And Here. We. Go. 2012 Presidential Election: Obama v. Romney - Page 948 - Politics and Economics

**goofyballer** · 09-16-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Not much to say other than you're wrong.

Goofy assumes linear win prob growth, then accuses me of using remedial statistics, ignores other possible reasons for the bump, like a bigger than expected convention bounce. Awesome stuff goofy.

On what planet is the curve you're using to calculate the probability of an Obama win approaching 1 rising 2% per day at any point on the curve?

lolikes having no idea what he's talking about, as always

Low Key · 09-16-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

The bolded is important. There are other important things too, like the increasing cost/barrel of extraction.

Also, solar has just recently turned the corner to being cost effective on a large scale.

call me crazy, but maybe it would be a good thing for America if America were the country to lead the way on an emerging technology

big gilute · 09-16-2012, 02:25 PM

this ike guy spouts lots and lots on untrue nonsense.

**goofyballer** · 09-16-2012, 02:26 PM

You guys, I hacked into ikes' computer and found the super secret model he's using to determine the growth of Obama's chances of winning if Romney can't make a move:

He must be cleaning up Intrade, what a genius

ikestoys · 09-16-2012, 02:29 PM

Asymptotes are a difficult concept. Nates on my side. Keep ****ing that chicken.

Cuban B · 09-16-2012, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimAfternoon

The federal subsides graph posted earlier was of the Bush years. Here's one that's more current.

(tax breaks only)

I doubt they are factoring any percentage of military spending, even specifically those in oil rich countries as part of the fossil fuel subsidy. Oil prices and stability massively subsidized by our military.

[Phill] · 09-16-2012, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Not much to say other than you're wrong.

This, this right ****ing here is why you are the worst poster on this forum. At least rara and swinging give details when they disagree with someone on basic ****ing facts like time so the flow can continue easily. So lets just skip the middle step and move on to how you somehow dont realise that 10pm on september 11 is still part of september 11 and doesnt get rolled into september 12 for some unknown ikestarded reason

Quote:

That wasn’t enough for the Romney campaign. It had prepared a statement that was embargoed until midnight, thereby keeping to the 9/11 truce. But as things hotted up it decided to move early. At 10:09 P.M., according to an informative backgrounder at Buzzfeed, Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, e-mailed reporters with a ready-to-use statement from Romney that said,

"I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz26ezRNwd4

In before we get an ikespecial where that isnt the Romney gaffe he was referring to that didnt happen on Sept 11 when he attacked another poster who said it did.

big gilute · 09-16-2012, 03:02 PM

i just checked on 4 sites. kind of odd. -270 -255 -225 and -200.

ikestoys · 09-16-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

This, this right ****ing here is why you are the worst poster on this forum. At least rara and swinging give details when they disagree with someone on basic ****ing facts like time so the flow can continue easily. So lets just skip the middle step and move on to how you somehow dont realise that 10pm on september 11 is still part of september 11 and doesnt get rolled into september 12 for some unknown ikestarded reason

In before we get an ikespecial where that isnt the Romney gaffe he was referring to that didnt happen on Sept 11 when he attacked another poster who said it did.

Phil. Learn how to read an intrade chart. The twitter message happened super late the 11th, there were 22 hours of the day before in which Obama increased. The speech didn't happen until morning on the 12th, and there was no major negative reaction in the media (or this thread) until the 12th. Even goofy concedes this point.

You, otoh, should stick to piggybacking on other people's arguments.

Trolly McTrollson · 09-16-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Asymptotes are a difficult concept.

Not really, but you don't seem to get how they work.

spaceman Bryce · 09-16-2012, 03:21 PM

Spaceman bryce is curious about Debate Strategy:

I think based on his advisers and campaign strategy Romney has put himself into a tiny box where he is pretty close to literally being obligated to say "there you go again, Mr. President"
Which brings me to my question:

assume Romney is holding his own in the debate so far and appears to be calm, confident and collected. You are president Obama. After noting some statistics the 6'2" Ivy league Mormon replies "there you go again, Mr. President."

How do you respond. Do you laugh it off. Do you have a zinger of your own? Do you solemnly explain the seriousness of what you just said and that it isnt a there you go again moment but a truthism?

raradevils · 09-16-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

Rara, I have a question; When the government "wastes" money, where exactly do you think that money goes?

The money is spent. Does it stay here in this country?

