[mike777]

So outside of sports there is no National German pride despite being the economic engine of Europe or of the great sacrifices during the Cold War?

I am surprised to hear Germany is the ultimate country without national pride

"I work in Germany. I think that you couldn't be more wrong here. Germany is the ultimate country without national pride"
--

agree with barmar here:
Finally, I think being bombastic is just part of our national DNA.

---

Keep in mind we are a nation of immigrants built on the refuse of Europe and the world. I mean my stepgrandmother lived in a cave during WWII in the Philippines Islands.

So I guess we have a long history of tweeking the Rich and Powerful class in Europe and other places.

[lalldonn]

So am I crazy to think that now all the cable news stations will get some kind of statistician for their talk shows and rely on models they create for election predictions, rather than talking heads? (Don't get me wrong, I still think the talking heads will remain on the stations anyway.)

[phil_20686]

mike777, on 2012-November-08, 10:52, said:

I am surprised to hear Germany is the ultimate country without national pride

I will just quote from wikipedia:

Quote

After the rise and fall of Nazi Germany that committed the genocide now known as the Holocaust in the name of extreme nationalism against Jews and others during World War II, German nationalism has been generally viewed in the country as negative and taboo.

a pretty large segment of continental Europeans think of them selves as Europeans first and by their country second.

[phil_20686]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:

So am I crazy to think that now all the cable news stations will get some kind of statistician for their talk shows and rely on models they create for election predictions, rather than talking heads? (Don't get me wrong, I still think the talking heads will remain on the stations anyway.)

Yes. I mean, on these talk shows you ahve to talk for a long time. A statistician just says look, here is my model, this is the answer. the end. That is not good talk show material.

[hrothgar]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:

So am I crazy to think that now all the cable news stations will get some kind of statistician for their talk shows and rely on models they create for election predictions, rather than talking heads? (Don't get me wrong, I still think the talking heads will remain on the stations anyway.)

I fully expect that

1. We'll start seeing lots more "dramatic" confrontation ala Crossfire. However, we won't see fights between the left and the right, but rather a battle to the death between the pundits and the stats geeks.

2. The networks will decide that existing statisticians aren't sexy enough for prime time television and will go off and breed more telegenic examples. (Fox News will assemble a stable of buxom, blonde botoxed statisticians who don't know a random forest from a linear regression but look good in heels)

3. Jon Stewart will eventually need to step in

[mike777]

a pretty large segment of continental Europeans think of them selves as Europeans first and by their country second.

interesting....I never got that impression on my short visits over the years but ok...


I would certainly add that just from press reports here in the USA one gets the idea that the Greeks are Greek first and ditto for the Spainish and French but good to get a closer view of Europe from your side of the pond.

I wont even add in such places as the Balkins or Russia as reports here in the American press.

[Cyberyeti]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-08, 10:56, said:

a pretty large segment of continental Europeans think of them selves as Europeans first and by their country second.

I don't think in all my extensive travels on the continent I've ever met one. That said, a lot of politicians in Belgium, Luxembourg and some of the smaller countries would like to see a federal Europe.

As an aside, I think this is a major part of the problem between Britain and the rest of Europe. Brits voted to join the common market and many wish that was all it was, a free trade organization with no judicial or federalist ambitions.

[Trinidad]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-08, 10:56, said:

I will just quote from wikipedia:

Wikipedia is correct about this.

phil_20686, on 2012-November-08, 10:56, said:

a pretty large segment of continental Europeans think of them selves as Europeans first and by their country second.

But I don't think that that is correct. The way I would describe it is that for continental Europeans it is not continuously reinforced what country they are from. Most Dutchmen are Dutch, and European too and most Germans are German, and European too. But it does not play a role: No rallying around a flag, no anthems, no right hands on hearts, no pledges, no God bless our country or its gracious queen, also no Hail to the Chief, nothing of the kind.

The little bit of nationalism that exists is very mild. But it is not for the country, it is for the region or city. A Swede from the South is first a Skåning and then a Swede. Someone from Maastricht is first and foremost Limburgian, and he will have more affinity with the Limburgians in Belgium and the Rheinländer in Germany than with the Hollanders from the West of The Netherlands. And an Amsterdammer is an Amsterdammer and Dutch too and also European.

Rik

[BunnyGo]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:

So am I crazy to think that now all the cable news stations will get some kind of statistician for their talk shows and rely on models they create for election predictions, rather than talking heads? (Don't get me wrong, I still think the talking heads will remain on the stations anyway.)

