Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: National Review solves Fermat's Last Theorem

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-09T04:42:42.624-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-09T02:15:08.716-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社...

2009-03-11T04:08:00.001-04:00

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信...

2009-03-11T04:08:00.000-04:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-10T23:01:00.000-05:00

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, ...

2009-02-09T05:08:00.000-05:00

Did you crib Taylor and Wile, or is this your own ...

2008-05-25T09:47:00.000-04:00

Did you crib Taylor and Wile, or is this your own work?

York did not do any analysis of the trend. He simp...

2008-05-22T23:47:00.000-04:00

York did not do any analysis of the trend. He simply pointed out, totally without context and by including Florida's illegitimate, unsanctioned straw poll that had very low turnoutout. He then acted as if the trend itself was some sort of accomplishment for Clinton, which is why so many here have been laughing at him. It was not analysis but spin clearly yet pathetically designed to bolster Clinton's argument for delegitimizing Obama.

As for Democrats being able to resolve this, no, Clinton has made that impossible. Obama clearly wrapped this up in February. From then on the question has simply been how far Clinton would go to taint Obama's victory. Tentatively, our answer was her trip to the infamous Florida counties of Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach to cast herself as Gore and Obama as Bush. Any resolution has to begin with Clinton ceasing to count the straw polls in Michigan and Florida, giving Obama nothing from Michigan and discounting the caucus states.

Almost all of the arguments above, including pobla...

2008-05-22T23:04:00.000-04:00

Almost all of the arguments above, including poblano's post, are attacking a straw argument that York is creating a new metric of "quarters won", and adding it up incorrectly according to the delegate math.

But if you actually read the article, he is talking solely about the popular vote - not delegates - and is dividing the contests into "quarters" to show trends, not to reward the quarter "winner". He includes FL but not MI - not unreasonable - and simply adds up the votes to find that Clinton won more votes pre-Super Tuesday, narrowly won more votes on Super Tuesday, that Obama won many more votes in the Feb 9-19 run, and then Clinton won many more in the March 4-present run. He adds up all the votes and finds Clinton trailing overall, but with a good chance to lead after June 3rd. For trend analysis these "quarters" are very useful. Clearly the race was tight early on, then Obama ran away with it in February, and Clinton battled back in the late primaries.

York doesn't include the 4 non-reporting caucus states (IA, NV, ME, and WA), but you can apply the RCP estimates to York's totals and see that it doesn't alter the analysis. She would still lead pre-Super Tuesday with Iowa and Nevada estimates included (remember she won Nevada's caucuses even though Obama eventually took more delegates), and would still lose the February 9-19 run with Maine and Washington estimates included. Overall, she would still trail but would still have a good chance of winning after Puerto Rico, Montana, and SD.

You may disagree with using the popular vote as a metric, but York's point is simply that if Clinton does win the popular vote, the Democratic party may find it has angered her supporters in the same way Gore supporters were angry after 2000, and that unlike 2000, Democrats have the luxury of resolving this however they choose, so they will have no one to blame but themselves.

I have to laugh at the indignant replies that the ...

2008-05-22T21:44:00.000-04:00

I have to laugh at the indignant replies that the popular vote includes FL and MI but not four caucus states that didn't bother to count attendees. Obama gets almost his entire delegate lead from lopsided caucus wins that would have been much closer had they been primaries (see WA, NE, and TX primary vs. caucus results). But you want it both ways - a lopsided win on low turnout, and have it count in the popular vote as if it were a primary. Live by the caucus, die by the caucus. They didn't count voters because they are undemocratic - they didn't care how many people showed up. FL and MI did and that's why they're in the total.

By the way, WA did hold a primary, and they did count those voters. Unfortunately for Obama he only won by 5-points, not 37 like the caucus, so I guess you don't want to count those people.

I'll defend the spirit of the analogy, if not its ...

