Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the latest election forecast from Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/), President Obama has a 82.9% chance of winning the election on Tuesday. If this is an accurate prediction (not a discussion point for this post) and if it stays where it is, we are looking at roughly a 5/6 chance of a victory for the President.

Which got me thinking, how many times have I rolled a "1" on that all important roll in 40K? From that accurate "to hit" on throwing the all important vortex grenade in 2nd Ed., to not failing a Terminator armor save now, I always seem to roll a 1 when needed most. We'll see if the President is less unlucky.

Discuss.

Mez

And we'll see how many recount rerolls Romney tries to force through if it doesn't come up 1.

What if Romney has Runes of Warding?

... so political chat in Dakka Discussions too now? This seems very off-topic.

Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

Right now early voting tallies show Obama is behind in Ohio by a larger margin then he won in 2008. Romney is far ahead of McCain's totals for the same time frame.

Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become, we can only hope that he concedes before he is granted spawndom.

Pretty sure republicans are Obama's Preferred Enemy right?

Durandal wrote:
Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

Considering most polls have the two candidates essentially tied (within the margin of error) how can one have an 82.9% chance of winning?

If the internet said it, then it must be true.

brettz123 wrote:
Considering most polls have the two candidates essentially tied (within the margin of error) how can one have an 82.9% chance of winning?

Because the (national) popular vote doesn't matter.

Heh, it reminds me of the final game at BFS in the Iron Bracket I had with Mannahnin last month. He needed to roll a 6 on a run roll to win. He rolled the 6 and won.
Romney is the same way. Hes holding a dice and hoping he gets lucky.

brettz123 wrote:
Considering most polls have the two candidates essentially tied (within the margin of error) how can one have an 82.9% chance of winning?

Because of the way the electoral college works.

If 60% of the people in Georgia vote for Romney, but the candidates are neck-in-neck in the country it means that Obama has a greater chance of pulling more states.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

This guy predicted the Republican sweep in 2010. Hes pretty good with his analysis. Instead of discounting it out of hand you should look at his works first.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
What if Romney has Runes of Warding?

Plus a Psychic Familiar, and Hatred.

Lets hope Obama passes his Deny the Witch roll.

Durandal wrote:
\Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become

....yea....because killing Osama Bin Laden was a disaster.
Getting the unemployment rate below 8% again was a disaster.
Ask Chris Christie is he thinks the Obama presidency is a disaster.

In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Heh, it reminds me of the final game at BFS in the Iron Bracket I had with Mannahnin last month. He needed to roll a 6 on a run roll to win. He rolled the 6 and won.
Romney is the same way. Hes holding a dice and hoping he gets lucky.

brettz123 wrote:
Considering most polls have the two candidates essentially tied (within the margin of error) how can one have an 82.9% chance of winning?

Because of the way the electoral college works.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if Romney wins with 100% of the vote in every state that goes Red, and Obama barely wins in every state that goes blue. Obama wound still win despite Romney getting landslide in the popular vote. Not that I think that'll happen really.

Here is hoping for the 269 tie in the electoral college then we can watch the Congress have to do something...

LOL Romney for president - Senate
Biden for VP - House

Would be an exciting 4 years.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

This guy predicted the Republican sweep in 2010. Hes pretty good with his analysis. Instead of discounting it out of hand you should look at his works first.

Everybody predicted it. The only people it suprised were those who post on DemocraticUnderground and they live on a differant planet then we do.

Some things to look at, Obama has the highest Unemployment numbers in over 60 years at his time of reelection. That doesn't bode well for him.

He's in a statistical tie in all the polls. That favors the challenger.

Benghazi is looking more and more like a snafu, while getting more attention, and that will do nothing at all to help him, and a lot of negative press on Sandy response will only hurt as well (whether or not it's justifiable).

Almost all polls are being conducted innacurately, using voter numbers from 2008 to determine them, when revised work has shown that they are currently heavily skewing things in Democrats favor, by as much as maybe 6 points. So that means in a state that Obama has a 2 point lead, he may actually be down by 4 points. This analysis comes from Gallup, which leans slightly to the left the way Rasmussen leans slightly to the right.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Romney will win the election, but honestly it is to close to call.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Durandal wrote:
\Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become

....yea....because killing Osama Bin Laden was a disaster.
Getting the unemployment rate below 8% again was a disaster.
Ask Chris Christie is he thinks the Obama presidency is a disaster.

