# Nate Silver Say...  Everything Nate Silver goes here



## Article 15

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.


----------



## JoeB131

Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...


----------



## Mad Scientist

Well that's it then. Oh wait:

Effect of Jobs Numbers on Presidential Race Is Uncertain - NYTimes.com


----------



## Article 15

Mad Scientist said:


> Well that's it then. Oh wait:
> 
> Effect of Jobs Numbers on Presidential Race Is Uncertain - NYTimes.com



And .... ?

You do realize you are citing the same guy who has Romney at a 19.3% chance to win, right?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Article 15 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.



Who?

And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE

cept maybe fdr


----------



## Article 15

JoeB131 said:


> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...



This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.


----------



## Article 15

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
Click to expand...


Nate Silver.  Sabermetrics and statistical model expert.  Made his bones in baseball and then moved onto election modeling.  Was named one of Time's 100 most influential people in 2009 for his work on the 2008 elections. 



> And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr



No cept maybe there, TT, and it isn't a coincidence that FDR got reelected and Obama is on his way to doing so as well.


----------



## The Rabbi

Article 15 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
Click to expand...


But Obama won in 2008.

The economy sucks.  Foreign policy sucks.  If the press covered the deaths of US troops in Afghanistan under Obama like they did in Iraq under Bush people would be screaming.
Nate Silver?  Who the fuck is he?  WHo gives a shit?  Other sources put OBama's chance at nil.
As the economy deteriorates Obama's chances deteriorate with it.


----------



## Article 15

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Obama won in 2008.
> 
> The economy sucks.  Foreign policy sucks.  If the press covered the deaths of US troops in Afghanistan under Obama like they did in Iraq under Bush people would be screaming.
> Nate Silver?  Who the fuck is he?  WHo gives a shit?  Other sources put OBama's chance at nil.
> As the economy deteriorates Obama's chances deteriorate with it.
Click to expand...


^ See what I mean?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Article 15 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nate Silver.  Sabermetrics and statistical model expert.  Made his bones in baseball and then moved onto election modeling.  Was named one of Time's 100 most influential people in 2009 for his work on the 2008 elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cept maybe there, TT, and it isn't a coincidence that FDR got reelected and Obama is on his way to doing so as well.
Click to expand...

Why?

what's he done?


----------



## JoeB131

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> And no Pres has one [sic] election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
Click to expand...


And before that, the number was 5%, until Reagan won with 7.4.   

And there's always the possibility we can dip below 8% before November.  

The problem with this kind of reasoning is the only three examples we have of an incumbant losing with a high number are Carter (7.5) Ford (7.7) and Bush-41 (7.3)  All close to where Reagan was, actually.  

Ford wasn't really an incumbant, and he barely lost, but what probably did him in was that he pardoned Nixon.  

Carter and Bush-41 had the problem of facing a third party challenger that sapped their base.  That probably had as much to do with them losing as the UE rate.  

Carter also had a hostage crisis, gas lines, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates etc.  

So having not pardoned an unpopular predecessor, faced a third party challenge or had other crisis to deal with, all Obama has is an unemployment rate that is bad, but not as bad as it was.  

But the key thing is, Obama doesn't have a challenger of the caliber of Reagan or Clinton. He has a Weird Mormon Robot who isn't even liked by his own party.


----------



## Greenbeard

JoeB131 said:


> But the key thing is, Obama doesn't have a challenger of the caliber of Reagan or Clinton. He has a Weird Mormon Robot who isn't even liked by his own party.



You mean a party convention isn't _supposed_ to look like a funeral?


----------



## Two Thumbs

JoeB131 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> And no Pres has one [sic] election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And before that, the number was 5%, until Reagan won with 7.4.
> 
> And there's always the possibility we can dip below 8% before November.
> 
> The problem with this kind of reasoning is the only three examples we have of an incumbant losing with a high number are Carter (7.5) Ford (7.7) and Bush-41 (7.3)  All close to where Reagan was, actually.
> 
> Ford wasn't really an incumbant, and he barely lost, but what probably did him in was that he pardoned Nixon.
> 
> Carter and Bush-41 had the problem of facing a third party challenger that sapped their base.  That probably had as much to do with them losing as the UE rate.
> 
> Carter also had a hostage crisis, gas lines, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates etc.
> 
> So having not pardoned an unpopular predecessor, faced a third party challenge or had other crisis to deal with, all Obama has is an unemployment rate that is bad, but not as bad as it was.
> 
> But the key thing is, Obama doesn't have a challenger of the caliber of Reagan or Clinton. He has a Weird Mormon Robot who isn't even liked by his own party.
Click to expand...

The gop is still run by moderates.

It's the conservatives that are meh about mitt.

we are, again, left with no one to vote for.

Thank jebus for Ryan though.


----------



## Article 15

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver.  Sabermetrics and statistical model expert.  Made his bones in baseball and then moved onto election modeling.  Was named one of Time's 100 most influential people in 2009 for his work on the 2008 elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cept maybe there, TT, and it isn't a coincidence that FDR got reelected and Obama is on his way to doing so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> what's he done?
Click to expand...


Allow me to direct you to this crazy thing called a search engine.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Article 15 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's it then. Oh wait:
> 
> Effect of Jobs Numbers on Presidential Race Is Uncertain - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And .... ?
> 
> You do realize you are citing the same guy who has Romney at a 19.3% chance to win, right?
Click to expand...

You realize *the same guy* wrote that the election was uncertain? Which is it, 19% or Uncertain? 

This guy can't make up his f*ckin' mind.


----------



## Article 15

Mad Scientist said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's it then. Oh wait:
> 
> Effect of Jobs Numbers on Presidential Race Is Uncertain - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And .... ?
> 
> You do realize you are citing the same guy who has Romney at a 19.3% chance to win, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You realize *the same guy* wrote that the election was uncertain? Which is it, 19% or Uncertain?
> 
> This guy can't make up his f*ckin' mind.
Click to expand...


Since when is an 80.7% chance certain?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Article 15 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And .... ?
> 
> You do realize you are citing the same guy who has Romney at a 19.3% chance to win, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You realize *the same guy* wrote that the election was uncertain? Which is it, 19% or Uncertain?
> 
> This guy can't make up his f*ckin' mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when is an 80.7% chance certain?
Click to expand...


it's 30.7% more that a flip of a coin.

I'd call that certain

Maybe not a sure thing, but it's a far cry from throwin darts.


----------



## Cowman

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
Click to expand...


This guy called the 2008 election exactly, pretty much state by state, based on poll data.

He's not a "who?" in political polling. He knows how to read polls and make predictions with amazing precision.

In fact, he was only 1 state off.


----------



## Conservative

Article 15 said:


> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.



then the Dems shouldn't have done it, should they...


----------



## L.K.Eder

Conservative said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then the Dems shouldn't have done it, should they...
Click to expand...



wow, amazingly lame.


----------



## Cowman

He also had the ability to predict the winner of every single senatorial race in 2008 as well.

That's... 49 out of 50 states, and all 35 senatorial races.

He's definitely not a "who" in politics.


----------



## Article 15

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize *the same guy* wrote that the election was uncertain? Which is it, 19% or Uncertain?
> 
> This guy can't make up his f*ckin' mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is an 80.7% chance certain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's 30.7% more that a flip of a coin.
> 
> I'd call that certain
> 
> Maybe not a sure thing, but it's a far cry from throwin darts.
Click to expand...


