First, is it really likely that Mr. Romney leads the race by 4 points right now? The consensus of the evidence, particularly the national tracking polls, would suggest otherwise. Instead, the forecast model’s conclusion is that the whole of the data is still consistent with a very narrow lead for Mr. Obama, albeit one that is considerably diminished since Denver.There now. Feel better?
It might be granted that the situation is more ambiguous than usual right now. But our forecast model looks at literally all of the polls; it estimates Mr. Romney’s post-debate bounce as being 2.5 percentage points, not quite enough to erase Mr. Obama’s pre-debate advantage.
October 9, 2012
Nate Silver allays post-Pew anxieties.
"There are two smarter questions to ask about the Pew poll."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
83 comments:
There now. Feel better?
I do, but that's because I always laugh when I see someone's head spinning around like that scene in The Exorcist - especially if it's in fast forward mode.
I also laugh when I see heads explode like in Scanners - "I'm gonna suck your brain dry!"
Maybe it's Halloween, maybe it's the election season, or maybe I'm just a psychopath, but I've been laughing gore* lately a lot lately....
* Please, no jokes about that pathetic fat loser that ran for President several years back.
"Mitt Romney gained further ground in the FiveThirtyEight forecast on Monday, with his chances of winning the Electoral College increasing to 25.2 percent from 21.6 percent on Sunday."
-- A: That's a huge gain (even if Silver's methodology is akin to voodoo at times.) Also note that a nearly 5 percent swing in Silver's methodology was caused by what he considers a single outlying poll. It makes me wonder how many other bad polls are influencing his numbers. If that one poll swung things nearly 5 percent, what do the D+6 to D+11 polls do to his numbers?
Also: Anyone who considers unemployment hovering around 8 percent as a good sign for Obama is... well, not an impartial observer of facts. Anyone who considers the current environment and fundamentals (that is, the Middle East in fire, unemployment falling due to more people surrendering to permanent under- or unemployment) as good for the incumbent can't be taken seriously as a commentator.
But, the best part? Is when Silver condemns his own methodology: "There is a fair amount of uncertainty in this calculation: models that claim to achieve exceptionally precise results based on economic data alone have not always lived up to their billing."
First, is it really likely that Mr. Romney leads the race by 4 points right now?
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
I haven't been to Silver's blog lately, but the last post of his I read was laying the groundwork for the idea that likely voter screens which normally favor the Republican candidate would favor the Democratic candidate if they were to incorporate a turnout model assuming 2008-like demographics. Now, I don't consider that very likely, but then again I'm not paid to analyze poll data.
However, I have observed that several national polls released since, seem to be making that assumption.
Can you imagine if Silver worked from the top of mount olympus and his subjects would have to scale it just to feel better?
Thanks to the NY Times for putting him online.
Hey, as long as Nate is insisting on fucking that chicken to the distraction of everything else, I feel great!
First, is it really likely that Mr. Romney leads the race by 4 points right now?
Let me help you, you former Daily Kos diarist:
Among the people who are going to vote, Yes, yes indeed.
But, why don't we ask the former Daily Kos diarist, this: When is the last time the candidate who is polling poorly with independents and is raising less money was "ahead" in the polls?
LOOK MA, THE MODEL!!!
First, is it really likely that Mr. Romney leads the race by 4 points right now?
First, it it really likely the economy added 873,000 jobs right now?
To quote Jay:
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
Has anyone else noticed that the dominant post-debate media theme is that Romney "won" due to his "barrage of lies"? It's so consistently pushed out there it's making me suspicious.
Also: Anyone who considers unemployment hovering around 8 percent as a good sign for Obama is... well, not an impartial observer of facts.
The wife and I were talking about this last night. She raised a good point. What if a person is counted as employed, but they are working a job with fewer hours, lower pay, less benefits, and outside their career path just to make ends meet. This laborer won't show up in the "Obama isn't working" column unless you ask them directly.
models that claim to achieve exceptionally precise results based on economic data alone have not always lived up to their billing.
A statement he can not expound upon or defend with actual data.
