Lesson on statistics and probability.



This is how things looked in August 2012.

States in medium-to-strong red either had been polled, or were understood to be sure things for Barack Obama in 2012. States in medium-to-strong blue either had been polled, or were understood to be sure things for Barack Obama in 2012. States in gray showed signs of being swing states in 2012. They were legitimate swing states in 2008, the republican nominee who won the state won by a lesser margin than is typical of a Favorite Son (Arizona) in 2008, and if there was an absence of convincing polls.

At this point, Barack Obama had 257 electoral votes sown up and Romney had 158. OK, so Obama could win Arizona and nothing else among the states in gray, Indiana and no other states in gray, or Missouri and no other states in gray and still lose. But even with that I can simplify a few things by taking those off the table. Obama wasn't going to win Indiana without also winning Ohio, Arizona without winning both Colorado and Nevada, or Missouri without also winning one of North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. Another simplification: Colorado and Nevada were going to vote together. You can also ignore the odd district in Nebraska that voted Democratic contrary to the rest of Nebraska because it does not matter. So that basically reduces the states in play to Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and the combination of Colorado and Nevada.

Now it gets simple:



Putting Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, and the Nebraska district best described as Greater Omaha in light blue takes them out of consideration.

The combination of Colorado and Nevada or any one of the states (Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) wins the election for President Obama. Because (except for Colorado and Nevada together) are different enough from each other and (except for neighboring North Carolina and Virginia) are scattered across the country that no single appeal can easily win them all together without putting some of the states in red in doubt, one can describe four states and the combination of Nevada and Colorado as 'independent events' to the extent that coin tosses are, an assumption of equal chances of an Obama or Romney win in a given state or combination of states gives President Obama 31 in 32 chances of winning re-election and 1 chance in 32 of losing.

31 to 1 is a long-shot. The chance of Obama winning was 0.96875; a sure thing is 1 and no chance is 0. Chances of independent events all going one way are multiplicative.

I was telling people that Mitt Romney had a chance to win in August 2012, but it wasn't very high.

OK, so coin-tosses are easy. What happens when the chances drop off?

Let's suppose that the chance of Obama winning North Carolina drops to .25 Then what do we get?

The chance of a Romney win rises to .5*.5*.75*.5*.5, or 0.046875... or roughly one chance in 22. Poor, but that may be the best that one can hope for. Now what if North Carolina drops out of reasonable contention as a small lead for Romney seems to not go away while time runs out? We get a 0.0625 chance of a Romney win.

We then get a chance of President Obama winning re-election reduced to one chance in 16.

On the other side, what if a lead for President Obama suggests an 85% chance of the President winning the state as time runs out as North Carolina spirals away from President Obama?

.5*.15*.5*.5 = 0.01875 The odds go to roughly 53-1 for President Obama.

Evidence suggested that Barack Obama was more likely to win both Colorado and Nevada than any of the states in white. So what happens if those two states go completely out of reach for Mitt Romney even as the others swing decisively toward him, let us say .75 chances each as North Carolina slips completely away from President Obama?

1- 0*.75*1*.75*.75 = 1. Obama wins.

This is a statistical model. It does not work the same way as the assumption that "Barack Obama is so horrible that I can't imagine anyone voting for him". The polls would show that that assumption was thoroughly wrong.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Though Obama and bureaucrats shouldn't micromanage wars, I'm not sure what errors Obama and Co. have made in pursuing wars. They made an error in policy in not supporting the Syrian free army soon enough, and the USA and its allies did not follow up in Libya to help them develop a legal and government infrastructure after helping the Libyans topple Qaddafi. Some pundits say Obama should not have drawn a red line with regard to chemical weapons in Syria, and not followed through; although the approach worked. But these were not errors in war strategy.