"Maybe not a sure thing"

No, dude, again no maybe there.  It means he puts his chances at winning at 19.3%.

To put in terms of poker, if this were a Hold em hand Obama has pocket aces and Romney has a smaller pocket pair in the hole.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver.  Sabermetrics and statistical model expert.  Made his bones in baseball and then moved onto election modeling.  Was named one of Time's 100 most influential people in 2009 for his work on the 2008 elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cept maybe there, TT, and it isn't a coincidence that FDR got reelected and Obama is on his way to doing so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> what's he done?
Click to expand...


He beat both Real Clear and Pollster on poll analysis, and was the most accurate in 2008 race.


----------



## The Rabbi

Cowman said:


> He also had the ability to predict the winner of every single senatorial race in 2008 as well.
> 
> That's... 49 out of 50 states, and all 35 senatorial races.
> 
> He's definitely not a "who" in politics.



That was like predicting the winner of a Soviet election. Didnt take much.
Politics is not baseball.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Cowman said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This guy called the 2008 election exactly, pretty much state by state, based on poll data.
> 
> He's not a "who?" in political polling. He knows how to read polls and make predictions with amazing precision.
> 
> In fact, he was only 1 state off.
Click to expand...

Ok

This may come as a shock;  I wasn't being an ass, I honestly never heard of him


----------



## Two Thumbs

Article 15 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is an 80.7% chance certain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's 30.7% more that a flip of a coin.
> 
> I'd call that certain
> 
> Maybe not a sure thing, but it's a far cry from throwin darts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Maybe not a sure thing"
> 
> No, dude, again no maybe there.  It means he puts his chances at winning at 19.3%.
> 
> To put in terms of poker, if this were a Hold em hand Obama has pocket aces and Romney has a smaller pocket pair in the hole.
Click to expand...


you said "poker"

I've won pots with holding a baby straight.  So you're saying Mitt can win if he bluffs the nation.


----------



## Cowman

The Rabbi said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also had the ability to predict the winner of every single senatorial race in 2008 as well.
> 
> That's... 49 out of 50 states, and all 35 senatorial races.
> 
> He's definitely not a "who" in politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was like predicting the winner of a Soviet election. Didnt take much.
> Politics is not baseball.
Click to expand...


Oh bullshit.


----------



## Article 15

Two Thumbs said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy called the 2008 election exactly, pretty much state by state, based on poll data.
> 
> He's not a "who?" in political polling. He knows how to read polls and make predictions with amazing precision.
> 
> In fact, he was only 1 state off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok
> 
> This may come as a shock;  I wasn't being an ass, I honestly never heard of him
Click to expand...


He's quite brilliant.  Total super nerd.






I mean, c'mon now....


----------



## Article 15

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's 30.7% more that a flip of a coin.
> 
> I'd call that certain
> 
> Maybe not a sure thing, but it's a far cry from throwin darts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Maybe not a sure thing"
> 
> No, dude, again no maybe there.  It means he puts his chances at winning at 19.3%.
> 
> To put in terms of poker, if this were a Hold em hand Obama has pocket aces and Romney has a smaller pocket pair in the hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said "poker"
> 
> I've won pots with holding a baby straight.  So you're saying Mitt can win if he bluffs the nation.
Click to expand...


That's what he's trying to do....


----------



## The Rabbi

Cowman said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also had the ability to predict the winner of every single senatorial race in 2008 as well.
> 
> That's... 49 out of 50 states, and all 35 senatorial races.
> 
> He's definitely not a "who" in politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was like predicting the winner of a Soviet election. Didnt take much.
> Politics is not baseball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
Click to expand...


Translation: Bingo!


----------



## Two Thumbs

Article 15 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy called the 2008 election exactly, pretty much state by state, based on poll data.
> 
> He's not a "who?" in political polling. He knows how to read polls and make predictions with amazing precision.
> 
> In fact, he was only 1 state off.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> This may come as a shock;  I wasn't being an ass, I honestly never heard of him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's quite brilliant.  Total super nerd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, c'mon now....
Click to expand...


If he's not rich, he's invested in online porn.

just sayin


----------



## Two Thumbs

Article 15 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Maybe not a sure thing"
> 
> No, dude, again no maybe there.  It means he puts his chances at winning at 19.3%.
> 
> To put in terms of poker, if this were a Hold em hand Obama has pocket aces and Romney has a smaller pocket pair in the hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said "poker"
> 
> I've won pots with holding a baby straight.  So you're saying Mitt can win if he bluffs the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what he's trying to do....
Click to expand...

Obama is doubling down on blaming Bush.

Seems they are both playing the game with our chips.


----------



## Cowman

The Rabbi said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was like predicting the winner of a Soviet election. Didnt take much.
> Politics is not baseball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: Bingo!
Click to expand...


You know how many people thought that Obama was fucking done for because of Palin? Yeah, you were probably fucking one of them. And you were probably fucking one of them as well.


----------



## WillowTree

Article 15 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.


----------



## The Rabbi

Cowman said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: Bingo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how many people thought that Obama was fucking done for because of Palin? Yeah, you were probably fucking one of them. And you were probably fucking one of them as well.
Click to expand...


Actually I wasn't.  I was turned off when I listened to the debate and heard her going on about "greedy Wall St bankers" causing all the mess.  That's a Dem line.  You dont beat Democrats by being more Democrat.


----------



## Article 15

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> you said "poker"
> 
> I've won pots with holding a baby straight.  So you're saying Mitt can win if he bluffs the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what he's trying to do....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama is doubling down on blaming Bush.
> 
> Seems they are both playing the game with our chips.
Click to expand...


Yup ... Mitt bluffs, says it's Obama's fault.

Obama reminds everyone what he walked into and then contrasts the then with the now and flips over his aces.


----------



## Article 15

WillowTree said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
Click to expand...


*
*bows**

Don't ewe forget that I own your sigline when Obama wins.


----------



## Article 15

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> This may come as a shock;  I wasn't being an ass, I honestly never heard of him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's quite brilliant.  Total super nerd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, c'mon now....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's not rich, he's invested in online porn.
> 
> just sayin
Click to expand...


He def looks like he drools a lot.


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And .... ?
> 
> You do realize you are citing the same guy who has Romney at a 19.3% chance to win, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You realize *the same guy* wrote that the election was uncertain? Which is it, 19% or Uncertain?
> 
> This guy can't make up his f*ckin' mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when is an 80.7% chance certain?
Click to expand...

Ask the designers of the Challenger's O-rings.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Article 15 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what he's trying to do....
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is doubling down on blaming Bush.
> 
> Seems they are both playing the game with our chips.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup ... Mitt bluffs, says it's Obama's fault.
> 
> Obama reminds everyone what he walked into and then contrast the then with the now and flips over his aces.
Click to expand...


the then and now with aces?

damn you're bluffed.


Wanna get together and play some cards?  It's been a long time since I've played, but I'm certain I can keep up as long as the deck comes with one of those list cards so I know what beats what.


----------



## Article 15

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is doubling down on blaming Bush.
> 
> Seems they are both playing the game with our chips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup ... Mitt bluffs, says it's Obama's fault.
> 
> Obama reminds everyone what he walked into and then contrast the then with the now and flips over his aces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the then and now with aces?
> 
> damn you're bluffed.
> 
> 
> Wanna get together and play some cards?  It's been a long time since I've played, but I'm certain I can keep up as long as the deck comes with one of those list cards so I know what beats what.
Click to expand...