TML: That's why it is imperative you remind people: A) For the first half hour, Romney did not lie, as confirmed by Stefanie Cutter who said that Obama was wrong/lying (depending on how charitable you want to be) about the $5 trillion dollar argument. For the first half hour, Romney did not lie, per the Obama campaign. After that, ask them to name a specific lie. The entire "lie" meme is based around that $5 trillion argument, which the Obama campaign quietly conceded in its confusion between licking its wound and flailing frantically.
"She raised a good point. What if a person is counted as employed, but they are working a job with fewer hours, lower pay, less benefits, and outside their career path just to make ends meet."
-- For awhile, people who were under employed were counted in metrics that were reported along with the unemployment numbers. In fact, we used to get fairly in depth details about the number of people who had given up working, were under employed, were forced to only work part time jobs, etc.
It was back during those dark, forgotten ages known as the Bush Years.
It appears that the addiction to love of Obama has withdrawal emotions similar to a stopping smoking withdrawal.
The Media are acting as if they have lost their only friend in life.
But what about Rasmussen? Huh? Hey Ann, whatabout Rasmussen...why Pew when you can go to Rasmussen to dance in orgasmic delight ...
Romney lied about investment to green companies. Romney admits he lied about this.
Should I go on?
Andy: Why not actually provide some proof? The Stefanie Cutter statement is pretty much common knowledge, but shoot away. Wow me.
Has anyone else noticed that the dominant post-debate media theme is that Romney "won" due to his "barrage of lies"?
Yes, and it is bizarre. I am seeing "Romney lies" asserted by leftists everywhere.
It is all projection.
Andy R. said...
Romney lied about investment to green companies. Romney admits he lied about this.
Complete & utter bullshit.
Here's a link that says that, at most, Romney's off-the-cuff numbers are a bit high (half haven't gone out of business, they are just in danger going so) and that some Republican donors also benefited along with Obama donors.
So... via the NYT, the numbers are essentially correct, though it would have been more correct to say some have gone bankrupt and many are in trouble.
And here's a list from Heritage that puts to question whether it really is only three (though they may be looking at different money pools to explain their divergence.)
But, go ahead. Wow me.
"That is true in the case of Solyndra, but while House Republicans have harshly criticized the administration for that, investigations have not revealed any direct link between the loans for Solyndra and campaign support for the president."
Remember when it was important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?
Why not actually provide some proof?
Sorry, I thought Republicans all knew about the lying and were pretending that it didn't matter because Romney would be a good president. I didn't realize it was possible for anyone not to know about the lying. Or maybe you're all pretending it didn't happen?
[From factcheck.org] Romney’s Clean Energy Whoppers
* Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
* Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was over several years.
He stated at one point that Obama put $90 billion “into solar and wind.” But only $21 billion went for renewable energy projects, “such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels,” according to a White House document cited by the Romney campaign. The spending also included $18 billion for transit projects and $10 billion to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.
* He falsely claimed the $90 billion was equal to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks, which he estimated at $2.8 billion. By his own figures, it would have been 32 years’ worth. But it’s even less than that. The administration estimates that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would raise about $3.9 billion a year (23 years’ worth). The industry itself says the administration would increase its taxes by $8.5 billion a year (10.5 years’ worth).
* He falsely claimed Obama “put $90 billion into green jobs … that would have hired 2 million teachers.” But that $90 billion included loans, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loans.
Matthew,
You don't seem to understand the rules here. If a (R) makes a claim and it is true, but off by 5% it is a "lie"
If Obama says that Romney closed a factory and a woman got cancer and died, this is not a "lie" just "politics as usual"
This is how Matthew characterized his link. "Here's a link that says that, at most, Romney's off-the-cuff numbers are a bit high (half haven't gone out of business, they are just in danger going so)"
This is what it really says:
"Mr. Romney said that half the companies backed by the president’s green energy stimulus program have gone out of business. That is a gross overstatement. Of nearly three dozen recipients of loans under the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, only three are currently in bankruptcy, although several others are facing financial difficulties."
