Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Edits Forecast Romney's Vice Presidential Pick

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the ron-paul-2012 dept.

Republicans 300

Hugh Pickens writes writes "In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, 'just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about Palin's approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.' The obvious — in hindsight — implications of the Wiki activity: Aides were going into the entries to tune them up and clean out any material that was either embarrassing or erroneous. Now Mark Memmott writes on NPR that today's Wikipedia activity may lend a clue to Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick, expected to be announced within a few days. So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket? On August 7, Rob Portman's Wikipedia page was revised 100 times, the Wikipedia page for Marco Rubio was revised 22 times, and the page for Tim Pawlenty was revised only 5 times. Of course, Memmott adds, somebody who knows about the 2008 Wiki tea leaves may just be messing with our minds."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Colbert! (5, Funny)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40917927)

He's activated the Colbert Nation to edit Wikipedia yet again on his show last night.

Re:Colbert! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918049)

This is genius. When the Colbert Nation descends upon a Wikipedia page, Wikipedia blocks it out, making any "real" covert updates difficult or impossible. How is Wikipedia supposed to tell the difference between an active Colbert viewer and a campaign shill?

Will the ability (or lack thereof) to apply wiki "make-up" to a potential VP influence the selection?

Re:Colbert! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918745)

s/Colbert/NPR/ (k yeah I suck at perl)

You can't post an article about Wikipedia explaining the game to everyone. Now that the public's attention has been drawn to these articles, the social science behind the articles has been tainted.

What? Since when... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40917975)

...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

Re:What? Since when... (2, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918069)

Well... every smartass has to point out there is some bad information in Wikipedia. The GOP should be right at home there.

Re:What? Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918819)

That was exactly what I was going to say... also, I heard that the GOP gets most of its money from an investment into showers specifically designed for birds. Pigeons actually.

Re:What? Since when... (1, Funny)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918225)

Tea Party --> Freedom from government and lawyers
SOPA --> More power to government and lawyers
Wikipedia opposes SOPA, tea party supports Wikipedia??

Re:What? Since when... (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918329)

Tea Party supports Freedom from government and lawyers how? They are a another tool to get the useful idiots to vote in policies that hurt themselves. Ask those folks about their stance on gay marriage and watch how fast they support government intrusion into people private lives.

Re:What? Since when... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918391)

Substance free post brought to you be the socialists in power, the public school system and the white house paid bloggers brigade.

Try again asshole.

Re:What? Since when... (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918567)

As opposed to your little ad hominem?
I am no paid shill, nor does the USA have socialists in power and I went to both public and private schools.

Way to be wrong on pretty much all accounts.

Re:What? Since when... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918775)

Still, I see no substance, which is all you got statist, lies attacks, deflections and distractions.

Now you are starting to bore me.

Re:What? Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918987)

You mean as opposed to your small-minded, hate filled, racist diatribe?

You are starting to annoy me.

Re:What? Since when... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40919023)

Still waiting for any substance statist. Your silence speaks volumes.

Oh and BTW I had a call from someone at BAIN who tells me you are a paid shill.

You need to prove that you are not.

We are all waiting.

Re:What? Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40919015)

You are a fucking moron. You have never talked to someone who claims association with the Tea Party, you have never read any documents that accurately portray the Tea Party's positions.

You simply spout the crap you heard from the Dems and others who so viscerally hate the very idea that government should be smaller and more efficient and that individuals are more important than the government. In a word, Socialists.

Open your fucking mind and trying thinking instead of regurgitating.

Re:What? Since when... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918557)

As a proud Tea Party supporter I have to inform you that I am pro gay marriage, sorry to shatter your delusion. Less government means less government across the board, leading to greater freedom for ALL.

Re:What? Since when... (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918591)

Good for you, now go talk to the ones holding the "Keep government out of medicare" signs about that.

I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom. Without government intrusion you could not own land, as I could just take it.

Re:What? Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918853)

Without government intrusion you could not own land, as I could just take it.

