Why is Nate Silver mocking the Dems' change of venue for Obama's speech?

[ailsagirl]

But is a 30 percent chance of rain really all that far out of the ordinary? Rain is hardly unknown in the South — especially in the humid evenings of the late summer.

Perhaps Democrats are using the weather threat as an excuse to protect against the possibility that they couldn’t fill a football stadium?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/is-bad-weather-really-the-reason-to-move-obamas-speech-indoors/

[HERVEPA]

1. Didn't mock it. Doubted the official story. He's not supposed to be a Democratic shill

[flamingdem]

2. 40% chance of thunderstorms is plenty of a reason not to have

the event outdoors, pleeease

They said they were oversubscribed by 20000 people - I think they'll be able to prove that in some way

[regnaD kciN]

42. His argument is that Denver was just as prone...

...to thunderstorms back in 2008, yet we held the event outside anyway. What Nate overlooks is that there were no thunderstorms in the immediate forecast for that night. If there had been a 30-40% chance of them that night in Denver, doesn't Nate think the speeches would have been moved inside then as well?

[JaneyVee]

49. I heard somewhere the stadium was worried about insurance claims as well.

I hate using "heard somewhere" but it was on social media and just glanced it over. Something about slippery steep steps & aisles. 40% chance is too high considering the amount of electronics and electrical equipment that will be exposed onstage & by performers.

[ailsagirl]

5. Shill? No. But I question the purpose of this article.

[woolldog]

34. He's trying to insulate himself from charges of being biased

by occasionally mocking Democrats, even when it's not warranted. It's what the media does.

[karynnj]

12. If they set up everything for the stadium, and it started to rain could you imagine how disasterous

it would be? As some pointed out, the media would have been on metal platforms and no umbrellas could have been allowed through security.


You do realize that if 70000 people were all screened and in the stadium and it started to rain, you could not easily reassemble the delegates in the convention center. Meanwhile what happens to the most important speech of the convention - Obama's. Back in 1972, few heard McGovern's speech because it was late at night - because the convention got off schedule.

If you want, you could argue that an outdoor day should not have - been planned given the weather in summer in NC. But given the weather on the entire east coast, 40% probability (or even 30%) is too big a negative to be outweighted by the optics of the open air speech.

[Cha]

31. So, he's not suppose to be a NYT republicon

shill, either.

[HERVEPA]

54. Have you been reading him daily?

He has consistently been showing how the race is not as close as other clowns are trying to say it is.

[DURHAM D]

3. What a stupid comment.

They did not just have a full house they had 19,000 people on a wait list.

[LaydeeBug]

4. I think we have a little egg on our face with that one...

we were going to be bussing people in for it, which doesn't look authentic, so I am glad they just did away with it.

[Logical]

8. Why? You want 200 college kids all driving and not on a bus?

[karynnj]

13. People organizing and arriving on buses from across the country is

extremely authentic.

[LaydeeBug]

33. I understand that it *is* authentic, I just hope you understand that it might not LOOK authentic. nt

[TrogL]

47. Where in hell are all those people supposed to park?

People are discoursed from driving to our local stadium because there isn't enough parking either at the stadium itself or in surrounding neighbourhoods. That's what transit and tour buses are for.

[LaydeeBug]

51. now that they've changed the venue, where the hell are all the people supposed to *go*? nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. it's a pretty weak story - as a NC person, I know those afternoon storms can be really bad.

But still - between that piece of hooey and another weak one on TPM I read tonight, we must remember that all who are looking for eyeballs play this game - they all need a close election, I think.

[vaberella]

22. I think it's because there is a lot of electricity and a lot of elderly people in the audience.

I wouldn't take that chance.

[CatWoman]

30. I'm in Georgia

last month I got caught in the rain during one of my weekend walks. I had just made it to the lake (about halfway of my 5 mile walk) when the sky opened up. I was drenched. I caught this terrible cold and can't get rid of it.

Plus right now the humidity is a monster.

[fugop]

7. Wow. Lame, Nate, really lame.

I can't believe anyone outside of rightwing promoters could make this comment with a straight face. Just ridiculous.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. Sounds like he's overanalyzing things

Which would make some sense given that he spends all day every day analyzing polls and such.............I suppose that sometimes people can get a little TOO analytical about everything else.

[Logical]

9. Logical Question. One we would be asking if the GOP did it. And you know it.

[fugop]

23. Not me.

When they had to downsize the first day of their convention because of Isaac, which never even hit Tampa, I didn't ask if they did it because they didn't have enough excited attendees.

Although, looking back, maybe that's the real reason.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. I'm not sure about that

Wanting to avoid having the biggest speech of the campaign season washed out by the rain seems pretty reasonable. The Republicans had to make some adjustments to their convention as well due to Isaac.

[WI_DEM]

10. Who cares?

[Zoeisright]

57. That's my response too.

Actually, who the fuck cares?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. Stick to Statistics, Nate....

65,000 people caught out in the open during an electrical storm? It was have been catastrophic. Can you imagine if someone had died? And according to MSNBC, there were 19,000 people on the waiting list for tickets.

[former9thward]

18. Then why did they plan on the stadium in the first place?

Anyone who has lived in the south knows that late afternoon summer thunderstorms are very common. They don't cancel other stadium events for rain and the weatherman said Thursday was going to have the best weather all week. I don't buy the official story.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

19. Nobody asked you to...

And there's a massive difference between a AAA ball game and a political convention.

[former9thward]

46. Actually they did.

Last edited Thu Sep 6, 2012, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

If they did not want people to believe the story then they would not have given one. BTW the Panthers play at that stadium and they are not a "AAA ball game". Why did they do the stadium in the first place if it is so obvious to you why they shouldn't?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. Actually, they didn't...

And you might want to know what you're talking about before repeating RNC talking points. The original venue was Bank of America Stadium, which is open air -- decidedly NOT the place where the Hornets play -- particularly since the Hornets are now in New Orleans and have been for about ten years. The Charlotte Bobcats, on the other hand, have been playing in the Time Warner Cable Arena for several years now. And the Time Warner Cable Arena is, in fact, the location of the Democratic National Convention.

Any other uninformed observations you'd care to make?

[former9thward]

50. I meant the Panthers but of course you knew that.

Again since you are so informed why did they pick the stadium in the first place? Why do you sidestep that question? BTW chance of rain tonight and thunderstorms tonight just like always according to the weather service.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

52. You don't know so many things I really don't know what you don't know...

Why did they choose the stadium in the first place? I don't know. Maybe the person responsible wasn't from the area. I don't know. Maybe they were hoping for the best. I don't know.

And what I REALLY don't know is why you're persisting in pushing a Fox News Talking Point (tm)

[former9thward]

53. That is the typical strawman created by those who have no facts or arguments.

"You are pushing a fox news talking point, a right wing talking point, etc." I don't automatically believe statements just because they come from my side of the coin. I believe in questioning illogical things. You not so much.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. Thank you for your service

Sincerely, the Republican National Committee.

[fugop]

25. Please

Other stadium events don't feature 65,000 going through high levels of security to see the president of the U.S. in an open-air venue. You think if a storm popped up they could just ... you know ... shift them all somewhere else? The fact is, due to security concerns and the amount of people, even the possibility of a t-storm tomorrow makes it stupid to try and hold the event outside. Imagine if they started the event, starting jamming people through security, then had to stop the whole thing. Can you imagine the logistics? The optics of having to delay the entire acceptance speech?

Frankly, I can't believe anyone would question that. It's just mind-numbingly naive to think they could just move this kind of high-security event at the last minute. But people will believe what they want.

[former9thward]

44. If what you are saying was part of the decision then why do the stadium in the first place?

Again ANYONE who has ever lived in the south knows that late afternoon thunderstorms in the summer come up like clockwork.

[spanone]

14. did he mock the tampa crowd over the hurricane?

[gkhouston]

55. Although it was dim-witted of them to book Florida in August in the first place,

cutting the first day short was the right move. They didn't know when they made the decision that the storm would scooch a bit more to the west.

[ellisonz]

15. Wow - I now feel good in my judgment of Nate Silver has having no special insight.

It's called liability you fool!

[eqfan592]

38. I personally hope he has some special insight.

He's currently got Pres. Obama favored to win by 76%.

Sorry, but I think we're all really making a bit much of this. He clearly is used to analyzing the hell out of things, and I think this is just a case of him being overly analytical.

[ellisonz]

40. His whole *schtick* is overly analytical.

I understand his attempt to translate electoral probabilities into math, but he can't account for things like turnout and voter suppression that swing elections.

I don't need a projection, I need a hard-hitting campaign and that looks to be exactly what we're getting.

[ailsagirl]

41. I just went to check the electoral vote map and ran into the blog

And it seemed odd that he went into such detail about the weather and why the Dems changed venues.

It's not earth-shaking, but it was a little odd. IMO.

[oldhippydude]

16. we live in dangerous times, and BHO has enemys

wonder if secret service wasn't involved.. something we will never hear of..

[ecstatic]

17. If I thought there'd be an opening for me to

go, I would have gone in a heartbeat. If somehow these rumors are true, it's not from a lack of enthusiasm, it's from people not thinking they'd be able to get tickets.

[cynatnite]

20. Maybe I've been watching too much politics over the last couple of weeks...

To show he's not in the pocket of the Dems.

Have you checked out his latest numbers? They keep looking better and better for Obama.

I could be wrong, too.

[ailsagirl]

26. Who knows, indeed!

Silver tweeted this after Clinton's speech:

"That Clinton guy should run for president someday."

and during the speech:

"Clinton's genius is in trotting out totally focus-group-tested lines and making them sound incredibly authentic."

[ellisonz]

43. What makes him think President Clinton used "focus-group-tested lines?

This dude seems to be excelling at making things up to cover a shallow analytical method.

Talking about not understanding the power of personality!

[anneboleyn]

27. Thunderstorms in NC are serious business. It would be a mess if it was storming during the speech!

DUMB comment from Silver.

[WinkyDink]

28. They have NOTHING ELSE.

[Lex]

29. I figure that there might be some security issues that maybe they can't/haven't worked out?

Who knows.

[ailsagirl]

32. I'll agree with that-- who knows

It just seemed odd to me that Silver would write such a piece and in such a tone.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

35. Two words: rain delay

While I'm not sure I completely buy the official story, it does make perfect sense in one respect.

Let's say they kept it at the stadium and storms whipped up forcing Obama to delay his speech. Even a short delay would bump it out of the golden hour both parties have geared their prime time speeches around.

Instead of the President talking, we'd have images of people huddled under raincoats and puddles on the ground. That would be a bit of a cluster fuck.

Whatever risk there was of that happening was too much in my book.

[Honeycombe8]

36. It was the threat of lightning, not rain. This is the Republican meme. Heard it on hate Radio.nt

[Thrill]

37. I live here. We've been getting these unpredictable

storms off and on for past few weeks.

The Repubs would love for thunder and lighting to happen while he was speaking.

[LondonReign2]

45. More importantly, why did NPR devote multiple segments to it?

Including letting bloated fuckhead Sununu lie unequivocally that it was because they couldn't fill the stadium?

Thanks again "liberal" media.

[Samantha]

56. I thought they probably moved it for security reasons and just didn't want to say that

Using the weather was a perfect cover. I don't think there was any doubt he could fill either arena. But it definitely would be easier to protect him indoors. That is just my theory. I haven't heard anyone else suggest this. Knowing the amount of threats he gets, and he was in SC, I kept looking around the whole time he was talking. And I did think once again as I watched the speech, it would be easier to protect him inside this arena (but what do I know?).

Sam