In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

Adding 50% to the national debt with a basic plan to add another 5 trillion. Good plan.

 labmouse42 wrote:


In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

Why? Rush Limbaugh is one of the few honest people left in the media today, he's certainly the only one left with real american values.

 Chongara wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:


In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

Why? Rush Limbaugh is one of the few honest people left in the media today, he's certainly the only one left with real american values.

Er... why ain't you a R.A.R.? (Republicans Against Rush)....

Join the cowbell party already... OK!

 labmouse42 wrote:

Durandal wrote:
\Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become

....yea....because killing Osama Bin Laden was a disaster.
Getting the unemployment rate below 8% again was a disaster.
Ask Chris Christie is he thinks the Obama presidency is a disaster.

In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

Christie would say yes it was, actually he has repeatedly. Just because he walked down the beach with Obama doesn't mean he thinks he's done a good job of things.
The unemployment rate is climbing again if you haven't paid attention to today's news.
And kudo's to him on the Bin Laden thing, which would have happened no matter who sat in that office.

Try reading something other then DailyKos for a change.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

This guy predicted the Republican sweep in 2010. Hes pretty good with his analysis. Instead of discounting it out of hand you should look at his works first.

Indeed. No one saw the 2010 sweep coming. Good call.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
All these bloggers who "analyze" are heavily biased towards someone. People are easily convinced, so you can't blame them for trying.

This guy predicted the Republican sweep in 2010. Hes pretty good with his analysis. Instead of discounting it out of hand you should look at his works first.

Indeed. No one saw the 2010 sweep coming. Good call.

Um... a lot of folks who paid attention to politics saw '10 a mile away...

Just like '08 Obama election wasn't really a surprise...

Here's the problem with Nate Silver's method:
He's "Sabremetrics" modeler whose rise to fame revolves around statistical analysis of sports... I'm familiar with him in the baseball neck of the woods and these sabremetric discuss can get quite epic...

In any statistical model/methodolgy, you test it with the actual outcome.

This works in baseball because you have numerous data points every year. (162 games, indvidual players, teams, etc...). These models are constantly tweaked/tested giving folks like VORP, WPA, infinite number of other acronyms.

However, Nate's model has basically been tested twice. The '08 and '10 elections.

I'm not saying he's wrong... just saying his modeling is "new" and he hasn't had enough "election years" to add sufficient rigors to his methodology.

As I mentioned earlier... those CU professors taking a different modeling track by using primarily Market related data... and since 1980, their modeling accurately predicted the elections. Using that same modeling, they predicted that Romney will win... and win big (330 EV).

Are they right and 538 wrong? Meh... who cares....

You know what I think?

It's all crapshoot.... I will not be surprise who wins.

But, whomever loses... it's going to be freakout time... so, I'd advocate the old British saying (I think it came from the brits):

Durandal wrote:
Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become, we can only hope that he concedes before he is granted spawndom.

While I disagree with the former, I certainly was amused by the latter. Well done.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Durandal wrote:
\Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become

....yea....because killing Osama Bin Laden was a disaster.
Getting the unemployment rate below 8% again was a disaster.
Ask Chris Christie is he thinks the Obama presidency is a disaster.

In all fairness, I suggest looking at other sources than Rush Limbaugh for the status of how Obama has done.

Yep, those SEALs did a good job on Bin Laden, too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.
I guess 7.9% and rising isn't 8% unemployment
I'd hope he's doing something good for the disaster victims with the resources at his disposal

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

Who's talking teleport beacons?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/

This isn't counting the fact that requests for aid were continually turned down before the attacks.

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

I used to live beside a military base where fighters do their training. No one, not even a child would mistake a flare for a threat.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

I used to live beside a military base where fighters do their training. No one, not even a child would mistake a flare for a threat.

Well I'm glad you pointed that out. I'll contact the Pentagon and tell them to stop using show of force tactics in Afghanistan because you said that not even a child would mistake them as a threat.

Let me one up your living beside a military base. 11 years AD Air Force, with 4.5 of those working in an F-16 unit.

Over a one year period there was more then 18,000 strike sorties in Afghanistan. Of those, only 1/6th of them munitions were actually used. The rest were show of force missions, ie low level passes over insurgents, deploying flairs, to scare the gak out of them and make them bugger off.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

I used to live beside a military base where fighters do their training. No one, not even a child would mistake a flare for a threat.

A gunship has a bit more than flares.