I hit up Foxwoods in CT often.  It's a pretty nice poker room and there's always several games going.


----------



## L.K.Eder

> The most impressive thing that our model did in 2008, in my view, was  not in &#8220;calling&#8221; all but one of the states right on Election Day. There  was very little doubt about who was favored in perhaps 46 or 47 of  these states. The other three or four were tossups &#8212; and whether you  guessed the winner right had as much to do with luck as skill.
> Rather, it was what the model did in September of that year, when it detected very, very quickly  after the collapse of Lehman Brothers that John McCain&#8217;s goose was  cooked, with Barack Obama&#8217;s projected probability of winning the  Electoral College increasing by about 25 percent in a period of just 48 hours.
> We&#8217;re  not seeing anything quite that dramatic in the polls right now.  *Nevertheless, the polling movement that we have seen over the past three  days represents the most substantial shift that we&#8217;ve seen in the race  all year, with the polls moving toward Mr. Obama since his convention*.


.


----------



## Article 15

elvis said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize *the same guy* wrote that the election was uncertain? Which is it, 19% or Uncertain?
> 
> This guy can't make up his f*ckin' mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is an 80.7% chance certain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the designers of the Challenger's O-rings.
Click to expand...


Need 
Another 
Seven 
Astronauts


----------



## Liberal




----------



## Dot Com

Article 15 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
Click to expand...


hope Mitt takes down any future plans Lyin' Ryan might have w/ him too


----------



## Article 15

Thank you for sharing your sniveling butthurt, Gasbag.



			
				TheGreatGatsby said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -202 reputation points from TheGreatGatsby.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Nate Silver is a bigger hack then you are.
> 
> Regards,
> TheGreatGatsby
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.


----------



## Article 15

Dot Com said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hope Mitt takes down any future plans Lyin' Ryan might have w/ him too
Click to expand...


The Paul Ryan's of the world don't get elected President.

You have nothing to fear.


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hope Mitt takes down any future plans Lyin' Ryan might have w/ him too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Paul Ryan's of the world don't get elected President.
> 
> You have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...

I don't know.  If bush and Obama can get elected twice, anyone has a shot.


----------



## Article 15

elvis said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> hope Mitt takes down any future plans Lyin' Ryan might have w/ him too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Paul Ryan's of the world don't get elected President.
> 
> You have nothing to fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know.  If bush and Obama can get elected twice, anyone has a shot.
Click to expand...


I understand your point but Ryan is an ideologue. America doesn't hire them for the big boy's job.


----------



## The Rabbi

Article 15 said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Paul Ryan's of the world don't get elected President.
> 
> You have nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  If bush and Obama can get elected twice, anyone has a shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point but Ryan is an ideologue. America doesn't hire them for the big boy's job.
Click to expand...


Yeah, ask Ronnie.

This is a troll thread if ever there was.  Even the great Nate admits he lacks sufficient evidence.  That makes his "prediction" nothing more than SWAG.  Actually just WAG.


----------



## Article 15

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  If bush and Obama can get elected twice, anyone has a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point but Ryan is an ideologue. America doesn't hire them for the big boy's job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, ask Ronnie.
> 
> This is a troll thread if ever there was.  Even the great Nate admits he lacks sufficient evidence.  That makes his "prediction" nothing more than SWAG.  Actually just WAG.
Click to expand...


Ronnie?

The international arms dealer who tripled the debt and granted amnesty to millions of people?


----------



## Avatar4321

Article 15 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.



So it sucks to be me because someone I dont know doesnt think Romney will win?

Thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.


----------



## Article 15

Avatar4321 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it sucks to be me because someone I dont know doesnt think Romney will win?
> 
> *Thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.*
Click to expand...


Read some of your posts aloud and that will change quick.


----------



## EriktheRed

JoeB131 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> And no Pres has one [sic] election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And before that, the number was 5%, until Reagan won with 7.4.
> 
> And there's always the possibility we can dip below 8% before November.
> 
> The problem with this kind of reasoning is the only three examples we have of an incumbant losing with a high number are Carter (7.5) Ford (7.7) and Bush-41 (7.3)  All close to where Reagan was, actually.
> 
> Ford wasn't really an incumbant, and he barely lost, but what probably did him in was that he pardoned Nixon.
> 
> Carter and Bush-41 had the problem of facing a third party challenger that sapped their base.  That probably had as much to do with them losing as the UE rate.
> 
> Carter also had a hostage crisis, gas lines, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates etc.
> 
> So having not pardoned an unpopular predecessor, faced a third party challenge or had other crisis to deal with, all Obama has is an unemployment rate that is bad, but not as bad as it was.
> 
> But the key thing is, Obama doesn't have a challenger of the caliber of Reagan or Clinton. He has a Weird Mormon Robot who isn't even liked by his own party.
Click to expand...


You can boil it down by paraphrasing Ed Rollins: Obama ain't Carter and Romney sure as fuck ain't Reagan.


----------



## EriktheRed

Mad Scientist said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's it then. Oh wait:
> 
> Effect of Jobs Numbers on Presidential Race Is Uncertain - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And .... ?
> 
> You do realize you are citing the same guy who has Romney at a 19.3% chance to win, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You realize *the same guy* wrote that the election was uncertain? Which is it, 19% or Uncertain?
> 
> This guy can't make up his f*ckin' mind.
Click to expand...


Are you serious???


----------



## Avatar4321

Article 15 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it sucks to be me because someone I dont know doesnt think Romney will win?
> 
> *Thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read some of your posts aloud and that will change quick.
Click to expand...


No it won't. No need to lie about it.


----------



## Article 15

Avatar4321 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it sucks to be me because someone I dont know doesnt think Romney will win?
> 
> *Thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read some of your posts aloud and that will change quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't. No need to lie about it.
Click to expand...


My bad, I forgot who I was dealing with.  Morons like you don't realize how stupid you are.

But you did admit that you are a right wing nut so there's hope for you yet! Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step to recovery.


----------



## Toro

L.K.Eder said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then the Dems shouldn't have done it, should they...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wow, amazingly lame.
Click to expand...


Whereas "base your entire campaign on lies" is especially poignant, accurate and insightful.


----------



## EriktheRed

Avatar4321 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it sucks to be me because someone I dont know doesnt think Romney will win?
> 
> Thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.
Click to expand...


You being ignorant of who he is doesn't make him any less good at what he does. Where do you get YOUR polling data?


----------



## EriktheRed

Toro said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> then the Dems shouldn't have done it, should they...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, amazingly lame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas "base your entire campaign on lies" is especially poignant, accurate and insightful.
Click to expand...


Actually, considering the amount of whoppers coming from the Romney camp, it's not too far off.


----------



## Article 15

Here's a post of yours to read aloud, avatar:



Avatar4321 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is a choice between consenting adults
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if two people choose to rob a bank, because they are consenting adults, their actions are now good?
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

Article 15 said:


> Here's a post of yours to read aloud, avatar:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is a choice between consenting adults
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if two people choose to rob a bank, because they are consenting adults, their actions are now good?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I think it is more like "if one consenting adult republican jumps off a bridge and another consenting adult one follows" ...That WOULD be good.


----------



## EriktheRed

Oh, and Gatsby? If you're reading, as fruitless as it is to argue with a fuckwit like yourself, Nate Silver is no hack. 

