I wonder if the "sham acupunture" mentioned is random-needles-anywhere acupuncture, or what. If anyone has access, the full write up is here: [link]

Also, question for the mathically inclined:

I've now gone from nice guy and all to deluded fanboy because I don't repudiate Nate Silver for having at some point in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections given the Democrats a 20% chance at retaining the House -- both Silver and I are clearly Dem-pandering morons because the Dems always had zero chance of retaining it.

I *think* he's confusing the real-world likelihood of capitalizing on a 20% chance of success with the statistical probability, which I don't know has ever been zero for any election ever in US history, but I'm not sure my guess is correct, and, if correct, I'm not sure I'm explaining it right.

Help a deluded fanboy, please?

unless the person with whom you are arguing can demonstrate through mathematical modeling that in ALL circumstances, the Democrats could not retain the House, he is full of shit.

Democrats would have had to lose X number of races in order to lose the House and there is no way you can be 100% certain of that eventuality unless all polling data showed EXTRAORDINARY weakness of the Democrats running. 20% chance is low enough.

If Romney projections were 20% of winning the Presidency, the rich members of the GOP would be losing their shit more than they are currently.

Thanks, le n. That's what I'd been groping toward in my non-mathy way -- in a problem with as many data points and as little actual available data (public polls for only 25% of the House races) as the 2010 elections, how on earth do you conclusively calculate an absolute negative?

My brain hurts just trying to put the words around that.

well, JZ, absent of context, Nate Silver expressly does not want to do that. He isn't a commentator or a politico. He provides data and analysis. Therefore, he shows what polling and other things may mean for race predictions.

He expressly does not come down on the side of "ain't no WAY that will happen." If said poster is looking for that kind of analysis, perhaps he needs to choose sources for his information that are less nuanced.

Then again, it is difficult to see journalistic truth in sources that are not nuanced.

If said poster is looking for that kind of analysis, perhaps he needs to choose sources for his information that are less nuanced.

Then again, it is difficult to see journalistic truth in sources that are not nuanced.

Or, as Matilda likes to quote from one of the more memorable episodes of Adventure Time, "That pony is whack with poo-brain!"

So, I really didn't like Chris Brown.

Now, I am questioning his sanity. I do not get why he is so self-destructive. It's now something out of a shogun movie (or a western). When will our hero take him down?

If Romney projections were 20% of winning the Presidency, the rich members of the GOP would be losing their shit more than they are currently.

Um, according to Nate Silver, those are Romney's chances, rounded to the nearest whole number.

I'd ask the person you're arguing with to show his work. Sounds like Arguer needs to prove that, in January 2009, the Democrats were 100% guaranteed to lose enough seats in the 2010 election to lose control of the House. And if Arguer can prove that sort of confidence in an election 22 months off, he shouldn't be wasting that kind of talent arguing with someone on the Internet.

So, I really didn't like Chris Brown

I would not recognize him if I bumped into him on the street--except apparently he would throw a chair at me, and I would see his horrifying tattoo.

Thta's a young man in serious need of help. Pity he isn't willing to get it.

Fred,

are you fucking kidding? I have not been looking closely at his projections of the Presidential race because I have been tense lately.

Damn.