Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This article and the accompanying graph ought to give pause to any pundits, armchair or otherwise, who draw conclusions from this election about what the Republican Party and the conservative movement should do.

If this article is correct, our side never had a chance and we simply never connected with the public. The experience does not tell us whether we should move to the middle or move to the right.


1 posted on 11/10/2012 9:49:43 AM PST by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: nathanbedford

Nate Silver isn’t an independent pollster, he’s part of Obama’s political machine.

He only got national prominence by “predicting” Obama would beat Hillary, because he had inside information from OFA about the primaries.

All this talk about “Nate Silver this” and “Nate Silver that” just proves how Obama was ready to seal the deal by any means necessary from the start.


2 posted on 11/10/2012 9:52:56 AM PST by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
The most damning statistic is that 2 million fewer Republicans voted for Romney than McCain.

I never thought the GOP would nominate a candidate less appealing than John McCain-I didn't think it was possible-but they managed to accomplish just that.

3 posted on 11/10/2012 9:53:24 AM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

The Leftwing media, govt handouts, and minority resentment are some of the primary reasons for the loss.

The way information is dispensed to the public must be modified.


4 posted on 11/10/2012 9:54:03 AM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

Romney lost because morons vote. It’s that simple. Sadly, obamaphone-lady’s vote counts as much as yours.


5 posted on 11/10/2012 9:55:26 AM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
DemoRat GOTV --the Blue Zones of Motivation...


6 posted on 11/10/2012 9:56:52 AM PST by tflabo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

As a friend of mine who was raised in Bulgaria under Communism stated:

“Romney promised a chance at a job, Obama promised foodstamps, cellphones, easy disability and housing subsidies. Game over.”

http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/consumer-confidence-rises-to-highest-level-since-beginning-of-q4-2007/


7 posted on 11/10/2012 9:56:58 AM PST by whitedog57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

I think he should have picked Rubio for Veep, more appeal to the un-silent minority of youth and Latinos.


8 posted on 11/10/2012 9:58:51 AM PST by Rennes Templar (Be positive: America is greater than Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

This explanation makes the most sense to me. Rather than blaming the loss on Hurricane Sandy, or Chris Christie, or Project ORCA, or other fluke events…

I do think there’s a lot of problems with the campaign infrastructure of the GOP… as far as recruiting new voters goes, as well as getting them into early voting or to the polls on election days.

Messaging is a major problem, too. Though it’s hard when most of the media is complicit in colluding against Republicans. And I suspect what’s far more damaging than the negative punditry by the news commentariat, is the fact that the media can decide at any time to quite simply block Republican candidates from having an effective voice at all.


9 posted on 11/10/2012 10:02:17 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
the only lesson here is to start attacking your opponent early and hard and destroy them before they even get stated. it's not that complicated but the GOP failed to do that even though they had an easy target
11 posted on 11/10/2012 10:05:17 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

The really funny thing about the whole Nate Silver thing is that what he is doing is really not complicated or difficult....it IS however novel. No one really weighted pollsters in their averages the way he did.

All you have to do is throw all the polls in an algebraic equation and weight each pollster based on history, polling method (auto vs live call), percent of cell phones included, fundamentals like economic conditions, what he calls “house effect” which in my opinion is the strongest, and whatever else he deems appropriate.

If you lay out this equation and multiply each poll (X, Y, Z, etc) with a .5, .75, .9 etc based on their history, house effect, etc, you get a really accurate average.

Many bloggers have already started to replicate this method and the funny thing is, you can almost reverse engineer some if his model since he posts the weights in bars right there on his blog. Of course he could be BSing those published weights to maintain the proprietary nature of this model but maybe not.

All I did this year is average the polls and threw out Rasmussen and Gallup (for reasons posted many time before), gave automated polls a < 1 weight, internet polls a < 1 weight and threw out any polls with no history. With that pretty crude method, I was able to call Obama +1.8% and 290 (and possibly 303) for Obama in the electoral college.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2955102/posts?page=117#117

I didn’t see Florida at all, the one I missed. I’m not sure how Silver saw that one but next time around, I hope to have fun building a better model of my own.


13 posted on 11/10/2012 10:09:03 AM PST by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

We don’t need to change a damn thing about what we believe.

What we need is for a healthy chunk of the MSM to be neutral.
Those of you who think mainstream media is dead are prema-
ture by a long way. We don’t need another FOX or more talk
radio. If our big money entities would take over a couple of
major papers and one established TV network with the idea
that news (political and otherwise) will truly played down the
middle then we will have a fair shot at winning because our
ideas are better. The liberals can never be counted on to be
fair. The self-righteous bastards just aren’t built that way.