Not only is one of the best poll analysts out there, but he doesn't sugarcoat anything, as anyone who's read his work during the run-up to the 2010 midterms can attest.


----------



## JoeB131

Greenbeard said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the key thing is, Obama doesn't have a challenger of the caliber of Reagan or Clinton. He has a Weird Mormon Robot who isn't even liked by his own party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a party convention isn't _supposed_ to look like a funeral?
Click to expand...


Not unless it's an Irish Wake.  

You know the difference between an Irish wake and an Irish Wedding?  

One less drunk.  


(I'm part Irish, I can say that!)


----------



## The Rabbi

Article 15 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point but Ryan is an ideologue. America doesn't hire them for the big boy's job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, ask Ronnie.
> 
> This is a troll thread if ever there was.  Even the great Nate admits he lacks sufficient evidence.  That makes his "prediction" nothing more than SWAG.  Actually just WAG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronnie?
> 
> The international arms dealer who tripled the debt and granted amnesty to millions of people?
Click to expand...


You're thinking of Bill Clinton, the guy who got bought by the Chinese government and arranged hits on all his enemies.
OK, I said "you're thinking."  Maybe that was a stretch.


----------



## Article 15

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, ask Ronnie.
> 
> This is a troll thread if ever there was.  Even the great Nate admits he lacks sufficient evidence.  That makes his "prediction" nothing more than SWAG.  Actually just WAG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie?
> 
> The international arms dealer who tripled the debt and granted amnesty to millions of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're thinking of Bill Clinton, the guy who got bought by the Chinese government and arranged hits on all his enemies.
> OK, I said "you're thinking."  Maybe that was a stretch.
Click to expand...


No, I'm definitely talking about Ronnie.

Clinton didn't triple the debt or grant amnesty to millions but I agree that both were international arms dealers.


----------



## Toro

EriktheRed said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, amazingly lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas "base your entire campaign on lies" is especially poignant, accurate and insightful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, considering the amount of whoppers coming from the Romney camp, it's not too far off.
Click to expand...


Given your signature, we'll take your opinion on that with a huge grain of salt.


----------



## Avorysuds

Two Thumbs said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> And no Pres has one election with over 8% UE
> 
> cept maybe fdr
Click to expand...


Yes and he did it through mass welfare... Notice how many are on welfare? I'd say Obama is sitting pretty.


----------



## EriktheRed

Toro said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas "base your entire campaign on lies" is especially poignant, accurate and insightful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, considering the amount of whoppers coming from the Romney camp, it's not too far off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given your signature, we'll take your opinion on that with a huge grain of salt.
Click to expand...


Oh, the little problem the Romney campaign's had with fact-checkers lately is nothing? Go ahead and denigrate what I say because of my sigline, but it's more than just my opinion.


----------



## Toro

EriktheRed said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, considering the amount of whoppers coming from the Romney camp, it's not too far off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given your signature, we'll take your opinion on that with a huge grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the little problem the Romney campaign's had with fact-checkers lately is nothing? Go ahead and denigrate what I say because of my sigline, but it's more than just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm sure being a highly-biased partisan has nothing to do with your opinion. 

In the meantime ...

FactCheck.org : FactChecking Obama and Biden


----------



## The Rabbi

Article 15 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie?
> 
> The international arms dealer who tripled the debt and granted amnesty to millions of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're thinking of Bill Clinton, the guy who got bought by the Chinese government and arranged hits on all his enemies.
> OK, I said "you're thinking."  Maybe that was a stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm definitely talking about Ronnie.
> 
> Clinton didn't triple the debt or grant amnesty to millions but I agree that both were international arms dealers.
Click to expand...


Lemme check.  Nope, you still don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.  Thought so.
You're right Clinton didnt triple the debt or grant amnesty.  That was Obama.


----------



## Chris

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're thinking of Bill Clinton, the guy who got bought by the Chinese government and arranged hits on all his enemies.
> OK, I said "you're thinking."  Maybe that was a stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm definitely talking about Ronnie.
> 
> Clinton didn't triple the debt or grant amnesty to millions but I agree that both were international arms dealers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lemme check.  Nope, you still don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.  Thought so.
> You're right Clinton didnt triple the debt or grant amnesty.  That was Obama.
Click to expand...


Obama didn't triple the debt.

That was Reagan.

Go to reaganbushdebt.org to see the figures.


----------



## EriktheRed

Toro said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given your signature, we'll take your opinion on that with a huge grain of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the little problem the Romney campaign's had with fact-checkers lately is nothing? Go ahead and denigrate what I say because of my sigline, but it's more than just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure being a highly-biased partisan has nothing to do with your opinion.
> 
> In the meantime ...
> 
> FactCheck.org : FactChecking Obama and Biden
Click to expand...



Ok, I'll remember that.


----------



## jillian

Article 15 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.



intrade has him at 39.8.

Intrade - Mitt Romney to be elected President in 2012


----------



## Toro

jillian said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> intrade has him at 39.8.
> 
> Intrade - Mitt Romney to be elected President in 2012
Click to expand...


And falling.


----------



## elvis

EriktheRed said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, considering the amount of whoppers coming from the Romney camp, it's not too far off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given your signature, we'll take your opinion on that with a huge grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the little problem the Romney campaign's had with fact-checkers lately is nothing? Go ahead and denigrate what I say because of my sigline, but it's more than just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Every political campaign is based on lies....


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm definitely talking about Ronnie.
> 
> Clinton didn't triple the debt or grant amnesty to millions but I agree that both were international arms dealers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme check.  Nope, you still don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.  Thought so.
> You're right Clinton didnt triple the debt or grant amnesty.  That was Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama didn't triple the debt.
> 
> That was Reagan.
> 
> Go to reaganbushdebt.org to see the figures.
Click to expand...


Obama has has increased the debt as much in four years as bush did in eight.   Time to take Obama's dick out of your asshole.   Better call the jaws of life.


----------



## auditor0007

Article 15 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
Click to expand...


But honestly, and this is not being facetious at all, Romney was their best candidate.


----------



## Lakhota

elvis said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme check.  Nope, you still don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.  Thought so.
> You're right Clinton didnt triple the debt or grant amnesty.  That was Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't triple the debt.
> 
> That was Reagan.
> 
> Go to reaganbushdebt.org to see the figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has spent as much in four years as bush did In eight.   Time to take Obama's dick out of your asshole.   Better call the jaws of life.
Click to expand...


Sounds like time for you to learn some basic math:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-direct-indirect-result-of-bush-actions.html


----------



## EriktheRed

auditor0007 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But honestly, and this is not being facetious at all, Romney was their best candidate.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that makes it all the more pathetic.


----------



## auditor0007

Article 15 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.



Things are looking very good for the President, but that could still change, but somehow I don't see it.  What Dems need to be careful of is not getting overconfident to the point that they think there is no need to actually go out and vote.  Getting out the vote is going to be huge.


----------



## elvis

Lakhota said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't triple the debt.
> 
> That was Reagan.
> 
> Go to reaganbushdebt.org to see the figures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has spent as much in four years as bush did In eight.   Time to take Obama's dick out of your asshole.   Better call the jaws of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like time for you to learn some basic math:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-direct-indirect-result-of-bush-actions.html
Click to expand...


Time for you to take Chrissy's dick out your colon...

Shitting bull.


