Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was willing to put $50-$100k on Romney, but that intrade is just for a few shares here and there. It is not a real exchange.
Sure-
I would love make a bet. You, of course, would reneg on your obligation, as would be expected of most liberals. I offered starting nine months ago bets up to $20K per bet with any lib that actually wanted to bet and establish an escrow with my accountant.
As expected, no liberal took me up on it, for any dollar amount.That was offered to you. Why didn't you take it?
Back to those statistics- so..................... have you figured it out yet? If you need more help, let me know, as I omitted a permuation of the ANOVA with the Neuman-Kuels analysis for multiple variables.
This will be fun............................................... .....
Contact your friends------ someone who actually knows statistics and can do some formal calculations. I would love to talk with them as well.
You libs are priceless. Why do I feel as though I am talking to children (my children were ALWAYS more sharp than that)? It is just amazing.No wonder that we are wealthy and you are not.
Is this poster for real?
It is always funny (and a bit sad) to see someone who is so sure of themself they don't know how much they don't know.
Well... FH..railroading a post will do you no good with a wrong answer. The statistic's provide a basis for a rational approximation not the final reality in an active system which can only come to be once a result is determined. Therefore I believe your resting position is totally illogical and in error.
A MASTER'S DEGREE? You mean like Dr. Science? That must make you pretty smart. I have a MASTER'S DEGREE also, but also an M.D.
I have over 20 papers published in the peer reviewed literature.
Let me help, given that obviously you do not have a clue.
If one were to evaluate the statistical probability of an election, we have ONE OUTCOME for which we are conducting the analysis- either Obama wins, or he does not.
However, he have MANY variables that can contribute to this outcome, each of which may have a different weighted impact on that outcome. Therefore a permutation of an ANOVA with a Neuman-Kuels correction for multiple variables would be the method of choice, if, of course, this could be analyzed with any degree of accuracy whatsoever (which it cannot).
Gee................. thanks for the statistics lesson. I learned a lot.
And here you have it, folks: a classical example of petulance, arrogance and exaggerated sense of self-importance.
I'm not impressed. An even more arrogant lawyer can still make you tremble.
I was willing to put $50-$100k on Romney, but that intrade is just for a few shares here and there. It is not a real exchange.
Sure-
I would love make a bet. You, of course, would reneg on your obligation, as would be expected of most liberals. I offered starting nine months ago bets up to $20K per bet with any lib that actually wanted to bet and establish an escrow with my accountant.
As expected, no liberal took me up on it, for any dollar amount.That was offered to you. Why didn't you take it?
Back to those statistics- so..................... have you figured it out yet? If you need more help, let me know, as I omitted a permuation of the ANOVA with the Neuman-Kuels analysis for multiple variables.
This will be fun............................................... .....
Contact your friends------ someone who actually knows statistics and can do some formal calculations. I would love to talk with them as well.
You libs are priceless. Why do I feel as though I am talking to children (my children were ALWAYS more sharp than that)? It is just amazing. No wonder that we are wealthy and you are not.
If that 100K is burning a hole in your pocket, you can always go to Vegas. To me, gambling is not only boring, but also a fool's errand.
By the way, I hope your children didn't learn much from you. All those degrees and papers and you forgot that the comparative form for sharp is sharper and the superlative is sharpest.
Where did I learn that? A nun taught it to me in grade school. It only took one time.
And here you have it, folks: a classical example of petulance, arrogance and exaggerated sense of self-importance.
I'm not impressed. An even more arrogant lawyer can still make you tremble.
There you have it.
Am I arrogant? Of course. Why? Self confidence from my education and training.
Now.................... back to the statistical analysis. So Ed- are you basically saying that you have no knowledge of statistical analysis or the evaluation that would be necessary for this evaluation, such that you have nothing to add but derision? What then, qualifies you to make an intelligent statement on this discussion? Nothing, I guess.
