Leferd

538's (or to be more precise, Nate Silver) model factors individual pollster quality, methodology, and track record into the equation when they make their forecasts. The better quality the pollster, the more weight it has. They also weigh individual state polls more than general election polls. If you want to peer review their process, it's right here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo Silver's very good at what he does, and has an impressive body of work across multiple disciplines (baseball, elections, burritos).

Thanks, Obama! (with a 55% Approval Rating)

Isn't it Nick Carver?

One month away. Polls show voters getting less undecided --and more used to the idea of voting Trump or Clinton vs. Johnson or Stein.

Make Bat Flips Great Again!

Depends on the engine. If you go with a turbo model, there's more than enough giddyup.

The single most important piece of baseball-related journalism this year. http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/17668845/korean-bat-flip

Can't go wrong with a Subaru. The Forester, Outback, or Crosstrek XV should suit your purposes just fine. Subaru's are: AWD Super reliable Rugged Decent fuel consumption depending on the engine. Not the most luxurious cars but they are well built and last for ages.

Napoleon has his Waterloo. Johnson has his Aleppo.

So Trump told the media to call Sean Hannity.

Yeah, that terrible. Jose Fernandez could very well have been the next Pedro. Here's a nice write up by one of my favorite baseball writers. https://theringer.com/jos%C3%A9-fern%C3%A1ndez-was-a-singular-superstar-2c4625084eb6#.ky9z4skl6

"What would you do, if elected, about Aleppo?" "About...?" "Aleppo" "And What is Aleppo?" "You're kidding?" "No." "Aleppo is in Syria. It's the epicenter of the refugee crisis."

" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa....the media is being unfair ....waaaaaaaaaaaaa " Volo blaming the media is like getting angry at Bioware for betraying gamers because they became more inclusive True enough. You can't fault a compass for pointing north. The media is mostly biased towards liberals. It's just how it is. You can find plenty of media of varying degrees of popularity and quality that slant right. You can tilt at windmills all day. The Wall Street Journal. U.S. News and World Report. Investor's Business Daily. Fox News. NewsMax. Breitbart. WorldNetDaily. The New York Post. The Washington Times. Etc.,.. Many people nowadays tend to get their news from sources they are already pre-disposed to agree with anyway.

Be that as it may, he still quacks likes a duck.

Not according to the Alt-Right. Bonus points for the homophobia.

Nice. Sharing a cartoon from a documented racist agitator.

Was forwarded this link, because...sports! http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/37225767 I have no idea what happened. Halp. Anybody?

The trees were real pretty in NWN2. Not so much in the first one.

Trump on Bill O'Reilly tonight. Ridiculous. Either Mr. Trump is promoting the suspension of the 4th Amendment and due process or he really has no clue and plan and is the type to let a thug go play Dirty Harry and let the powder keg go off. Probably both. https://youtu.be/hBrhsv2KWI4?t=240

Welp. Looks like we'll start seeing more fit women, guns, and photographs again.

Track and Field coverage through the NBC streaming app is miles better. Different announcing crew, no interruptions, brief bios on most -- if not all the competitors, and best of all, it's live or on demand. There are also separate dedicated feeds of all the field events.

I will never stop being confused why people perceive the most outlandish and emotionally-charged intentions behind my posts, and surely you must understand that from my perspective, when I ask a question and the response may as well be "lol u mad? calm down bro," then I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to dodge out of the question. Didn't you say you've been banned at a few other message boards? Perhaps it's the way you write and the tone you give off seems emotionally charged to the reader? *Edit* LK, My apologies, I may have projected. It's been a long day --woke up early to catch the start of the marathon. Going back to your question, I'm with her and Hillary Clinton is getting scrutinized just fine in these here message boards =)

Dude, stop hyperventilating. Seeing as I'm for all intents and purposes the only one participating in this thread likely to be voting for Clinton anyway. Aside from Bruce, everyone here has pretty much been quick to go Hillary-bashing.

To be fair, I doubt a lot of left leaning sources are going to roast Politifact for being biased in favour of them. And why should they be doubted just because their findings don't jive with a particular candidate? Whether they are biased or not, they have a methodology and are open and transparent with each of their "fact checks." They explain and source why they come to a particular judgment. Yes, Republicans are on top of their liars list, and Democrats are on the bottom. But, there are truthful Republicans that do very well. It just so happens that the pants on fire Republicans tend to be the demagogues --Trump, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, and Palin. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/ am not sure if we can describe politifact as having a methodology. it is pretty darn subjective. difference 'tween placement o' a claim in one o' two categories is gonna be the result o' a fuzzy kinda internal calculus rather than anything that can be objective discerned. more fundamental is how, or if, a particular claims is chosen to be checked at all. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire trump simple talks out his arse, so is unsurprising when his claims is rated as false, but there has been more than a few liberal political leaders that would appear to get benefit o' the doubt that conservatives do not. HA! Good Fun! "more fundamental is how, or if, a particular claims is chosen to be checked at all." Ok, that's a fair critique and I recognize it. Nevertheless, Politifact, is transparent and specifically addresses these concerns of what claims are chosen and how they measure truthiness on their processes page. Do they target more Republican statements than Democrats? That NPR interview asserts it, and I have no reason to believe it to be false. But, short of a GAO audit, these online fact checkers are the best we have to gauge aggregate candidate truthiness at the moment.

To be fair, I doubt a lot of left leaning sources are going to roast Politifact for being biased in favour of them. And why should they be doubted just because their findings don't jive with a particular candidate? Whether they are biased or not, they have a methodology and are open and transparent with each of their "fact checks." They explain and source why they come to a particular judgment. Yes, Republicans are on top of their liars list, and Democrats are on the bottom. But, there are truthful Republicans that do very well. It just so happens that the pants on fire Republicans tend to be the demagogues --Trump, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, and Palin. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/