Holland on ‘Nate Silver Truthers’
From Joshua Holland at Alternet: Republicans Desperate to Spin Romney as the Front-Runner Are Becoming ‘Nate Silver Truthers’. The T pretty much SIA, but the details are still pretty fun.
2 Responses to “Holland on ‘Nate Silver Truthers’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Link is broken as of afternoon of 10/31/2012.
This place has a summary — http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251172462
My ecVote predictions, mostly based on data from realclearpolitics.com
237d_obama
247d 10_ec WI 50d, 48r, protest&und 2+. mitt dn -2, was -2 -2 -2 -6
253d 6_ec NV 50d, 48r, protest&und 2+. mitt dn -2, was -2 -2 -2 -3
259d 6_ec IA 49d, 47r, protest&und 4+. mitt dn -2, was -2 -2 -4 -4
271d 12_ec VA 49d, 48r, protest&und 3+. mitt dn -1, was -0 -0 -3 -2
267r 18_ec OH 49d, 48r, protest&und 3+. mitt dn -1, was -1 -1 -1 -5
249r 4_ec NH 49d, 48r, protest&und 3+. mitt dn -1, was +2 +2 -0 -5
245r 9_ec CO 47d, 47r, protest&und 6~. mitt dn -0, was -0 -0 +1 -2
236r 29_ec FL 49d, 49r, protest&und 2~. mitt dn -0, was +3 -1 -1 +2
207r 15_ec NC 48d, 50r, protest&und 2~. mitt up +2, was +5 +5 +3 +1
192r_mitt
Mitt behind in WI… must convert IA/NV/WI this week… Paul Ryan country
Mitt behind in NV… must convert IA/NV/WI this week… Ron Paul country
Mitt behind in IA… must convert IA/NV/WI this week… Ron Paul country
Mitt prolly cannot win VA: -2 from Virgil & Gary means Mitt will lose
Mitt *must* win OH to have a shot, Gary Johnson decisive
Mitt can afford to lose NH if he wins IA/NV/WI to replace it
Mitt *must* win CO to have a shot, Gary Johnson could tilt it
Mitt *must* win FL to have a shot, Medicare decisive
Mitt *must* win NC to have a shot, Virgil & Gary might tilt it
My best guess is that Mitt will fail to convert WI, since Paul Ryan won’t be quite enough, and therefore he will focus on trying to convert NV (since trying to convert IA would damage him in OH probably). Both NV and IA are strong libertarian-leaning states, which were beaten down by Mitt’s minions at the RNC in Tampa this August, which makes that difficult. In the end, I also expect that Obama’s auto bailout (and Chrysler-funded superbowl ad) will help him win Ohio, with Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode pulling votes from both sides, but more from Mitt than from Obama except possibly in Colorado, ending up with Obama winning by a nose. Mitt will probably keep him under 300 ecVotes, though, and might even manage to win the popvote. Cf the 2000 election, with Mitt playing the robot this time.
p.s. Possibly this election could be thrown into the House, if Mitt wins NC FL CO OH NV, and Obama wins the rest, because both would end up with fewer than 270 ecVotes.
December 1st, 2012 at 9:15 am
It seems the Europeans are a bit ahead of Kripke in the controlling of how information is distributed, in England they are once again trying to regulate the press. The sentiment of The Spectator is fine, Nelson says “That is to say: we would not attend its meetings, pay its fines nor heed its menaces.” Good for them, but then he says “We say in our leading article that we would happily sign up to any new form of self-regulation which the industry proposes, no matter how onerous.” Bam! the government just controlled you Fraser, when you have given up “no matter how onerous” you have lost. the government will then have the Fascist upper hand, “we won’t regulate you if your do…” they will say. They have control even if they technically don’t have control.
Now in America we have the Bill of Rights, so Congress can’t pass a law taking away our right to free speech, since they can’t take that right away from us the threat of do what we say on your own or we will pass a law rings a little hollow. So what is one to do when a subject is too complicated for normal people to understand. We are told that science is to complicated (a scathing indictment of American education) and that Global Warming or Climate Change when it unexpectedly decides to cool, is too important. we can’t pass law so let’s make an EPA of Communication, that way we can regulate the correct thought without making it illegal.
So how does this new regulatory body work? Well we limit it to scientific matters like Global Warming
and gun control(oops, that’s for later) things that are to difficult to understand but are driven by factsthat we don’t know enough about to predict with any certainty(oops again, damn it). Now it seems perfectly reasonable that people that are muddying the waters, such a small percentage of people, should somehow be regulated, maybe a licence should issued to those that really know the truth of things like AGWand gun control.Then we don’t tell people what they can say and what they can’t say, we just limit who gets a licence. An unelected agency is put in place to determine the criteria of expertice of every aspect of our lives, then only works by those licenced can be introduced in Congress, grant money will only go to those with a licence, what is taught in government schools, K-12 first, then state colleges, but the first amendment is still intact, thank God! So how do we know who knows and who doesn’t? Guess it depends on what party is in power. That is probably why the laugh in the audience was nervous, they know something Kripke doesn’t, the power they use today can be used against them tomorrow. But hey, you guys are in power.