Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Fox News Finds Typo, Blames Liberal Conspiracy

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, ...

2009-10-02T04:24:05.264-04:00

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,

視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,聊天室,視訊,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天室,視訊交友,成人聊天室,情色交友,嘟嘟成...

2009-05-26T09:33:19.728-04:00

視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,聊天室,視訊,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天室,視訊交友,成人聊天室,情色交友,嘟嘟成人網,免費視訊,微風成人區,尋夢聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,情色網,女優,AV女優,UT聊天室,自拍,豆豆聊天室,18成人,免費A片,做愛,成人貼圖,美女交友,視訊做愛,做愛,日本AV,080聊天室,本圖自拍,A片,免費A片,成人論壇,一夜情聊天室,情人,12星座情人,

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 ...

2009-04-16T02:07:00.000-04:00

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇 ...

2009-03-28T05:26:00.000-04:00

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風成人論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

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,...

2009-01-17T00:59:00.000-05:00

Wow...This website went from being a "statistical ...

2008-12-29T08:03:00.000-05:00

Wow...This website went from being a "statistical inference" site to a "DailyKos Jr." site in about 3 months. Sad. Just another political hack. I wonder who Soros's folks paid off? Hmmm...

And...Chris...believe it or not, some of us Americans are not ideologues who vote one party ticket. I believe that there are good and bad in all political parties and therefore vote as such. Obviously, you come from one of those areas that keep voting Democrat - regardless of how corrupt the city is, a la Detroit, Wash DC, New Orleans and now Chicago. Nice.

I also tried to post a couple of comments on his b...

2008-12-27T18:34:00.000-05:00

I also tried to post a couple of comments on his blog. Heck, I even pointed out one ballot that I thought he got right, so you'd think he'd want to publish that comment. Evidently he's more interested in creating propoganda than an honest discussion of the facts. The man has no integrity.

And he's revealed himself to me to be a complete j...

2008-12-27T13:02:00.000-05:00

And he's revealed himself to me to be a complete joke on his blog. I wrote no fewer than four cordial yet probing comments in response to his various recount blogs, and he refused to post any of my comments. (Note: the tone of those comments was much more even-handed and open-minded than my comment here on Nate's post about Lott).

Now, days later, he writes "Comments are closed" on those same blog posts.

He must, at this point, realize that he was completely wrong in his understanding of the rules used by the canvassing board when determining whether a ballot should count.

I must say that I'm extremely pissed that this sloppy "expert" got so much play in the mainstream media. The fact that he refuses to retract his mistakes amounts to libel of the Minnesota canvassing board, and it just serves to poison public opinion on the validity of the recount. Unfortunately, even though Lott was wrong, he was loud enough to convince people that fraud is being perpetuated.

There are already enough real issues out there for reasonable people to disagree on -- we absolutely do not need Lott's mistakes to contribute to the divisiveness of our political process. I can do nothing other than continue to hope that Lott will take his lumps and fix his errors.

I met John Lott about 20 years ago. Even then he ...

2008-12-27T09:50:00.000-05:00

I met John Lott about 20 years ago. Even then he was well-known to be a charlatan. But I have to say he does a really nice tap dance whenever you try to pin him down on his crappy methodology.

He's obnoxious, dishonest, and a crummy econometrician, and everybody in economics knew it even back then. The only way I can account for his job history -- the astounding fact that he has usually had a job -- is that he's backed by hard-core Olin or Scaife money that makes him a net bargain to the institution willing to tolerate him.

This is interesting, another site that has the bog...

2008-12-26T23:41:00.000-05:00

This is interesting, another site that has the bogus claim that the Coleman ballot went to Franken. Dated 12/26.

Lies Propogate

Hi Everyone, I think I actually found one ballot ...

2008-12-26T22:50:00.000-05:00

Hi Everyone,

I think I actually found one ballot that Lott may have been correct about. That was hard work!! It is a single oval/X in the Senate race. No other race has an oval/X in it. The CB has ruled consistently that these ballots are votes for 'Other'. In this case it is listed as Franken (assuming STrib is accurate). I'd be interested to hear your take on this.

Should not be Franken Vote

Of course, here are 3 of the same types of ballots that were ruled Other, so the charge of bias is totally bogus, but there may have been one inconsistency, maybe Al should really be up by 45 now.

OvalX Franken only 1

OvalX Franken only 2

OvalX Franken only 3

Let me summarize Lott's new blog post's comments o...

2008-12-26T01:47:00.000-05:00

Let me summarize Lott's new blog post's comments on Nate:

1. "Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight claims in the title of his post that my piece 'blames liberal conspiracy.' My piece didn't mention the words 'liberal' or 'conspiracy' (nor did it say that Democrats or Franken were involved in some secret conspiracy or use any similar synonyms).

