President Obama wasn’t the only winner in November’s election: Math also triumphed. At the forefront of the algorithmic charge was numbers nerd Nate Silver, who correctly predicted the presidential winner in all 50 states on his New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight.

Silver incorporated several factors into his calculations, including whether a candidate was an incumbent and how much money a candidate received in campaign contributions. But a hefty portion of Silver’s predictive secret sauce was the careful aggregation and weighting of results from multiple polls. To the chagrin of many, he was dead-on,
http://cheapjordansstock.com
, and election night was touted as a win for Silver as much as it was for the president. (As one fan tweeted: “Tonight, Nate Silver is the Chuck Norris of the Web. Or Chuck Norris is the Nate Silver of fighting.”)

Silver wasn’t the only math whiz prognosticating about this year’s political races. David Rothschild,
cheap jordans online
, an economist at Microsoft Research in New York City,
cheap wholesale jordans
, predicted back in February on his blog The Signal that Obama would win the election. That’s right,
cheap jordan shoes
, February. (Florida,
cheap jordans for sale
, which Obama won by a margin of less than 1 percent, was the only state that The Signal didn’t call correctly). Rothschild’s recipe for seeing the future was also a mix of ingredients,
cheap air jordans
, including economic indicators,
cheap jordans
, incumbency and Obama’s approval rating.

Clearly these multifactor mathematical approaches have merit,
cheap real jordans
. But recently Rothschild and his University

http://www.frbiz.com/p...7/ipad_cover_cgi_005.html

http://www.efti.org/es/search/node/

http://www.v-tadawul.n...com&p=89803#post89803