# Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2012)

Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.

I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.

Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2012)

He's down to two in Rasmussen.. every other pollster has an Obama lead...  

Even Republicans are starting to panic... They know they picked an awful candidate.


----------



## meson (Sep 15, 2012)

Freepers/Breitbart ....... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 15, 2012)

Romney will need a significant number of democrats to abandon the president and vote for him if the governor has any chance of winning. 

If this oversampling is any indication, thats not happening.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 15, 2012)

How'd you arrive at the conclusion that Dems were over-sampled?


----------



## ba1614 (Sep 15, 2012)

I don't think the polls matter, it's going to come down to who is energized most to get to the polls, and I believe that people are more energized to get rid of this failure than his supporters are to keep him.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2012)

ba1614 said:


> I don't think the polls matter, it's going to come down to who is energized most to get to the polls, and I believe that people are more energized to get rid of this failure than his supporters are to keep him.



And I know that's what you really need to believe... but not really.  

In fact, Obama will probably win for the following reason.  

Because the people who voted for him last time won't admit they made a mistake.  They have emotional investment in him. 

On the other hand, the people who voted for McCain have no emotional investment in Romney.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 15, 2012)

They were discussing this on Fox today..  They said wait for two wks out from the election as that's when these lying pollsters will make it real worried about their reputations at that point.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 15, 2012)

BTW- Majority of polls over sample democrats from between 6 - 13% they stated. ALWAYS over sampled.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 15, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



The funny part is, the have no idea how much damage they are doing to Obama by claiming a huge victory for him every day.

All that is doing is making what little voting base Obama has left feel comfortable that their job is done, while it's motivating the hundreds of millions of Americans who *HATE* Obama to get up off their couch and vote his ass out.

This is going to be a landslide loss for Obama that rivals the one Carter experienced (appropriate considering that Obama has followed the Jimmy Carter blueprint for failure to the letter - complete with allowing embassy's to be over run while showing fear of those responsible).


----------



## P@triot (Sep 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Because the people who voted for him last time won't admit they made a mistake.  They have emotional investment in him.



Holy shit.... JoeB., are you acknowleding that Obama has been a mistake for America?!?!?


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the polls matter, it's going to come down to who is energized most to get to the polls, and I believe that people are more energized to get rid of this failure than his supporters are to keep him.
> ...


So you acknowledge the left is driven by emotion.

There may be hope for you yet.


----------



## Black_Label (Sep 15, 2012)

With the writing on the wall Willard is going to lose, the right wingers are going into a full blown tinfoil meltdown.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 15, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Romney will need a significant number of democrats to abandon the president and vote for him if the governor has any chance of winning.
> 
> If this oversampling is any indication, thats not happening.



LMAO! First of all, a significant number of dumbocrats already have abandoned Obama. Did you see the epic ass-kicking he took in November 2010? Bill Clinton tried to get Hillary to run against Obama because the entire party has abandoned this radical marxist.

Second, a laughable 21% of Americans are registered Dumbocrats, while 42% are registered Republican's. The GOP wouldn't need a single dumbocrat vote for ANYTHING.

Man are you a mountain of misinformation...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 15, 2012)

Black_Label said:


> With the writing on the wall Willard is going to lose, the right wingers are going into a full blown tinfoil meltdown.



The second best part about Romney winning in an epic landslide? You're dumb ass won't show your face around here ever again out of shame...


----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Because the people who voted for him last time won't admit they made a mistake.  They have emotional investment in him.



A window into Joe.


----------



## Black_Label (Sep 15, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > With the writing on the wall Willard is going to lose, the right wingers are going into a full blown tinfoil meltdown.
> ...



Willard is getting his ass kicked in every poll except the hard right rasmussen, and has been for months. Are you that deranged that you think Willard will win by a landslide when it's clear he's going to lose?


----------



## AceRothstein (Sep 15, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> ...



Romney may win but if he does, it certainly won't be a landslide.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 15, 2012)

Black_Label said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



You do realize that Gallup +7 you were sporting wood over a few days ago is now +4, don't you...??   

Bounce is dead...

Barry is toast...


----------



## Steelplate (Sep 15, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> ...



Poodle boy.....you're one of the biggest douchebags on this board...."what little voting base"?......"hundreds of millions who hate Obama"?

You really don't get that whoever wins this election is going to be by a very narrow margin.

I know you really need to believe that the whole country believes in the Tea Party bullshit....but 30 years of trickle down that has gradually reduced our country into a debt ridden shell of it's former self, while the billionaires yuk it up behind your backs after pleading poverty to the taxman and broadcast their propaganda on the radio while good, hardworking people fall further and further behind is starting not to work anymore.....

Maybe the best thing for this country WOULD be for Romney to win....So America can revisit more Corporate pandering, more jobs outsourced, more money invested abroad than at home, more trade deficits, more misery for the masses, while the elite raise thair champagne glasses. Maybe that will wake some of you oh so gullible fuckers to the fact that as long as "trickling down" is optional....they aren't going to do it and the middle class will continue to shrink.


----------



## Salt Jones (Sep 15, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



Keep thinking that Romney has a chance of winning. When he gets crushed, maybe it will put you over the edge. Can you please film your meltdown?


----------



## ba1614 (Sep 15, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



And it only took an attempted insult for it to slip out.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 15, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> They were discussing this on Fox today..  They said wait for two wks out from the election as that's when these lying pollsters will make it real worried about their reputations at that point.



So the people on Fox were saying their own Foxnews poll showing Obama up by 5 is oversampling Democrats and trying to make Obama look better than he is??

Did you think before you posted that?


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2012)

ba1614 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Well, in his defense, I must say that Joe isn't very bright.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 15, 2012)

The NBC/WSJ poll for Ohio polled 38% D and 28% R.

In 2008 the exit polls showed 39% D and 31% R voted.


So if it makes you happy to shift the D/R ratio to match 2008, how much would that change Obama's 7 point lead???

8 points?  Hardly.  Obama is winning Ohio right now and Romney is barring-a-miracle fucked if he loses Ohio.

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


----------



## Rinata (Sep 15, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



Breitbart again???


----------



## Lovebears65 (Sep 15, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead


DOJ threaten to sue Gallap because of the poll numbers before were not in favor of The DEMS Messiah ..    Department of Justice sues Gallup | The Daily Caller


----------



## Politico (Sep 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > Because the people who voted for him last time won't admit they made a mistake.
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > With the writing on the wall Willard is going to lose, the right wingers are going into a full blown tinfoil meltdown.
> ...



Except it is never going to happen.  

ROmney hasn't been in the lead in the RCP average since 2011.  

The media is going full bore on him and Ryan seems to be doing his own thing.  

Always a bad sign when your veep is distancing himself from the catastrophe.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2012)

Politico said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Because the people who voted for him last time won't admit they made a mistake.
> ...



I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.  

Let's take your average Obama voter.  He voted for Obama for specific reasons. Maybe the economy sucks, but it isn't as bad as it was.  Romney hasn't done a darn thing to win them over.  He's too busy sucking up to people whom he should already have on the reservation. 

I just don't see those folks going to Romney.  

On the other hand, a lot of McCain folks voted for McCain because he was more moderate, a guy willling to work across the room, etc.  And some of us voted for McCain in the primary because we couldn't stand Romney in 2008.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



Of course they do.  Voting is ultimately an emotional investment.  

Just like you will vote against him because your insane hate consumes you.  

I'm voting for Obama because Romney sucks and I don't trust him.  Because he's taking the GOP completely in the wrong direction.  

But a lot of other people- yeah, it's an emotional thing... which is why Obama will win.  

You just don't have enough bitter white guys to get rid of him.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 15, 2012)

Lovebears65 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> ...



That's not why they were sued you stupid cracker.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Oh, you mean my insane hate you can't provide any examples of?  That insane hate?

Retard.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

Every time you post, you prove it, guy...


----------



## California Girl (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the polls matter, it's going to come down to who is energized most to get to the polls, and I believe that people are more energized to get rid of this failure than his supporters are to keep him.
> ...



Complete and utter bullshit, but you cling to whatever gets you through the day, JoeyBoy.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 16, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Do you think using racist terms makes you look intelligent? If so, I got some bad news for ya.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

California Girl said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ba1614 said:
> ...



Again, the sentence I've never heard uttered.  

"Wow, I totally screwed up voting for Obama in 2008.  I can't wait to vote for Romney this time."  

Haven't heard that yet.  

Have heard people say, "I liked McCain. But this Romney?  What a douchebag."  

Oh, wait. I've said that.  

So have a few other people I know.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Lovebears65 said:
> ...



I know I'm smarter than you are.  Bad news for you.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 16, 2012)

Fox did sue for the right to fire reporters who wont lie for them


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 16, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



Here is an actual breakdown of an another OVERSAMPLED POLL!!!
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone September 7-9, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cell phone-only respondents. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points. The error margin is four points for the sample of 826 registered voters, and 4.5 points for the sample of 710 likely voters. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York.
*Results  50% Obama  Romney 44%*

Democrats 32% of the 1,002 or 320  polled.  
GOP  26%  or 260 polled   
Independents  37%  or 370 polled

Studies show 47% of Independents lean Democrat so that meant 174 of Independents favor Democrat favor Obama or total OBAMA
combining Demo/Independent of 494 votes for Obama.

Total GOP/Independents or 386 Romney.

Now  If 50% of the 494 went for Obama (that was the poll results Obama 50%)  that works out to  1/10th of percent for Obama that each person that was polled.

but if the poll was made up of equal GOP democrats and GOP leaning Independents and DEM leaning Independents
the results would have been much closer then 50% for Obama!
Washington Post-ABC News Poll (washingtonpost.com)

Another POLL..

CNN POLL of 709 Likely voters  Polling Center: CNN Poll: Obama takes back the lead - Elections & Politics from CNN.com
Headline:: CNN Poll: Obama takes back the lead
CNN so excited!  Yes Obama takes back a 6% lead  so how did this happen??