----------



## Lakhota

elvis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has spent as much in four years as bush did In eight.   Time to take Obama's dick out of your asshole.   Better call the jaws of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like time for you to learn some basic math:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-direct-indirect-result-of-bush-actions.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for you to take Chrissy's dick out your colon...
> 
> Shitting bull.
Click to expand...


Time for you to ignore the link I provided...?  Don't get a headache.  It ain't rocket science...


----------



## elvis

Lakhota said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like time for you to learn some basic math:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-direct-indirect-result-of-bush-actions.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to take Chrissy's dick out your colon...
> 
> Shitting bull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for you to ignore the link I provided...?  Don't get a headache.  It ain't rocket science...
Click to expand...


I have the information that says bush and Obama have both spent us into oblivion.  The fact you gargle on Obama's semen is your own problem.


----------



## Lakhota

elvis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to take Chrissy's dick out your colon...
> 
> Shitting bull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to ignore the link I provided...?  Don't get a headache.  It ain't rocket science...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the information that says bush and Obama have both spent us into oblivion.  The fact you gargle on Obama's semen is your own problem.
Click to expand...


You're just like all the other wingnuts who can't factually answer the link I provided.  That's because Bush actions and policies are still driving the debt numbers.  Obama's "new" debt is small in comparison.  It ain't rocket science...


----------



## jillian

elvis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to take Chrissy's dick out your colon...
> 
> Shitting bull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to ignore the link I provided...?  Don't get a headache.  It ain't rocket science...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the information that says bush and Obama have both spent us into oblivion.  The fact you gargle on Obama's semen is your own problem.
Click to expand...


spending isn't the major problem. spending on china's credit card is the problem.

restore the clinton tax rates... no more problem.


----------



## JoeB131

auditor0007 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But honestly, and this is not being facetious at all, Romney was their best candidate.
Click to expand...


I don't really think he was.  

Say what you want about Santorum, he's a good family man and he was honest. His religious views were extreme, but no more than what the GOP is actually putting into their platform.  So the worse you could say about Santorum was, "He really means it."  

I think Santorum also would have connected with working folks a lot better than Romney does.  

Now, yeah, there'd be people who would have gone apeshit over Santorum, but those are the people who weren't going to vote Republican, anyway.  

Santorum's weakness was he didn't have the money.  And that's the problem when you let your party get sold to the highest bidder, which is what the GOP has done.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

jillian said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> intrade has him at 39.8.
> 
> Intrade - Mitt Romney to be elected President in 2012
Click to expand...


Based on the current polling data, the simluators at 270towin.com have Obama at an 85% chance to win right now.

It isn't too late for Romney to turn things around, but the electoral math is really bad for him.  He has to start moving the needle now.


----------



## The Rabbi

jillian said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to ignore the link I provided...?  Don't get a headache.  It ain't rocket science...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the information that says bush and Obama have both spent us into oblivion.  The fact you gargle on Obama's semen is your own problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> spending isn't the major problem. spending on china's credit card is the problem.
> 
> restore the clinton tax rates... no more problem.
Click to expand...


Wow.  Even you couldn't be this clueless.


----------



## jillian

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the information that says bush and Obama have both spent us into oblivion.  The fact you gargle on Obama's semen is your own problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spending isn't the major problem. spending on china's credit card is the problem.
> 
> restore the clinton tax rates... no more problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  Even you couldn't be this clueless.
Click to expand...


amusing from someone as clueless as you.

but whatever makes you feel better abut yourself.


----------



## AmyNation

JoeB131 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But honestly, and this is not being facetious at all, Romney was their best candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really think he was.
> 
> Say what you want about Santorum, he's a good family man and he was honest. His religious views were extreme, but no more than what the GOP is actually putting into their platform.  So the worse you could say about Santorum was, "He really means it."
> 
> I think Santorum also would have connected with working folks a lot better than Romney does.
> 
> Now, yeah, there'd be people who would have gone apeshit over Santorum, but those are the people who weren't going to vote Republican, anyway.
> 
> Santorum's weakness was he didn't have the money.  And that's the problem when you let your party get sold to the highest bidder, which is what the GOP has done.
Click to expand...


A Santorum pick would have given the election to Obama. Elections are won on, who's base is more movtivated and who can sway the independents. Not only would a vast majority of independents never have voted for Santorum, but he would have movtivated the dem base, and many independents to vote Obama just to make sure Santorum didn't win.


----------



## The Rabbi

jillian said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> spending isn't the major problem. spending on china's credit card is the problem.
> 
> restore the clinton tax rates... no more problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Even you couldn't be this clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> amusing from someone as clueless as you.
> 
> but whatever makes you feel better abut yourself.
Click to expand...


Your enmity tells me I am doing something right.  Anyone with her mouth on Anthony's wiener clearly doesnt have a clue.
Tell me, what percent of GDP did Clinton's tax regime bring in?  What would that translate into today?
But you wont answer those questions.  They are too tough for you.


----------



## jillian

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Even you couldn't be this clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amusing from someone as clueless as you.
> 
> but whatever makes you feel better abut yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your enmity tells me I am doing something right.  Anyone with her mouth on Anthony's wiener clearly doesnt have a clue.
> Tell me, what percent of GDP did Clinton's tax regime bring in?  What would that translate into today?
> But you wont answer those questions.  They are too tough for you.
Click to expand...


enmity? no. that would mean you matter. you're more like a mosquito, buzzing aroun.

you're the one who seems to be a bit hostile.

maybe you should do the anger management thing. it might help you.

clinton had a balanced budget and a surplus. and no question of yours is going to be "tough" for anyone... .just nonsensical and overly hostile.

for some reason, smart people in the GOP used to understand that trickle down is voodoo economics.


----------



## JoeB131

AmyNation said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But honestly, and this is not being facetious at all, Romney was their best candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think he was.
> 
> Say what you want about Santorum, he's a good family man and he was honest. His religious views were extreme, but no more than what the GOP is actually putting into their platform.  So the worse you could say about Santorum was, "He really means it."
> 
> I think Santorum also would have connected with working folks a lot better than Romney does.
> 
> Now, yeah, there'd be people who would have gone apeshit over Santorum, but those are the people who weren't going to vote Republican, anyway.
> 
> Santorum's weakness was he didn't have the money.  And that's the problem when you let your party get sold to the highest bidder, which is what the GOP has done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Santorum pick would have given the election to Obama. Elections are won on, who's base is more movtivated and who can sway the independents. Not only would a vast majority of independents never have voted for Santorum, but he would have movtivated the dem base, and many independents to vote Obama just to make sure Santorum didn't win.
Click to expand...


You know, here's the thing.  Santorum won twice in PA.  which means despite his very conservative views, he got moderate support.   

What did him in during the 2006 cycle is he refused to apologize for the Iraq war. And even then, the Democrats had to run a conservative against him.  

I really don't think Romney's problem is that he's too conservative. I think his problem is that he's phony and insincere and entitled, and that if offputting.  

I also think there really are two Republican parties.  One of the wealthy and business types, and one that is very working class and religously conservative.  The former lives in fear the latter might actually nominate someone.


----------



## Dick Tuck

JoeB131 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think he was.
> 
> Say what you want about Santorum, he's a good family man and he was honest. His religious views were extreme, but no more than what the GOP is actually putting into their platform.  So the worse you could say about Santorum was, "He really means it."
> 
> I think Santorum also would have connected with working folks a lot better than Romney does.
> 
> Now, yeah, there'd be people who would have gone apeshit over Santorum, but those are the people who weren't going to vote Republican, anyway.
> 
> Santorum's weakness was he didn't have the money.  And that's the problem when you let your party get sold to the highest bidder, which is what the GOP has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Santorum pick would have given the election to Obama. Elections are won on, who's base is more movtivated and who can sway the independents. Not only would a vast majority of independents never have voted for Santorum, but he would have movtivated the dem base, and many independents to vote Obama just to make sure Santorum didn't win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, here's the thing.  Santorum won twice in PA.  which means despite his very conservative views, he got moderate support.
> 
> What did him in during the 2006 cycle is he refused to apologize for the Iraq war. And even then, the Democrats had to run a conservative against him.
> 
> I really don't think Romney's problem is that he's too conservative. I think his problem is that he's phony and insincere and entitled, and that if offputting.
> 
> I also think there really are two Republican parties.  One of the wealthy and business types, and one that is very working class and religously conservative.  The former lives in fear the latter might actually nominate someone.
Click to expand...


James Carville once described Pennsylvania as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Mississippi in the middle.


----------



## bripat9643

Article 15 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
Click to expand...


The things Obama drones say are beyond belief.


----------



## JoeB131

Dick Tuck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Santorum pick would have given the election to Obama. Elections are won on, who's base is more movtivated and who can sway the independents. Not only would a vast majority of independents never have voted for Santorum, but he would have movtivated the dem base, and many independents to vote Obama just to make sure Santorum didn't win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, here's the thing.  Santorum won twice in PA.  which means despite his very conservative views, he got moderate support.
> 
> What did him in during the 2006 cycle is he refused to apologize for the Iraq war. And even then, the Democrats had to run a conservative against him.
> 
> I really don't think Romney's problem is that he's too conservative. I think his problem is that he's phony and insincere and entitled, and that if offputting.
> 
> I also think there really are two Republican parties.  One of the wealthy and business types, and one that is very working class and religously conservative.  The former lives in fear the latter might actually nominate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James Carville once described Pennsylvania as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Mississippi in the middle.
Click to expand...


James Carville says a lot of stupid shit.  

Look, I'm not a religious guy, but I think anyone who says, "You can't elect him, he's too religious!" is being a bit self-deluded.  We like our guys to at least pretend they believe in talking snakes.  

Look what Santorum did.  No money, little media attention, he kept plugging away and nearly fought Romney to a standstill after Romney, the Super Pacs and the GOP establishment threw everything they had at him.  

If his kid didn't get sick, who knows.  

If the GOP follows tradition, he'd be the frontrunner in 2016, and if the Dems run Hillary, who knows what will happen. 

I think the bigger strength of Santorum, is unlike Mr. Car Elevator and Mrs. Dressage Horsie, he gets what real working folks deal with.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think he was.
> 
> Say what you want about Santorum, he's a good family man and he was honest. His religious views were extreme, but no more than what the GOP is actually putting into their platform.  So the worse you could say about Santorum was, "He really means it."
> 
> I think Santorum also would have connected with working folks a lot better than Romney does.
> 
> Now, yeah, there'd be people who would have gone apeshit over Santorum, but those are the people who weren't going to vote Republican, anyway.
> 
> Santorum's weakness was he didn't have the money.  And that's the problem when you let your party get sold to the highest bidder, which is what the GOP has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Santorum pick would have given the election to Obama. Elections are won on, who's base is more movtivated and who can sway the independents. Not only would a vast majority of independents never have voted for Santorum, but he would have movtivated the dem base, and many independents to vote Obama just to make sure Santorum didn't win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, here's the thing.  Santorum won twice in PA.  which means despite his very conservative views, he got moderate support.
> 
> What did him in during the 2006 cycle is he refused to apologize for the Iraq war. And even then, the Democrats had to run a conservative against him.
> 
> I really don't think Romney's problem is that he's too conservative. I think his problem is that he's phony and insincere and entitled, and that if offputting.
> 
> I also think there really are two Republican parties.  One of the wealthy and business types, and one that is very working class and religously conservative.  The former lives in fear the latter might actually nominate someone.
Click to expand...


Santorum was going to lose PA to Romney, so he dropped out. If he couldn't beat Romney in his own state, he certainly wasn't going to beat Obama. And if he couldn't win in PA, he certainly wasn't going to win enough blue collar votes in the swing states to win the election. Putting up a hard core social conservative with little credibility on the economy when unemployment is north of 8% would probably have meant losses in Congress, let alone the Presidency.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> Santorum was going to lose PA to Romney, so he dropped out. If he couldn't beat Romney in his own state, he certainly wasn't going to beat Obama. And if he couldn't win in PA, he certainly wasn't going to win enough blue collar votes in the swing states to win the election. Putting up a hard core social conservative with little credibility on the economy when unemployment is north of 8% would probably have meant losses in Congress, let alone the Presidency.



The song of the Wall Street Republican- Trust us, we know what's good for you...  

You know, one of these days, the working class conservatives are going to figure out they can do very well without you parasites, then you are going to be in trouble.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, here's the thing.  Santorum won twice in PA.  which means despite his very conservative views, he got moderate support.
> 
> What did him in during the 2006 cycle is he refused to apologize for the Iraq war. And even then, the Democrats had to run a conservative against him.
> 
> I really don't think Romney's problem is that he's too conservative. I think his problem is that he's phony and insincere and entitled, and that if offputting.
> 
> I also think there really are two Republican parties.  One of the wealthy and business types, and one that is very working class and religously conservative.  The former lives in fear the latter might actually nominate someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Carville once described Pennsylvania as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Mississippi in the middle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James Carville says a lot of stupid shit.
> 
> Look, I'm not a religious guy, but I think anyone who says, "You can't elect him, he's too religious!" is being a bit self-deluded.  We like our guys to at least pretend they believe in talking snakes.
> 
> Look what Santorum did.  No money, little media attention, he kept plugging away and nearly fought Romney to a standstill after Romney, the Super Pacs and the GOP establishment threw everything they had at him.
> 
> If his kid didn't get sick, who knows.
> 
> If the GOP follows tradition, he'd be the frontrunner in 2016, and if the Dems run Hillary, who knows what will happen.
> 
> I think the bigger strength of Santorum, is unlike Mr. Car Elevator and Mrs. Dressage Horsie, he gets what real working folks deal with.
Click to expand...


Santorum was just the last man standing in a weak field as the base cycled through anyone but Romney. He won't be the nominee in 16.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> Santorum was just the last man standing in a weak field as the base cycled through anyone but Romney. He won't be the nominee in 16.



Never say never...  

If you had told me in 1993 that after the debacle that was Bush's loss, when I was so disillusioned with the GOP I damned well near voted for Perot, that in 8 years, Bush's son would run and win (kind of), I'd have looked at you funny.  

Again, one of these days, working class Christians are going to figure out that Wall Street isn't their friend, and while they have gobs of money, they really don't have that many votes.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Santorum was going to lose PA to Romney, so he dropped out. If he couldn't beat Romney in his own state, he certainly wasn't going to beat Obama. And if he couldn't win in PA, he certainly wasn't going to win enough blue collar votes in the swing states to win the election. Putting up a hard core social conservative with little credibility on the economy when unemployment is north of 8% would probably have meant losses in Congress, let alone the Presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The song of the Wall Street Republican- Trust us, we know what's good for you...
> 
> You know, one of these days, the working class conservatives are going to figure out they can do very well without you parasites, then you are going to be in trouble.
Click to expand...