Can you tell me anything, Ed? If not, perhaps your "comments' are meaningless, as you have no knowledge of mathematics or statistics to have any comments at all regarding this analysis. Your "comments" simply reveal your ignorance on the subject, which is amusing. Thank you for the laugh.
Your "response" tells me everything and justifies my "arrogance' and reflects your ignorance. Thanks for the informative response. I learned a lot.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 11-04-2012 at 05:36 PM..
Using the same statistical methods used by liberals to calculate Obama's re-election chances, I came up with a 2.34% chance. This, of course is equally as valid as other "techniques" and yields equally as valuable information.
Once again, since you're obviously confused and don't believe in quoting sources. Here again is the REAL reason of the 30% cut in reimbursement that you insist on blaming on Obamacare.
Im wondering what Hawkeyes posts will be like come Wednesday.
Options include:
1). Defiant, insistant of a stolen election
2). Freak out mode, insistant this is the end of democracy
3). Completely absent from the board
Given that he is an 8.9 out of 10 on the Blowhard Scale, Im going with #3.
You are ignoring my requests for a statistical analysis, Nick.
You told me that you have a MASTER'S DEGREE in "science" (just like Dr. Science) and could explain that statistical evaluation that was needed for "Nate Silver's analysis".
I spotted you a "C" and a "T" to spell "CAT" and you still cannot provide me with that "A". YOU called ME "ignorant", yet I am showing you to be completely inept and have no knowledge of an area you claim expertise. Perhaps the converse is actually true. PLEASE PROVIDE THE "A" for the "C" and the "T" I provided you (you will not be able to find this via the internet and will need to "phone a friend" on Monday- what a joke)Perhaps you do not know what you are talking about, in spite of your MASTER'S DEGREE in science. Given your "expertise", particularly since I told you the calculations needed, you should be able to provide an in depth mathematical explanation of this problem. But...........perhaps........................... you cannot and really don't understand what you are talking about?
Libs need to understand that pulling a "D" lever in the polling booth does not confer MENSA status. This is hilarious and shows the arrogance of liberals who have no academic credentials or actual knowledge to back up their "contentions".
Although the fact that Mr. Obama held the lead in so many polls is partly coincidental — there weren’t any polls of North Carolina on Friday, for instance, which is Mr. Romney’s strongest battleground state — they nevertheless represent powerful evidence against the idea that the race is a “tossup.” A tossup race isn’t likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other — any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses. (The probability of a fair coin doing so is about 1 chance in 50,000.)
It is very simple. You can evaluate the likelihood of a dead heat between two candidates with multiple polls easily. If the candidates are equal, they each have a 0.5 probability of winning any comparison. the farther you get from a 50/50 split in outcomes (say 15/17 or or 19/20,etc), the less likely it is that the initial probabilities are actually equal. Obama is at worst about a 1000 to 1 favorite in the most recent swing state polls, based only on the nonparametric binomial test. As easy as it gets. Of course this is not a forecast for Nov. 6, just a simple test to see if the candidates are indeed even, given current polls. I suspect the Silver's models is a lot more interesting than an ANOVA. I would be amazed if it was not a very complex custom designed nonparametric probit model of some sort working on time series data from many polls, as well as economic, demographic, and foreign policy factors.
One of the few perfect scores I earned in graduate school was on my stats final exams. Braying about complex analyses for simple comparisons does not impress me. Funny thing about hawkeye, he seems to feel the need to swagger around this board as the alpha intellectual titan, but it really just looks like someone has some insecurity issues to me. I know many esteemed scientists, and I have never met a scientist who acted with such self-satisfaction and contempt for others ideas. Not a sign of a subtle mind.
Nate Silver has a term, "hedgehog" to describe people with dogmatic views and intolerance of other viewpoints. They are notable only in that they are notoriously bad at predicting things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Why do I feel as though I am talking to children (my children were ALWAYS more sharp than that)? It is just amazing. No wonder that we are wealthy and you are not.