They already have these guys in some sense (like the people that the van Sustren went to talk to when Rove threw a fit). They just don't listen to them now. Maybe they'll start.

[wyman]

BunnyGo, on 2012-November-08, 12:32, said:

They already have these guys in some sense (like the people that the van Sustren went to talk to when Rove threw a fit). They just don't listen to them now. Maybe they'll start.

That was Megyn Kelly, and it is criminal to confuse her with Greta Van Susteren.

[y66]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:

So am I crazy to think that now all the cable news stations will get some kind of statistician for their talk shows and rely on models they create for election predictions, rather than talking heads? (Don't get me wrong, I still think the talking heads will remain on the stations anyway.)

I think they will change in the same way baseball has changed since Bill James' arrival. It will become uncool for the old school guys to completely blow this stuff off and it will become normal for savvy, younger heads to make more observations based on data.

[TimG]

gwnn, on 2012-November-07, 17:25, said:

Did anyone do the maths on what % chance did Nate Silver give himself of getting all 50 states right? (i.e. if I say event A has a 70% chance and B has a 60% chance of happening, then I will get both "right" 42% of the time). If all 50 states were predicted by him with 95% confidence, that is still only 7.7% of happening. So 50/50 seems very lucky (or his model was underestimating his confidence intervals).

See this article:

http://www.boston.co..._silver_an.html

Two states (Hawaii and West Virginia) actually fell outside Silver's confidence intervals, so he was more like 96% than 100%. Still damn impressive.

[TimG]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-07, 17:59, said:

American school kids pledge allegiance to the flag. In Europe that would be perceived as creepy. The idea would make people feel sick. In America it is normal. I can go on and on with examples of American nationalism that do not exist in Northern Europe.

Obama's speech was fine. It was meant for Americans and it should appeal to Americans. It did. But in Europe a speech like that would not work at all. It appeals to a sense of nationalism that we don't have and that we are uncomfortable with. This is something that Americans should keep in mind when they go outside their country (or speak to the world, rather than the USA). The American pride can be very offensive. Americans are unaware of that and that doesn't help them to achieve their goals.

I think you encapsulated American nationalism well. There are a few of us in America who are more than a bit creeped out by the daily pledge of allegiance. There are also plenty of people that understand that American pride can be offensive. History is replete with examples of one group of people feeling good about themselves by propagating a mostly imagined sense of superiority.

I recently read (probably on facebook) a quote that went something like "Without pain, how can we know joy?" I think it is misguided, but many Americans think along the lines of "how can we be great if others don't know they are inferior?"

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-08, 08:13, said:

Thing to keep in mind on internet BBs: It's not all about me.

Of course not. It's all about me!

[Trinidad]

TimG, on 2012-November-08, 14:47, said:

See this article:

http://www.boston.co..._silver_an.html

Two states (Hawaii and West Virginia) actually fell outside Silver's confidence intervals, so he was more like 96% than 100%. Still damn impressive.

Didn't he use a 95% confidence interval? Then it shouldn't be strange that 4% falls outside the confidence interval. I would say that he estimated his confidence interval pretty good too.

Rik

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-08, 00:26, said:

I think he's saying that there are parts of Creationism that cannot have a scientific basis, because they contradict knowledge that does have a scientific basis, and do so on the basis of faith only, without any evidence at all, other than the words written in the Bible.

There have been efforts to get creationism into public school curriculum based upon scientific principles, but upon examination, the "scientific" part wasn't scientific at all. I guess what I meant to say was something like "based upon real science rather than just a claim of science."

[JLOGIC]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:

So am I crazy to think that now all the cable news stations will get some kind of statistician for their talk shows and rely on models they create for election predictions, rather than talking heads? (Don't get me wrong, I still think the talking heads will remain on the stations anyway.)

lol are you kidding me? you have way too much faith in the world. I mean, does ESPN mention money lines and spreads of games? No, they ask their pundits for their "opinion" on who will win the game, and obv they go with Eli because he inspires his team and is so amazingly clutch, etc etc. It's not like they all have their own pro sports bettor on debating with other sports bettors, even though OBV those guys are by far the best and most accurate with predictions (and will also be like nate and rather than predict a winner, will tell you what % chance a team has to win).

