Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (698192)	2/10/2013 1:55:05 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1574767

put a hundred monkeys together and one will hit the correct number of electorial votes, pretty simple limited combinations. Silver knew there would be massive cheating in inner cities and he went with that. He had inside contacts with the white house and they told him about the voter fraud that was gonna happen

To: combjelly who wrote (698192)	2/10/2013 10:46:22 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574767

> Even down to the number of electoral votes and the states that provided them with 100% accuracy. He was off by one state last year. So was I (I gave FL to Romney). Markos Moulitsas was perfect. -Z

To: combjelly who wrote (698192)	2/10/2013 11:04:02 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574767

>> Even down to the number of electoral votes and the states that provided them with 100% accuracy. It is silly. Anyone can apply statistical methods to various poll results and come within only a couple of states of hitting it on the nose. After all, there are very few states that are really in play. The question in the last election was one of poll reliability and turnout. A meaningful analysis of what actually caused Silver to "be right" would be interesting, although a waste of time. I think some of the Republicans just didn't believe there were that many idiots who would fall for the Obama sales job a second time. In the end, there were -- but whether the polls were inaccurate or Obama's IT superiority managed to just get enough ignorant voters out -- that's still subject to question. You just cannot underestimate the intelligence of American voters, and I suspect that was the mistake the Republican prognosticators made. It was totally reasonable to assume that there were not enough stupid assed people who were more interested in their government payments than they are int he country's future to swing the election to Obama; but in the end, there were. I'm certain you are far too intelligent to have been sucked in by it, right?