posted November 07, 2012 12:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fairaqua:
Romney win..

Reasons (aside from personal)

Red Skin Rule
there is a high correlation between the outcome of the last Washington Redskins home football game prior to the U.S. Presidential Election and the outcome of the election: when the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins the electoral vote for the White House; when the Redskins lose, the non-incumbent party wins. This coincidence has been noted by many sports and political commentators and has held true in every election since 1940, except for that of 2004.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

Republicans Have Won Every November 6th
Since election day was standardized in 1845 there have been 6 presidential elections held on November 6th and Republicans have won all six. That means next Tuesday, the 7th Presidential election held on this date, will either break or uphold a streak that began in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln.
http://nation.foxnews.com/history/2012/11/01/republicans-have-w on-every-november-6th-presidential-election-1860

---

Oops I guess those myths just got sourly debunked!

posted November 07, 2012 01:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Electoral vote

Romney 300+
O'Bomber 238-

Romney wins 53% to 47%

---

posted November 07, 2012 01:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixFire:
The President is about to give his speech =)

---

posted November 07, 2012 05:56 AM            

Being right is a great feeling especially when defeating the right-wing

JWHop wrote:
<<Romney wins 53% to 47% >>

Wrong by 4%, or wrong by more than 4 million votes. We cannot blame JWHop for being so wrong all the time, for he gets his intelligent analysis from Rush Limbaugh. Ok, it is an oxymoron
In any case, Karl Rove got it wrong.
Donald Trump got it wrong. Poor Mitt did not even write a speech in case of defeat.

I wonder if they will shut down the Republican Party now as suggested by some of their elite like Laura Ingraham.

More losers:
Cofer Black will not be able to torture anyone.
Dan Senor will have to keep regurgitating his lies for the rest of his life.
John Lehman will not be able to get his a$s kicked by Putin.
Michael Hayden will not be able to wiretap anyone.
John Bolton will not be able to trigger a war with Iran.
Cheney and his arms dealer buddies will not be able to loot more dollars.

posted November 07, 2012 08:40 AM            

Getting them out of the lower chakra stagnation to Heart Chakra will be a decent start.

posted November 07, 2012 09:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I've been saying this over and over so I'm sorry to bore anyone...

But the Psychic Twins predicted Romney and I want them to be right.

Otherwise I have almost zero preference for one of these dudes over the other. Well maybe SLIGHT preference for Romney, since he's a Pisces. And that's the whole reason for my tiny preference.

---

posted November 07, 2012 12:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
I think Obama will take Florida. That is a very sweet icing on this cake.
A 332 to 206 thumping, punishing victory handed down from a man they thought would be a pushover will definitely trigger some humane changes in the GOP.

Getting them out of the lower chakra stagnation to Heart Chakra will be a decent start.

---

I wholeheartedly agree IQ! It was a good day not only in the US but around the world.

"The key to Obama's win was support from women, young voters, African-Americans, and Hispanics." http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/how-he-did-it-obama-sweeps-battleground-states.html

posted November 07, 2012 01:39 PM            

November 7, 2012 by Chris Taylor

Barack Obama may have comfortably won re-election in the electoral college, and squeaked a victory in the popular vote. But here is the absolute, undoubted winner of this election: Nate Silver and big data.

The Fivethirtyeight.com analyst, despite being pilloried by the pundits, outdid even his 2008 prediction. In that year, his mathematical model correctly called 49 out of 50 states, missing only Indiana (which went to Obama by 0.1%.)

This year, according to all projections, Silver’s model has correctly predicted 50 out of 50 states. A last-minute flip for Florida, which finally went blue in Silver’s prediction on Monday night, helped him to a perfect game.

A caveat: Florida has not yet been called officially, but Obama is in the lead with 98% of precincts reporting. If anything, Silver’s placing of Florida on a knife edge makes him look even more prescient. No wonder one of the night’s more popular tweets suggested that he was actually from the future, working from old newspapers.

What does this victory mean? That mathematical models can no longer be derided by “gut-feeling” pundits. That Silver’s contention — TV pundits are generally no more accurate than a coin toss — must now be given wider credence.

The great thing about a model like Silver’s (and that of similarly winning math nerds, such as Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium) is that it takes all that myopic human bias out of the equation. The ever-present temptation to cherry-pick polls is subverted.

You set your parameters at the start, deciding how much weight and accuracy you’re going to give to each poll based purely on their historical accuracy. You feed in whatever other conditions you think will matter to the result. Then, you sit back and let the algorithm do the work.