Well if YOU are interested in the REAL TRUTH and FACTS of POLLING OVERSAMPLING!!

Down load the Polling questions and methodology and look at page 4 and see that
CNN counted 44 MORE DEMOCRATS that GOP!

So they are basing this 6% Obama voting edge to the FACT CNN asked 441 Democrats versus 397 GOP!

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/09/10/rel10a.pdf


So based on the OVERSAMPLING in just these two polls Obama is really hurting AS AN INCUMBENT He should be much farther ahead!


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 16, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



Well the over sampling has been for forever first day in office?. And yes it is to attempt to depress voter enthusiasm, but they've got to be freaking out because every time you see poll numbers right wingers are double digits on enthusiasm. 

Turn out will be every thing. This bastard ain't going down without a bloody fight. 

My garden is almost wrapped up and then I'll work Senate races.  If anyone needs a hand out there let me know.

The classic line "I got blisters on my fingers". I can rock for a long long time.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

What's funny about all these poll threads claiming  that the sampling is skewed is that they never actually show HOW it's skewed,

because they never prove what the numbers are supposed to be.

Someone show us what the sampling numbers are supposed to be, and then prove to us why they are supposed to be that.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

Example:

Who can tell us what the correct ratio of Democrats to Republicans should be in an Ohio presidential preference poll?

If you think you know the answer, tell us how you know the answer.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 16, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> BTW- Majority of polls over sample democrats from between 6 - 13% they stated. ALWAYS over sampled.



that's not oversampling... that is merely polling folks in proportion to historical voter turnout.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Every time you post, you prove it, guy...



Okay, I see the problem.  You see your own butthurt and think it's someone else's hatred.

You really are a sissy bedwetter.  Grow up, boy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the polls matter, it's going to come down to who is energized most to get to the polls, and I believe that people are more energized to get rid of this failure than his supporters are to keep him.
> ...



*the people who voted for him last time won't admit they made a mistake. They have emotional investment in him. *

These are the ones who will not vote at all this time.
Many others will admit their mistake, even if only to themselves, and vote against him.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.  

-- Ronald Reagan, the man whom the left hates because he said it was okay to be proud of being an American


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 16, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> What's funny about all these poll threads claiming  that the sampling is skewed is that they never actually show HOW it's skewed,
> 
> because they never prove what the numbers are supposed to be.
> 
> Someone show us what the sampling numbers are supposed to be, and then prove to us why they are supposed to be that.



Carb and I do hope you are the same Carb I came to know and respect as a dem on other boards but your best work was on Hannity you've always been with passion but with a base line. 

Here's your problem. It's "once in a lifetime" that a leader gets swept up in a feeling and then exalted into an office.

Your "Disney" world is crashing down around your shoulders. Speilberg can't make movie magic with this loser anymore.

The curtain has been pulled back. The utter failures of this administration are laid bare.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 16, 2012)

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Lovebears65 said:
> ...



the truth hurts.  the lawsuit had nothing to do with polling percentages.


----------



## 007 (Sep 16, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead


The libroids pretty much know the kenyan is going to lose. It's just a matter of how big. But this clinging to false impressions and lying to themselves now is just them avoiding the pain coming in November as long as they can. It's all about 'feeling good,' and as we all know, libroids think with their emotions, not their brains.

I don't think there's a thinking, logical person in America with an ounce of common sense, that doesn't lie to themselves that believes obama will be reelected.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny about all these poll threads claiming  that the sampling is skewed is that they never actually show HOW it's skewed,
> ...



Is that your excruciatingly tiresome way of saying you cannot show why or how the polls are skewed?

Don't feel bad.  Neither can anyone else.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

expatriate said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



What makes these posters so ignorant on this issue is that Gallup is supposedly skewing the poll in favor of Obama because of some imaginary threat,

and yet Gallup has Obama at +4, and Foxnews has Obama at +5.

Question to the ignorant:

What is causing Foxnews to skew their poll?


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> He's down to two in Rasmussen.. every other pollster has an Obama lead...
> 
> Even Republicans are starting to panic... They know they picked an awful candidate.



which ones...You big government types......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 16, 2012)

The polls are skewed because they're going on the assumption that voter turnout this year will mirror the 'once in a century' Democrat turnout of 2008.

It's not going to happen. Obama's support is down across so many demographics about the ONLY 'group' he can count on to turn out in comparable numbers is black folks.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2012)

Look at all these Republican true believers. They can't tell us how these polls are skewed, but they _feel_ it has to be so, and to so many extremist conservatives, their own precious feelings define their reality. A stunted sense of empathy is a common trait among hardline conservatives, so they're incapable of understanding that other people don't feel like they do.

Again, here's the current list of conspiracy theory excuses that Republicans are pre-positioning to explain their upcoming big loss. 

1. Rigged polls!
2. Democratic vote fraud!
3. Suppressing the military vote!
4. September/October surprise in the middle east!
5. Liberal media!
6. Black Panther thugs!
7. Welfare cases being bribed with more welfare!

Not surprisingly, you don't see any Democratics here pre-positioning conspiracy theory excuses to explain why they lost.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> The polls are skewed because they're going on the assumption that voter turnout this year will mirror the 'once in a century' Democrat turnout of 2008.
> 
> It's not going to happen. Obama's support is down across so many demographics about the ONLY 'group' he can count on to turn out in comparable numbers is black folks.



So the pollsters are supposed to skew their polls into a self-fulfilling prophecy?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2012)

Sept. 12: Polls Since Conventions Point to Decline in 'Enthusiasm Gap' - NYTimes.com

Since 1988, the average Republican turnout advantage in presidential election years -- that is, the difference between registered voter polls and election results -- has been +1.5.

This year, before the Democratic convention, it was around +3.0. Now it's down to +1.4, lower than the historical average, lower than the 2008 level of +2.1 (which was far from a record turnout year), far lower than the 2010 level of +6. 

The polls take these differences into account with their likely voter models. There is no turnout fairy who is going to wave her magic wand and save Mitt Romney. It's trending more the opposite way. The Democrats have put huge amounts of their cash into their ground game, which is far more important than expensive TV ads.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Sep 16, 2012)

Democraps control the media and pollsters. 

They believe if you tell enough lies through the media then rig polls to fool Joe Schmoe that it is really the truth, then they will vote against Romney/the GOP on election day. 

It is the mob mentality, that we see in the muslim world today....someone says it's true then it must be true....so let's go vote or riot!


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 16, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Look at all these Republican true believers. They can't tell us how these polls are skewed, but they _feel_ it has to be so, and to so many extremist conservatives, their own precious feelings define their reality. A stunted sense of empathy is a common trait among hardline conservatives, so they're incapable of understanding that other people don't feel like they do.
> 
> Again, here's the current list of conspiracy theory excuses that Republicans are pre-positioning to explain their upcoming big loss.
> 
> ...



The proof of oversampling has already been posted on this board.

Try to catch up..............


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Look at all these Republican true believers. They can't tell us how these polls are skewed, but they _feel_ it has to be so, and to so many extremist conservatives, their own precious feelings define their reality. A stunted sense of empathy is a common trait among hardline conservatives, so they're incapable of understanding that other people don't feel like they do.
> ...



There was no proof posted.  

You can't prove oversampling unless you can prove what the correct sampling should be, in these cases.

What is the correct sampling of Democrats vs. Republicans voting in 2012 in Ohio?

You tell us, then tell us how you know that number is correct.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 16, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead





> Both Romney and Obama win 90+% of their respective party's vote, but Romney beats Obama among Independents by 11 points. The only way Romney can win Independents by such a large margin and still trail Obama is if the sample is heavily skewed in favor of Democrats.



This is the same observation about that poll I made a few days ago.  It didn't make sense.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Sep 16, 2012)

If I want a rigged poll, take it in NYC. 

Sample the ghetto, gay areas and liberal elite areas.....end of story. 

Hell, I can stand on a street corner in NYC and pick out liberals 75% of the time....just ask them the poll questions. 

Also, the questions can be set up to be biased with built-in lies. "European leaders believe in Obama's foreign policies, but Romney has questioned them. Do you believe in Obama's foreign policies?" Yes or No....


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 16, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Yes there was.

The post convention bounce was from oversampling dems in boston..

Thanks for playing...............


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> The proof of oversampling has already been posted on this board.



Then why are you and the other conservatives on this thread so incapable of showing that proof, despite being asked for it over and over? Such "proof" apparently exists only in your own minds. I'm sure you _feel_ you've proven it, but the reason-based community will require more "proof" than just your feelings.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



Don't be an asshole.  Please.  Let your 'nut friends be the assholes.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> ...



It easily makes sense if the poll oversampled CONSERVATIVE Independents.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

The PPP poll showing Obama winning Ohio by 5 sampled 4 percentage points fewer Democrats vs. Republicans vs. the actual turnout in 2008.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Sep 16, 2012)

Obamination could get caught picking his nose on TV, then a poll will come out saying his ratings went up....


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Look at all these Republican true believers. They can't tell us how these polls are skewed, but they _feel_ it has to be so, and to so many extremist conservatives, their own precious feelings define their reality. A stunted sense of empathy is a common trait among hardline conservatives, so they're incapable of understanding that other people don't feel like they do.
> 
> Again, here's the current list of conspiracy theory excuses that Republicans are pre-positioning to explain their upcoming big loss.
> 
> ...


Nonsense.  It's the same one we've been hearing for 4 years now:

"If you don't support Obama, you're racist!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Every time you post, you prove it, guy...
> ...



Naw, I enjoy living rent free in your head, man.  

The only butthurt is you whining about being called a racist when you ought to be used to that by now...


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 16, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > The proof of oversampling has already been posted on this board.
> ...



Are your fingers broke??????

It was posted here in this forum...

Remain ignorant at your peril...........


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 16, 2012)

I am now officially sand bagging...Bring on the idiot democrats that doubt oversampling..........


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Oh, I'm not whining about it.  I'm completely used to being called a racist by idiot leftists who can't defend the policies and politicians they support and seek to shame those who disagree into silence.  

Meanwhile, the fact remains that you have utterly failed to provide even one example of my alleged racism.  If it was as obvious as you claim, you shouldn't have any trouble providing evidence, should you?

Yet you haven't.  Therefore, your claim is false, and you know it.

But you bitterly cling to the lie.  How's that working out for you?  Have you shamed me into silence yet?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> I am now officially sand bagging...Bring on the idiot democrats that doubt oversampling..........



The cultists certainly do get angry with anyone who casts doubt on the cult's holy dogma.

The kooks are now stating that the same pollsters which called 2008 and 2010 nearly perfectly are now all obviously totally wrong. Why? Because they _feel_ it has to be so. Other than their precious feelings, they have no evidence that the party distribution weightings used are incorrect. They feel that since they themselves hate all liberals in a completely deranged and obsessive fashion, everyone else has to be just like them, and thus the demographics couldn't possibly be the way they are.

Democrats didn't act like this in 2010. We knew we were in deep trouble. There was a bit of denial going on about how bad it would be, but we certainly didn't whine about how the polls were obviously rigged because they all showed the Democrats getting pasted.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 16, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > I am now officially sand bagging...Bring on the idiot democrats that doubt oversampling..........
> ...



Yawn...... I still recall democrats needing therapy after a recent election............They were many articles about it, even from the fish wrap times.......


Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 16, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



They showed it multiple times dumb ass.  Didn't you just tell someone else you were smarter than them?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

daveman said:


> Oh, I'm not whining about it.  I'm completely used to being called a racist by idiot leftists who can't defend the policies and politicians they support and seek to shame those who disagree into silence.
> 
> Meanwhile, the fact remains that you have utterly failed to provide even one example of my alleged racism.  If it was as obvious as you claim, you shouldn't have any trouble providing evidence, should you?
> 
> ...



Oh, no, you're pretty much shameless and in denial.  

I gave you the easy test to prove you are not a racist.  

Name five things Obama has done you agree with.  

Betcha can't do it.


----------



## kaz (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the polls matter, it's going to come down to who is energized most to get to the polls, and I believe that people are more energized to get rid of this failure than his supporters are to keep him.
> ...



Actually your point far more supports ba's than contradicts it.  Not admitting a mistake is a pretty good reason to say you support Obama then stay home.  Think about it.


----------



## Meister (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'm not whining about it.  I'm completely used to being called a racist by idiot leftists who can't defend the policies and politicians they support and seek to shame those who disagree into silence.
> ...



Joe, that is not a litmus test for being a racist....just sayin'


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 16, 2012)

Meister said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Desperation ploy....And I am saying it..............


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

Meister said:


> Joe, that is not a litmus test for being a racist....just sayin'



I think it's a pretty good test for me.  I think it separates the folks who have sensible complaints about Obama's leadership (which in my opinion, hasn't been great), and folks like a few of our posters here who are going to hate Obama no matter what he does.  

Even if it's something they used to support.  

Just my opinion.  

What I'm seeing in this campaign, is that the more hate someone has for Obama, the more likely the underlying cause of it is racial animus more than policy disagreement.

And what I find most distressing about Romney is that he's playing into it rather than distancing himself from it like McCain had the decency to do.  

But McCain lost.  If Romney wins doing this, it's a very said comment on our culture.


----------



## kaz (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, that is not a litmus test for being a racist....just sayin'
> ...



Yeah, yeah, rational people don't hate blacks, they hate Mormons and Jews.  You're all over that.

OK, Skippy, since we hated Kerry, name three differences between Obama and Kerry that are not pie in the sky that would lead to why we should not hate Obama like we did the pale dolt who ran for President on his wife's Republican money.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Jews, who I never talk about... but okay, whatever Skippy.  

And, no, I never saw the kind of hatred for Kerry I see for Obama.  Heck, even CLINTON didn't face this much hate. 

No one ever questioned where Kerry was born, to start with.  And then insisted that he wasn't born here even after being given proof he was. 

And while a few things disparaging were said about Theresa, absolutely none of the horrible things I've heard said about Michelle (the ones that come to mind are "Moo-Chelle" and "The First Wookie")  

Oh, and no one ever doubted Kerry's religion. He said he was Catholic and people took him at his word he was.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> absolutely none of the horrible things I've heard said about Michelle (the ones that come to mind are "Moo-Chelle" and "The First Wookie")



Holy shit that is terrible.


----------



## kaz (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



So in other words you have no idea at all how Obama is better for our side then Kerry, and no, you're not pulling the "you're a racist" stick out of your ass.  Got it.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'm not whining about it.  I'm completely used to being called a racist by idiot leftists who can't defend the policies and politicians they support and seek to shame those who disagree into silence.
> ...


Haven't we done this before?

1.  Taking out the Somali pirates.

2.  Keeping GITMO open.

3.  Giving the order to raid bin Laden's compound (although that really was a no-brainer).

4.  Keeping to Bush's Iraq withdrawal timetable.

5.   Repealed Dont Ask, Dont Tell.

So, it looks like you're full of shit, doesn't it?


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

Meister said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Since he can't find any evidence that I am indeed a racist as he claims, let the boy at least TRY to pretend he won, okay?  

Of course, as it turns out, he lost.  Again.  Badly.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 16, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



No they didn't.  They couldn't show what the demographics of the polls SHOULD be, therefore,

they couldn't have shown how they were skewed.  You can't arbitrarily assume some made-up number is the right one.

In fact they don't even show the supposed correct numbers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

kaz said:


> So in other words you have no idea at all how Obama is better for our side then Kerry, and no, you're not pulling the "you're a racist" stick out of your ass.  Got it.



As I often say when reading your posts, I ask, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?.  

I gave you THREE- count them - THREE solid examples of how the wingnut right wing's attitude towards Obama is worse than their treatment of Kerry, whom the worst that was done to him was his conduct during the war was challenged. (Which I personally have no problem with, since that's what he chose to run on.)


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And, no, you dind't do that before and no, that's not really much of a list.  You barely give him credit for 3, and the others were hejust kept Bush policies...  

But I guess you do have enough shame to at least make the effort, I'll give you that.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


No shame required, despite the pathetic insistence on your part.

So, in summary, you can't provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim that I'm a racist, to include your silly little "test".

Yet you will keep insisting I'm a racist.

Perhaps it's time you just admit you're a butthurt little sissy bedwetter.  Acknowledgement is the first step to recovery.

Of course, you don't want to recover.  You like being a butthurt little sissy bedwetter.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2012)

daveman said:


> No shame required, despite the pathetic insistence on your part.
> 
> So, in summary, you can't provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim that I'm a racist, to include your silly little "test".
> 
> ...



Sorry, guy, that's my impression, just from reading your posts....  

Of course, for every post where I've called you a racist, you've done about 10 posts whining about me calling you a racist.  

Someone doesn't whine that much unless I've hit a vital spot...


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > No shame required, despite the pathetic insistence on your part.
> ...


Your impression is, of course, utter bullshit.

And once again, I'm not whining.  I'm pointing out the inescapable fact that you're unable to prove your claims.  

Your Credibility Meter is pegged on zero, kid.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 16, 2012)

A lot of Dems who verbally support Obama on 'principle' will not show up to the polls b/c failure creates apathy. That's a real universal principle.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



Obama is winning across the board.  He's surprisingly contesting Florida after sewing up Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Wisconsin is not far behind.  

It's a good thing.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 16, 2012)

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> ...



When the polls question 25% more Democrats than Republicans you SHOULD be up by double digits!

You're NOT!

Sucks to be you...


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Actually it sucks to be Romney--unless you're so much of an idiot you believe that nearly every poll taken since May has oversampled  Democrats.

You can try to BS others but you and other Romney supporters are BS'ing yourselves.  

Want to make a bet?  If Obama wins, you quit posting. If Romney wins, I'll quit posting.  

Deal?


----------



## Meister (Sep 16, 2012)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



We all suck with Obama in charge.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 16, 2012)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Can you produce a poll YOU BELIEVE that hasn't sampled 25% more Dems than Reps?

I don't think you can...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 16, 2012)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Shut the fuck up with your bet already. We already know you'll either:

A. Not honor it.

or 

B. Come back as another screen name.

Nobody is taking you up on it b/c they know this. 

Hey CC, tell me how my ass tastes bitch.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 16, 2012)

No worries here...................


Election model with 100% success rate for past 30 years predicts Romney victory | The Raw Story



These guys already had it as a blowout and were waiting to hit the re-set button after the Sept economic #'s came in..........and we all know how that went.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 16, 2012)




----------



## AmericanFirst (Sep 16, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Because the people who voted for him last time won't admit they made a mistake.  They have emotional investment in him.
> ...


Sounds like it, wait for his response trying to pull his foot out of his mouth.


----------



## Peach (Sep 16, 2012)

NONSENSE. The polls are of "likely voters". CONs have made voting so difficult in many states to keep those LIKELY to vote to a minimum. Again, at this time Obama is ahead about 3-4%, and Pubbies are doing all they can to keep at least 10% FROM voting.

AND, no, voting should REQUIRE NO EFFORT! Constitutional rights are NOT "earned" CONdumbs.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 16, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> The polls are skewed because they're going on the assumption that voter turnout this year will mirror the 'once in a century' Democrat turnout of 2008.



How did you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 16, 2012)

8537 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > The polls are skewed because they're going on the assumption that voter turnout this year will mirror the 'once in a century' Democrat turnout of 2008.
> ...



Look at their methodology. 25% more Democrats than Republicans? 

Buy that pig in a poke if you want to, but the ONLY poll that counts will come out the night of Nov. 6...

Wear your big boy Pull-ups...


----------



## 8537 (Sep 16, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



What do you believe an accurate breakdown would be, and how did you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 16, 2012)

AceRothstein said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


It doesn't have to be, but it might likely be considering the past 4 years have taught American voters that you just can't make a socialist follower who kicks podiums when stirred into being a free world leader.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 16, 2012)

President Obama    332      Governor Romney    206

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups

Pretty much these same numbers since June.


----------



## Peach (Sep 16, 2012)

8537 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > The polls are skewed because they're going on the assumption that voter turnout this year will mirror the 'once in a century' Democrat turnout of 2008.
> ...



It is the daily soundbite from the extremist right. In Florida, not only must a voter have CURRENT photo ID, the address must match that of the voter rolls. Rick 'the VULTURE' Scott has put many hours into barring voters from the franchise. Many counties now have supervisor of elections offices open only 35 hours a week, some propose 30 hours a week to TRIM the county budgets. Scott's purge of eligible voters has slowed, but his cronies have also redesigned districts at whim. Precincts changed in my county a couple of months ago, thus, you must learn the new polling place or be denied the RIGHT to vote. All that can be done to stop the "wrong kind" from voting is being done.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Nuh-UH!!

/JoeB


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> A lot of Dems who verbally support Obama on 'principle' will not show up to the polls b/c failure creates apathy. That's a real universal principle.



Yeah, look at the recent birther convention that had to be cancelled due to apathy.  Have you ever felt less relevant Klanny?


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Can you pick a swing state where the Dems outnumber Republicans by 25%?  Or are Dems just issued different phone numbers and that is how EVERY polling agency knows they are Democrats and only calls them

C'mon...don't bitch out on me...do we have a deal or are you a scared little girl?


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> No worries here...................
> 
> 
> Election model with 100% success rate for past 30 years predicts Romney victory | The Raw Story
> ...



Come on...

If Obama wins, you stop posting.
If Romney wins, I stop posting.

You have a model to base your posting future on....I'm just going on gut instinct.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 16, 2012)

candycorn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of Dems who verbally support Obama on 'principle' will not show up to the polls b/c failure creates apathy. That's a real universal principle.
> ...



I think you'd be as good of a stand-up comedian as you would a political pundit


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So you incessant whininng and stalking aren't whining and stalking... 

Got it.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 17, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



Has anyone else noticed the growing number of parallels between the 2012 GOP and the 9/11 Truthers?  

We've seen the denial about Bin Laden being killed.  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/229263-crazy-conservatives-merge-conspiracy-nonsense-into-political-forums.html#post5467892 

Even at this late date, the number of *confirmed* birthers is actually growing....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/246837-fed-prints-more-money-in-a-last-attempt-to-save-obama-5.html#post5988368

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/245699-dont-piss-valerie-jarrett-off-do-it-and-youre-gone.html#post5955201

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/244736-romney-to-cut-280-000-jobs-just-ask-him-10.html#post5934062

...though I've long held that if you were to scratch the average GOP supporter on this message board, they'd bleed birther black.  

The conspiracy theories about the media being in the bag for Obama are prevalent as ever:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/241961-mike-barnicle-pompous-non-credible-ass.html#post5854613

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/244334-poll-romneys-convention-speech-gets-record-low-marks-2.html#post5922405

Hell, they even tried to paint major industries as having chose sides:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/206878-karl-rove-offended-by-clint-eastwood-s-chrysler-ad.html#post4773458

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/206878-karl-rove-offended-by-clint-eastwood-s-chrysler-ad.html#post4773465

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/227995-hollywood-rides-to-obamas-rescue.html#post5424013

Now of course, the polling agencies are "all against them" too.  Except of course for the ones they agree with.  Basically, Rasmussen is the Alex Jones of the GOP  

I hope it doesn't get to the point of their producing low quality videos about Obama and this "conspiracy".  Oh wait,  _Obama 2016_ came out already.


----------



## daveman (Sep 17, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Just remember, Skippy -- I'm not the one who said he'd report any responses from his neg reps.

That would be you, you sissy bedwetter.  

On top of that, you're incapable of originality.  

You're simply not as bright as you've lied to yourself you are.


----------



## miami_thomas (Sep 17, 2012)

8537 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Just take a look at Wisconsin. More republicans showed up in the primaries for Scott and he was unopposed.


----------



## kaz (Sep 17, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > So in other words you have no idea at all how Obama is better for our side then Kerry, and no, you're not pulling the "you're a racist" stick out of your ass.  Got it.
> ...



That wasn't the question dumb ass.  You keep saying the only reason we don't like Obama, who is a Marxist, is because he's black.  I asked for three ways that Obama's policies are better ... by our standards, not your hack partisan liberal Democrat ones ... that Obama is better than Kerry.

Name three things that a fiscal conservative would say wow, Obama is better than Kerry, which would then at least attempt to support your contention.

And you're butt stupid, you keep running around yelling racist, racist, so I respond with you hate Jews and you're like where did that come from?  Mirror, asshole.  That you have to resort to the stupid tactics you do is the best proof what a lame candidate you have.  If Obama didn't blow, you'd stick to the issues.  But in every discussion you go ad hominem because it's all you got, girlfriend.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2012)

daveman said:


> Just remember, Skippy -- I'm not the one who said he'd report any responses from his neg reps.
> 
> That would be you, you sissy bedwetter.
> 
> ...



NO, I said I'd report you if you didn't stop harrassing me by PM.   

Which is a violation of the rules.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2012)

kaz said:


> That wasn't the question dumb ass.  You keep saying the only reason we don't like Obama, who is a Marxist, is because he's black.  I asked for three ways that Obama's policies are better ... by our standards, not your hack partisan liberal Democrat ones ... that Obama is better than Kerry.
> 
> Name three things that a fiscal conservative would say wow, Obama is better than Kerry, which would then at least attempt to support your contention.
> 
> And you're butt stupid, you keep running around yelling racist, racist, so I respond with you hate Jews and you're like where did that come from?  Mirror, asshole.  That you have to resort to the stupid tactics you do is the best proof what a lame candidate you have.  If Obama didn't blow, you'd stick to the issues.  But in every discussion you go ad hominem because it's all you got, girlfriend.



Guy, you act like we really CARE if you Teabagging idiots have any ideas.  

If you guys are against it, it's probably because it's humane and sensible.  

But I'll give you one example-  YOu guys were all for individual mandates- until the black guy did them.  

Romneycare was wonderful... until they started calling it Obamacare.  

Then it became "Marxists"  - Which is teabagger for the N-word.


----------



## miami_thomas (Sep 17, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > That wasn't the question dumb ass.  You keep saying the only reason we don't like Obama, who is a Marxist, is because he's black.  I asked for three ways that Obama's policies are better ... by our standards, not your hack partisan liberal Democrat ones ... that Obama is better than Kerry.
> ...



I was never for individual mandates. Where is the poll showing a majority of conservatives were for individual mandates? Show me where there is anything that government wants to force people to do that conservatives are for. Now do states have a right to pass things like this? Sure they do and it is up to the people in that state to decide if they vote that person out of office for doing so. Last, we are not like the Democrat party where we support everything the Republican Party does. That is the Democrats that do that.


----------



## kaz (Sep 17, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > That wasn't the question dumb ass.  You keep saying the only reason we don't like Obama, who is a Marxist, is because he's black.  I asked for three ways that Obama's policies are better ... by our standards, not your hack partisan liberal Democrat ones ... that Obama is better than Kerry.
> ...



Socialized medicine is a reason that fiscal conservatives would support Obama.  I can't say you ever pass on an opportunity to show you're mentally retarded.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 17, 2012)

miami_thomas said:


> Show me where there is anything that government wants to force people to do that conservatives are for.



conservatives certainly support having government force women to carry pregnancies to term.

just sayin'


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



If all the polls are skewed in favor of the Democrats, how is it that the realclear final poll average in 2008 was only 3/10ths of a point off the final result?


----------



## miami_thomas (Sep 17, 2012)

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So in your mind fiscal Conservatives support saving money over saving lives? One, socialized medicine sacrifices quality and quantity to provide cheaper services so that is a problem. Second, we are not just talking socialized medicine we are also talking about subsidized medicine and in the end it will end up costing more not less.


----------



## miami_thomas (Sep 17, 2012)

expatriate said:


> miami_thomas said:
> 
> 
> > Show me where there is anything that government wants to force people to do that conservatives are for.
> ...



Look, I for one could care less about abortion but for the sake of argument. You are saying that Conservatives saying that abortion is murder is requesting government to force something on someone?


----------



## miami_thomas (Sep 17, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Quote from this story
"Not only did these samples fail to reflect the partisan make-up of the 2010 election turnout in either state, they even oversampled Democrats compared to the 2008 turnout and 2008 was the best year for Democratic turnout in a generation. "

Hit it: Quality Control Among the Polls: Will RealClearPolitics.com Protect Its Brand? - Hugh Hewitt - [page]


----------



## expatriate (Sep 17, 2012)

miami_thomas said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > miami_thomas said:
> ...



I am saying exactly what I said.  Conservatives have no problem having government force THEIR beliefs down other people's throats and make them adhere to them.  You asked where there is anything that government wants to force people to do that conservatives are for.  I gave you one example of just that.


----------



## miami_thomas (Sep 17, 2012)

expatriate said:


> miami_thomas said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



They also believe that people should be forced to not murder because according to their beliefs it is wrong. Should we also remove that one too? How about stealing should we do away with that one as well.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 17, 2012)

miami_thomas said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > miami_thomas said:
> ...



stealing and murder are against the law.  abortion is not.  And your question was not about what laws should be removed, but what conservatives wanted government to force other people to do.  I answered your question.  time to accept the fact that I answered it with a valid example and move on.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 17, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Irrelevant to this year's election...

If 0bama is only up by small numbers when oversampling democratics by 10% or more in some cases, then if your boy doesn't pull in those turnout percentages in November, he is toast...

Clue:  He's not going to pull in 2008 numbers...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



How is a pollster supposed to predict what the ratio of Democrat to Republican turnout will be?


----------



## amrchaos (Sep 17, 2012)

A better question,  what is the Democrat versus Republican ratio for the general population being sampled?

In some states, there are more democrats than Republicans. I am assuming Ohio happens to be one of those states(I could be wrong--I have to check the stats)

Florida, on the other hand, has more Republicans(and a large Libertarian base for those that are wondering) than Democrats.  So a poll for Florida should be skewed more towards Reps than Dems while a poll for Ohio skewed more for dems than Reps.  

In any case--lots of random samplings and averages over those samplings should return the likely ballot turn out.   So the question is propbably how big is their pool than an issue of ratio to start with.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2012)

miami_thomas said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I already pointed out that the PPP poll for Ohio, with Obama at+5, undersampled Democrats by 4 points from 2008.

Obama is currently winning.  Deal with it.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 17, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Plenty of methods for garnering current voter/party enthusiasm or apathy, then apply to sampling...

If you want to pretend that voter turnout will be like it was in 2008, nobody can stop you...

But looking at some of the recent ones, they are going way beyond the difference in 2008...  Bad news for you fluffers is that Barry is not doing well with even THAT sampling...

Barry is in trouble...  I know it, he knows it, but it looks like you fluffers are oblivious...


----------



## 8537 (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


you mean like doing a poll of registered voters, asking party affiliation?  That kind of method?


----------



## 8537 (Sep 17, 2012)

miami_thomas said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Eh....OK then.  So what do you believe an accurate breakdown would be, and how did you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 17, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> They were discussing this on Fox today..  They said wait for two wks out from the election as that's when these lying pollsters will make it real worried about their reputations at that point.



That's what I've been saying about Rasmussen all along.  When it gets closer to the election, they'll start giving us the real numbers.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 17, 2012)

8537 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You can hang your hat on polls that oversample by wide margins, but if Barry doesn't get that turnout the results won't be good for your side...

Live by the 2008 sword, die by the 2008 sword...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Or, they could do what Rasmussen does, make people pay to see the internals of their polls.  

The president has 94 electoral votes to work with from 2008.  That's 94 electoral votes he can afford to lose from 2008 before he loses in 2012.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



So you claim there are "plenty of methods" but you can't actually explain what they might be?

How do you know they over-sampled Democrats?


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 17, 2012)

8537 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



I don't work for a polling company...  I'm confident they have methods, though...


----------



## 8537 (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Your "confident they have methods" because...well...that just "feels" right or what?

I agree - they have methods.  Namely, they do a poll of a few thousand randomly-sampled people asking party affiliation.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 17, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Which boils down to a few key swing states...

Barry ahead in polls that sample heavily toward D's by small margins is not good for the empty chair...


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 17, 2012)

8537 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



I'm sure they do...  They may not all be the same, though...


----------



## 8537 (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



They all use the same method for most purposes.  Namely, they poll a whole bunch of people and ask - and that's why all of the samplings from Fox to Gallup to PPP return breakdowns within each other's margin of error.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 17, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead





> Registered Democrats still dominate the political playing field with  more than 42 million voters, compared to 30 million Republicans and 24  million independents.


Voters are leaving main parties in droves

There ARE more registered democrats than registered republicans, even with democrats loosing many (more than 2.5 million) of their registered voters to independents since 2008.

The polling should reflect this....?


----------



## wjmacguffin (Sep 17, 2012)

Lovebears65 said:


> DOJ threaten to sue Gallap because of the poll numbers before were not in favor of The DEMS Messiah ..    Department of Justice sues Gallup | The Daily Caller



Actually, the DOJ joined a lawsuit (no threat) about a month ago accusing Gallup of overcharging the federal government. There's nothing about poll numbers listed in the story you quoted. Did you not actually read the story you quoted or are you just that bad at lying? 

Perhaps you're one of those people who eschew facts for conspiracy and believe the whole overcharging aspect is a smoke screen to bully Gallop into giving Obama better numbers.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 17, 2012)

8537 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Where does voter apathy factor into that method when using Registered Voters?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 17, 2012)

There was a record turnout in 2008 -- for _both_ sides. The Democrats didn't get any advantage from the high turnout. The Republican advantage in percentage of registered voters who voted was pretty much the same as it always was, the same as it is now. That's why it's silly to claim that a 2008 turnout model is favoring Democrats.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



For the third time, Obama leads by 5 in Ohio in the PPP poll that sampled +4 Democrats over Republicans,

when the 2008 Ohio exit polls counted +8 Democrats over Republicans actually voting.

There's your lower D turnout factored in, and Obama is still ahead.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 17, 2012)

It's interesting...

The 2 pollsters in Realclear's current average giving Obama the biggest lead?

CNN and Foxnews.

The 2 pollsters in 2008 that hit the 7 point Obama win on the nose?

CNN and Foxnews.


----------



## kaz (Sep 17, 2012)

miami_thomas said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Senior moment there?  I'm against socialized medicine, I was mocking Joe the Racist.  I asked how Obama was conservative and he said Obama's for socialized medicine.


----------



## kaz (Sep 17, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> A better question,  what is the Democrat versus Republican ratio for the general population being sampled?



That's an irrelevant question.  The oversampling argument isn't that they sampled more Democrats than Republicans, it's that they sampled more Democrats than there are.  One reason for that is that Democrats are very eager to tell people they are for the Marxist in the Oval Office and the rest of us are more likely to not answer the phone.  I live in North Carolina and I get endless calls from polling companies, none of which have gotten past my answering machine.  Another reason is that Democrats are less likely to show up at the polls, particularly if it's raining or cold.  This is referred to as "likely" voters, and determining who is "likely" to vote is pure art.  There are lots of ways they do it, none of them without shortcomings.


----------



## kaz (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



That is a huge issue for Democrats.  Republicans had that issue with McCain.  Many people who would have voted for him had they gone to the polls didn't.  This election, Obama is dominating the "don't give a fuck" crowd.

One reason for that is that they frequently determine "likely" voters based on the question, "did you vote in 2008?"  A lot of people who say Obama and yes will be busy not caring enough to show up this time.  It's really hard to think of a sequence where anything breaks in favor of Obama unless the economy improves, and there isn't much time for that and no indication at all it's going to happen.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 17, 2012)

kaz said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



admittedly, I am physically removed from the electorate - or most of it anyway - but I have lengthy political discussions with my three adult children living stateside... I have asked them if they, themselves are "not giving a fuck" about this election, and, if their friends and colleagues are apathetic about this election.  They don't see it.  I think it is kind of funny - in a pathetic sort of way - how Romney supporters will grasp at anything to try and spin the polling data and convince us - but most probably, themselves - that even though Obama leads in all the key swing states and odds makers have him as a 2 to 1 favorite, Mitt is actually doing quite well and will obviously prevail on election day.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2012)

kaz said:


> Socialized medicine is a reason that fiscal conservatives would support Obama.  I can't say you ever pass on an opportunity to show you're mentally retarded.



YOu jokers are nominating Romney, the guy who made the Beta Version... 

Except when Romney did it, it was called "A free enterprise solution to the Problem"... The Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation used those exact words.  

Until the Black Guy Did It.  

Then it became "Marxism" and "Socialized Medicine".


----------



## 8537 (Sep 17, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



The most recent polls aren't registered voters.  They are almost exclusively Likely Voters.


----------



## daveman (Sep 17, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember, Skippy -- I'm not the one who said he'd report any responses from his neg reps.
> ...


ONE response to your neg rep isn't harassment, you drippy pussy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



no, but about 20 were, especially when I asked you to stop.. 

Now any PM's from you are deleted without being read.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 17, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> It's interesting...
> 
> The 2 pollsters in Realclear's current average giving Obama the biggest lead?
> 
> ...



So you agree that if 0bama doesn't hit that 7% difference he's toast....


----------



## daveman (Sep 17, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And now you're just fucking flat-out lying.

I'd say that's neg-rep worthy.  Watching you cry like the little bitch you are will be amusing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Not crying at all.. I LOVE the fact I live rent free in your head, man.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 18, 2012)

expatriate said:


> miami_thomas said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Aren't you also stating that you can do something by stating what you can't do in a two-choice dynamic?  If there is Coke and Pepsi and I say you can't have Coke, that means you get Pepsi; right?  

When conservatives say you can't marry the person you love, they're saying you can only marry someone you don't love.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 18, 2012)

Candy Corn was at Taco Bell the other day and he saw some latinos with plastic forks. He grabbed them from em and told them they couldn't be trusted. True Story.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 18, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting...
> ...



That makes no sense.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 18, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I agree.  complete gibberish.  Obama needs to hit 270 on election day... I personally could give a shit if he gets to 270  with LESS than a majority of the popular vote, just like Dubya did, but I think that he will win both the popular vote AND the electoral college, and if he wins the electoral college by only 270-268, he still gets four more years.  Hitting 7% on some poll is totally irrelevant.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 18, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Candy Corn was at Taco Bell the other day and he saw some latinos with plastic forks. He grabbed them from em and told them they couldn't be trusted. True Story.



The racist trait is strong in you.  It has made you dull, boring, and irrelevant.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 18, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You're not thinking... (as usual)

If 0bama doesn't get that 7% difference in turnout on election day then he's toast, according to the polls that have him up by only +2 or +3 where democratics are heavily sampled...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 18, 2012)

I think it is way too early to tell just how big the Obama victory might be.  Mittens Romney seems to be evolving into an incredibly efficient "step on your own dick" machine.  It won't take TOO many more of those clownishly ridiculous and clearly un-presidential statements to turn this into a laugher.  47%??? What an elitist tool he is.  Clearly not ready for prime time, imo.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 18, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



The 7% I referred to was how much Obama won by in 2008.  CNN and Foxnews had that margin on the nose in 2008.


----------



## hazlnut (Sep 18, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.



Read:  I'm scared shitless and just need to convince myself, this isn't happening, this isn't happening...


----------



## Toro (Sep 18, 2012)

I remember conservatives saying this exact same thing the last election.  But if you averaged all the polls in the last few days of the election, they averaged to within 1% of the actual vote.

So it's hard to take this too seriously.


----------



## daveman (Sep 21, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Really?  I'd say you have it backwards.  Which one of us is whining about stalking?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2012)

Why you're right.. you took a week off before you resumed stalking... your therapist is very proud of you.


----------



## daveman (Sep 22, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Why you're right.. you took a week off before you resumed stalking... your therapist is very proud of you.



Like most leftists, you can't handle disagreement.  It oppresses you.  You want the freedom to say what you like with no repercussions.

Grow up, boy.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 22, 2012)

I didn't know there were that many Democrats left.  

You know...it's strange...only in the states where Obama is winning are the Dems being overpolled.  Somehow, they don't over-poll in Texas, Nebraska, Louisiana, Georgia....  In those states, the pollsters miraculously pick out just the right number of 50/50 Dems and Reps.  Just in the states where Obama is winning.

The whole idea of oversampling by nearly EVERY POLLING ORGANIZATION is such shit that republicans should be ashamed of even bringing it up.  Then there would have to be some shame left in party politics for that to happen.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Why you're right.. you took a week off before you resumed stalking... your therapist is very proud of you.
> ...



There are no reprecussions, other than you sadly following me around because no one else pays attention to you anymore....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2012)

candycorn said:


> I didn't know there were that many Democrats left.
> 
> You know...it's strange...only in the states where Obama is winning are the Dems being overpolled.  Somehow, they don't over-poll in Texas, Nebraska, Louisiana, Georgia....  In those states, the pollsters miraculously pick out just the right number of 50/50 Dems and Reps.  Just in the states where Obama is winning.
> 
> The whole idea of oversampling by nearly EVERY POLLING ORGANIZATION is such shit that republicans should be ashamed of even bringing it up.  Then there would have to be some shame left in party politics for that to happen.



*You know...it's strange...only in the states where Obama is winning are the Dems being overpolled.*

I'm pretty sure all the polls that use the 2008 turnout models are overpolling Dems in every state.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 30, 2012)

candycorn said:


> I didn't know there were that many Democrats left.
> 
> You know...it's strange...only in the states where Obama is winning are the Dems being overpolled.  Somehow, they don't over-poll in Texas, Nebraska, Louisiana, Georgia....  In those states, the pollsters miraculously pick out just the right number of 50/50 Dems and Reps.  Just in the states where Obama is winning.
> 
> The whole idea of oversampling by nearly EVERY POLLING ORGANIZATION is such shit that republicans should be ashamed of even bringing it up.  Then there would have to be some shame left in party politics for that to happen.



They're over-polling Democrats in EVERY state, you really think it's that close in solidly Red states?

Go for it if that's what you want to believe...


----------



## daveman (Sep 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Why you're right.. you took a week off before you resumed stalking... your therapist is very proud of you.
> ...


Timestamped:  09-22-2012, 08:46 AM


JoeB131 said:


> There are no reprecussions, other than you sadly following me around because no one else pays attention to you anymore....


Timestamped:  Today, 03:39 PM

8 and a half days later -- and I'M following YOU around.

What a pussy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Well, I actually have a life outside of here, unlike yourself...  

And I knew I could bait you pretty easily. 

Dance, my OCD puppet... Dance.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 12, 2014)

GoneBezerk said:


> Democraps control the media and pollsters.
> 
> They believe if you tell enough lies through the media then rig polls to fool Joe Schmoe that it is really the truth, then they will vote against Romney/the GOP on election day.
> 
> It is the mob mentality, that we see in the muslim world today....someone says it's true then it must be true....so let's go vote or riot!



They also control the Presidency....LOL

332-206 BABY!!!!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

It's remarkable how easy it is for Dems to cheat to win a presidency. Flat out remarkable.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

Rottweiler said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> ...



Good post.


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

candycorn said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Democraps control the media and pollsters.
> ...



The end does justify the means with you despite if lies are told. 
That is some integrity you have going for yourself, candy.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

Wa....wa...wa......waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!


----------



## candycorn (Jan 12, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> It's remarkable how easy it is for Dems to cheat to win a presidency. Flat out remarkable.



Want some cheese with your whine?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



You're going to sit there and state that Romney told no lies or half truths during the campaign?  Really?  

Keep in mind, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, they will never be in the exchanges.  

If you're upset at Obama lying, fine.  But you're not being totally honest yourself if you think Romney was totally without his red herrings.  Did it swing 5,000,000+ votes?  Puh-leeze.


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I think all politicians lie, Candy.  But my reference is to the media lying for the president, that is where the rubber meets the road.  That ISN'T their job, their job is to vet what is stated and report that.  Not happening.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 12, 2014)

candycorn said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Democraps control the media and pollsters.
> ...



Wow.

I guess it was either this or "Bridgegate"

LOL

Life: Get one today


----------



## candycorn (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And the Romney campaign had what, $700,000,000 to get their message out?  Puh-leeze.

The two men's agendas were held up against one another and Romney was judged unsuitable.  During the 99% protests, you guys nominated basically the posterboy for the 1%--a horse in the Olympics and a car elevator at his house...That is why you lost.  

Ask yourself, is there anything about Romney you didn't know? Is there anything about Obama you didn't know?  Okay then.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 12, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead



Surprise!


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Are you not reading what I'm stating, or are you just deflecting (as you always do)?
I'm saying the media should vet what is stated and report what they find, and they aren't doing that.

My prior post was short and ( I thought ) very clear on my position.  You come back with this?  Tough night on the couch last night with the bottle of Thunderbird?


----------



## bodecea (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



Still crying about who the American people chose for President in 2012?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You'll notice their was no denying the lies. Just shallow justifications.


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Oh my, I just caught the wrath of Mrs. bodecea.  Wow!  You got me good this time.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Awwww........Bullshit. The media wants readers, subscribers, ratings and advertisers. They will go where the money is and it doesn't matter what fucking party anyone is a member of. 

How many nutters use this as an excuse for the fact that they cannot find national candidates who are not greatly flawed? 

McCain? Palin? Romney? Ryan? 

Come on........media my ass.


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yep, it's all they got


----------



## bodecea (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


"Caught the wrath"?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 12, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Obama lied about you being able to keep your policy.  Romney told several whoppers too. 
Mostly about his own positions.  

That you accept one as the price of doing business and wish to castigate the victor for the same tactics is a pretty shallow justification.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

candycorn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Romney didn't tell these major lies you speak of. You only refer to your preset disposition to believe such things. As it is, you're an Obama supporter, and you recognize that he's not a man of valor. We'll see how that works out for you.


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Yep, media your ass.  The Obama had to be the least vetted presidential candidate by the media in 2008.  
His obamacare bill's negative details which were out there but not being reported by the media.  
There has been studies, most notable by a left leaning UCLA that has shown that there is left leaning media bias.  Don't believe me....look it up.

There has been far more media reporting on this bridge debacle of Chistie than in any of Obama's scandals during the same period.
I really do hate defending Christie in this matter, but I do want to emphasize the disparity of the media.


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's all you have, you have nothing other than that.  Hell, it's tough to find multiple sentences from your IQ handicapped brain, bo.  I just assumed it could only have been "wrath".


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Media personnel lean left....because they are generally well educated and informed. Well educated and informed people are likely to be lefties. But...they print/produce what sells these days. And most still carry out their duties with journalistic integrity once the subject matter has been chosen.  

The whole "media in the bag for Obama" EXCUSE is presented as fact.  As evidence, you cite nothing. You just feel it. 

Here is a report on a PEW study that counters your claim regarding the 2012 election cycle. Enjoy. 

Study: Obama's Media Coverage More Negative Than Romney's - NationalJournal.com


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Your opinion of journalist leaning left and intelligence is an opinion and nothing more.  If the media was doing their job we would have known about the fallout from obamacare before people started losing their jnsurance.  We would have known a lot more of Obama's scandal one way or the other, because they would have demanded answers from the administration.  First page news wouldn't be found on page 18.  I never talked about the 2012 election cycle.  My example of Christie's scandal coverage and obama's scandal coverage by the media should speak volumes with you, but apparently not.  I connect dots and you don't.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I apologize.  

I can agree with you on that...the media could always do a better job.  However, and I hope you don't think this is deflecting, you can get in-depth reporting in several places.  And by the 3rd paragraph you're attention span is over if you're like most Americans.  So you get a lot of lazy media coverage and a lot of parroting of soul-source outlets.  

Put another way, the media is catering to the masses.  

There is a reason the "opinion editors" at Fox are so popular...they cater to their viewers.  

Now, lets look at what you're saying...you want the media to go beyond the headlines and report what happened.  Right?

Politifact does a very good job of sniffing out chicken salad from chicken shit.  It was cited repeatedly calling Obama a liar.  Gave Obama the "lie of the year" award:  
*
Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it' | PolitiFact*

 Doesn't sound particularly as if it is in Obama's pocket, right?

However during the 2012 election...when Politifact was brought up, here is how your Confederates reacted:



Stephanie said:


> wow, what a sham thread, first they have Politifact then post crap from the Maddcow blog
> 
> do liberals ever try and not deceive people or is it in their make up as a person?





Uncensored2008 said:


> So it is actually Politifact who is "pants on fire" lying.





thereisnospoon said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > Just How True Were Mitt Romney
> ...





Quantum Windbag said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Biden- 3 Truths 1 False
> ...





Two Thumbs said:


> Everyone knows politifact is in obamas pocket.
> 
> Only fools actually consider them honest



I literally could have gone on for another 20 or 30 citations of the in-depth fact checking that you are sponsoring being called all sorts of names when the fact-checking doesn't deliver the results desired.  

Again, I appreciate that you want in-depth reporting.  I join you in that desire.  But when the reporting is done (as it was by the way) at least a year before the election:



Amelia said:


> Wow.  Thanks for the link.  I didn't expect Politifact to catch so many of Obama's lies.  I've probably noticed some they haven't but  kudos to them for acknowledging so many of them.



it would be great if all of us could accept the results without the constant caterwauling and numbskullery.  And yes, you would have gotten the same from the left if the situation were reversed.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I know that I called The Sac Bee long before it 'became a story' to let them know that my insurance rates were skyrocketing, more than doubling, and they didn't even bother to return the call (and I left my number with four or five different reporters/editors.)