Obama and Co. come across as being half hearted and half assed in their approach when it comes pursuing wars. Obama and Co. shouldn't dabble in war as they tend to do and they shouldn't bow down to pressure, use that pressure as an excuse and remove troops which results in the rise of a militant group like ISIS who now threatens every ally that we have in the region. Common sense wise, I understand that Obama can't fund the growth of new social programs and fund new military campaigns at the same time.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Obama and Co. come across as being half hearted and half assed in their approach when it comes pursuing wars. Obama and Co. shouldn't dabble in war as they tend to do and they shouldn't bow down to pressure, use that pressure as an excuse and remove troops which results in the rise of a militant group like ISIS who now threatens every ally that we have in the region. Common sense wise, I understand that Obama can't fund the growth of new social programs and fund new military campaigns at the same time.

Barack Obama is cautious. He is a trained attorney, and he knows enough to never let a detail get in the way of a wise decision. He knows, as good lawyers do, that certain details (like the wording of an agreement) can make the difference between triumph and disaster. The best Presidents that we have had are either attorneys or generals (a similar mindset).

Really, the Iraqi government should have executed the bulk of Saddam's generals and promoted the near-senior generals to higher ranks - or pensioning them off. But Dubya never thought of that. Even Hitler knew enough to pension off Czechoslovak generals upon taking over the country.

ISIS is the sort of people who could make allies of Iran and Israel. "Enemy of my enemy", you know.

Big social programs? The Reactionary Party wants them ended in favor of a New Peonage.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Obama and Co. come across as being half hearted and half assed in their approach when it comes pursuing wars. Obama and Co. shouldn't dabble in war as they tend to do and they shouldn't bow down to pressure, use that pressure as an excuse and remove troops which results in the rise of a militant group like ISIS who now threatens every ally that we have in the region. Common sense wise, I understand that Obama can't fund the growth of new social programs and fund new military campaigns at the same time.

Common sense wise, it makes no sense to fight on foreign turf when the locals are not fully engaged. Even then, it's probably counter-productive. Have you looked at the mess we've created by meddling? Other than Korea, and Bosnia perhaps, we have a poor track record at nation building. People tend to resent outsiders telling them how to live on their own land. We would, if the roles were reversed.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Obama and Co. come across as being half hearted and half assed in their approach when it comes pursuing wars. Obama and Co. shouldn't dabble in war as they tend to do and they shouldn't bow down to pressure, use that pressure as an excuse and remove troops which results in the rise of a militant group like ISIS who now threatens every ally that we have in the region. Common sense wise, I understand that Obama can't fund the growth of new social programs and fund new military campaigns at the same time.

Yea, it's just terrible that all the crazy fish are jumping into the barrel so we can kill them.

I mean it's just so sad that you and I can't go to the movies in butthole areas of Syria, Iraq and Libya.

I feel so half-hearted.

This is awesome -

GOP: House to vote on Homeland bill without conditions

Boehner's pac is running ads against t-baggers that will oppose him!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHZNFWPzWA

Baggers over at Red State are going nuts!

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/03/f...e-congressmen/

"docdave88 • 12 minutes ago
John Bonehead along with that whiny old woman Mitch McClowney have accomplished something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. They have committed party suicide (partycide?).

We will never see another Republican President. How can they hope to elect a President when they throw away the historic victory that their (conservative) base gave them on November 4th and now show their utter contempt for us.

Y'all do what you want but I will never, EVER vote for another human being with that toxic R behind his or her name."

•Share ›
Avatar
mikeymike143 • 2 hours ago
As a tea partier, I have friends who advocate a third party because the GOP establishment is so opposed to conservatism. I am not an advocate of a third party, but I can sure understand where they are coming from. In the November elections, the GOP basically ran against Obama and stopping Obama's agenda. Voters liked that message and elected Republicans all across America. Yaay! So what does the GOP establishment do with its newfound mandate? They attack conservatives and help pass Obama's legislation. Huh??? Now, there are a few senators like Cruz and Lee who have fought tooth and nail against the Obama regime. I am not talking about them. But it seems like the GOP just wants to spit in the face of its conservative base at every opportunity. I think they are going to soon find out that they are ill served by this tactic.
1 •Share ›
Avatar
redleg5th mikeymike143 • an hour ago
We are at a crossroads. Many of us are so disgusted after the latest leadership backstabbing that we won't show up to vote. So we either become the irrelevant party (might be there already) or we form a 3rd party.
1 •Share ›
elmac redleg5th • 28 minutes ago
I don't so much as call for a third party, but rather, kill this GOP crap and start a new 2nd party. The GOP is done. I would rather vote for a retarded monkey than vote for one of those clowns that continue to foist on us the likes of McCain't and Boner and McClownell.
•Share ›

