi and Hurricane Sandy are pathetic.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,976
@previous (J)
I listen to conservative talk radio every day. It's a circus, lol. Unfortunately many people take what they say to heart. They really believe the shit they are spoon-fed. It'd be funny if it weren't doing so much damage to our society.
I listen to conservative talk radio every day. It's a circus, lol. Unfortunately many people take what they say to heart. They really believe the shit they are spoon-fed. It'd be funny if it weren't doing so much damage to our society.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,978
@362,974 (J)
Hahaha, oh wow you're right. Their front page is full of desperate attacks on Obama. They're both mad and afraid.
Hahaha, oh wow you're right. Their front page is full of desperate attacks on Obama. They're both mad and afraid.
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,981
@362,974 (J)
I only do Fox on and off during the Elections or events where I can enjoy the Circus they present.
Rupert Murdoch sure has a knack for making huge amounts of money with Tabloid media. They truly know what they are doing. I suspect behind closed doors most of the insiders there laff and take the money to the bank happy. Huge huge ratings.
When they start on Benghazi I hit the pause button so later can fast forward out of.
Fox ends up putting money in my pocket re bets cause so many playing that betting market follow Fox re Romney. True believers ya gotta luv em.
I only do Fox on and off during the Elections or events where I can enjoy the Circus they present.
Rupert Murdoch sure has a knack for making huge amounts of money with Tabloid media. They truly know what they are doing. I suspect behind closed doors most of the insiders there laff and take the money to the bank happy. Huge huge ratings.
When they start on Benghazi I hit the pause button so later can fast forward out of.
Fox ends up putting money in my pocket re bets cause so many playing that betting market follow Fox re Romney. True believers ya gotta luv em.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,990
@362,978 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
You’re really missing the full effect of their TV news. Here’s my favorite source for their most desperate highlights: http://thinkprogress.org/tag/fox-news/
You’re really missing the full effect of their TV news. Here’s my favorite source for their most desperate highlights: http://thinkprogress.org/tag/fox-news/
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,996
@previous (J)
Interesting link. So much bullshitting about some issues and complete silence about others.
Interesting link. So much bullshitting about some issues and complete silence about others.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #362,997
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Familiar with MMFA? It’s another source of clips so bad you want to laugh and cry at the same time.
http://mediamatters.org/tags/fox-news-channel
Familiar with MMFA? It’s another source of clips so bad you want to laugh and cry at the same time.
http://mediamatters.org/tags/fox-news-channel
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #363,001
@362,990 (J)
Thanks for that and will have to save for later
http://thinkprogress.org/tag/fox-news/
http://mediamatters.org/tags/fox-news-channel
Again if they don't do it Tabloid style Rupert would not be able to continue trying to buy Planet Earth.
Thanks for that and will have to save for later
http://thinkprogress.org/tag/fox-news/
http://mediamatters.org/tags/fox-news-channel
Again if they don't do it Tabloid style Rupert would not be able to continue trying to buy Planet Earth.
Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #363,004
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #363,013
@previous (Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6)
http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/
Terrific business but We in USA are allowed to use it but not allowed to wire transfer money to use it. So Romney can with his Swiss bank account.
You could place bets for becky. You could becum a MC holding company and take a percentage. Me? I have a couple of offshore bank accounts so its easy for me.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/
Terrific business but We in USA are allowed to use it but not allowed to wire transfer money to use it. So Romney can with his Swiss bank account.
You could place bets for becky. You could becum a MC holding company and take a percentage. Me? I have a couple of offshore bank accounts so its easy for me.
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #363,020
OBAMA2012 !CaTLdYmooc (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 4 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #364,221
lol