Wow, Nate wasn't quoting Lott with "liberal conspiracy", he was synthesizing Lott's argument. Allow me to provide support for Nate's impression of Lott's piece:
The post's title from johnrlott.blogspot.com: "New Op-ed piece at Fox News: The Minnesota Recount Bias" (emph mine)
Discussion of treatment of blocks of votes: "The only commonality in these two decisions was that the outcome benefited Franken. When the recount is in Franken’s favor that is used. When the original machine tally works best that is used."

To claim bias in the title of the piece, and then to say that the process is one where decisions are always made to benefit Franklin is to claim that there is intentional bias in Franken's flavor. To back off from that is just the weakest cop-out.

2. "Nor did I say that people had made mistakes intentionally (unlike Nate, I don't claim to know what is going on in people's minds)."

See above; Lott clearly claimed the bias was intentional.
(And as to the snide parenthetical, Nate only said "this possibility appears not to have crossed Lott's mind." Nate in no way claimed to know what was going on in Lott's mind, he merely made a guess based on facts in evidence. The word "appears" makes it clear that Nate does not claim his guess to be fact.)

3. "Instead, he focuses on the fact that the Star Tribune data base made a mistake in classifying one of the ballots ... he also incorrectly implied that I hadn't double checked that number, but he didn't make any telephone calls or check this point either."

Wow, I can't believe Lott is going to bring this back up - you'd think he'd be too embarrassed.
Okay, I see three possibilities:
a. Lott didn't double-check the Star Tribune
b. Lott did double-check the Star Tribune, but did a poor job of it and failed to catch the S.T.'s obvious mistake
c. Lott did double-check, and caught the mistake, but knowingly and fraudulently posted the "problem" ballot anyway
I would consider alternative a. to be MUCH less embarrassing to Lott than b. or c.; I can't believe he's disputing Nate's claim. Since he openly says that Nate is wrong, I'd LOVE to hear which is correct -- b or c.

4. "He obviously misstates what I wrote and uses terms such as conspiracy to inflame readers. "
As mentioned above, Nate accurately synthesized what Lott wrote. I can't believe Lott's backpedaling from it now. I'd love to see the follow-up piece posted on Fox news: "Lott clarifies 'No liberal conspiracy, just a few mistakes in ballot tabulation. Move along, nothing to see here.'"

There are numerous mistakes in Silver's post. See ...

2008-12-24T12:37:00.000-05:00

There are numerous mistakes in Silver's post. See here:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/12/angry-commentators-get-discussion-of.html

John Lott isn't a scholar. I understand that the U...

2008-12-23T15:40:00.000-05:00

John Lott isn't a scholar. I understand that the U of Chicago hasn't granted tenure. I think they should go further and investigate his "research" with an eye toward complete disassociation with him and his fraud. The "defensive gun use" claims have formed the basis for Lott's claim to be a scholar, but those claims are utterly preposterous. I really think that he could be demolished, once and for all, by a thorough inquiry by someone whose statistical expertise is broadly recognized.

So, Nate, that is your mission, should you choose to accept it ...

@echonewb and Shane,Can you provide us with some m...

2008-12-23T14:52:00.000-05:00

@echonewb and Shane,

Can you provide us with some more insight about why you think any of Lott's claims are true? As many people have posted and as far as I've seen when you look at each ballot that Lott presented you can see that the CB rulings were well thought out and consistent. In fact, Lott's chief piece of evidence was withdrawn... by Lott himself!! I'm afraid I don't see anything there except a poorly researched partisan article that was designed not to get at the truth but to attempt to discredit the CB. I must admit, I don't like the name calling from the Franken side but on the other hand, I do understand the feelings of anger that arise when lies like Lott's are published as news.

It goes without saying that Mary Rosh (aka echonew...

2008-12-23T14:16:00.000-05:00

It goes without saying that Mary Rosh (aka echonewb) is in full agreement with Lott's assessment.

Lott's pseduo-scholarship has been challenged else...

2008-12-23T13:16:00.000-05:00

Lott's pseduo-scholarship has been challenged elsewhere, but Nate, I think you just might have the credentials to deliver the coup de grace on this lying phony.

Nate, I'm going to write a fairly long comment abo...

2008-12-23T13:11:00.000-05:00

Nate, I'm going to write a fairly long comment about John Lott, with a serious suggestion that I hope you will give some thought to.

In 2003, his book The Bias Against Guns was published. Among other things, Lott claimed that there are 2 million cases of "defensive gun use" per year. This would suggest that, each year, 1% of the adult population brandishes a firearm to keep from being a crime victim.

Now, let's take that to the city level, and to get reasonably pure numbers let's use a city that has no restrictions on gun ownership, like Houston, Texas. Houston's city population is about 2 million, with 1.5 million being adults. There are another 2.6 million people in the metro area outside the city, with 2 million being adults.

According to Lott's numbers, there should have been 15,000 defensive gun uses in Houston last year, and another 20,000 in the metro area outside of the city. That would be 41 per day in the city, and 54 per day outside the city.