The public doesn't care about the true line, they just want to hear people talk. I mean, ESPN could exist in a world where the vegas lines were their basepoint, they would simply discuss the reasons for that line, but it would still be far less interesting. Look in this thread, people do not care about truth or numbers, they think their view is special or unique and they have some unknown knowledge and read on the masses that trumps people interpreting massive amounts of data in a proven way.

Just like people want to say "You know what, I know the stats guys say this, Romney is actually ahead here..." but won't put any money on it, people want to say "the eagles have no shot in this game, vick turns over the ball and the other team is just really motivated here" but of course won't bet on it when the line is eagles -4.

It is just the way of the world. People would rather debate endlessly and hear these stupid narratives and watch their favorite biased pundit who has no basis or track record at prediction but is an "expert" rather than defer to a statistician or to vegas/betting markets or whatever. And it will go on and on like that forever.

I do think network shows will maybe have a statistician on their team, but he will never be as respected as he should be, he will just be one more pundit and the other pundits will be like "well thats interesting, but you see, the computers lose the human side here, Romney is..." Just like ESPN and talk radio SOMETIMES mention the betting lines (and discuss why theyre wrong), or they mention sabermetrics and advanced stats (and discuss why theyre wrong), etc.

[PassedOut]

I'm happy to be living in the US. But I also love to travel around the world with family and friends and spend time with folks with different perspectives and viewpoints from those I find in the US. It bothers me that so many in the US have misconceptions about conditions in other places, and especially the notion that we can't learn from their experiences and accomplishments.

The creepy aspects of US nationalism don't bother me much because most folks take that stuff with a grain of salt, much as they do in reciting the creed or singing hymns in church. The excessive militarism does bother me a lot.

I believe in a strong defense, but much of what passes as defense is not defense at all. There are real people with real lives and families everywhere, and it is most important to think very carefully, and then think again, before invading other places or blowing stuff up.

[kenberg]

As mentioned, I had never heard of Nate Silver before this thread. What I get out of all of this:

NS claimed to be providing odds. The criticisms, here and elsewhere, were on two fronts
1. He wasn't giving political arguments about what should be
2. He was skewing the results to favor his preferred outcome.

Well. 1. is certainly true, but it is not really right to criticize someone for not giving political arguments when he presrnts his results as an evaluation of how things are rather than as what he would like. And 2. now seems to be really hard to maintain. George Will, for example, had Romney winning with 300+ electoral votes. I can see someone saying that he seemed to be engaging in wishful thinking. But Silver? Seems pretty good so far.


Probabilistic forecasting cannot really be evaluated by looking at one result. But the elction was a composite result and at least some things perhaps can be said. Silver claimed a high probability of an Obama victory based on a state by state analysis, certainly a sensible approach since victory depends on electoral votes. He had good results in calling the states, that's one thing, but more to the point in calling the election he would still have been correct in forecasting an Obama win if he had been wrong in a few states. Listening to the results as they came in, I guess it was around the time that Wisconsin and New Mexico went for Obama that the pundits were saying things such as "To win, Romney needs A and B ad C..." while saying "To win, Obama needs W or X or Y..." Getting all of the "ands" is harder than getting some of the "ors". So, if Silver was mostly right in most of the states, he was then likely to be right in the final winner.

The bottom line here is that the next time Silver posts some odds on an election, I don't think I would rush in to bet against him.


On other recent posts: I mentioned in response to Wayne that I didn't think Obama's comment about the greatest country was offensive. Really that's all I meant. I was not thinking of flag burning here or elsewhere, German militarism when I was a young child, or any of that. When the couple across the street got a divorce, the guy was going on about his wife having had an affair thirty years ago. Such discussions never lead to anything good.

[PassedOut]

It's 332

Quote

President Barack Obama has been reelected for a second term, and he managed to do it without Florida's votes, which were still being tallied after the election on Tuesday. The Romney campaign has conceded the state to Obama on Thursday afternoon, but the race was a close one. Some thought that a recount would be demanded.

So now we know that Jim Cramer's prediction of 440 was closer than both Dick Morris's 213 and George Will's 217.

Jim Cramer's shtick is really that of an entertainer, and the way he presented the 440 let you know he was joking. But I have a hard time understanding why George Will and Dick Morris would make ridiculous predictions that they had to know would be way off the mark -- and that everyone would be able to see that. In the punditry business, they must reckon that grabbing attention gains more than debasing one's reputation loses.