16 posted on 11/10/2012 10:19:04 AM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
Agreed. The indices that average the polls capture bigger samples and take into account the outliers on both sides. They have proven themselves in two cycles now. Accepting or discounting polls based on anecdotal accounts of yard signs, bumper stickers and crowd attendance has proven to be unreliable as well.

Look, like many things in life, several foctors played into the results. The media likes to talk about the electorate as a monolith that made a singular decision. The reality is a combnination of reasons. If anything, Silver shows that Americans have a hard time firing incumbents; however, you can't discount some lack of enthusiasm for Romney as a possible reason in some voters mind. Fraud, bad GOTV etc all play into this on the margins as well...

20 posted on 11/10/2012 10:22:52 AM PST by IFly4Him
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

We lost because:

A) the Leftist/Socialist apparatus in America controls messaging

B) our institutions have been redefined and corrupted by the Leftist/Socialist messaging apparatus, undermining their moral authority

C) as a result of the loss of moral authority of our institutions, the American citizenry has ceased to be American in thinking. Many are no longer independent, self-reliant, liberty-embracing. They have become dependent, averse to personal responsibility, willing to trade freedom for security

D) the Republican Party has sacrificed its soul by adjusting to the change in the playing field created by A, B, and C.


31 posted on 11/10/2012 11:02:00 AM PST by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, Romney was probably the best possible candidate the GOP could run and the campaign was by conventional wisdom run as well as it could be run. It just fell short. Campaign finance rules made it hard for Romney to go after Obama in the summer because all the money was spent winning the primaries. Romney promised fishing poles, Obama gave away fish. The GOP has cruised on the idea that Democrats won’t turn out on Election Day. They were sorely wrong. Likely voters and registered voters are becoming the same category and the GOP isn’t winning that category.


37 posted on 11/10/2012 11:12:51 AM PST by garbanzo (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

Can not see how with all the VOTER FRAUD that is being told (In Fla and PA) the article, as you say “our side never had a chance”.

141 percent voter turn out in 1 district in Fla and 90-99 percent voter turn out in Phila...

I am staying with the “We Won” but the GOP has no balls to stand up and claim it (except Allen West)!


41 posted on 11/10/2012 11:39:36 AM PST by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

Absurd.
Just because Nate Silver was right about the outcome, does not mean his percentage chance of victory was accurate. Romney lost by less than 320,000 votes in 4 swing states. Given that 46% of those exit polled said Obama’s response (as endorsed by Chris Christie before that ‘response ‘actually happened) to Hurricane Sandy was a “major factor” is determining their vote, and those people broke 2:1 for Obama, and 15% of those said Sandy was “the most important factor” and they broke 4:1, Sandy was indeed a MAJOR factor that could easily have reversed 70,000 votes in each swing state. Numerically, it may have moved double that number. Without Sandy, and with a ravenous media pushing Obama hard over Benghazi (instead of covering for him, as with CBS, or lying for him, as with Candy Crowley), this election could easily have been Romnney’s. Certainly nowhere near a “91% probability” of loss in the last 24 hours. Which shows the fundamental uselessness of Silver’s methodology to areas such a hedging futures for weather or other risks.


42 posted on 11/10/2012 11:44:32 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

“Here’s The Real Reason Nate Silver’s Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough”

Answer: Fraud, corruption, lies and mass media promotion. Period.


49 posted on 11/10/2012 12:36:55 PM PST by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

The stock market moved down big time after the election. This means the big money was surprised (not necessarily that Romney was favored, could simply be that the outcome was in doubt until the actual vote was counted).

I agree that the first debate was a game changer. It moved Romney up by, from neck and neck to a 3 point lead (yes, I am parroting Rasmussen).

But, there was another game changer: the hurricane.

Both Raz and Gallup affirm this (although Gallup’s suspension masked this second change).

The ABC/WP poll also affirms this, although with a liberal tilt. as a neck and neck race turned into a 3 point edge for Obama by their tracking poll.

The state polls (eg, Q and Marist) were way out of whack. According to Silvers, Obama had a lock on the Electoral College because of the state polls. Well, in the end, the key states - CO, OH and VA - fell to Obama by 2 or 3 points, almost exactly his edge in the nationwide popular vote.

Hence if Romney had won the nationwide popular vote by 1 point (or 3!), he would have been elected.

What people will remember is that Silvers was right; but, he was wrong. There was never a lock on the Electoral College. Obama rode a storm surge to re-election.


52 posted on 11/10/2012 1:00:24 PM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
RE :”If this article is correct, our side never had a chance and we simply never connected with the public”

You got it. But the biggest mistake is telling yourself you are winning when you are losing. That is always a disaster.,

That is the key.

54 posted on 11/10/2012 1:22:54 PM PST by sickoflibs (How long before cry-Boehner caves to O again? They took the House for what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson