Who was the biggest winner tonight? Not Obama. NATE SILVER. **

[TrollBuster9090]

Last edited Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:17 AM - Edit history (2)

And Romney wasn't the loser.

The losers were:

Karl Rove
Scott Rasmussen
Dick Morris
Charles Krauthammer
George F. Will
and
Dan Rather's 'GUT'


Can we throw these fact-free propagandists in the guise of pollsters and pundits into the trash can of credibility once and for all, now?


Yes, facts have a 'liberal bias.' Sorry, but it's true. Numbers DON'T lie. You can deny science, math, and the experimental method as long as you like....UNTIL reality smacks you right in the face, and then it's too late.


The polls (at least the non-partisan ones, excluding Rasmussen and (now) probably Gallup) consistently showed that Obama would win the Electoral College by a comfortable margin, and only ONE 'pundit' (Nate) was reporting that. All the others fell into two categories: A) Those who we normally think of as serious journalists, but were stuck on the "It's too close to call" meme for fear of being accused of having a bias by merely telling us what the numbers said, and B) Those with an obvious bias (ie-Faux Noise) who were blathering about a Romney landslide. Shame on the A group! You idiots had better grow a spine, and start telling us the truth, or you're in real danger of becoming irrelevant. Traditionally, the job of political pundit was to look at a lot of FACTS, and then summarize them for us, and tell us what they mean. The pundit class has totally abandoned their responsibility for doing this for fear of getting nasty letters from Rush Limbaugh fans. Instead of summarizing facts for us, all they do now is summarize 'both sides' of the political SPIN, which is absolutely no use to us. Well, you guys better shape up fast, because the internet has made it possible for us to look up the numbers for ourselves. You can either summarize the FACTS for us, or get out of the way, and let US do it. It's that simple.

Kudos to poor Nate Silver, who actually endured right-wing DEATH THREATS for simply reporting what the numbers say. And Kudos to Nate SIlver for eventually calling the other 'pundits' out on their bullshit, and labeling them as entertainers, instead of reporters.


** footnote: yes, I know the real winners were the American People. It's poetic license. I can show you my card.

[blogslut]

1. The biggest winners were the American people

We got four years to strengthen our rights as citizens. Let's not forget that.

[Lucinda]

2. You beat me to it.

We were the winners.

[TrollBuster9090]

3. Heheh! Yes, I mentioned that in a footnote because I knew I'd get jumped on for it.

I plead guilty.

[Cha]

5. Thank you, blogslut. This is the REALITY.

[FrenchieCat]

4. We were the biggest winners......

Thank Goodness!

[Egnever]

6. Surely Joe the Scab deserves a seat on the losers list

[TrollBuster9090]

7. You're right, but I want him to stay on TV so I can see how stupid he looks with a MUSTACHE.

Given that he bet Axelrod that he'd grow one if Romney lost.



Joe Scarborough (not exactly as shown)

[Jim Lane]

8. It wasn't just Nate.

Multiple sites did what Nate does -- take polling data, apply their number-crunching skills, and produce an Electoral College prediction. They all projected an Obama win. I personally was following electoral-vote.com but there were others, such as the Princeton Election Consortium (Sam Wang), Larry Sabato, and even the conservative RealClearPolitics.

I really didn't understand this intense focus on Nate Silver by both sides. Conservatives and liberals seemed to be characterizing the punditry verdict as Nate Silver versus the world. That just wasn't so. The division was data-driven (all predicting Obama) versus ideologues.