[blackshoe]

 lalldonn, on 2012-September-25, 18:26, said:

You weren't the person I was refering to. Earlier in the thread the idea of 'being the worlds policemen' was justified as a form of altruism, which seems beyond insanity to me.

To me as well.

[barmar]

 dwar0123, on 2012-September-25, 00:15, said:

Fairly altruistic, but not as much as gving to a charity to help wipe out malaria in Africa.

It was just one example. I give to other charities that are less likely to benefit me directly. For instance, I give to my alma mater, so that current and future students will get the same benefit I got from the Institute. I give to the Red Cross, especially right after some big disasters (e.g. the tsunamis a few years ago, the Haitian earthquake).

[Winstonm]

Quote

I give to the Red Cross, especially right after some big disasters

I went down in a cold 3NT - does that qualify for a donation?

[dwar0123]

 barmar, on 2012-September-26, 01:19, said:

It was just one example. I give to other charities that are less likely to benefit me directly. For instance, I give to my alma mater, so that current and future students will get the same benefit I got from the Institute. I give to the Red Cross, especially right after some big disasters (e.g. the tsunamis a few years ago, the Haitian earthquake).

I understand that it was an example, and to be clear I am not trying to call you selfish, I was making the point that it is all relative. As you noted there is no purely altruistic act and one could argue there is no purely selfish act.

Our use of our military comes in deep on the selfish side of that scale, as any countries military is ought to be. We might err on the side of being moral, but we do not spend trillions of dollars as a selfless sacrifice to the greater good.

We might use our military more altruistically(still deeply selfish, but it is relative) than other countries, but honestly, with certain obvious exceptions, I believe that is just a cultural bias.

[luke warm]

 Winstonm, on 2012-September-26, 09:17, said:

I went down in a cold 3NT - does that qualify for a donation?

from you? probably

[ArtK78]

I see that Nate Silver now has Obama with an 83.9% chance of winning the Electoral College vote. That is pretty impressive with only 5 1/2 weeks until election day.

[PassedOut]

 ArtK78, on 2012-September-28, 09:02, said:

I see that Nate Silver now has Obama with an 83.9% chance of winning the Electoral College vote. That is pretty impressive with only 5 1/2 weeks until election day.

I guess the folks who say that all of the polls except Rasmussen are biased toward Obama will be placing some big bets on Romney now (if they believe their own words). I hope so, anyway...

[semeai]

 ArtK78, on 2012-September-28, 09:02, said:

I see that Nate Silver now has Obama with an 83.9% chance of winning the Electoral College vote. That is pretty impressive with only 5 1/2 weeks until election day.

This probability of his already takes into account the uncertainty due to the time until the election, so the same number is less impressive the closer to the election you get.

What should impress is his "now-cast" of Obama having a 97.8% chance of victory if the election were held today.

[cherdano]

/gg

[ggwhiz]

 Winstonm, on 2012-September-26, 09:17, said:

I went down in a cold 3NT - does that qualify for a donation?

No. In my case it's considered 75% likely.

Obama is such a good speaker and has so much gaffe related amunition he may well bury Romney in the first debate unless the telepromter fails and he loses his cue cards. Romney has landmines in play in that he can make another gaffe or look weasily (again) when defending himself agaist the previous ones. He'll have to be at the top of his game just to hold the line.

[Phil]

 cherdano, on 2012-September-28, 13:35, said:

/gg

What a surprise, youtube users lean left.

[cherdano]

 Phil, on 2012-September-28, 14:11, said:

What a surprise, youtube users lean left.

So do those who respond to polls:

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2012-September-28, 11:42, said:

I guess the folks who say that all of the polls except Rasmussen are biased toward Obama will be placing some big bets on Romney now (if they believe their own words). I hope so, anyway...

i think most just go by historical accuracy... even fox was better than the "big 3"... it's a crap shoot, they all depend on who is right re: the "weighting" (party affiliation turnout)... from Fordham U...

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national pre-election (2008) polls (as reported on pollster.com).

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2012-September-28, 15:30, said:

i think most just go by historical accuracy... even fox was better than the "big 3"...