2008-05-22T20:54:00.000-04:00

I'll defend the spirit of the analogy, if not its precise form. You are all operating under the notion that it is iron-clad that the DNC pick whoever won the most delegates or votes - hence, when they won it is irrelevant. That is procedurally correct, but not correct in practice.

The super-delegates can pick whatever metric they want in choosing a delegate. Winnability IS a legitimate factor - quarters, while procedurally irrelevant constructs - nonetheless tell you something. Obama started losing when he became the frontrunner (a lot of that is explained by which states were slated late in the primaries, but Clinton also lost in places she should have won in February, like Wisconsin).

It is legitimate to ask, if you are a superdelegate trying to elect the best possible candidate, whether you are going to get Obama the post-racial saviour of America (February) or Obama with reverend Wright on his back (or whatever electability problem you want to pick).

By the way, when polled (its on pollingreport somewhere) Democrats chose "pick the best candidate" as their preferred metric for superdelegates. Second was "most votes" (each got 30-40% in various polls). Most delegates got 10-15 (even though it is the most legitimate, since the popular vote underestimates caucus states).

Re: Previous AnonFor those who speak yiddish, that...

2008-05-22T19:12:00.000-04:00

Re: Previous Anon

For those who speak yiddish, that s-word is as bad as the n-word. If there is a moderator around, please delete that comment? thanks

the shfartza candidate lost in new york, new jerse...

2008-05-22T16:36:00.000-04:00

the shfartza candidate lost in new york, new jersey, pennsylvania, texas, ohio, indiana and cali. he won the south due to shfartzas.

Funny,I wrote Mr. York yesterday about his swill. ...

2008-05-22T14:24:00.000-04:00

Funny,
I wrote Mr. York yesterday about his swill. Is seems that he would love to peg the Dems as controlled by the "elites". Needless to say he hasn't responded.

If forced to go through this absurd exercise, I'd ...

2008-05-22T11:10:00.000-04:00

If forced to go through this absurd exercise, I'd ask what his quarters were where Hillary won either of the first two. Until March 4, there was no primary day in the campaign where Hillary picked up more delegates than Obama. He picked up more in Iowa, they tied in NH, he got more in SC, more in NV, more on Super Tuesday, and we know what happened the rest of February.

The only way his argument even makes internal sense is if you're counting Florida and/or Michigan in such a way as to overwhelm some of those contests that actually awarded delegates. It's his hidden assumption, and really just blows any credibility out of the water.

Thanks, Mac, for pointing that out, although I hav...

2008-05-22T10:43:00.000-04:00

Thanks, Mac, for pointing that out, although I have different numbers for how many delegates Obama netted in each "quarter." For example, current counts have Obama netting not 3 delegates on Super Tuesday, but 33. No matter, though.

I had to go and read the article to find out exactly how this guy could even argue that Clinton had won any quarters at all. I guess this guy was using a meaningless metric to draw his conclusions: the popular vote, which conveniently includes MI and FL, and excludes IA, NV, WA, and ME.

If we want to further the football analogy, his argument is more like Clinton gaining more _yards_ in 3 quarters, no matter than Obama scored more points in two of those. Never mind that Obama has clearly gained more yards if you don't count the ones during pregame warm ups when he wasn't on the field. And oh yeah, he has an insurmountable lead in actual points.

Thankfully, it looks like the superdelegates turn a deaf ear to these silly arguments from the pundits.

"Seems to me that the right wingers really fear fa...

2008-05-22T10:40:00.000-04:00

"Seems to me that the right wingers really fear facing Obama. Why else would they be fighting so hard for her."

It's pretty simple -- because if the Dem nomination isn't clearly resolved, there's a lot more chance the losing side's voters will stay home, benefiting the GOP. They "supported" Obama and attacked Clinton a lot more when she was the frontrunner. Based on turnout numbers, they have a lot to fear from either one; I don't think they're sincerely favoring either one, they're just serving their own interests.

Seems to me that the right wingers really fear fac...