Silver may be a registered Democrat, but he learned back when he was doing baseball analysis that he’d never get anywhere if his models weren’t absolutely neutral, straight down the line between feuding teams.

By 2016, if the networks are paying attention, don’t be surprised to see that the talking heads are all Nate Silver clones. Every media organization will now want its own state poll-based algorithm, especially given how much traffic Silver has driven to the New York Times‘ website. We’ll see more about that kind of model, and less stories about individual polls, which are almost always misleading unless you aggregate them.

Statistics, big data, neutral mathematical models — this, it turns out, is what people want. Who knew?

Well, we geeks knew, but we’re starting to get used to having the rest of the world follow our lead. We had the smartphones first, we read the fantasy books before they became blockbuster movies and TV shows, and now we can boast that we stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Nate Silver’s data before it was popular.

And if you want to see just how accurate Silver’s model was, check this tweet out:

http://mashable.com/2012/11/07/nate-silver-wins/

posted November 07, 2012 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
I think Obama will take Florida. That is a very sweet icing on this cake.
A 332 to 206 thumping, punishing victory handed down from a man they thought would be a pushover will definitely trigger some humane changes in the GOP.

---

Yes, I also think he'll take Florida. Hopefully he'll be able to trigger the sorely needed humane changes. His acceptance speech was quite powerful imo. I hope he can bring to fruition the promise in his words of taking the country forward to a better place.

quote:

---

Getting them out of the lower chakra stagnation to Heart Chakra will be a decent start.

---

Yes, yes, yes, and YES!!!

posted November 07, 2012 02:01 PM            

You beat me to it by a hair!!!
I was going to also post that Nate Silver is the ABSOLUTE Geek/Nerd prediction WINNER!!!!

His astounding accuracy even with the popular vote, makes him a genius imo. Love the guy!!!

Watch him rise to unadulterated stardom now!

posted November 07, 2012 02:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
"The key to Obama's win was support from women, young voters, African-Americans, and Hispanics." http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/how-he-did-it-obama-sweeps-battleground-states.ht ml

Welcome to the New America!

---

Yeah, you can say that again!!
The republican party which is still stuck in the 1980s, needs to move forward with the times. Women and minorities are real and they count!!!!

posted November 07, 2012 04:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I was surprised to see in an article about Nate Silver today that he was rebuked by an editor at the Times for trying to make that bet with Joe Scarborough.

---

Yeah, I don't get it either. The reasoning behind it is watery at best--
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/nate-silver-joe-scarborough-bet_n_2056401.html

"UPDATE: Silver spoke to the Times' public editor, Margaret Sullivan, about the bet, which he called "half playful and half serious."

"He’s been on a rant, calling me an idiot and a partisan, so I’m asking him to put some integrity behind it," he said. "I don’t stand to gain anything from it; it’s for charity."

Sullivan opined that Silver's bet had been "a bad idea" and "inappropriate" because Silver was representing the Times and would reinforce conservative complaints about him.

"When he came to work at The Times, Mr. Silver gained a lot more visibility and the credibility associated with a prominent institution. But he lost something, too: the right to act like a free agent with responsibilities to nobody’s standards but his own," she wrote."

It was a harmless bet for charity!! Whatever!!! Sounds like they're trying to own him. He should ditch 'em and go solo imo.

Heck, the Prez could use his consultant services at the White House to crunch numbers!

posted November 07, 2012 05:28 PM            

Here he's unequivocally brought integrity to the supposedly uber-liberal newspaper. It doesn't make the paper look more liberal. It makes the paper look more accurate. That accuracy has brought a lot of traffic to the NYT.

Love this tweet found on your article's page:
On Joe Scarborough's list: (1.) Apologize to Nate Silver, (2.) Grown a mustache.

posted November 08, 2012 01:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Here he's unequivocally brought integrity to the supposedly uber-liberal newspaper. It doesn't make the paper look more liberal. It makes the paper look more accurate. That accuracy has brought a lot of traffic to the NYT.

---

No kidding! It's quid pro quo at the very least. In reality I think Silver's done more for the Times. So they better not bear down on him too much, 'cause he's well known enough now to become a free agent if he wants.

And as for this---
"Sullivan opined that Silver's bet had been "a bad idea" and "inappropriate" because Silver was representing the Times and would reinforce conservative complaints about him."

Puh-leeese!! These very complaints have contributed to the traffic at the Times. Besides, he's been fielding them for a while now with his math logic.

I heard about the mustache bet on NBC, the channel I intuitively settled to watch on election night. Turns out NBC had the highest viewership with more than 12 mill. They were the first ones to call the Prez the projected winner--at 11:12 pm