Yep, some big betting opportunities for Romney fans for sure. The odds should be dropping like a stone this weekend.

I guess the argument being made is that the bias in the non-weighted polls comes from folks who are ashamed to tell pollsters that they are republicans, but who will regain their affiliation in the privacy of the polling booth.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2012-September-28, 15:46, said:

I guess the argument being made is that the bias in the non-weighted polls comes from folks who are ashamed to tell pollsters that they are republicans, but who will regain their affiliation in the privacy of the polling booth.

i don't think so... all are weighted to some degree or other... the prob is, a lot of the "famous" polls are weighting their samples with historically large democratic turnout... iow, in 2008 the turnout was (i think) D +8, meaning 8% more dems than reps actually voted... in this cycle, cbs and others are weighting their numbers D +9, even higher than 2008

so if one believes this, that would explain O's huge numbers - 9% more dems are polled than reps... if, otow, one thinks the dem excitement isn't what it was in 2008, much less greater than it was, the numbers are a little (lot) tighter

i don't know what the actual odds are on O winning, i always go with my own thinking... right now, given my view of the electoral college map, i'd say O is a 3:1 favorite... the debates can change that some, but unless R decides to make this a nat'l campaign, as opposed to a "swing state" one, he's in deep *****

focusing on the swing states is understandable, but imo he should take a page out of history and nationalize the campaign... as the nat'l numbers rise, the swing state numbers would rise... i'm not sure there's enough time, though... getting late

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2012-September-29, 07:08, said:

i don't think so... all are weighted to some degree or other... the prob is, a lot of the "famous" polls are weighting their samples with historically large democratic turnout...

Not really. Many do not select for party at all, as that is part of what they are trying to measure: One certain forecast in U.S. poll dispute: more acrimony ahead

Quote

The debate over polls intensified on Wednesday, when a trend of improving numbers for Obama solidified. A Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS poll in particular drew protests for giving Obama big leads in the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University polling institute, said Quinnipiac's samples were random.

Quinnipiac, like most pollsters, does not choose who it will interview based on party affiliation.

If a certain percentage of respondents are Democrats, then that is just because it has turned out that way, Brown said.

"Our numbers are based on a random sample," he said. "We get what we get."

Some conservatives agree reluctantly that, overall, the polls are not going in Romney's favor.

"I've been in politics long enough to know that the louder one side gets complaining about the polls, the more likely it is that this is the side that, in reality, actually is losing," conservative commentator Erick Erickson, who runs the RedState blog, wrote on Thursday.

But I too find it hard to accept the 4:1 odds, especially before the first presidential debate. Romney has been preparing diligently for weeks.

[kenberg]

Maybe the 4:1, and even higher, should be understood this way: Romney basically can't win on his own. Some major event is necessary, for example Israel nukes Iran, or terrorists blow up a major dam, or something, and then the election is a scramble with uncertain outcome

Why can't Romney win on his own? Well, so far he has been a disappointment even to his fans, but that could change. I think that the real reason is that people remember who was president when everything began to collapse. It is said that after four years, Obama cannot still blame Bush. There is some truth to that, but really Obama doesn't have to say a word. (A politician is incapable of not saying a word, but that's another story). Many people don't follow politics all that closely. I pay more attention than some, and I started earlier than some, being a Stevenson supporter in 1952. Still I am not prepared to give a seminar on politics, most people are not, but they do remember who was in power when it all started going south, and it will take some time to get over that. Back in the forties I was listening to the radio and some comic, Bob Hope I think, needed an expression for a really long time. He selected "until the Republicans get back into the White House". Even as a little ten year old, I understood.

[mike777]

I guess I will blame the economists.

I mean is there any macroconomist or macroeconomists that we can even point too or is every one a microeconomist.


econ majors feel freed to pipe in....

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2012-September-29, 23:27, said:

I guess I will blame the economists.

I mean is there any macroconomist or macroeconomists that we can even point too or is every one a microeconomist.

Blame the economists for what?

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2012-September-30, 05:04, said:

Blame the economists for what?

Doesn't matter, just blame them. Not being an economist, this sounds good to me.