Oooooh, I'm shaking!

The King of Deflections does his Thing!


----------



## Mac1958

.

I keep hearing that Romney will rise when his campaign opens up the attack ad floodgates.  Okay, now's the time.  If Romney doesn't start making steady progress pretty soon, he's in trouble.

By the way, how many sig bets have been made by those who have been doing a Romney victory lap?

.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Santorum was going to lose PA to Romney, so he dropped out. If he couldn't beat Romney in his own state, he certainly wasn't going to beat Obama. And if he couldn't win in PA, he certainly wasn't going to win enough blue collar votes in the swing states to win the election. Putting up a hard core social conservative with little credibility on the economy when unemployment is north of 8% would probably have meant losses in Congress, let alone the Presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The song of the Wall Street Republican- Trust us, we know what's good for you...
> 
> You know, one of these days, the working class conservatives are going to figure out they can do very well without you parasites, then you are going to be in trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooooh, I'm shaking!
> 
> The King of Deflections does his Thing!
Click to expand...


As a wise man said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.  

The modern Republican coalition is based on the Plutocratic wing getting the Theocratic wing to vote against its own interest.  If you are a working class Christian conservative, Free Trade, unregulated banks, and Wall Street looting your pension fund while breaking up your union doesn't do you a bit of good.  

But the Plutocratic wing has gotten very good at distracting them.  It just won't last forever.  Eventually, they are going to figure it out.


----------



## The Rabbi

jillian said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> amusing from someone as clueless as you.
> 
> but whatever makes you feel better abut yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your enmity tells me I am doing something right.  Anyone with her mouth on Anthony's wiener clearly doesnt have a clue.
> Tell me, what percent of GDP did Clinton's tax regime bring in?  What would that translate into today?
> But you wont answer those questions.  They are too tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> enmity? no. that would mean you matter. you're more like a mosquito, buzzing aroun.
> 
> you're the one who seems to be a bit hostile.
> 
> maybe you should do the anger management thing. it might help you.
> 
> clinton had a balanced budget and a surplus. and no question of yours is going to be "tough" for anyone... .just nonsensical and overly hostile.
> 
> for some reason, smart people in the GOP used to understand that trickle down is voodoo economics.
Click to expand...


Typical non-response.
The percentage during Clinton's year was about 9.6% of GDP in individual income taxes.  GDP last year was $15.6T.  That equates to about 1.5T in income taxes if we had Bill's tax rates.  The deficit is nearly that much.
So reinstituting Clinton's tax rates would not solve the deficit issue at all.  It would probably make it worse.

No need to thank me for doing the heavy lifting and spending 5 minutes on something you are incapable of.  Nor are you capable of making any sort of counter argument here.


----------



## The Rabbi

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The song of the Wall Street Republican- Trust us, we know what's good for you...
> 
> You know, one of these days, the working class conservatives are going to figure out they can do very well without you parasites, then you are going to be in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooh, I'm shaking!
> 
> The King of Deflections does his Thing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a wise man said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
> 
> The modern Republican coalition is based on the Plutocratic wing getting the Theocratic wing to vote against its own interest.  If you are a working class Christian conservative, Free Trade, unregulated banks, and Wall Street looting your pension fund while breaking up your union doesn't do you a bit of good.
> 
> But the Plutocratic wing has gotten very good at distracting them.  It just won't last forever.  Eventually, they are going to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Remind us how those plutocrats in the teachers' union are looting the public treasury in Chicago as we speak.


----------



## JoeB131

The Rabbi said:


> Remind us how those plutocrats in the teachers' union are looting the public treasury in Chicago as we speak.



You know, every time I think Rabbi can't be nearly as much of a retard as he seems to be, he impresses me with his learning disability.  

The Teachers in Chicago are fighting to make sure retards like you aren't neglected like you obviously were, Corky!


----------



## Chris

The Dow just reached a 5 year high.

Bye, Mitt.


----------



## The Rabbi

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remind us how those plutocrats in the teachers' union are looting the public treasury in Chicago as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, every time I think Rabbi can't be nearly as much of a retard as he seems to be, he impresses me with his learning disability.
> 
> The Teachers in Chicago are fighting to make sure retards like you aren't neglected like you obviously were, Corky!
Click to expand...


You live there and you're fucking clueless as to what's going on.  Nothing lower than that.


----------



## The Rabbi

Chris said:


> The Dow just reached a 5 year high.
> 
> Bye, Mitt.



Because Obama has the votes of all those millionaires and billionaires?


----------



## Old Rocks

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dow just reached a 5 year high.
> 
> Bye, Mitt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Obama has the votes of all those millionaires and billionaires?
Click to expand...


Well yes. Because the President has the votes of the real creators of wealth. And those people realize that the wealth has to be spread around a lot to create new wealth.


----------



## skookerasbil

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


----------



## skookerasbil

Old Rocks said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dow just reached a 5 year high.
> 
> Bye, Mitt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Obama has the votes of all those millionaires and billionaires?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes. Because the President has the votes of the real creators of wealth. And those people realize that the wealth has to be spread around a lot to create new wealth.
Click to expand...




except...........that method has never worked in the history of the world!!!


----------



## driveby

Article 15 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.



Truthmatters gives Romney a 17 percent chance of winning, let's just cancel the election......


----------



## Politico

Who?


----------



## Mac1958

Chris said:


> The Dow just reached a 5 year high.
> 
> Bye, Mitt.





If unemployment is still over 8%, why is the market at a five year high?

Answer: The stock market is not the economy.

Obama looks to have an advantage right now, but it's not because of the stock market.

.


----------



## JoeB131

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remind us how those plutocrats in the teachers' union are looting the public treasury in Chicago as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, every time I think Rabbi can't be nearly as much of a retard as he seems to be, he impresses me with his learning disability.
> 
> The Teachers in Chicago are fighting to make sure retards like you aren't neglected like you obviously were, Corky!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live there and you're fucking clueless as to what's going on.  Nothing lower than that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I live here, and what they are fighting for are more conselors, more special ed teachers, textbooks that arrive on time for the start of the school year, more speech therapists, airconditioning in the summer.  Oh, yeah, and they want raises that keep up with inflation. How dare they!


----------



## The Rabbi

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, every time I think Rabbi can't be nearly as much of a retard as he seems to be, he impresses me with his learning disability.
> 
> The Teachers in Chicago are fighting to make sure retards like you aren't neglected like you obviously were, Corky!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You live there and you're fucking clueless as to what's going on.  Nothing lower than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I live here, and what they are fighting for are more conselors, more special ed teachers, textbooks that arrive on time for the start of the school year, more speech therapists, airconditioning in the summer.  Oh, yeah, and they want raises that keep up with inflation. How dare they!
Click to expand...


I want a pony too.
16% is way beyond the rate of inflation, dipshit.  And the strike is illegal as well.


----------



## JoeB131

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live there and you're fucking clueless as to what's going on.  Nothing lower than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I live here, and what they are fighting for are more conselors, more special ed teachers, textbooks that arrive on time for the start of the school year, more speech therapists, airconditioning in the summer.  Oh, yeah, and they want raises that keep up with inflation. How dare they!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want a pony too.
> 16% is way beyond the rate of inflation, dipshit.  And the strike is illegal as well.
Click to expand...


16% over four years is 4% a year.  It barely keeps up with inflation.  