Heh, only if you have a bigger gun..

Re:What? Since when... (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918981)

That was the point I was making.

Re:What? Since when... (1, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919061)

Idiots like you often confuse "smaller government" with "no government".

Government provides the legal context for property ownership. That's good. Government also interferes with your use of that land. That's bad.

Just Google "Oregon, man jailed for storing rainwater". Yes, Government is telling this guy that rain water that falls from his roof cannot be stored in a pond his land. In fact, they are putting him in jail for doing so. That's the state government. If he was able to do it, you can be sure that the EPA would be there telling him what he could or couldn't do with the pond.

That is the government that the Tea Party is against.

Re:What? Since when... (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919085)

I should not have called you an idiot. My apologies. in advance.

Re:What? Since when... (1, Troll)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918677)

What law prevents gay marriage? Answer: None.
Marriage is a contract that a State chooses to recognize or not recognize. The federal government has NOTHING to do with it. If a state chooses to recognize a contract between two opposite sex, two same sex, or 3 same or mixed sex partners its the sates business, not the federal government.

Your view seems to be that the FEDERAL government should force states to recognize contracts of same sex marriages, but what about mixed partner marriages of all types?

For the record my opinion is that the state has the right under the constitution to decide IF it recognizes contracts and what criteria said contract cannot have. However, I would advocate for NOT recognizing ANY marriages as I don't think it is the business of the federal or state government to define what a cultural 'norm' is or is not.

Re:What? Since when... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918729)

My view is based on Full Faith and Credit. You will find that in the Constitution. If one state recognizes a marriage, all must.

The federal government disagrees with your beliefs, otherwise why did it pass DOMA?

Re:What? Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918825)

Cool; then we can apply it to CCW licenses, too.

Re:What? Since when... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918929)

I agree 100%.

All states should have to recognize the others CCW permits.

Re:What? Since when... (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919111)

Cool; then we can apply it to CCW licenses, too.

You need a license to go counterclockwise?

Where do you live?

Re:What? Since when... (1)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919009)

Full Faith and Credit didn't even apply to banning interracial marriages according to the supreme court, so precedent would not favor your opinion.

The DOMA was not necessary IMO as a state could simply choose not to recognize ANY marriages as easily as it could choose to define what it would recognize. If state A want's to recognize a contract between a man and lamp post, state B does not have to create law and provide ceremonies for those in state B who might wish to have a contract with a lamp post.

Re:What? Since when... (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918403)

...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

Is it a revealed work or intelligently designed? I think we can rule out being intelligently designed. That leaves us with a revealed work. Also the deletionists have made a nice apocrypha of wiki pages. So. GOP was taken over by religious nuts awhile back and they like a revealed work, surprise surprise.

Re:What? Since when... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918405)

Ever since they realized they could "Change history" by editing the facts to match Sarah Palin's version of Paul Revere's ride.

Re:What? Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918407)

Since when did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

The GOP is positioning Wikipedia as the propaganda arm of their new AmerCIA domestic intelligence group. I seem to recall them also releasing iPhone and Android Apps.

Re:What? Since when... (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918753)

They don't.

They believe in Conservapedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page [conservapedia.com]

Go. Read.

--
BMO

Re:What? Since when... (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919105)

>>>...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

About the same time the DNC became a pro-war party.

Entirely possible (2)

Cute Fuzzy Bunny (2234232) | more than 2 years ago | (#40917987)

Its entirely possible that whichever candidate will get the nod had his wikipedia fixed up a couple of months ago, to avoid notice of this. The other candidates fixing theirs up might just be window dressing in case there is a problem with the first candidate and they need a replacement.

Re:Entirely possible (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918107)

Your theory requires careful planning AND execution of a plan by a politician. Somehow, I find myself looking for other more credible explanations.

There's only one clear choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40917997)

Mitt Romney 2.0.

You see with the power of science, he'll clone himself and thereby double the power on the ticket!