Maybe you guys can argue that Romney was just grossly misinformed, and not actually a big liar.
Wait, I love this.
He stated at one point that Obama put $90 billion “into solar and wind.”
Um, don't you find it funny how they cut off the quote there?
Why do you think they did that silly boy?
I have to laugh in their face at the assumption that accuracy is achieved because their "forecast model looks at literally all of the polls". I guess the phrase garbage in-garbage out has never been explained to them.
So little andy & fact check are reduced to this:
He claimed, falsely, at one point that Obama had “put $90 billion … into solar and wind.”
When reality is:
Romney: But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1
And yes, those 2 sentences have different meanings.
* Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
--> Heritage has a different list of companies that have gone bankrupt; this looks like simply Romney and FactCheck counting different groups. (Also, 3 of 26 is not 6%, it is about 11%, just some basic math for FactCheck.org.)
* Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was over several years.
--> This seems like another debate over timing. Remember, Obama accused Romney of $5 trillion in a year, because the legislation passed in a year. So, I think this is nuance. Also, FactCheck adds up about $80 billion in breaks related to green technology, so Romney was $10 billion off (unless they included something else.) At worst, bad Romney math.
* He falsely claimed the $90 billion was equal to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks, which he estimated at $2.8 billion.
--> Another example of bad math; Romney's point still stands that Obama's spending is significantly higher than he led on. This is, again, assuming FactCheck is not doing bad math (they can't even get percentages right!)
* He falsely claimed Obama “put $90 billion into green jobs … that would have hired 2 million teachers.” But that $90 billion included loans, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loans.
--> ... That's just stupid. The government could have taken out loans to hire people. This is stupidity.
Also, 3 of 26 is not 6%, it is about 11%, just some basic math for FactCheck.org.
I would assume they are talking about the value of the loan guarantees, not the number of companies they are going to.
"Maybe you guys can argue that Romney was just grossly misinformed, and not actually a big liar. "
-- No, what I'm saying is that Romney is including more programs than just the three that people want to count (hence the reason I included the Heritage link with even more failed companies.) What I think was happening is that Romney was rolling a large number of programs together, including a few of the most well-known examples, and now FactCheck and others are being lazy and ignoring the fact that Romney was clearly including a variety of other programs under his umbrella.
"I would assume they are talking about the value of the loan guarantees, not the number of companies they are going to. "
-- I see no reason to think that; they say: "But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees."
The clear intent is that three firms (of 26) were approved for about 6 percent of the guarantees. If they wanted to talk about total dollar value, they should have made it clear. If lack of clarity is enough to damn Romney as a liar, FactCheck is a liar too... which I guess makes using FactCheck to fact check Romney hard when they're liars.
Heritage has a different list of companies that have gone bankrupt;
They show 12 it looks like, but I don't see any information in that post about how large a pool of companies they are drawing from to get to that 12. I don't think they are working with the same 26 as others, as from the list of 26 there aren't 12 bankruptcies.
Also, re-reading the transcript, I see how FactCheck is confused and conflating a series of Romney's statements into one overall statement (another cause of their confusion.) If you listened, you clearly can hear where Romney breaks his line of thought and starts another one. It would help for people who actually listened and understood what Romney said to be used as Fact Checkers instead of people just reading the transcript.
Andy: Which is the point. Fact Check didn't actually provide you with what facts Romney was using, what programs he was talking about. They took some snippets here and there, combined them into what they thought Romney asserted, then attacked him. It was a useless exercise because, with a modicum of research, you could see that Romney was talking in extremely broad strokes about larger problems, and using off-the-cuff, rough math, during a debate. In other words: There are going to be minor variances, and he may not even be talking about what FactCheck thought he was.
Yet, you want to insist "he lied" when, for all you know, FactCheck is an idiot.
The clear intent is that three firms (of 26) were approved for about 6 percent of the guarantees. If they wanted to talk about total dollar value, they should have made it clear.