Now, it'd be reasonable to assume variation in the defensive gun use rate. Higher in areas with high crime and higher social acceptability of gun ownership, for example. You'd figure that the numbers would be higher in Texas in general, given that its crime rate is much higher than in say, North Dakota.

You'd also figure that the rate would probably be somewhat higher within the city of Houston than in its outlying areas, although I'm not all that familiar with the Houston area so maybe that's wrong. In any case, there should be at least 100 defensive uses of guns per day in Houston, and probably a lot more than that to balance off safe and peaceful cities like, say, Lake Forest, Illinois or Newton, Massachusetts.

In Texas, the defensive use of a gun ought to be an occasion for at least a minor celebration. That's a place where people love to hear about the 80-year-old lady who pointed her .45 at the robber and scared him away. Even if you figure that some cases might never get reported, wouldn't you think that a rate of 100-plus defensive gun uses in the Houston area would leave a paper trail in police reports and news stories?

I bring all this up because John Lott is cited as a statistician. The right wingers promote his pro-gun propaganda all the time. But anyone with common sense can see that it's laughable, and that in fact John Lott simple made up his numbers on guns, which is what gave him his "credentials" as a statistician to begin with.

So, my suggestion is this, Nate: Now that the election is over, devote some time to examining John Lott's pseudo-scholarship on guns. It has been pretty influential, and in my opinion it is as phony as phony gets.

Judging by the overwhelmingly liberal, and as usua...

2008-12-23T13:03:00.000-05:00

Judging by the overwhelmingly liberal, and as usual, name-calling comments here, I'm quite sure the poster is completely accurate and without bias....not.

When John Lott's credentials are disputed with such things as "he's still trying to find tenure" and "idiot," it's clear that there's little credibility here.

If you want to dispute, do it with facts. Oh, I forgot...you're liberals.

http://poorrepublican.today.com/

"Shane" - formerly known as Mary Rosh

2008-12-23T12:42:00.000-05:00

"Shane" - formerly known as Mary Rosh

You deranged libs are pathetic. John Lott's dog h...

2008-12-23T11:54:00.000-05:00

You deranged libs are pathetic. John Lott's dog has more intelligence than most of you - but when it comes to getting a bitter clown into office, you're smart enough to cheat your way to victory!

Perusing this comment list is like watching gang members tagging up on the side of a house - senseless bravado colored by one-eyed devotion. The only solace is that most of you are too stupid to vote!

A clown leading the clowns. LOL!!!

Step 1: Accuse Democrats of shady tactics.Step 2: ...

2008-12-23T11:09:00.000-05:00

Step 1: Accuse Democrats of shady tactics.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

wv: deddyar. How I feel after reading conservative rantings.

Wow. Fox News is even more pathetic than I though...

2008-12-23T11:07:00.000-05:00

Wow. Fox News is even more pathetic than I thought. As journalists shouldn't they get their own sources, especially before running a front page story on it? Just going with what the Star Tribune said is remarkably lazy and unprofessional. Obviously they're just looking for whatever agrees with their biases.

All-time low for Fox? Matt Drudge didn't pick up t...

2008-12-23T08:45:00.000-05:00

All-time low for Fox? Matt Drudge didn't pick up the story. When has that happened to a trash right-wing provocation piece?

I am curious here of how the votes by which the Bo...

2008-12-23T06:56:00.000-05:00

I am curious here of how the votes by which the Board is deciding to classify various contested ballots -- Are they 5-0 assignment (everybody agrees) or do they include a large number of splits where some Board members (presumably Democrats) vote to assign a vote to Franken (or throw out a Coleman vote) while there other members (Republicans on the Board) clearly want to award to Coleman. Are we getting a lot of discussion around votes when there are "issues" or is the Board pretty much disposing of challenges in a smooth, concensual fashion?

Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Fox News Finds Typo, Blames Liberal Conspiracy

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, ...

視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,聊天室,視訊,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天室,視訊交友,成人聊天室,情色交友,嘟嘟成...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 ...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 ...

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,...

Wow...This website went from being a "statistical ...

I also tried to post a couple of comments on his b...

And he's revealed himself to me to be a complete j...

I met John Lott about 20 years ago. Even then he ...

This is interesting, another site that has the bog...

Hi Everyone, I think I actually found one ballot ...

Let me summarize Lott's new blog post's comments o...

There are numerous mistakes in Silver's post. See ...

John Lott isn't a scholar. I understand that the U...

@echonewb and Shane,Can you provide us with some m...

It goes without saying that Mary Rosh (aka echonew...

Lott's pseduo-scholarship has been challenged else...

Nate, I'm going to write a fairly long comment abo...

Judging by the overwhelmingly liberal, and as usua...

"Shane" - formerly known as Mary Rosh

You deranged libs are pathetic. John Lott's dog h...

Step 1: Accuse Democrats of shady tactics.Step 2: ...

Wow. Fox News is even more pathetic than I though...

All-time low for Fox? Matt Drudge didn't pick up t...

I am curious here of how the votes by which the Bo...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 ...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇 ...