Best and worst analysts on the forum?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's my picks:

Best:
dantheroman/liberalrepublican - I don't think I've ever seen a post from this guy that wasn't rather insightful and a good analysis.
brittain33 - Rather similar. Mass has a bunch of good ones (with one obvious exception...)
Lunar - Great as an I, great as an L, and now great as a D. Probably the poster with the highest partisanship:hackishness ratio too.
Lewis - Just because of his sheer ability to crunch numbers.

Good but overrated:

SamSpade - He's right a lot but is wrong much of the time (note I didn't say most, or even a majority of he time.) Still beats your average network pundit though.
Alcon - Basically the same as above.

Worst:
GoldenBoy - Enough said.
WalterMitty - His argument about why Strickland would lose in 2006 was something along the lines of this: Strickland is a "silly populist". Therefore he would get absolutely destroyed in the Columbus exurbs (where the Democrats always get destroyed anyway) and thus would lose despite the fact he was strongest in the part of Ohio the Democrats need to gain the most in to lose and most certainly does not hate populists.
JSojourner - He's a great guy, no question about that. But some of his points remind me of Phil's friend who thinks Obama will win Georgia and South Carolina because they are "almost all black". Example: McCain will win Iowa no matter what the polls say because it's full of fundies. At least he admits he's no top notch political mind.

I'm not including J. J. because I don't think he actually believes most of the tripe he says. And I'll admit Phil isn't that bad if you ignore his home state.

[King]

Your analysis of the analysts is flawed.

[Lunar]

Aww shucks, I'm not that good.

I disagree on Sam & Alcon, when the forum is slow I'll follow online users to see what threads they are reading/responding for good reason.  I happen to disagree with Sam on a number of things, but he's good to call you out.

Cynic is also pretty good at calling you out, but he's sort of become more stoic in his partisanship/analysis as of late. 

Won't say the worst, everyone knows the worst already.  Hell, everyone knows who'd top my list most likely too.

[Hatman 🍁]

me, obviously. My prediction of the Ontario election should be proof of this.

[Bacon King]

Lewis, Alcon, Sam Spade, and Lunar all stick out in my mind, and one of the R-TX guys is pretty good too. edit- forgot Verily, Al, and pretty much everyone else that's been listed here.

I'm not naming names, but the hacks are all usually pretty bad.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Josh22 is by far the worst

Just recently:
The "3% rule"
Obama will win because the South is black
Hagan will win b/c she is a Dem and Dems don't lose in NC

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obama will win because the South is black

     He seriously said that?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Obama will win because the South is black

     He seriously said that?

Yea, he anticipated that black populations would vote something like 4X the amount they did in 2004

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obama will win because the South is black

     He seriously said that?

Yea, he anticipated that black populations would vote something like 4X the amount they did in 2004

     That's probably why he thinks Obama will win NC. He would if the electorate were 55% black after all. Anyway, where was this thread?

[exopolitician]

I enjoy reading posts from most of the "analysts" here. Alcon, Lunar, Sam, brittain, verily, and a few others.

I just dont like JJ's posts because they are so partisan and full of spin it makes me want to puke. Other than that...I dont have anything against him haha

[Alcon]

I mostly want to do best...

Sam Spade, even if he's too damn vague sometimes, does have a very competent record all-around.  Sometimes I wonder if he BSes sometimes, but if he does, he does a damn good job of it, and it's obviously

On non-number crunching events (not that I think he's bad at number-crunching, but I think he has more fun with other stuff), Lunar is very good.  Plus, he's interesting.  Most good analysts aren't interesting, and most interesting analysts aren't good.

Relating to specific areas, Al understands working-class culture (sorely lacking on this forum) and voting patterns.  Lewis is totally brilliant about understanding regional ethno-politics, and has an incredible depth of holistic knowledge on several subjects.

When it comes to procedural analysis and really detail-oriented stuff, jimrtex is one of the most unjustly underrated posters on this forum.  muon2, too, although usually with more hands-on subjects.  Erc (when he's around) is good with that stuff too.

When it comes to knowledge of policy and other stuff (in a partisan context or otherwise), I'm just going to name a few names: dantheroman, Verily, cinyc, brittain33, Philip.

Sorry if I forgot anyone, but there are a lot of must-reads for me.