Re:There's only one clear choice. (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918021)

Great, now that's two missing tax returns.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918059)

Yeah, his and Harry Reid's.

Party loyalist = useful idiot

Re:There's only one clear choice. (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918137)

Gee... I wonder how Reid could be proved wrong???

There has to be something bad in there if he's willing to go through the huge amount of political damage.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (2, Interesting)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918287)

First, the political damage is not that huge. Second, it's very likely that Romney has paid little income tax, though quite large amounts of other taxes, given that most of his income is from investments, which are taxed as capital gains. So given the current media's biases, what are the odds that, if that's correct, people will hear the full story, vice just hearing "Romney paid no taxes"?

Also, as an aside, I think Reid is traveling a dangerous road. Do we really want our political leaders decided on baseless rumors, guilt until the target proves innocence, and purely partisan/tribal cheerleading? Really? Because that's where Reid is going in service of the Obama campaign, and the immediate reaction on Twitter (thousands of tweets claiming Reid is a pederast, with as much evidence as Reid produced) may look funny now, but won't look all that funny when we reach the logical conclusions of such tactics.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918373)

Reid is going down the path the birthers laid for him. I find it funny that now the republicans suddenly have a problem with people calling for what should be public records.

It is not a good thing when either tribe does it, but this is what tribalism leads too.

Personally the fact that investment income is taxed at such a lower rate is something the public needs to hear about. This is why you hear of CEOs taking $1 salaries, because they prefer to be paid in ways that avoid the taxes on income. Reid's current course of action is not how to have that discussion though.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918603)

Why should your tax records be public record? If you cheated then they can become public record as part of your trial, if not its nobodies business.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918735)

Because they are government records.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (1)

chad_r (79875) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918895)

Like Social Security numbers? Like the names of embedded spies?

Re:There's only one clear choice. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918953)

SSN should be public yes, if they were used correctly it would not be a problem.

Embedded spies names should be public after a certain amount of time has passed. There should be a law that after a certain amount of maximum time all government records are public.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919137)

Your SSN does become public. Sometime after your Death.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40919099)

Why should your tax records be public record?

That's part of the price of authority, should you want it. And as long as they

want to make us take the piss test, they should too.

Somebody else posted that Romney was given amnesty by the IRS back in '09 if he

repatriated the money in his Swiss bank account before they would actually

charge him with tax evasion. This is probably the real issue. Seems weird that

it hardly every comes up while everybody focuses on the absurd.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (4, Insightful)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918441)

Reid will not comment on the matter unless he his on the floor of the Senate. This is because Reid is protected from being sued for telling a lie as long as he is on the Senate floor. You wont see him repeating his lies on the Sunday shows because he can be personally sued for making false statements.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (1, Redundant)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918453)

Do we really want our political leaders decided on baseless rumors, guilt until the target proves innocence, and purely partisan/tribal cheerleading?

You mean like Obama isn't an American citizen because he doesn't have an original birth certificate? That kind of baseless rumors, guilt until proven innocent and purely partisan/tribal cheerleading?

Re:There's only one clear choice. (0)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918797)

The 'birth certificate' issue has come up for many presidential candidates in the past. The only reason it was an issue is because Obama refused to release it, unlike other presidential candidates.
You did notice that once it was release the issue was done. Just like previous candidates.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918879)

It was not dropped, use google and see for yourself.

The scumbag sheriff joe for one would not let it go, state senators and other various republican hangers on kept going with it.

What other candidates had this issue? Obama never refused to release the document, they showed a legit short version way early.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (4, Interesting)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918499)

I'm sure Reid has inside knowledge -- after all he IS a high-ranking member of the LDS Church and has many friends who would know more about the Romney situation. Obviously he can't have access to the tax returns themselves (that would be a felony) so he can't produce any "evidence" but John McCain (who HAS seen the returns from when Romney was being considered for VP in 2008) has stayed mum on the subject which strongly implies that he knows a little more than we do.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (2, Insightful)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918751)

So you think that Romney didn't pay ANY taxes for 10 years and the IRS just let it go?
I think I'm going to side on Reid is a moron.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918977)

So you think that Romney didn't pay ANY taxes for 10 years and the IRS just let it go?