Let the games begin!

Yea, baby!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Barack Obama is cautious. He is a trained attorney, and he knows enough to never let a detail get in the way of a wise decision. He knows, as good lawyers do, that certain details (like the wording of an agreement) can make the difference between triumph and disaster. The best Presidents that we have had are either attorneys or generals (a similar mindset).

Really, the Iraqi government should have executed the bulk of Saddam's generals and promoted the near-senior generals to higher ranks - or pensioning them off. But Dubya never thought of that. Even Hitler knew enough to pension off Czechoslovak generals upon taking over the country.

ISIS is the sort of people who could make allies of Iran and Israel. "Enemy of my enemy", you know.

Big social programs? The Reactionary Party wants them ended in favor of a New Peonage.

Having worked around a lot of military, several generals, and a fair number of attorneys,I have a different perspective on generals and attorneys. I had better rapport with the attorneys than the generals( and most military ). Most of the attorneys that I knew tended to be contemplative , while the military and the generals were command oriented ,acted quilckly, and wanted everyone else to act quickly. They were more opposite than similar, in my experience.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Obama and Co. come across as being half hearted and half assed in their approach when it comes pursuing wars. Obama and Co. shouldn't dabble in war as they tend to do and they shouldn't bow down to pressure, use that pressure as an excuse and remove troops which results in the rise of a militant group like ISIS who now threatens every ally that we have in the region.

I have asked you though, what specific actions Obama should take that he's not already taking. You can say nuke 'em, but that's not going to happen, and even the crazy Republicans aren't proposing that or any other concrete action. It's just a matter of "how Obama comes across." So what? How do you think the drones "came across" to the terrorists that they killed? To the Taliban in Afghanistan? Obama has been tough when he feels he needs to be. Too tough, according to critics on the Left.

The militant/terrorist IS resulted from the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That organization dates from Bush's invasion in 2003 and would not exist otherwise. Al Qaeda/The IS takes advantage of instability to create chaos and war. That's what they did in Iraq in 2003, and in Syria in 2012. The rise of the IS did not happen because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq. Obama did nothing more of a pullout in any case than what the Iraqis requested and got Dubya already to agree to. It was slower than that, in fact. Are we supposed to continue to be invaders and do whatever we decide to do to them, whether they want us there or not? That is what caused the rebellion against our invasion in the first place.

It was largely the Sunnis in Anbar Province that defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq for a while. They rose against them in 2006-2007, and we the USA helped them. But when Al Malaki suppressed and ignored them, the Sunnis supported Al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS/ISIL again, and so they took over large areas of Iraq. You can't blame that on Obama. You can blame Bush for getting us involved where we should not have been involved in the first place.

Obama is responding to the mess as best he can. I don't know what course, if any, will work. It is just a 4T mess, and we'll have to work it out over the next 13 years-- at least well enough that we can enter something of a 1T, and hopefully be less involved over there as part of it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have asked you though, what specific actions Obama should take that he's not already taking. You can say nuke 'em, but that's not going to happen, and even the crazy Republicans aren't proposing that or any other concrete action. It's just a matter of "how Obama comes across." So what? How do you think the drones "came across" to the terrorists that they killed? To the Taliban in Afghanistan? Obama has been tough when he feels he needs to be. Too tough, according to critics on the Left.