Before it gets spent. It is confiscated from some taxpayer or biz that should be able to do with it what they want. Not where the gov. or other entity wishes for it to go.

Cuban B · 09-16-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPoppa

AFAIK, the Dept of Education mostly just passes through money down to the states. So, yes, we could cut their budget; but this would likely just lead to higher state and local taxes.

Would making the Dept of Energy go away while passing its functions off to another dept (Interior, I suppose) really save that much money?

If you really want to cut the Federal budget, you have to look at military spending. Many of the things conservatives get worked up over (National Endowment for the Arts, etc) would basically be rounding errors in the Pentagon. If you're not looking at that, you're really not serious about cutting Federal spending.

This.

How come pseudo fiscal conservatives like rara lose their **** over a 500 million dollar solyndra loan, a company that was actually trying to develop something that at least would have been useful to the nation and could have lead to useful scientific progress with solar energy, more energy independence, ect, while the trillion dollar f-35 program that even inside the military is viewed as a wasteful welfare program gets completely ignored by the same types?

America’s trillion-dollar boondoggle

Quote:

If the F-35 were indispensable to the country’s future security, cost considerations would properly take a back seat, but that is not the case. A Foreign Policy magazine survey of 76 top military experts in 2012 revealed that 26 of them rated the F-35 program as the top candidate for immediate elimination.

John Arquilla of the Naval Post-Graduate School said, "We have had only one fighter shot down by an enemy fighter jet in the last 40 years. We simply don’t need to spend over a trillion dollars on a new fighter at this point."

These experts listed global warming, pandemics, cyber-warfare, terrorism, political instability, weapons of mass destruction and economic crises as the top security threats. However one rank-orders these threats, the F-35 does not increase our ability to address them. The F-22 Raptor produced by Lockheed-Martin until 2009 is faster, more maneuverable, capable of flying at a higher altitude, and is less visible on radar. Although the F-22 has experienced problems of delivering oxygen to the pilot, an Air Force Association study judged it to be much preferable to the F-35.

What is the probability that the F-35 program will be terminated? None.

Defense contractors typically disperse subcontracts to as many congressional districts as possible. In a rare example of bipartisan cooperation in Congress, a caucus of 49 members led by Kay Granger, R-Texas, and Norm Dicks, D-Wash., pledged to protect the F-35. Lockheed-Martin has distributed $1.3 million in campaign contributions, including $120,000 to Granger, $97,000 to Dicks, $144,250 to Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and $129,950 to Joe Barton, R-Texas. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is a member of the caucus.

Despite its abysmal performance on the F-35, Lockheed-Martin’s net income from all its programs rose from $533 million to $2.67 billion during the decade ending in 2011, and its annual dividends increased from 44 cents to $4 per share.

**goofyballer** · 09-16-2012, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Asymptotes are a difficult concept.

Do YOU understand them?

Like, ikes is smart enough to know that if the polls are O+4 on election day then Obama wins, and that if the polls don't change between now and then his numbers on Intrade have to rise between that timeframe, and remedial statistics ikes thinks that 10 points in 5 days two months away from the election is a perfectly normal reflection of that phenomenon.

Fortunately for us, there's a real-world example of something that exhibits that behavior that's been heavily modeled, and they're called stock options. Google image search "option time decay" and you'll see a lot of these:

So the rate of change in the option value accelerates over time? Interesting, because remedial statistics ikestoys seems to think Obama gaining 10 points in 5 days with 50 days to go is totally normal growth that just naturally reflects the time decay of Romney's chances to win, and that his growth will slow down by the election. It couldn't possibly be the case that time decay has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's Intrade market in the last 5 days!

ikes just knows that Obama's chances will go up if Romney fails to gain ground in the polls, and he has no ****ing clue how that manifests itself, so he's happy to assert his way to victory making really cute posts like these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

And like the last post you ignored, what happens on intrade if obama maintains a 4 point poll lead from now to november?

thinking he's making some really stellar and irrefutable point. Oh ikes, never change.

ikestoys · 09-16-2012, 03:29 PM

Oh look, goofy is still ****ing the chicken, ignoring large parts of the argument, ignoring experts and declaring victory. Good stuff good stuff.

To repeat really slowly for ya goof: obama will slide intrade just a bit and will as long as polling holds, there's several good explanations for obama's jump (like a bigger than expected convention bump, overperformance in swing states) and the ZOMGBIGGESTGAFFE hasn't proven to be one of them.