There are many ways to make millions and not pay taxes. You just need good lawyers and accountants.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (4, Interesting)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919035)

Well, remember McCain saw something like 10+ years of Romney's tax returns during his vice-presidential vetting and decided that Sarah Palin was a better candidate for vice-president. Just think about that for a bit, Palin a better "heartbeat from the president" than Romney 4 yrs ago. What has Romney done since except campaign more for president and now hide his tax returns from public? I've read reports how there's a good chance that he DIDN'T pay taxes particularly in 2009 because of the stockmarket dive and even McCain hasn't seen those tax returns.

I want to know what he's hiding personally, and I think the issue probably will "swiftboat" Romney if he doesn't go ahead and release them ASAP...

Re:There's only one clear choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40919067)

I find it very unlikely that Romney's taxes would reveal anything illegal. The bad things people are expecting to see are either a very low effective tax rate, evidence of lots of off-shore accounts, or evidence that he was lying to the Mormon church about his income (he claims to tithe 10%; if he is not actually doing so, that would be awkward for him).

Re:There's only one clear choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918185)

Reid has thirty years of financial disclosures. If you want to make tax returns part of that process, go for it.

Non-partisanly. For the whole of Congress. Otherwise you're just being a sanctimonius part loyalist yourself.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918473)

“And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, have you heard that Harry Reid’s the butt-boy of some of the Mafia dons that he works for in Las Vegas?” Have you heard that? Have you heard about some of the shady real estate deals that Harry Reid — the L.A. Times had the story way back in the ‘90s. Now I think it’s up to Harry Reid to prove — remember the phony solider episode with Harry Reid, carrying forth a lie that I was denigrating genuine military heroes?”

But if what Reid claims to have knowledge of is true, then how Reid obtained this information is a crime that government agents should look into.

“I’ll tell you what ought to be happening here — IRS agents should be interrogating Harry Reid to determine who it is that supposedly leaked confidential tax information about a private citizen to him. And Harry Reid, having disclosed publicly what he was told, should be investigated as well for passing such information on to the public. This is a felony, what Harry Reid is doing. So if anybody needs to be investigated here, it’s Harry Reid. IRS agents ought to be talking to him and trying to figure out who leaked. You know, who is this guy from Bain that’s calling Harry Reid? Who are these people? And then he publicly disclosed what he was told, and he doesn’t know if it’s true. He’s demanding that Romney prove it, so Harry Reid’s admitting he doesn’t know if it’s true. If anybody should be investigated by government agents, it’s Harry Reid.”

Re:There's only one clear choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40919001)

Yeah, that kind of response won't look like there's something to hide in those returns at all.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918087)

Conservatives and mor(m)ons are two groups not known for their faith in science. He's going to use the power of the free market and buy a Mitt 2.0.

Re:There's only one clear choice. (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918321)

Or hire a firm in China that will clone him and ship his clone to America. The clone will be from the south though...

Hmmm... (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40917999)

Curiously, the entry for Beelzebub was edited 250 times, Quetzalcoatl 100 times and Ronald Reagan's Zombie an astonishing 345 times.

Re:Hmmm... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918109)

I would totally vote for any candidate who ran with Beelzebub as their running mate. He is after all the devil we know.

Re:Hmmm... (-1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918151)

Are you sure you're looking at wikipedia and not uncyclopedia? Googling "Ronald Reagan's Zombie" turned up The Onion first, Uncyclopedia second. Wikipedia wasn't even on the first page of listings.

Googling "Ronald Reagan's Zombie site:wikipedia.org" returns a lot of Ronald Reagan, but no zombies.