The militant/terrorist IS resulted from the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That organization dates from Bush's invasion in 2003 and would not exist otherwise. Al Qaeda/The IS takes advantage of instability to create chaos and war. That's what they did in Iraq in 2003, and in Syria in 2012. The rise of the IS did not happen because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq. Obama did nothing more of a pullout in any case than what the Iraqis requested and got Dubya already to agree to. It was slower than that, in fact. Are we supposed to continue to be invaders and do whatever we decide to do to them, whether they want us there or not? That is what caused the rebellion against our invasion in the first place.

It was largely the Sunnis in Anbar Province that defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq for a while. They rose against them in 2006-2007, and we the USA helped them. But when Al Malaki suppressed and ignored them, the Sunnis supported Al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS/ISIL again, and so they took over large areas of Iraq. You can't blame that on Obama. You can blame Bush for getting us involved where we should not have been involved in the first place.

Obama is responding to the mess as best he can. I don't know what course, if any, will work. It is just a 4T mess, and we'll have to work it out over the next 13 years-- at least well enough that we can enter something of a 1T, and hopefully be less involved over there as part of it.

I do blame Bush, but the question remains: what should we do about ISIS now?
My preference would be to support and arm any group or country willing to fight ISIS.

Originally Posted by radind

I do blame Bush, but the question remains: what should we do about ISIS now?
My preference would be to support and arm any group or country willing to fight ISIS.

We should organize the Arab allies and turkey to launch a coordinated joint air/ground offensives against ISIS. The US should have both air forces and a small amount of ground troops participate in the operation but the Arab allies, Turks and Kurds should do the heavy lifting with regards to the ground war.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have asked you though, what specific actions Obama should take that he's not already taking. You can say nuke 'em, but that's not going to happen, and even the crazy Republicans aren't proposing that or any other concrete action. It's just a matter of "how Obama comes across." So what? How do you think the drones "came across" to the terrorists that they killed? To the Taliban in Afghanistan? Obama has been tough when he feels he needs to be. Too tough, according to critics on the Left.

When the nutcases of both sides hate the choices of a politician, then those solutions may not be so bad after all. The lunatic fringe rarely gets much right.

The militant/terrorist IS resulted from the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That organization dates from Bush's invasion in 2003 and would not exist otherwise. Al Qaeda/The IS takes advantage of instability to create chaos and war. That's what they did in Iraq in 2003, and in Syria in 2012. The rise of the IS did not happen because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq. Obama did nothing more of a pullout in any case than what the Iraqis requested and got Dubya already to agree to. It was slower than that, in fact. Are we supposed to continue to be invaders and do whatever we decide to do to them, whether they want us there or not? That is what caused the rebellion against our invasion in the first place.

Figuring that Saddam Hussein would have eventually died anyway by now and that one of his worthless sons would have succeeded him, I can just imagine what the Arab Spring would have been like in Iraq. Qusay or Uday would have toppled by now, and there might be no anti-American terrorists active in Iraq. Maybe the only great monument to be desecrated would be the mausoleum of Saddam Hussein.

It was largely the Sunnis in Anbar Province that defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq for a while. They rose against them in 2006-2007, and we the USA helped them. But when Al Malaki suppressed and ignored them, the Sunnis supported Al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS/ISIL again, and so they took over large areas of Iraq. You can't blame that on Obama. You can blame Bush for getting us involved where we should not have been involved in the first place.

It is worth remembering that since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq has consistently failed to appear as anything other than "Not Free" in accordance with Freedom House. Iraq is not a democracy -- not even close. It is also worth remembering that those vile pictures of Iraqi captives didn't help America. I don't care if the captives are the worst of the worst -- serial mass-killers. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, highest-ranking Nazi official of the concentration camp system, was never smeared in excrement or paraded around nude with a leash attached to a dog collar and forced to bark like a dog.

The problem isn't that those vile pictures got released or that they were taken; the problem is that the behavior shown in those pictures was done.

