They Always Have Their Own Math Right Around Now

« November 2012 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1
3
4
7
10
11
17
18
20
22
23
24
25
30

Memo to Dean Chambers: YOU'RE VERY REASSURING.

Mitt Romney has decided to spend the last week of the election just blatantly lying his ass off, telling everyone that if Obama gets re-elected, Jeep is going to move all their production to China. He's counting on the fact that any recriminations for it, should they occur, will happen after the lies win him the election.

Since I believe that people are deeply, fundamentally stupid, I worry that this might work. When I worry, I turn to Nate Silver, like we all do, because Nate Silver is committed to the math and the methodology. And his math and his methodology seems sound. Nate Silver appears to know his shit, and other people who seem to know their shit agree that Nate Silver knows his shit. That's good enough for me.

But if it weren't, good enough for me, Dean Chambers' article on Examiner.com would be. Because Dean Chambers thinks Nate Silver doesn't know shit, and his arguments are so bad as to constitute definitive proof of the exact opposite. I mean, here's how he starts.

"While many conservatives look to former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris to understand the polls and political surveys on the elections, or even a site like UnSkewedPolls.com,.."

OK, let's stop right there. Dick Morris is an insane hack with over a decade of being completely fucking wrong about everything in his track record. UnSkewedPolls was a site set up just this year when Obama was ahead nationally by like four or five points, to claim that all the polls were wrong and Romney was totally winning.

Set up, I might add, by Dean Chambers. And promoted, I might add again, by Dick Morris. We could stop RIGHT FUCKING THERE and you would know enough to join me in laughing at the very idea of a Dean Chambers. But I'm not going to stop there, because Dean Chambers did not stop there.

"Routinely he assigns percentage odds of a candidate (usually his beloved Obama) winning a state far higher and disproportionate any reasonable odds of that candidate winning a state as indicated by the polls."

First, that sentence is fucking atrocious. Second, the odds Nate Silver gives are fairly unique, because polling services, for various reasons, don't turn the polling numbers into odds of winning. So Dean Chambers doesn't know what the odds of the candidate winning the state as indicated by the polls, so he can't know that Silver's is higher. Also, the phrase "his beloved Obama" is the exact turn of phrase I would immediately discredit any blog commenter for using.

But we're not even at the good part.

"Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the 'Mr. New Castrati' voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats."

Well, there you go. Nate Silver is effeminate because he is small, he is liberal because he is effeminate, and he is wrong because he is liberal. I believe this is a classic case of Queer Erat Demonstratum.

I mean, when it comes to math skills, who would you trust? A man's man, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or some spindly nerd? It makes perfect sense if you are a complete fucking freakjob.

Chambers goes on to fake-describe Silver's methodology using the word "apparently" a lot, even though Silver's methodology is both transparent and available with three seconds in Google. But fake-describing the methodology allows him to fake-discredit it, of course. Plus it's long and uses big words.

"He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was. But..."

Again, there's no "claims" or "perhaps" about it. You're ostensibly a pollster, someone who looks at data to reach an unbiased result, and you can't look up Silver's predictions and the results to see if he was highly accurate in 2008? New poll just in, you are 100% shit, 100% head, 0% margin of error.

If this is the best a clearly biased Romneyphile can manage to discredit Nate Silver, then I have even less reason to doubt his numbers. Good fucking thing, too, at least right now.