The context I'm used to hearing loan guarantees mentioned before this is in support for Israel, and that term is always used to refer to the dollar amounts being guaranteed, not the number of loan guarantees that have been made to Israel. I think it's just convention to think of them in dollar amounts, and that makes more sense than making a simple arithmetic error.
Anyway, I got to run now, I'll be back in a couple of hours.
For example, "In one year you provided X" is technically true (Obama signed the legislation/passed the bills/etc. all in one year.) Even if the $90 billion is staggered out, the statement is true. Just like we say the Affordable Care Act will cost or save X, we are combining the years' of costs/savings into a single number and attributing it to the costs/savings of this year (mattering on how charitable you are being.) It is a normal, routinely used legislative short hand that, all of a sudden, becomes a lie when FactCheck needs it to.
Romney was talking in extremely broad strokes about larger problems, and using off-the-cuff, rough math, during a debate.
Is this your way of saying that he got his numbers wrong? I still haven't seen a defense of the 50% number. Had to get that in before I bounce...
I guess Nate Silver didn't do much to allay Andy R's anxieties after all. LOL.
Face it. The words "fact" and "check" don't mean anything anymore.
I'm impressed that Romney can be doing so well with what he had going against him. The whole Obama team, 95% of the media as a Dept. of the Obama team, and a legion of Obamabots like Andy R who get their talking points every morning and dutifully march out to the internet to repeat whatever they've been told. You see these guys everywhere.
Then, there are the many, many bozos who've been trained to call up conservative talk shows, identify themselves as conservatives, former Repub's or Independents, and then they start right in with Andy R's list of talking points. You can pick them out in about 10 seconds.
All Romney has is a life full of being productive, successful, morally sound, and doing the right thing.
"I still haven't seen a defense of the 50% number."
-- Actually, you did. We don't know what pool of companies Romney is pulling from; FactCheck provided you with a pool and suggested it.
Let's go to the text!
"But you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money just makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into -- into green jobs. And I -- look, I'm all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have -- that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion.
And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns."
-- So, yes. Many of the businesses have gone out of business may be an overstatement (if you just look at the pool of 26 and take 3 out.) But, Romney is not saying for a fact it was half. He is saying he thinks it was, as an aside. He's not putting much weight there. The point is that there have been significant failures.
But, do go ahead.
[From factcheck.org] Romney’s Clean Andy R said,
"Energy Whoppers
* Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees."
Bright Source
Sloyndra
LSP Energy
Energy Conservation Devices
Abound Solar
Sun Power
Beacon Power
Ecotality
A 123 Solar
Unisolar
Azur Dynamics
Evergreen Solar
Ener1
More than six.
All have received taxpayer money.
All are either bankrupt, have filed for bankruptcy, or are struggling.
billions of dollars wasted. In at least one instance the company was formed simply to siphon off stimulus money and and cycle it back to the DNC.
You want to talk about lies, AndyR?
Lets talk about the ACA and "the most transparent administration ever to occupy the White House"
Factcheck.org must be an organ of the democrat party.
When conservatives hate the poll results, they blame the lame-stream media. When liberals hate the poll results, they either melt down or comfort those who are melting down.
It is amazing to me how quickly we went from Obama's inevitably to a desperate struggle to downplay Romney's resurgence. Confidence has melted into fear.
Aside from polls and the two sides arguments, keep in mind that events outside the campaigns are still in flux.
1. Gas prices and food costs are continuing to rise sharply.
2. Awareness of the cost of Obamacare on the middle class if he is relected - is starting to be mentioned as a consideration. coming in.
3. Obama the law lecturer could pull a last minute "hairy chested Commander in Chief" stunt - like hit some of the Islamoids that attacked the Libyan Consulate. Boosting him like the bin Laden Raid did.
4. Revulsion towards ObamaPhone Momma is there, particularly with women and younger people that I know that mentally equate or see in the same mental image - the unsustainable entitlements demands of ObamaPhone Momma with Obama.
5. People are looking at the last minute jobs and economic news. The debate is if the small drop in jobless rate is a real sign of improvement or phony news.
He's saying that polls are imprecise. That's why his column leads with the following statement:
"Mitt Romney gained further ground in the FiveThirtyEight forecast on Monday, with his chances of winning the Electoral College increasing to 25.2 percent from 21.6 percent on Sunday."
I'm assuming Obama countered Romney's argument with a slew of green energy loan program success stories, no?
Well, film critic Robert Ebert feelsbetter, though he can't be bothered to get Nate Silver's name right.
Are the voters firing blue dog democrats likely to vote for Obama? Does a blue dog democrat debacle suggest a preference cascade that will dwarf the Chicago crowd?
Within the campaigns - I think the election will hinge on women that now see "Boyfriend!!" as a duller than they thought slacker, dismayingly inarticulate without his "lines", and less of a man and leader of the pack - than they once did.
The question is if they see Romney as not a monster after all, but a kindly if stern Daddy who has his act together and who will be the one that can handle things. Because they deep down are worried that Boyfriend!!! - will not get better, and will keep blaming all his failures and laziness and partying on others.
So will Romney be able to cast himself as a strict but deep down nice and caring Daddy?
Or can Obama do a makeup..tell them that Boyfriend!!! will treat them better soon, work harder? Or is worth at least one last pity fuck from disgruntled females on Nov 4th?
I also think there is a percentage that say they will support Obama on expectations of others that they cannot discriminate against a black man of sorts...The Bradley Effect. But at their cores..are deeply worried about a bad President, an empty chair, Obama having another 4 years.
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls
Our weekly national poll for @DKElections finds Mitt Romney leading for the first time all year, 49-47
wow so the talking point all week is that Romney lied, and from what I can tell from all the links provided is that Obama actually lied (about the 5 trillion) and he is running TV ads using the same claims, and there is an honest debate over one segmant on Green Jobs, where Obama started off with a lie about oil and gas subsidies or stretched the truth and Romney maybe lied or stretched the numbers a bit in his response. How about it was a presidential debate where whoppers and exagerations are often part of the narrative which is why now all of the networks employ fact checkers to go over the statements. Obama lost the debate and it wasnt due to lies because from what I can tell he lied just as much.
wow so the talking point all week is that Romney lied, and from what I can tell from all the links provided is that Obama actually lied (about the 5 trillion) and he is running TV ads using the same claims, and there is an honest debate over one segmant on Green Jobs, where Obama started off with a lie about oil and gas subsidies or stretched the truth and Romney maybe lied or stretched the numbers a bit in his response. How about it was a presidential debate where whoppers and exagerations are often part of the narrative which is why now all of the networks employ fact checkers to go over the statements. Obama lost the debate and it wasnt due to lies because from what I can tell he lied just as much.
And does Obama's claim about tax benefits for companies who move jobs overseas count as a big fat lie?
I have only seen parts of the debate. Based on commentary, I'm inclined to think Obama said absolutely nothing of substance.
I hear about Romney's lies and Big Bird. What did Obama bring to the table?
Well to some extent Silver has a point. The ONLY poll that counts is the one taken on election day. I can't get too excited about polls showing one candidate down on one day, and up two or three days later. Leads me to conclude that many, if not most, pollsters couldn't find their posterior with two hands and a seeing eye dog.
"I hear about Romney's lies and Big Bird. What did Obama bring to the table?"
Um, ahh, um, ahh.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Robert" Ebert from the link above:
"Calm down as steady Matt Silver goes deeper into the poll numbers. Obama's the 3 to 1 favorite."
Sure he is, Robert (Roger). Sure he is. Whatever let's you sleep at night.
AF said--"When conservatives hate the poll results, they blame the lame-stream media. When liberals hate the poll results, they either melt down or comfort those who are melting down.
When conservatives "hate"(I have never felt hate for an inanimate object before. What a wonderful world of animation you live in. Disney-esque, even.) they challenge the narration of the LSM, and show the discrepancy of the weighting. When a liberal "hates" a poll, they throw a tantrum, assuming that the inanimate object will care, and change for their benefit.
