...but let's give Sam Wang his due as well. He's been all over "Ro-mentum".

and Nate for giving us the sanity of factual "math" to keep me warm at night, and away from the cliff!

I just wanted to point that out, because the University of Chicago always has some kind of weird, undeserved negative reputation here based on a couple of guys from the 1950s. Nate got his AB at U Chicago in 2000, and in economics no less! (Though I believe he was involved in the math department as well.)

So let's hear it for University of Chicago geeks! Which includes not only Nate Silver, but also Susan Sontag, Seymour Hersh, and my son and daughter-in-law!!

I'll dispell the myth. Just because he puts on glasses and looks like a geek, his methodology is seriously flawed no matter how many times he gets lucky. If he can't verify the Polls that he puts in ghis forecast, then it is not worth its grain of salt. That is a basic rule of research. I'll challenge him one million times to verify Gravis Marketing is not fraudulent. His negative reputation by his critics, including myself is deserved. If he can verify the legitmacy of Gravis Marketing, then I will gladly issue an apology to both. As far as I'm concerned his product is based on bogus methods.

Even if you are proven wrong. If proven right, I have no doubt you'll be here crowing like a rooster.

Try this: spell 'dispel' correctly and you can continue the necessary corrections to your post, if you want to call it that.

...just because someone has a low post count. John3 raises a valid point by questioning Silver's inclusion of the Gravis results. In fact, it was here on DU that I first learned of Gravis' dodgy back story and credentials. (For just one of many examples, please see this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021570247)

Troll infiltration in the run-up to elections is a genuine problem, but healthy skepticism (such as that displayed by John3's post) is a hallmark of one of the key qualities that separates DU from Republican forums: intelligence.

And as for spelling errors, this site offers interesting insight: http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2012/01/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell.html

just a few short days ago (when we didn't like what he was saying)?

I'm thinking Silver heard all the complains about Gravis Marketing and began weighting it's poll less in his results than before the complaints, now the Presidents chance of winning is much higher. What do you know about that? And the second two debates didn't hurt either.

And it appears its just a guess on your part that he's weighing Gravis less heavily?
I'm thinking he screwed up including them at all. Its embarrassing.
But I don't think most polls can figure out what he likey voter is anymore- or how to reach them.
Gravis polling has probably just decided to chill out making up crazy numbers now that they were investigated. Similarly Gallup saw their polls were embarrassing themselves and were planning on adjusting their methodology to better align with other polls.
So everyone is piss poor at getting good samples- and they season the polls to fit in enough with the rest so they're not outliers.
Polls are a bunch

. . . by saying that he was weighing Gravis less heavily. I'm with you in believing he should not have included their results at all but unfortunately he did. I'm glad he finally made his adjustment to either not include Gravis' results or to weigh them much less than before.

includes reference to a crapbowl. Oh and Johnnie, no matter how you state it, Gravis is also belongs in your bowl. Enjoy your visit to DU.

What I find fascinating about this election is that while campaigns and their supporters always put the best spin on things, and explain why the polls are really in their favor, this is the first time that I recall each side being so totally sure that the polls show their guide in the lead.

I mean, if you go to Freeperville, or National Review, or wherever, they are just as certain that the polls show their guy winning as we are.

I hope you find peace for gravis marketing.

We secretly always knew the *really* uber-smart ones were at U of C. I should know...I married one!

Dept - Pinochet's best friends
The U OF Chicago has been called a moral sump and has nurtured the neocons and the anti-democratic tendencies of the Bush years.
Nate may be all right, I don't know, but large parts of the U of Chicago are UnAmerican to the core.

Friedman....he was the worst of them all!!!! He died last year, I think. D.R.I.P.

How many lives he ruined...how many countries? He started it all.

i am really going to enjoy this win the regressives are going to have a complete meltdown

ha.

I bet Silver totally cringed when he read that.

I think he loves the numbers being true more than anything else.

Weeks before he gave the GOP a 2 in 3 shot of taking the House. He nailed the Senate. So far, he is always dead on.

I listen to no one else even if I don't like his conclusions.

"Looking for accuracy

As a jaded poll-watcher, I pay most attention in the current campaign to just two polling-related sources: Nate Silver's blog for The New York Times and the RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll. Both have been showing a fragile advantage for Obama."

Lately, it isn't fragile, but a convincing advantage for Obama.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/24/column-we-are-changing-faster-than-polls-keep-up/1655803/

I share his link all the time on Facebook.
And I keep posting him here for all the doom-and-gloomers.
Doesn't mean that I'm complacent, but really do hate to see people going all "hair on fire" when they see a Romney Ryan sign.

Just saw a poll from MO that shows Todd Akin only 2 pts. behind!

My stomach has been in knots for over a month!

Such a humble guy. Even so he was VERY confident Obama would win. No one on the panel
dared to question him.

Rasmussen is one thing, but these Clearly biased RW hack polls do not belong in anyone's numbers figuring. He has been alerted about Gravis' fraudulent polls yet he chooses to continue including them, so fuck him. I guess the good news is, with all the bad polls included, he still has O that far out front. But as far as respect for Nate Silver, I'm at about a negative 10, he is no hero of mine.

He might have a political orientation--I really don't know-- but what he's interested in are the polls, the statistics and, as he calls it, "the noise". Patterns and consistencies are his forte and everything is included. He has himself said that one cannot do a scientific study if one leaves out data that's relevent. He's a polls guy. He isn't interested in leaving out polls and the fact that some are biased is part of the system under which he works.

Or not... Your post made me chuckle with "O" (Oprah?) being out in front.