2008-05-22T09:11:00.000-04:00

Seems to me that the right wingers really fear facing Obama. Why else would they be fighting so hard for her.

As you suggested in your other thread, you are cor...

2008-05-22T07:55:00.000-04:00

As you suggested in your other thread, you are correct that the CLintons have run an increasing ly irrational campaign. What's disturbing is the sheer number of irration kindred spirits they've accumulated along the way.

Who can blame Obama of speaking about getting past distractions. The Clintons and their supporters have thrown dozens of useless metrics in the path.

I'm embarrassed for them. Bill Clinton's legacy is irreparably damaged and will never be the same.

What I also find hilarious about that line of reas...

2008-05-22T02:51:00.000-04:00

What I also find hilarious about that line of reasoning is that she didn't win the majority of the "quarters." In terms of press coverage, albeit not actual delegates, here's how the quarters would be divvied up:

1st Quarter: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
Obama won this quarter by 35 delegates, tying or winning the delegate battle in every state.

2nd Quarter: Super Tuesday

Obama won this "quarter" by 3 delegates, finishing far better than anybody expected him to due to his caucus state dominance.

3rd Quarter: The time from Super Tuesday to March 4th

Obama wins this quarter by 129 delegates, losing only Ohio and Rhode Island

4th Quarter: Mississippi, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon, South Dakota, Montana, Puerto Rico

Clinton currently leads by 13 in this quarter, and will likely finish the quarter with a 10-17 delegate lead. This is the only quarter that she has "won," and, to continue the sports analogy, most of those points were scored in garbage time. If a basketball team loses by 5 points in the first quarter, 1 point in the second, and 20 in the third, then the fact that you win the fourth quarter by 2-3 points while the other team's bench is in the game is not exactly something worth bragging about.

re rilkefanheh, that did sound sort of paranoid/ge...

2008-05-22T02:25:00.000-04:00

re rilkefan
heh, that did sound sort of paranoid/generalizing, didn't it? Yeah, I can see the nuance, and it took me googling VRWC to find out what it was, but I certainly wouldn't want to stand anywhere near, much less shoulder to shoulder with such people. I'm just frustrated with people taking Senator Clinton's drive towards the center as the birth of her own inspirational movement, or evidence of a supreme irony about how campaigning against Sen. Obama made her a stronger candidate, but too late - instead of the typical mad dash to the center of an election end-game, combined with realpolitik acknowledging the reddish hue of most Democrats that were left to vote.

Poblano -- the link to York's artice is broken.

2008-05-22T01:23:00.000-04:00

Poblano -- the link to York's artice is broken.

Wow -- what a moronic way of taking a perfectly go...

2008-05-22T01:10:00.000-04:00

Wow -- what a moronic way of taking a perfectly good idea and messing it up. There is one league out there that does take the quarterly scores into account. The CBA (minor league basketball), in order to keep everybody interested in a blowout, gives 3 points in the standings for winning the game overall, and 1 point for winning each quarter.

Note that this is much different than the proposal. Since the overall game winner has to win at least one quarter, the overall winner gets at least 4 points, and the overall loser gets no more than 3. If there is only one game (sorry, no carry-overs to 2012), the game winner is still the game winner.

What a tangled web we weave when first we try to make up for coming up short.

The Continental Basketball Association used to awa...

2008-05-22T01:06:00.000-04:00

The Continental Basketball Association used to award quarter points, one point to the team that scored the most points in each quarter, plus three points for the team who won the game. A winning team was guaranteed between 4 to 7 points per game. Too bad Mr. York is not clued in to sports enough to pick the more appropriate analogy.

It's mind-blowing to me how absolutely ridiculous ...

2008-05-22T00:54:00.000-04:00

It's mind-blowing to me how absolutely ridiculous the rationalizations coming from Clinton's campaign and supporters are now.

What ridiculous metric will they come up with next. "If the game was scored this way, we'd be winning!"