FIFY, tiger. Go and sin no more.
Andy R. said:
Anyway, I got to run now, I'll be back in a couple of hours.
Of course.
After your full day's worth of talking points were demolished by Matthew in just a few minutes, you need to go back to your handler to get some new talking points.
We understand.
Let's say that Nate Silver is correct that President Obama still has a 75% chance of reelection. That means if the election were held 4 times, Romney would win once. How do we know this isn't that one time?
Nate's an interesting character. When it comes to crunching numbers, he's the best in the business. But he's also a run of the mill partisan liberal hack.
You need to keep both in mind when reading his stuff. When he's talking about the numbers, pay close atention. When he talks about what "seems likely", go ahead and laugh.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Let's say that Nate Silver is correct that President Obama still has a 75% chance of reelection. That means if the election were held 4 times, Romney would win once. How do we know this isn't that one time?
Uh, no. If the election were held four times, there would be a 75% chance each time that Obama would win.
For example, "In one year you provided X" is technically true (Obama signed the legislation/passed the bills/etc. all in one year.)
If Obama says it this way it is true. If Romney says it that way, it is false.
This is how the "Fact Checkers" have ruined their credibility.
Just wait 12 months. The "Fact Checkers" will find these statements as true.
There are polls that matter, & polls that don't.
This one matters.
538, Pew, Rasmussen, CNN et al are in the final analysis an epic exercise in mathematical onanism. Electoral college votes select the next POTUS. Popularity percentages among "likely voters" do not.
Joyous conservatives & panicking liberals alike tend to forget that the vast majority of Americans care about politics very little & will simply vote the same way they did last time.
Romney is in a deep deep hole in the electoral college, & two more debates like the first snoozefest aren't going to be enough to get him out of it. Either Obama does something egregiously horrible to eliminate his massive electoral college lead, or he wins in November.
"Romney is in a deep deep hole in the electoral college, & two more debates like the first snoozefest aren't going to be enough to get him out of it."
-- Careful, your bias is showing. This is one of the few debates I remember people talking about nearly a week after it happened, and I've been following since Clinton v Bush.
Romney is in a deep deep hole in the electoral college, & two more debates like the first snoozefest aren't going to be enough to get him out of it.
Romney went from -18 with women to even in one month.
Do you just view Pew as an anomaly?
The problem, jim, is where those electoral college votes in your poll came from--very few votes have been cast at this point.
After your full day's worth of talking points were demolished by Matthew in just a few minutes, you need to go back to your handler to get some new talking points.
No one yet has explained where the 50% number came from. The closest we have seen is Matthew saying that Romney was just making it up and that's ok because Romney didn't put a lot of emphasis on it.
Well, I'm glad Silver's saying something.
shiloh must be going through his 10th case of Depends.
First, is it really likely that Mr. Romney leads the race by 4 points right now?
Sounds like a priest comforting his parishioners.
And the Lefties say they're atheists.
No one yet has explained where the 50% number came from.
Perhaps Romney used a statistical model by Nate Silver.
Romney is in a deep deep hole in the electoral college,
That is actually so stupid it is funny.
AndyR said,
"No one yet has explained where the 50% number came from. The closest we have seen is Matthew saying that Romney was just making it up and that's ok because Romney didn't put a lot of emphasis on it."
See my comment above. 13 is 1/2 of 26.
Iknow, I know. Math is hard.
See my comment above. 13 is 1/2 of 26.
To get to the 13 total, you need to expand the list of green companies beyond just the 26 that got loan guarantees.
See the politico story, which also notes all the untruths by Romney:
Not quite half. Not even close. Of the 26 winners of Department of Energy loan guarantees under the stimulus, a total of three have gone belly up: Solyndra, Abound Solar and Beacon Power.
Several of the others, in fact, have thrived, including the maker of a Kansas cellulosic ethanol plant and one of the world’s largest wind projects in Oregon. About a dozen of the companies just got their awards in the fall of 2011, so the projects are still getting off the ground.