Whooosh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918189)

Was that a duck?

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918437)

Curiously, the entry for Beelzebub was edited 250 times, Quetzalcoatl 100 times and Ronald Reagan's Zombie an astonishing 345 times.

Cthulhu's page - still frozen. Guess I'll need to wait a few more strange eons to vote for the greatest evil.

I thought (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918019)

Wikipedia locked articles for controversial subjects. And what is more controversial than a politician come election period.

Re:I thought (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918177)

Lots of things are more controversial than a particular politician (e.g. pretty much anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). With politicians' pages, the New York Times actually ran an article on a Hillary Clinton supporter that was "protecting" her page from criticism by reverting any negative edits he could find.

Quick! (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918037)

Quick! Someone go make 200 edits to David Duke's Wikipedia entry!

So much for Bilderberg conspiracies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918079)

The Bilderberg conspiracy followers were all predicting that Romney would pick Mitch Daniels as his VP.

Re:So much for Bilderberg conspiracies... (3, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918115)

This is most assuredly false as Mitch Daniels has been named to head Purdue University starting in January.

A education-hating man that pulled all the funding he could out of Indiana's great University system... named president of a University. Welcome to 2012.

Re:So much for Bilderberg conspiracies... (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919013)

I suspect their exact words were, "If you think you can do a better job at running this university on such a small budget...".

Besides, I think it's perfectly apt. It gives him a chance to put his money where his mouth is. If he succeeds, then American universities are horribly inefficient. If he fails, the Republican education policy will be unimpeachably shown as an abject failure.

Naked and petrified (3, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918083)

Rob is probably one Portman that you don't want to see naked and petrified [google.com] .

Re:Naked and petrified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918093)

HOT GRITS!

Re:Naked and petrified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918427)

Ah, the good old days. Slashdot, I've missed you.

Semi-protection (1)

fufufang (2603203) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918143)

I reckon Wikipedia should start semi-protecting all those pages, so the random staffers can't create new accounts and remove embarrassing contents.

this doesn't really look like insiders (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918153)

It's not impossible, but if you look at the editors who've made most of the edits, they're fairly active, longstanding Wikipedians who edit lots of things. A more likely explanation is that the causality is the other way around: they've heard the speculation about Rob Portman and Marco Rubio from the news, just like the rest of us have, and went over to see what shape the Wikipedia article is in. Some out of personal interest, some out of political interest, but probably not with inside information.

Re:this doesn't really look like insiders (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918447)

The initial cleansing of the article from controversies and criticism - before the story broke - was made by an anonymous editor which has edited no other page. The subsequent edit wars after the publicity involved longstanding wikipedians, as these things are wont to do.

Re:this doesn't really look like insiders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918531)

Wikipedia editors wouldn't update the same page dozens of times on the same day except maybe after a major news story like the Colorado massacre.

There could be an edit battle between GOP and Dem media operatives though.

Replace it with a link to a real model (3, Interesting)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918161)

Tannenbaum maintains an election model that currently predicts an Obama win (334 to 206 electoral votes) http://www.electoral-vote.com/ [electoral-vote.com]

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918251)

Nate Silver's model is 301.5-236.5, and he has a better track record than Tannenbaum.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918509)

The link is interesting, but the underlying analysis shows that both sources predict the same outcomes in each state. The difference appears to be that Nate Silver doesn't simply use a "winner takes all" model, he weights the votes based on probabilities of winning states. I didn't see any explanation of the methodology in my two minute visit, but doing a state by state comparison of maps showed that each one was predicted the same in each model. Nate's might be a bit more realistic because the more states you have predicted to go your way, the more likely you are to get upset in one of them.

Eleven states supply half of our country's electoral votes: California, Texas, NY, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey. If you can keep it close in these eleven states, you have a chance of the other 39 + DC helping you get victory. Romney would need to somehow win over Florida, North Carolina, Virginia AND hold onto a couple "Big 11" states with a narrow Republican edge. The odds of Romney turning around any one of the three states is small. All three would take some Presidential scandal.

