Electoral College Prediction Model Points To...

Originally posted by RealSpoke

And you still have clowns on here rooting for Romney when his entire donor is the banking cartel. Very intelligent.

edit on 23-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Then I guess Mr. Obama should give back that fat $152,990.00 from JP Morgan Chase ?
www.opensecrets.org...

or maybe that $118,674.00 from Goldman Sachs?
www.opensecrets.org...

Oh how about the $118,269.00 from Morgan Stanley should he return that as well?
www.opensecrets.org...

$113,331 from Bank of America?
www.opensecrets.org...

Your argument is kinda lame. Politicians are going to get money from whomever they can, that's the name of the game they play. Republican/Democrat = the 2 faces of the same corrupted coin. Personally, I think these guys are chosen by the power mongers, because they have already been shown to be corruptible. Their agendas may have slight differences on the outside, but inside they are playing for the same team.

n/m

Okay, so they were right 8 times in a row. What are the statistical odds that the model holds a 9th time, since this is a statistical model? To answer this, I used a simple on-line tool (www.mccallum-layton.co.uk...), and entered 8 for 8, give me a 95% confidence interval. [-10.8% to 26.8%] was the result. Given that this is the Z approximation for poisson intervals, it returns a negative percent, and the results a bit off. Most folks say it's close enough, and state this as [0% to 26.8%]. So based on 8 observations, the true value of the predictive power of the model lies in this range with 95% confidence.

The inverse of this range is [73.2% to 100%] is how accurately the model predicts. So if the model predicts with 75% accuracy, then it could still get 8 right in a row by an acceptable random chance. Of course, the model was trained with data, and there is probably much better odds than this given the full training set, but in practice it's been used 8 times.

I.e., it's not got a long track record for predicting binary outcomes.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by LeSigh

 

Half of the population doesn't even vote as it is. What good is fewer people voting going to do?

Non participation changes nothing!

Voting changes nothing.

Organizing is participation, it is taking responsibility for your future. Politicians do not care about your future.

We do not have true democracy, we have bourgeois democracy, once they are in power we have no say. It is a fixed, rigged, system. The only candidates we get to vote for are those presented to us. This is not decision making by the people, it is not exercising your power, you are surrendering it on faith. Once in power they are working within a system rigged, set up to serve the capitalist class, not you and me.

Third party candidates who do not fit the mainstream view do not stand a chance, unless they sell out and compromise. The whole system is set up to ensure nothing really changes.

reply to post by CyberGarp

Okay, so they were right 8 times in a row.

No they weren't. They designed their model in such a way that it successfully matched the known results for the past 8 elections. That is a completely different thing.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by CyberGarp

 

Okay, so they were right 8 times in a row.

No they weren't. They designed their model in such a way that it successfully matched the known results for the past 8 elections. That is a completely different thing.

I guess we will find out November 6, 2012 how correct their formula is.

I think President Mitt Romney will win with over 300 Electoral Votes !

It's not being arrogant or making a predicition, Mitt Romney WILL 100% be the president of America next year.

Too many powerful lobbies are working behind the scenes to make it so.

Also, Romney will see America involved militarily with Iran next year. Another 100% fact.

Too many powerful lobbies are working behind the scenes to make it so.

The game doesn't change, once you know the pattern, it is all very obvious.

I wonder what their prediction showed for bush/gore.

and if it accounted for the supreme court giving bush the presidency?

reply to post by RealSpoke


Wait, lawyers and two of the largest private partners of the NSA and CIA in regards to snooping on US citizens are supposedly better than financial institutions on the morals scale? Obama also has received some serious donations from Wall Street, not to mention the huge money he raked in from the various insurance companies and medical organizations he claimed Obamacare was designed to save us from. (here, take this money to assist your campaign against us with? More likely it was "here, we're giving you this money because you've done us a magnificent service by forcing the masses to give us more business.)

The donation source argument only works when one side isn't accepting and receiving donations from the same source as the other, my friend.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
I wonder what their prediction showed for bush/gore.

and if it accounted for the supreme court giving bush the presidency?

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
It's not being arrogant or making a predicition, Mitt Romney WILL 100% be the president of America next year.

Too many powerful lobbies are working behind the scenes to make it so.

Also, Romney will see America involved militarily with Iran next year. Another 100% fact.

Too many powerful lobbies are working behind the scenes to make it so.

The game doesn't change, once you know the pattern, it is all very obvious.

No president has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 8% since FDR.

Obamas time is short. Just 2 months left. The RNC Convention went really well.

------------
Obama is relying on Sandra Fluke to bail him out.