Romney’s campaign explained that he was including other troubled stimulus grant winners in his claim, including Raser Technologies, a Utah company that filed for bankruptcy protection despite winning $33 million in stimulus grants and ECOtality, an electric vehicle charging station manufacturer and developer that has acknowledged its under an SEC investigation.
Again, 13/26 is not the correct math. The numbers 13 and 26 are using completely different criteria (taxpayer money vs. loan guarantees). There has been no explanation for where Romney got 50% other than Matthew saying he made it up but that it's not a big deal because....
Would you like to try again?
Romney up by 4 or eventually winning by 4 sounds not only plausible but likely.
The gas prices, alone, are free campaign ads for Romney.
Guys like Silver need to watch out for their own credibility. If Romney's performance doesn't match up with the margin of errors of their polls, they are going to look very bad. It's one thing to be partisan, it's another to be stupid.
The numbers 13 and 26 are using completely different criteria (taxpayer money vs. loan guarantees)
Hey dumbass: When you have a "loan guarantee" coming from the federal government it is taxpayer money.
Especially when you go bankrupt and said "loan" is never repaid.
You are a fucking clown.
When you have a "loan guarantee" coming from the federal government it is taxpayer money.
All loan guarantees are taxpayer money, but not all taxpayer money is loan guarantees.
This is logic 101. Surely you are smarter than this. 13/26 is wrong, and no one else can explain Romney's claim.
Matthew was big enough to admit that Romney made up the 50% and that it's wrong. Is anyone else?
It doesn't matter if Romney lied or not. What matters is that Romney sodomized Obama in the debate, he head fucked him. Voters saw that the clothes had no emperor. All one needs to do is check out Michelle Obama's face during and at the end of the debate, I doubt she will vote for her husband.
All loan guarantees are taxpayer money, but not all taxpayer money is loan guarantees
Huh?
WTF are you talking about, idiot?
Matthew was big enough to admit that Romney made up the 50% and that it's wrong.
Matthew did no such thing you idiot liar.
"ICYMI: Romney camp told me (after my tweet-rants) Mitt didn't mean to say half the #stimulus-funded green firms failed. Probably <1% so far."
There is something very very surreal about seeing the commenters here defending something untrue that Romney said, even though Romney himself admitted it was wrong.
We knew the day after the debate that the 50% number was incorrect, how did none of you hear about that? What sort of weird conservative cocoon are you living in?
It's obvious none of your explanations make any sense, I'm just trying to figure out the pathology that is going on with you. Do you want to believe it is impossible that Romney could every say anything wrong? Do you have to refuse to admit that I am right about something? Are you too dumb to understand the situation?
I would love to know what's going on here.
Of course Silver looks at "literally all of the polls". Otherwise, he wouldn't know which ones to selectively discount in order to work backwards to his conclusion.
Silly rabbit.
Andy R. said...
When you have a "loan guarantee" coming from the federal government it is taxpayer money.
All loan guarantees are taxpayer money,
Um. No. Most business loans are with private money.
but not all taxpayer money is loan guarantees.
Yes. Correct. However those 26 companies took taxpayer money in the form of stimulus money in guaranteed loans or outright grants.
13 of those companies are either bankrupt, in chapter 11, or in trouble and seeking more government money, or are engaged in fraud.
Which is beside the point.
The point being that government has no business becoming involved in deciding which industries should succeed or which ones fail. it was a foolish use of federal money.
Why?
Because even the Chinese are having trouble making money in solar.
The marketplace doesn't want solar at the current price and efficiency.
I have only seen parts of the debate. Based on commentary, I'm inclined to think Obama said absolutely nothing of substance.
I hear about Romney's lies and Big Bird. What did Obama bring to the table?
Maybee, I highly recommend watching the whole thing. "Great entertainment... Haunting... Hilarious... Explosive... A thrill ride from start to finish... 4 stars!" -yashu
Here it is on C-SPAN.
Speaking of Silver, this might leave a mark:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/09/nate-Silver-Jumps-Shark-No-one-Cares
Hey Nate, you better put some ice on that...
Post a Comment