Bottom line is Nate's more conservative approach still has Romney getting crushed.

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (1)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919103)

Make sure to check out Nate's histogram under the "Electoral Vote Distribution" on the right about 4 or 5 panels down, which is kind of jaw-dropping IMO. His most probably outcome right now is Obama with about 335 electoral votes(!), which is a huge landslide.

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918269)

The numbers are even worse for the Republicans (347-191) accoring to Tannenbaum's "Rasmussen fee" page. Here he filters out Fox's polling company which has questionable polling practices. This polling group has consistently polled in favor of Republicans. From electoral-vote.com: "Silver analyzed 105 polls released by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, for Senate and gubernatorial races in numerous states across the country. The bottom line is that on average, Rasmussen's polls were off by 5.8% with a bias of 3.9% in favor of the Republican candidates."

It is a long way to November, but barring a revelation that Obama was involved in Michael Vick's dogfighting ring, this is going to be an easy win for Obama.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Aug08-noras.html [electoral-vote.com]

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (1)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918371)

Hahaha..
The latest polls have spotted Obama 11 points in the sample to put Obama 4 points ahead of Romney. I'm not a fan of Obama (because he sucks at his job) and I'm not a fan of Romney (because he only would suck only slightly less than Obama), but you would have to think that Democrats would vote at a higher rate than they did in 2008 to produce the predicted results.

If you think that's mood of the country, good, it will be that much easier to kick Obama out if you are delusional.

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918425)

How does he suck at his job?
The president passes only gas, you know that right?
This one seems to have done an ok job at not starting too many wars, or making too much of a dumbass of himself.

I do not like him, I like Romney even less, but not by much. I still recognize that neither can really do much of anything without Congress.

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (0, Troll)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918541)

You do know his party had a super majority in congress for the first 2 years of his presidency? That means that Obama could direct exactly what he wanted, which he did.
His stimulus was a trillion dollar failure.
Obamacare is already in the red.
The economy is growing at less than 2%.
Employment isn't keeping pace with those entering workforce
All economic benchmarks set by Obama, Obama has failed to reach
***Obama's policies are making our situation worse, not better.

Let's just put it this way, if you owned a business would you hire Obama to run your business???

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918701)

His Stimulus? You mean the one started by his predecessor?

Obamacare AKA Romneycare?

I am not sure how a president is responsible for an economy, if he was I am not sure how you would be against the Stimulus.

I am not sure what he has to do with employment, unless you think the government needs more workers.

I am not sure why he set economic benchmarks, other than advertising.

I cannot see what polocies you mean, other than the ones Romney would continue since wallstreet is dictating them.

What would help is reimplementing the regulation that was removed that allowed the banks to gamble. That and breaking up any too big to fail bank.

I would not hire a lawyer to run a business nor would I want a businessman to run a country.

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918527)

You do realize that we do not have a direct election based on majority, right? And I won't be voiting for either candidate, so please don't claim I am looking at it through rose colored glasses.

If you want to put some money up on the election, I am certainly willing.

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918561)

Keep telling yourselves that. In fact there's little point in you even bothering to vote now is there?

Re:Replace it with a link to a real model (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918619)

A whole lot can happen between now and November, where the real fight hasn't started yet in terms of Obama vs. Romney yet. I certainly wouldn't count out Romney from winning, but I will admit that at the moment the contest is up to Obama to lose by doing something really stupid.

I really like these charts [electoral-vote.com] , particularly the ones covering previous elections. What seemed to galvanize voters in 2004 was the decided lack of leadership on the part of John McCain, or at least a feeling that Obama could do a better job than McCain in terms of responding to the financial panic of 2004 that happened right before the election. Something similar could certainly happen in the next few months. Obama's response in such a situation will be critical.

