Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
In politics, the era of big data has arrived.
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Philip Chee
Nov 8, 2012, 12:06:34 AM11/8/12
to
<http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/print/>
"In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack
Obama’s campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost
gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were
far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash,
for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
"In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack
Obama’s campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost
gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were
far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash,
for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Philip Chee
Nov 8, 2012, 5:26:34 AM11/8/12
to
[[Statisticians like Nate Silver looked at all polls and concluded
President Obama would win. They may change how races are predicted — and
conducted.]]
<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-election-math-20121108,0,2926239.story>
[[Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal and
heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers, rather
than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of the races,
but also change the way they're conducted.
Wang, the Princeton professor, believes pundits and computer-aided
analysts can coexist.
"It's possible to be Homer and write about the wine-dark sea," he said.
"But sometimes you want the guy with the thermometer."]]
Cryptoengineer
Nov 8, 2012, 10:26:20 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 5:26 am, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> [[Statisticians like Nate Silver looked at all polls and concluded
> President Obama would win. They may change how races are predicted and
> conducted.]]
>
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-election-math-20...>
> [[Statisticians like Nate Silver looked at all polls and concluded
> President Obama would win. They may change how races are predicted and
> conducted.]]
>
>
> [[Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal and
> heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers, rather
> than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of the races,
> but also change the way they're conducted.
>
> Wang, the Princeton professor, believes pundits and computer-aided
> analysts can coexist.
>
> "It's possible to be Homer and write about the wine-dark sea," he said.
> "But sometimes you want the guy with the thermometer."]]
Perhaps. I suspect its more like the co-existence of magical accounts
> [[Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal and
> heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers, rather
> than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of the races,
> but also change the way they're conducted.
>
> Wang, the Princeton professor, believes pundits and computer-aided
> analysts can coexist.
>
> "It's possible to be Homer and write about the wine-dark sea," he said.
> "But sometimes you want the guy with the thermometer."]]
of Creation vs science.
pt
Dan Goodman
Nov 8, 2012, 11:45:58 AM11/8/12
to
Philip Chee wrote:
>
> [[Statisticians like Nate Silver looked at all polls and concluded
> President Obama would win. They may change how races are predicted —
> and conducted.]]
>
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-election-math-20
> 121108,0,2926239.story>
>
> [[Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal
> and heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers,
> rather than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of
> the races, but also change the way they're conducted.
>
> Wang, the Princeton professor, believes pundits and computer-aided
> analysts can coexist.
>
> "It's possible to be Homer and write about the wine-dark sea," he
> said. "But sometimes you want the guy with the thermometer."]]
It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
>
> [[Statisticians like Nate Silver looked at all polls and concluded
> President Obama would win. They may change how races are predicted —
> and conducted.]]
>
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-election-math-20
> 121108,0,2926239.story>
>
> [[Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal
> and heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers,
> rather than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of
> the races, but also change the way they're conducted.
>
> Wang, the Princeton professor, believes pundits and computer-aided
> analysts can coexist.
>
> "It's possible to be Homer and write about the wine-dark sea," he
> said. "But sometimes you want the guy with the thermometer."]]
are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is overpriced.
This does not stop investors from buying at market peaks; or pundits
from saying "This market will never go down!"
In 1964, statistics showed that Goldwater was unlikely to win. But
many conservatives KNEW the majority of potential voters hadn't been
voting because they didn't have a real conservative to vote for.
In 1972, there was this book: _How McGovern Won The Presidency: And
Why the Pollsters Were Wrong.
--
Dan Goodman
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
David Friedman
Nov 8, 2012, 11:49:16 AM11/8/12
to
In article <xn0i5c5v...@news.iphouse.com>,
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
> are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is overpriced.
If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
> It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
> are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is overpriced.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
Dan Goodman
Nov 8, 2012, 5:25:15 PM11/8/12
to
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <xn0i5c5v...@news.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
> > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
> > overpriced.
>
> If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
The methods aren't _infallible_; but anyone applying them could at
> In article <xn0i5c5v...@news.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
> > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
> > overpriced.
>
> If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
least lose less money than some of the experts.
Scott Dorsey
Nov 8, 2012, 6:43:58 PM11/8/12
to
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <xn0i5c5v...@news.iphouse.com>,
>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
>> > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
>> > overpriced.
>>
>> If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
>
>The methods aren't _infallible_; but anyone applying them could at
>least lose less money than some of the experts.
1. If a stock is mentioned on the front page of USA Today, it is overpriced.
>David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <xn0i5c5v...@news.iphouse.com>,
>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
>> > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
>> > overpriced.
>>
>> If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
>
>The methods aren't _infallible_; but anyone applying them could at
>least lose less money than some of the experts.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Keith F. Lynch
Nov 8, 2012, 8:23:02 PM11/8/12
to
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In 1964, statistics showed that Goldwater was unlikely to win. But
> many conservatives KNEW the majority of potential voters hadn't been
> voting because they didn't have a real conservative to vote for.
> In 1972, there was this book: _How McGovern Won The Presidency:
> And Why the Pollsters Were Wrong.
I have a book _The Last Democrat: Why Bill Clinton Will Be The Last
> In 1964, statistics showed that Goldwater was unlikely to win. But
> many conservatives KNEW the majority of potential voters hadn't been
> voting because they didn't have a real conservative to vote for.
> In 1972, there was this book: _How McGovern Won The Presidency:
> And Why the Pollsters Were Wrong.
Democrat Americans Elect President_.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Friedman
Nov 8, 2012, 8:41:04 PM11/8/12
to
In article <xn0i5ceu...@news.iphouse.com>,
make money. To improve the odds of doing so, risk spread across multiple
stocks.
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > In article <xn0i5c5v...@news.iphouse.com>,
> > "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
> > > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
> > > overpriced.
> >
> > If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
>
> The methods aren't _infallible_; but anyone applying them could at
> least lose less money than some of the experts.
If they are substantially better than random, applying them ought to
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > In article <xn0i5c5v...@news.iphouse.com>,
> > "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
> > > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
> > > overpriced.
> >
> > If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
>
> The methods aren't _infallible_; but anyone applying them could at
> least lose less money than some of the experts.
make money. To improve the odds of doing so, risk spread across multiple
stocks.
0 new messages