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You love the hyperbole. Fallout? 

The lie that 5 million people lost their insurance coverage is just one of the ways you are trying to substantiate your claim that the media covered for Obama. 

The scandals you refer to....the fake ones......IRS....Benghazi...Solyndra...Fast and Furious.....blah.....blah....blah.... all got tons of coverage and continue to get coverage even though they have all been proven to be big fat nothings. 

Obama's scandal coverage? You say it as though he has actually had a real scandal. You want it to be true soooooooo badly that you have convinced yourself in spite of the facts......and in the face of very thorough media coverage.


----------



## blastoff (Jan 12, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> It's remarkable how easy it is for Dems to cheat to win a presidency. Flat out remarkable.



Whoa!  I'm telling truthdoesn'tmatter what you said.


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You saying they're not scandals is again your opinion. LL.  IRS?  Some shenanigans going on there despite your "opinion".  Solyndra?  It was just the administration paying back a campaign contributor.  Bush shelved the idea of government funds to Solyndra because it wasn't a financially sound company.  Benghazi?  Yes, it WAS because of the video, because that is what an unbiased reporter for the NY Times said.  That's what you want me to believe?  Next you'll want me to believe that the DOJ was right in singling out media reporters.
Yes....blah, blah, blah.  The overwhelming coverage was the left media stating there IS no scandals, and you eat it up.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Prove it was a lie!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

Already done fifty times. Check the archives.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Total Bullshit.   All that stuff about Obama came out during the Democratic Primaries....just google first mention of many things such as Rev. Wright, his citizenship, his connection to Ayers, etc.   All of it was out there even before the DNC convention.   Those who put out the "not vetted" talking points are counting on your short term memory loss....and they are not disappointed........ever.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Already done fifty times. Check the archives.



Nope, you prove it.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

WillowTree said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Already done fifty times. Check the archives.
> ...



You bore me. Try something relatively new. 

http://democrats.energycommerce.hou...uments/ACA-Coverage-Statistics-2013-12-31.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ance-cancellations-fewer-than-500000/4132959/


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You are really a shallow thinking person, bo.  You got it wrong.....wrong.....wrong.
When he was a politician in Il. he voted "present".....not letting anyone pin him to anything.
When he was a senator, he became a presidential campaigner and didn't vote on many things, again not knowing where he was coming from.  Did the media push him....no.
What most people knew about him was that he was a community organizer.
So go pound sand


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



^^just called someone else "shallow".....defines irony^^


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

Once again, [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] brings nothing to the table.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

^^just wanted to say something....but didn't know what^^


----------



## Meister (Jan 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


You couldn't rise to be shallow, ll.  The best you could hope for is being a sheep


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



That'd be quite a rank advancement. Would that make him the first sheep to be a sheep herder? Talk about promoting from within.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



This is really all I have to say to LL. I've experienced the lies first hand. And The Sacramento paper isn't exactly a notorious lib rag either.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Your local paper did not pay attention to your mindless rant? Poor baby.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



At what point did I say I ranted? I reported news to them. The only thing that is mindless is your positions and processes.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

^^^
Also, my health premiums come out of pocket; so raising them 250 percent is no small thing, DICK.
It's funny how people like you complain about the man screwing you over and then when your god does it, you magically have no problem with it.
It's funny, too. Because at some point, I may have to go without coverage now. And when I do, I get double f'd over, cos the government screwed me on my rates is going to try and fine me if I don't pay them? That's unAmerican and so are you.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 12, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ^^^
> Also, my health premiums come out of pocket; so raising them 250 percent is no small thing, DICK.
> It's funny how people like you complain about the man screwing you over and then when your god does it, you magically have no problem with it.
> It's funny, too. Because at some point, I may have to go without coverage now. And when I do, I get double f'd over, cos the government screwed me on my rates is going to try and fine me if I don't pay them? That's unAmerican and so are you.



I do not believe you. You are lying about your health insurance status and rates.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 12, 2014)

That's quite convenient for you. I can tell you that it's not convenient for me. My health care has went from about $1,000 a year to $2,500. 

Maybe, if you did a little less propaganda and a little more research, you'd know that this is happening all over the place. And then you could ask questions and start seeking truth instead of being a useful tool for people who ultimately don't give an f about you, anyways.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 13, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



He's shell-shocked from being on the front lines in fork-gate.  I'll let him explain why forks matter; it's comedic value is on the scale of a Johnny Carson special so you won't want to miss his explanation.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 13, 2014)

candycorn said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Nah. You can explain why you (and Barry Soetoro) believe that the run of the mill Mexican can't be trusted with forks. That's your comedy right there.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 13, 2014)

I gotta say, I had a lot of fun reading this thread, since it turned out that most of the polling ended up having a CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias and not a LIBERAL mathematical bias.

All that bullshit about oversampling..... oh, this is rich.

OH, and BTW, I proved this months ago...

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?


It really is fun to read all the wailing that went on here....


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 13, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> That's quite convenient for you. I can tell you that it's not convenient for me. My health care has went from about $1,000 a year to $2,500.
> 
> Maybe, if you did a little less propaganda and a little more research, you'd know that this is happening all over the place. And then you could ask questions and start seeking truth instead of being a useful tool for people who ultimately don't give an f about you, anyways.



Are you now a proud owner of an insurance plan bought on the ACA exchange?


----------



## Toro (Jan 13, 2014)

Obama won by more than what the average poll on the last 3 days said he'd win by.

By the OP's logic, conservatives were over-sampled.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 13, 2014)

Toro said:


> Obama won by more than what the average poll on the last 3 days said he'd win by.
> 
> By the OP's logic, conservatives were over-sampled.




*No.* True, he exceeded the poll averages from the final days of the race:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Bonncaruso's FINAL Electoral Landscape (No.8): Obama 303 / Romney 235

Average, last 7 days of polling:

Obama. +1.33 (he won by +3.86)

Average, last 3 days of polling: Obama +1.21  (he won by +3.86)

But the averages looked that way mostly because of shitty polling from Gallup and Rasmussen.

At Obama +4, DEM CORPS, a Democratic polling organization, nailed it.

So did the Rand Polling, which uses a totally different method.

Without Rasmussen and Gallup, Obama would have been at about +2.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 13, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> I gotta say, I had a lot of fun reading this thread, since it turned out that most of the polling ended up having a CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias and not a LIBERAL mathematical bias.
> 
> All that bullshit about oversampling..... oh, this is rich.
> 
> ...



Simple shell game. Stuffing ballot boxes can more than make-up for inaccurate polls. And in fact, they can make a mockery of the polls. All of the battleground states ended up being not close, that were supposed to be close, the Dems stuff the shiz out of those ballot boxes. Ninety-five percent turn-out in ghettos with nobody voting for Romney? Get real.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 13, 2014)

Or it could be that Romney sucked...the polls showed it and the ballot boxes confirmed it.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 13, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Or it could be that Romney sucked...the polls showed it and the ballot boxes confirmed it.



I have little doubt that that is the case in your pathological world that you've created for yourself. 

P.S. Watch out for the forks. They'll get you.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 13, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Or it could be that Romney sucked...the polls showed it and the ballot boxes confirmed it.
> ...



It was actually the case in the real world too silly.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > I gotta say, I had a lot of fun reading this thread, since it turned out that most of the polling ended up having a CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias and not a LIBERAL mathematical bias.
> ...




Oh, my, if you believe that load of horseshit, then there is no help for you at all.
Obama exceeded polling averages in states other than the battlegrounds as well, including Massachusetts and California.  The one state where all polling, including Rasmussen, was wildly off to the left, was Montana.

Ballot boxes were not stuffed. At virtually every polling place in the USA, representatives of both parties are present to confirm and count ballots. In order for ballot boxes to be stuff, this would mean the willing cooperation of Republican voters. Really?? Haaaa!

There were some precincts in Philly where Romney got not votes. But in those precincts, there were also maybe 2 or 3 registered Republicans.  There were also a couple of precincts in the Dakotas where Obama got no votes. Were they stuffed, too? So, your point?

Oh, and a little hint: use of "ghettos" may sound cool to you, but it sure as fuck sounds racist. So, if you are a racist, enjoy using it. But if you are not, you might want to reconsider that one.

Jesus, 14 months after the General Election, and some Righties are STILL all butthurt and lying out the same orifice.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

The conclusion remains that almost minimal ballot box stuffing occurred.

We lost because the American people chose Obama not Romney.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The conclusion remains that almost minimal ballot box stuffing occurred.
> 
> We lost because the American people chose Obama not Romney.



Thanks, Goebbels.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The conclusion remains that almost minimal ballot box stuffing occurred.
> ...




Oh, indeed, when on the losing side of an argument, invoke Godwin. Works every time.

Not.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

Do you always call people with whom you don't agree "asshole", or is it just latent homosexuality bubbling to the top?


Hmmmm....


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Oh, yea, cos some dork somewhere at sometime came up with a cheesy theory about every political discussion invoking Nazis eventually. Like that means something, idiot. I just called it how I saw it. I don't not say how I see it because you're beholden to some fallacy.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...




Oh, you can call it however you want to see it. No one here is keeping you from looking like an idiot. Please, proceed, proceed...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Do you always call people with whom you don't agree "asshole", or is it just latent homosexuality bubbling to the top?
> 
> Hmmmm....



Well aren't you an enlightened libtard; invoking homosexuality as an insult. Just go ahead and put your hypocrisy on display.

And I don't have to use the word asshole. I can go can go with fuckface, as that is what you are. I didn't use the term ghetto to sound cool. I used it because it's a real word that has a real meaning, fuckface.

Ghetto - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I know that you're just another libtard who can't think for himself and that your latest marching orders are to brand those with whom you disagree that use the word 'thug' or 'ghetto' as racist. But you can fuck off, cos I do not play that lame shit.