Obama is responding to the mess as best he can. I don't know what course, if any, will work. It is just a 4T mess, and we'll have to work it out over the next 13 years-- at least well enough that we can enter something of a 1T, and hopefully be less involved over there as part of it.

People are being murdered; religious buildings and great cultural artifacts are being destroyed; religious freedom is being denied in ways that would cause Inquisitors to blush. ISIS must die, of course, and President Obama is stuck with the responsible to begin the end of that monstrous cause.

I associate Dubya with the sordid character of the 3T Degeneracy. He allowed the wost trends in American life to come to the fore. The 4T will not resolve itself until America resolves the degenerate traits of the Bush era into oblivion.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Baggers over at Red States are going nuts!

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/03/f...e-congressmen/

I think a change of name to the weed party would do wonders.



I think they should back Rand Paul and have weed rallies. Forget the fucking patriot hats and don stuff like this.



http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...rture-20140725

Oops, looks like Jebbie boy has some weedy baggage.


http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-...ed-2015-2?op=1


What better way to fuck up the Republican party than to use weed as a wedge issue?

Whoah, I just found another Republican hopeful with some weedy baggage.

http://www.businessinsider.com/repor...ed-weed-2015-2

Ted Cruz? Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahhaaa

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is awesome -



Boehner's pac is running ads against t-baggers that will oppose him!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHZNFWPzWA

Baggers over at Red State are going nuts!

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/03/f...e-congressmen/



Let the games begin!

Yea, baby!

Baggers can go pound sand. These days, the John Birch Society contains outright kooks and anti American fiends. These are people who read too much Quigley back in the day and now consider their own government to be more of a threat than overseas anti Western monsters are. Completely screwed up priorities. Keep them away from the levers of power, no good can come from it.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Baggers can go pound sand. These days, the John Birch Society contains outright kooks and anti American fiends. These are people who read too much Quigley back in the day and now consider their own government to be more of a threat than overseas anti Western monsters are. Completely screwed up priorities. Keep them away from the levers of power, no good can come from it.

All that they have achieved is to waste what might have been a time of major reforms while serving as cats' paws for people who would transform America into a pure and absolute plutocracy. They got their time on the political stage, and it was a very bad performance of a mediocre play.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have asked you though, what specific actions Obama should take that he's not already taking. You can say nuke 'em, but that's not going to happen, and even the crazy Republicans aren't proposing that or any other concrete action. It's just a matter of "how Obama comes across." So what? How do you think the drones "came across" to the terrorists that they killed? To the Taliban in Afghanistan? Obama has been tough when he feels he needs to be. Too tough, according to critics on the Left.

The militant/terrorist IS resulted from the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That organization dates from Bush's invasion in 2003 and would not exist otherwise. Al Qaeda/The IS takes advantage of instability to create chaos and war. That's what they did in Iraq in 2003, and in Syria in 2012. The rise of the IS did not happen because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq. Obama did nothing more of a pullout in any case than what the Iraqis requested and got Dubya already to agree to. It was slower than that, in fact. Are we supposed to continue to be invaders and do whatever we decide to do to them, whether they want us there or not? That is what caused the rebellion against our invasion in the first place.

It was largely the Sunnis in Anbar Province that defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq for a while. They rose against them in 2006-2007, and we the USA helped them. But when Al Malaki suppressed and ignored them, the Sunnis supported Al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS/ISIL again, and so they took over large areas of Iraq. You can't blame that on Obama. You can blame Bush for getting us involved where we should not have been involved in the first place.

Obama is responding to the mess as best he can. I don't know what course, if any, will work. It is just a 4T mess, and we'll have to work it out over the next 13 years-- at least well enough that we can enter something of a 1T, and hopefully be less involved over there as part of it.

For starts, he should take another jaunt around the Middle East and apologize for screwing things up and making things worse for Middle Easterners. BTW, 3T's create messes that require 4T's to straighten out & resolve. As far as what he should do now, he should stick to what liberals do and not do anything else because he's incompetent at doing anything else.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, it's just terrible that all the crazy fish are jumping into the barrel so we can kill them.