---

I'm not much into listing the worst, but I'll just list a few major sins for me:

1. Presenting wishful thinking as actual analysis.  I understand presenting amusing scenarios for analysis, but they should be noted as theoretical.  "I want this to happen, so I'm going to believe it" = crappy analysis.  "I subconsciously want this to happen, so I'm going to contort this to seem objective" = even worse.

2. Feigned objectivity.  "I wish this weren't true, but hackery" is no better than "hackery."  Passing wishful thinking off as cynicism is even worse.  Basically, the more attempts to make wishful thinking look genuine, the worse.

3. Stupid historical triviality.  "No presidential candidate whose name starts with a 'T' has won a General election without carrying Cuyahoga County, Ohio!"  OK.  Now, explain why that is, and then we can establish how it affects this election.

4. Essentially anyone who refuses to concede that nearly any hypothesis can be wrong, we don't really know anything outside of the laws of statistics and samples, and dumb luck does not constitute good analysis if you can't logically support it.

5. Mentioning membership in certain elite IQ clubs.  (AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION!!!)

[bgwah]

jimrtex is great.

[Hash]

I recently discovered I was good at predicting French by-election runoffs. I nailed both Rhone-11 and Chartres.

[JSojourner]

No offense taken, BRTD -- I think you might be onto something about me.  LOL -- I often allow my pessimism to cloud my perception of reality.  Just like those who allow their optimism to say  "McCain's gonna sweep New England"  :-)

As to putting out the least hackish, most realistic maps -- I gotta say I remain impressed with AHDuke.  He really pisses me off sometimes when he goes on an anti-Obama rant.  But his assessment of the political map always strikes me as solid gold...a perfect balance on the optimist/pessimist scale.

Me?  I just can't let myself get my hopes up again.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I recently discovered I was good at predicting French by-election runoffs. I nailed both Rhone-11 and Chartres.

I also discovered I have a nacht for determining the hypotenuse of a right triangle

[Eraserhead]

jamespol is certainly one of our best.

Afterall, not all elections will be like 2004.

[Хahar 🤔]

I recently discovered I was good at predicting French by-election runoffs. I nailed both Rhone-11 and Chartres.

I also discovered I have a nacht for determining the hypotenuse of a right triangle

I didn't know you spoke German.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The "3% rule"

What's this?

[Хahar 🤔]

The "3% rule"

What's this?

Democratic senatorial candidates in NC always get 3% more than the top of the ticket.

[dead0man]

5. Mentioning membership in certain elite IQ clubs.  (AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION!!!)

Post of the day!

[Nym90]

Best are Vorlon, Sam Spade, Alcon, Al, Lewis, Jimrtex, Beet (miss him....).

[Sam Spade]

Sam Spade, even if he's too damn vague sometimes, does have a very competent record all-around.  Sometimes I wonder if he BSes sometimes, but if he does, he does a damn good job of it, and it's obviously

...

Yes, I do BS sometimes.  (like for example, the idea that I have any knowledge of Oregon whatsoever)

But you can't know everything in life, and being able to BS the parts you're weaker on is the key to success.  And even when I don't know something as well as I should, I try to pick up on what others who know something are saying, do the research to determine accuracy, and come back with more knowledge than before.  In other words, I'm not going to get caught flat-footed twice.

Sometimes I do play extremes to toy with certain posters, but I can't help myself.  I also, am a analyst who tends to play a lot more on gut feeling than most posters here.  Especially in places where numbers don't tend to answer much (i.e. policy issues).

Anyway, as a general note, I like your list, but undoubtedly missed someone and would like to cut a couple off. 

I'm also glad to see that BRTD finds me overrated.  I've strived to achieve that opinion.

[War on Want]

Al, Lewis, Alcon, Lunar, SamSpade and Verily

Yeah very sharp people, that give great assesments of political demographics and how organization works. I have learned loads from them and find that they have taught me much about how people vote and even some small cultural tendencies so I thank them.

[Lunar]

Anyway, as a general note, I like your list, but undoubtedly missed someone and would like to cut a couple off. 

If you cut me off your list, I'm cutting you off from mine in a retaliatory move!

[J. J.]

I enjoy reading posts from most of the "analysts" here. Alcon, Lunar, Sam, brittain, verily, and a few others.

I just dont like JJ's posts because they are so partisan and full of spin it makes me want to puke. Other than that...I dont have anything against him haha

They are not spin.  You guys just don't understand.

I actually would have never posted half the stuff about Palin if they were.