----------



## Toro (Jan 14, 2014)

candycorn said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1.  Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 14, 2014)

Toro said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I think America lost. If you have so much fraud in the biggest election in the world, she lost. Take bitterness out of the picture, I weep for America.

BTW, liberals complained about a lot less a lot more in 2000. That's pretty much the pattern.


----------



## Toro (Jan 14, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Liberals also complained about losing Ohio in 04. 

It's typical. Partisans can't accept that they lost so they conjure up fantasies of fraud. It happened to Bush, its happening under Obama, and it will happen to the next President.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

Toro said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...




Here are all 61 polls for Pennsylvania:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdDhyOXA2ay13c2ozTEVsOWlpTWNheEE#gid=41

End polling average:

Obama +3.88

End-polling average, last two days of polling only:

Obama +4.20

Final result:

Obama +5.38


His win in PA in 2012, though smaller than in 2008, is still larger than:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=42&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

Kerry 2004
Gore 2000
Bush 41 1988
Carter 76
Humprey 68
Kennedy 60
Truman 48
Dewey 44
Hoover 32
Teddy R. 12


It is just slightly smaller than Ike's win in the Keystone State from 52.

Reagan was not able to get much over +7 here.

Pennsylvania is a traditionally single digit win state, the most recent exception being 2008, then 1972.


The polling in PA was right on target. And btw, this was the ONLY battleground state where Rasmussen nailed it, at Obama +5. Without the faulty Susquehanna poll (which showed a tie) in the mix, the average would have been:

Obama +4.43


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

Toro said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




I didn't. I saw the county data and saw the individual trends and knew that President Bush won the Buckeye state.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Bush won re-election in 2004 fair and square, just as Obama did in 2012, no doubt about it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 14, 2014)

Toro said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



January 13, 2014
*Voter fraud? What voter fraud?*
Rick Moran

Barack Obama's election not only caused the oceans to recede, but the dead to rise from the grave.

At least, that's what an investigation by New York officials revealed when they sent out dozens of agents to vote in a New York election.

John Fund:

    Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud - or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.

    But New York City's watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a "John Test" so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city's Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

    The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as "a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed-style politics." The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI's investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state's attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn't think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York's new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced "community organizing" group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.

Just what did the investigators uncover?

    You'd think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of  someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the "voter" was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and "play dumb" in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.

An isolated incident? Only confined to corrupt New York City?

Not hardly:

    Despite rumors that some politiqueras went over the line in encouraging voters, the tradition continued in Donna and other border towns and cities, and campaigns for nearly every local office or seat have paid politiqueras to turn out the vote in contested races.




Read more: Blog: Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook​


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You love to put all the window dressing on it while ignoring the reality of grand voter fraud.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 14, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Gasbag is actually right about  the bolded portion.  As if the GOP fixed 2 elections then all of the sudden forgot how?  C'mon.  Of course, if Gasbag accidentally injected himself with truth serum, he would agree hat it was incredibly without cause when the liberals did it and would also admit that he has no standing for this year long sour-grape-fest.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...




Ahh, American Thinker, home of extremely racist screeds and calls for not allowing the poor to vote.

BTW, where is the EXACT data?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




That's not window dressing: those are cold, hard mathematical facts.

What, you think the polling was already accounting for voter fraud?

Haaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

Well, I have to go to work now, but Gatsby, I will come back later and bat you around a little more. My old toys are getting boring, I may add you to my collection....



If you ever want to have a SERIOUS conversation about voter fraud, you may find out that I am for laws, nationally, to eliminate the possibility of what little fraud happens from happening.

But there is no doubt: Obama did not win in 2012 because of voter fraud. That is just la-la-land, nothing more. In Ohio, the REPUBLICAN SOS reported 135 verified and prosecuted cases of voter fraud, amounting to 0.0024% of the voter. Right, 24 ONE THOUSANDS of one percent.  A number of those cases were elderly (above 80) who accidentally voted twice and turned themselves in in order to correct the error. There were over 500 cases investigated, but the panel, with a REPUBLICAN hypermajority, threw out most of them.  They were also spread throughout the state, including small red counties.

I published a report specific to Ohio in May of 2013:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: EXACT voter-fraud statistics out of Battleground OHIO

So, now, take a minute as to whether you want an intelligent conversation with someone who would actually be quite willing to listen to you, or just a pissing-match. Your call.

I do love my new toys....


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Yet your only response is a lib talking point about racism. You seem smart enough to not fall for the claim that blacks being asked for an I.D. is racist.

I guess I overestimated you.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...




Uh, if you read my large thread on electioneering, then you would have seen that I am a big proponent of voter IDS...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html

You were the one who decided to inject "blacks" into this conversation.

Fascinating... but maybe again, it was just a knee-jerk reaction on your part....  can happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



That's right, TGG, you have now just invoked the "far right reactionary PC fertility factor" in argument.

You have an assertion without evidence now fertilized with poo.

The smelly result? lt is the same: the ballot boxes were not stuffed when American chose Obama instead of Romney.


----------



## pvsi (Jan 14, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> 
> I realize oversampling Democrats is simply part of an effort to create an air of inevitability for Obama's reelection. Its a narrative the media is desperate to foster.
> 
> Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead


I am willing to bet $100 that Obama will not get re elected in 2016


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

pvsi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's convention bounce seems to have evaporated. Rasmussen today has Romney up 3 points. Today's Gallup tracking poll had Obama up 5, a loss of 2 points over two days. Gallup uses a 7 day rolling average, so expect this number to continue to come down over the next several days. Undaunted, the media are trumpeting new polls with show Obama with 3 point lead nationally and significant leads in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia. As is becoming routine, these new polls again oversample Democrats.
> ...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



"Facts" do not always equal truth. Did you miss that day in elementary school?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

Ohh, so much hurt in that one. He needs healing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 14, 2014)

Facts are required to reach the truth: the ballot boxes were not stuffed by either party.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Ohh, so much hurt in that one. He needs healing.



Telling you a true statement equals hurt? The fallacious logic just rolls out of you.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 14, 2014)

You are really kind of an attention whore, what?  Hmmmm...... this is gonna be fun....


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> You are really kind of an attention whore, what?  Hmmmm...... this is gonna be fun....



And more fallacious argumentation.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

fun, fun, fun...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> fun, fun, fun...



Anyhow-- I cussed you out, so maybe that's my part in all of it. Not that you didn't take a mindless cheap shot before that. But ah well. Moving on.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > fun, fun, fun...
> ...




yes, you did. You are going to be an excellent boytoy, I see...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 15, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You silly little ass, you weep for the fact that you and people like you got your asses kicked by the American Voter 6Nov12. We didn't like your vision for this nation. We still do not like your vision for this nation.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

Elections have consequences. Elections have consequences.

Only, the Right doesn't want to believe it.

But if they take the Senate in November, and I think it is very, very likely that they will, then they will be saying really loud:

"Elections have consequences. Elections have consequences."

Mark my words. It will happen.


----------



## Meister (Jan 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I wonder if Obama would have won if the facts of obamacare would have been exposed along with the lies of your great messiah before the election.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Ok, just for clarity, for the mental lightweights out there.

This is the Messiah:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuGSOkYWfDQ]Messiah - A Sacred Oratorio, Handel - conducted by Sir Colin Davis - YouTube[/ame]


This is NOT the Messiah:







Case closed.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Gay.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...




Well, so many cons are just so obsessed with the "ghey" these days, I thought to  play a part with which you would feel comfortable...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



LOL. I'm "obsessed" with gays? You brought it up (again). And is there a reason that you can't spell gay right? Did you decide that that accurate definition is offensive too?


----------



## Meister (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So you couldn't refute what I posted other than some democrats don't think that Obama is a messiah?  I guess that would be a win-win for both of us.
By the way, there is a difference between Messiah and messiah.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

Meister said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...




No way to refute or not refute. I cannot possibly be inside every Democrat's head, and neither can you. But to me, no human being is the Messiah - that is just plain old ridiculous.

As to the use of capitalization of the word "messiah", or the lack of capitalization, I am not aware of a huge difference. Is this something that is like totally important and earth-shaking to you?


----------



## Meister (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Look in the Bible (if you have one) and see if Messiah is ever spelled without a capitalization of the M.  I'll leave the rest up to you to figure it out, stallion.
You perceive yourself as being smart.
Who was talking about democrats?  Obama would have lost the independent vote in the election.  true story


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

Meister said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Well, first, in my Bible, one reads from right to left and the characters are different and capital letters make no difference. So, "Moshiach" and "moshiach" mean the same thing.  I mentioned Democrats because YOU mentioned them first:



> So you couldn't refute what I posted other than some *democrats* don't think that Obama is a messiah?  I guess that would be a win-win for both of us.




Nice try, thanks for playing.

Yepp, yer a Rightie. When you run out of argument, you insult the person instead.

But it's your right to do that.  And I respect your right to do that.


----------



## Meister (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


 Yep, I am a rightie, and I didn't run out of argument.  I just toy with arrogant people.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 15, 2014)

Meister said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Oh, goodie, goodie!!

I was looking for a new boytoy myself!!!  You might just fit the bill!!!!  Fantastic: two birds, one stone!!!

Now, anytime you are ready for a SERIOUS conversation instead of just trolling like a male whore, just let me know. You may be surprised....


----------



## hjmick (Jan 15, 2014)

What assmunch resurrected an almost year and a half year old thread?


----------



## Meister (Jan 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I doubt that, stud, I don't roll that way...might want to try NTG, looks like he's trolling with his avatar for a "guy" just like you.
But, if you do at some point, after you get your jollies, why not respond to the rest of my post about Obama's electability if the lies and the facts of his obummercare had been exposed prior to the election. You know, the crux of my post. Quit going down those rabbit trails.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 15, 2014)

Meister said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



On the contrary, you simply expose your ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## Meister (Jan 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Pot-kettle-black........


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 16, 2014)

Meister said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...





Well, if that avatar has tits and a pussy, I might be interested. Otherwise, pfft...


----------