I mean it's just so sad that you and I can't go to the movies in butthole areas of Syria, Iraq and Libya.

I feel so half-hearted.

You can be half hearted and kill the crazy fish who jumped into a barrel. Unfortunately, the crazy fish aren't stupid and are capable of moving from barrel to barrel and jumping in and out of their barrels.

Originally Posted by radind

I do blame Bush, but the question remains: what should we do about ISIS now?
My preference would be to support and arm any group or country willing to fight ISIS.

I don't know how you can blame Bush when Obama inherited a relatively stable Iraq. Who's going to be willing to fight without our full support? Who's dumb enough to take on a war that liberals claim we can't win? What happens if ISIS kicks their asses?

Originally Posted by radind

Having worked around a lot of military, several generals, and a fair number of attorneys,I have a different perspective on generals and attorneys. I had better rapport with the attorneys than the generals( and most military ). Most of the attorneys that I knew tended to be contemplative , while the military and the generals were command oriented ,acted quilckly, and wanted everyone else to act quickly. They were more opposite than similar, in my experience.

Lawyers aren't generally dealing with matters that involve life and death or victory and defeat in battle. Time is money to a lawyer and time is often their ally.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Lawyers aren't generally dealing with matters that involve life and death or victory and defeat in battle. Time is money to a lawyer and time is often their ally.

Sure -- but they can establish the ground rules of combat and administration. Lincoln and FDR could both establish that slaves would be free (Nazis were even more brutal slave-masters than Confederate planters), and that occupied territory is to not be exploited. Ultimately the generals and admirals are accountable to civilian control, and lawyers are the intellectual generalists who can best do that. That may decide whether one has taken the desire to strike back out of a recently-defeated people.

Do you really think that the horrible deeds that occurred in Abu Ghraib would happen with a trained attorney respectful of precedent (like Obama) as President? Not in the least.

Originally Posted by radind

I do blame Bush, but the question remains: what should we do about ISIS now?
My preference would be to support and arm any group or country willing to fight ISIS.

Yes I agree. As I see it, that's what Obama is doing.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

For starts, he should take another jaunt around the Middle East and apologize for screwing things up and making things worse for Middle Easterners. BTW, 3T's create messes that require 4T's to straighten out & resolve. As far as what he should do now, he should stick to what liberals do and not do anything else because he's incompetent at doing anything else.

Well, he is who we've got, and action is needed now. And it is proceeding OK; not incompetently. So I don't think that's a solution to ISIS. Nor does he have much to apologize for. The Bush folks should go on that tour.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes I agree. As I see it, that's what Obama is doing.

I don't see the arms flowing to the fighters.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see the arms flowing to the fighters.

They are, quietly.

And meanwhile, to the north, we contemplate supplying serious gear to Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You can be half hearted and kill the crazy fish who jumped into a barrel. Unfortunately, the crazy fish aren't stupid and are capable of moving from barrel to barrel and jumping in and out of their barrels.

Yes, a stray fish here and there (i.e. Paris, Copenhagen) but puny relative to the 1000s getting their asses blown up in the Syrian/Iraqi butthole deserts.

And its more than likely that many of the latter would be pulling off events in the West if not preoccupied with getting their asses blown up in butthole deserts.

I know you guys on the Right like to have all that tough Mission Accomplished talk, but the rest of us are okay with Obama's more subtle approach that actually gets the job done.

It has to do with your right amygdala hijacking your cerebral lobe thinking -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-amygdala.html

It's a primitive thing that us cerebral types will just need to accept about you until you all eventually die out and become a minor part of the human genome.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

They are, quietly.

And meanwhile, to the north, we contemplate supplying serious gear to Ukraine.

Russia is still a real threat. This may be the driver for a deal with Iran to free US to react to Russia.