It is also possible that this could be sort of like the 1972 elections, but in reverse. Obama might be able to get a decisive win, but ends up losing Congress or at least not really helping his party much in terms of control of Congress. It certainly seems unlike for the Democratic Party to regain the House of Representatives, and the Senate is likely going to either stay on a razor thin margin of control by the Democrats or perhaps gain a thin majority for Republicans.

I'm wondering about the other side (2)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918411)

I'm wondering who Obama's running mate will be.

Re:I'm wondering about the other side (1)

mkkohls (2386704) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918667)

I'm wondering who Obama's running mate will be.

If you go by the fact that at the convention the vp speaks before and inttroduces the president then we will see good old saxaphone playing Bill Clinton as Obamas VP. Sounds like fun.

Its Portman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918511)

Based not only on the wiki edits, but also Nick Silver's post at the 538 blog this morning (conclusion: Portman helps Romney the most, with the least risk) and the numbers on Intrade which usually turn out to be correct, I'd say with 95% certainty that the pick is Rob Portman, it has already been decided, and we'll be hearing about it in the next few days.

Sigh... (1)

miltonw (892065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918617)

Really competent, intelligent, honest people cannot run for political office. This is especially true of the presidency. For many, many years, the choice has only been who is least destructive. That keeps getting harder as the quality continually drops and the corruption rises. We are manipulated into thinking we have a choice but we don't. Anyone have any suggestions for a decent country to move to?

Who cares? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40918649)

Whatever sacrificial lamb the GOP picks to 'run with Romney' will never be heard of in presidential politics again, once Millard "Mitt" "He's a mormon (not that that really matters (of course not)) shh!" Romney loses.
It was inevitable that Romney would 'win' the candidacy and it is inevitable that he will lose the race. No one could have beaten Obama outside of Reagan so the GOP took good ol' Mitt out, shined him up, and ran him as their idea of a 'equality' candidate. The GOP stance is that every religion is equal and now they've proven it by running a Mormon in a race where no one could win. Mitt will walk away a little bruised, ghost-write some books, and fade into history and all those Mormons will stay in the GOP camp because the GOP 'had the balls' to run a Mormon candidate.
This is all just a game. You people aren't even players -- you're the pieces.
Don't vote, it just encourages them.

Chris Christie: 38 times today (1)

freality (324306) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918661)

Re:Chris Christie: 38 times today (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918907)

Chris Christie is persona-non-grata ever since he defended appointing Sohail Mohammed to the New Jersey Superior Court.

And then he told the Tea Potty that they're morons, and rightly so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y83z552NJaw [youtube.com]

--
BMO

Must be a better way to pick a vp (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918765)

The VP's two jobs don't happen very often but when they occur it's pretty important. I wish there was more of a primary selection process for VP rather than the candidate's behind the scenes political machinations as recommended by their overpaid consultants. If the president is incapacitated then we get the VP, like it or not, who did not have to go through the primary process and be selected by the party members as the president was.

Who Will Mitt Select? (2)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40918873)

He should select Ron Paul. It would consolidate the Republican base. On the other hand, if Ron Paul runs as an independent in just a few swing states (e.g., Texas), Ron will give the election to Obama. As VP, Ron could be effectively managed, as Kennedy did with Johnson and Reagan did with Bush. Remember what Mr. Gates used to say, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

However, I am talking about Mitt, a man with few political instincts. Therefore, he will pick Portman as an electoral hedge, because Rob is from the critical swing state of Ohio.

Re:Who Will Mitt Select? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40919133)

Oh, look, a Paulinista. How cute.

IF Ron Paul runs as an independent? You know as well as I do that he'll never do that. Ron Paul is a loyal Republican...he just wants to pull the Republican party in a different direction, from the inside. Ron Paul is not Ross Perot.

Re:Who Will Mitt Select? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40919141)

How would that help?

Those voters will already vote for the Republican candidate. Ron Paul could not carry Texas or any other such state. I am not sure why would even think he could, other than the fevered dreams of false libertarians.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?