And frankly, wanting the tools to do their job is not unreasonable.  You guys whine about the folks on welfare all day, but then you don't want to spend the money to get them the skills to provide for themselves?


----------



## Political Junky

Obama 83.9% chance of winning
Romney 16.1% chance of winning

Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com


----------



## Oddball

Wow...NYT pimps a democratic.....STOP THE PRESSES!


----------



## Article 15

Political Junky said:


> Obama 83.9% chance of winning
> Romney 16.1% chance of winning
> 
> Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



Polls are skewed.

Times is a liberal rag.

Fred Thomson is going to win, the University of Colorado told me so.

^These will all come up in response to this OP in some shape or form.


----------



## Political Junky

Nate has a history of being spot on.


----------



## Article 15

Nate's Now-cast has it 97.8 - 2.2


----------



## Article 15

Political Junky said:


> Nate has a history of being spot on.



Yup.  He's a statistics uber nerd.

He nailed 2008 and almost called the exact number of House seat pick ups for the GOP in the 2010 mid terms.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Who is Nate Silver?

How did he do in 2010?


----------



## Article 15

CrusaderFrank said:


> Who is Nate Silver?



Big time stat geek.



> How did he do in 2010?



Pretty damn good.


----------



## Dot Com

but..... but Rasmussen has Romney up by 5


----------



## Lakhota

Wall St. Loses Faith in Their Man Romney -- 6 Really Bad New Signs for the GOP Candidate | Alternet


----------



## Zarius

Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com


----------



## Missourian

Cling to hope.

I'd call it 50/50 right now.

Anecdotally,  my wife cast her first ballot in 17 year s to defeat Obama/Mccaskill.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Zarius said:


> Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



Don't pop the cork on your champagne yet.  The estimate is as of Oct. 13.  Since then Tommy Thompson has taken the lead in the Wisconsin Senate race and Tom Smith in Pennsylvania is closing fast on Bob Casey, moving from a 6.3 point deficit on Oct. 13 to a 3 point deficit according to the latest Quinnipiac poll.


----------



## candycorn

Zarius said:


> Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



Great news indeed.  Obamacare stands.


----------



## JimH52

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...

Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!


----------



## Listening

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!



He's the guy that the left pays to make an idiot out of himself by claiming this kind of sillyness.


----------



## JimH52

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!



  Ya....nice try...you know who he is and you know how accurate he is.


----------



## Mac1958

.

I'm no expert on polls, but it seems like they're stabilizing somewhat and the key is going to be not just the swing states, but the *turnout *in the swing states.  Obama's five point lead in Ohio, for example, won't matter if his folks don't show up.  Same thing in Pennsylvania.  The pollsters try to gauge intensity, but that's gotta be a pretty inexact science, especially when you're already dealing with likely voters.

.


----------



## jillian

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.



yes, yes he does.


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm no expert on polls, but it seems like they're stabilizing somewhat and the key is going to be not just the swing states, but the *turnout *in the swing states.  Obama's five point lead in Ohio, for example, won't matter if his folks don't show up.  Same thing in Pennsylvania.  The pollsters try to gauge intensity, but that's gotta be a pretty inexact science, especially when you're already dealing with likely voters.
> 
> .



true. it's about ground game. right now, early voting in ohio seems to be two to one in the president's favor. no doubt romney voters are more likely to come out on election day. so as chuck todd just pointed out, the question remains...are the people voting for the president casual voters, which early voting is intended to attract, or are these his voters maxing out.


----------



## JimH52

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm no expert on polls, but it seems like they're stabilizing somewhat and the key is going to be not just the swing states, but the *turnout *in the swing states.  Obama's five point lead in Ohio, for example, won't matter if his folks don't show up.  Same thing in Pennsylvania.  The pollsters try to gauge intensity, but that's gotta be a pretty inexact science, especially when you're already dealing with likely voters.
> 
> .



True, and I am sure those calculations are added to the equation.  Nate now has Obama with a 52.9% chance of winning Virginia.  If he wins Virginia and Ohio, Willard's other options are very limited.  Here is another site:

ElectoralVote

Real Clear Politics still has Willlard with a slight lead in EV count.  I expect that will also change in the next couple days.  Its about math and science...


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

JimH52 said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya....nice try...you know who he is and you know how accurate he is.
Click to expand...


No, I actually don't nor do I care if he works for the NY Liberal Slimes.. that's all I need to know.


 BTW- You liberal Zombies are becoming more desperate by the hour.. LOL it's amusing to watch. Thanks!


----------



## Mac1958

LadyGunSlinger said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya....nice try...you know who he is and you know how accurate he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I actually don't nor do I care if he works for the NY Liberal Slimes.. that's all I need to know.
> 
> 
> BTW- You liberal Zombies are becoming more desperate by the hour.. LOL it's amusing to watch. Thanks!
Click to expand...




I'd love to know what has you so confident.  I was listening to righty Hugh Hewitt a couple of days ago, and he was already taking victory laps, wondering if it will be a Romney landslide.

What is it about the numbers that makes you so sure?  Intensity?  I don't see how it could be anything else.

.


----------



## Old Rocks

President Obama  281    Governor Romney   257

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups

Intrade puts it at 59% to 41% in the Presidents favor

Intrade - Home


----------



## Inthemiddle

jillian said:


> no doubt romney voters are more likely to come out on election day



Well that's the interesting thing....the elderly tend to rely on early voting alot.  That's an important part of the GOP base.  On the other hand, GOP supporters are more likely to react to opposition leads early, by getting out to vote when they might not have done so otherwise.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Mac1958 said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya....nice try...you know who he is and you know how accurate he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually don't nor do I care if he works for the NY Liberal Slimes.. that's all I need to know.
> 
> 
> BTW- You liberal Zombies are becoming more desperate by the hour.. LOL it's amusing to watch. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to know what has you so confident.  I was listening to righty Hugh Hewitt a couple of days ago, and he was already taking victory laps, wondering if it will be a Romney landslide.
> 
> What is it about the numbers that makes you so sure?  Intensity?  I don't see how it could be anything else.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Voter enthusiasm.. registered voters who actually turn out.. All trends show Romney moving up in every single swing state.. Obama has ruined the economy and destroyed foreign policy, TWO MAJOR SCANDALS, FAST N FURIOUS, BENGHAZI..

It's a lovely day!


----------



## JimH52

Of Course we are

Stay Tuned Dear


----------



## Mac1958

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually don't nor do I care if he works for the NY Liberal Slimes.. that's all I need to know.
> 
> 
> BTW- You liberal Zombies are becoming more desperate by the hour.. LOL it's amusing to watch. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to know what has you so confident.  I was listening to righty Hugh Hewitt a couple of days ago, and he was already taking victory laps, wondering if it will be a Romney landslide.
> 
> What is it about the numbers that makes you so sure?  Intensity?  I don't see how it could be anything else.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Voter enthusiasm.. registered voters who actually turn out.. All trends show Romney moving up in every single swing state.. Obama has ruined the economy and destroyed foreign policy, TWO MAJOR SCANDALS, FAST N FURIOUS, BENGHAZI..
> 
> It's a lovely day!
Click to expand...



Okay, so, intensity.  I'm looking forward to seeing how the final polls compare to the actual vote, I'd like to see the final relationship between "likely voter" and intensity.

I'm also looking forward to the postmortem because it will mean that this circus is mercifully over.  At least for a short while.

.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm no expert on polls, but it seems like they're stabilizing somewhat and the key is going to be not just the swing states, but the *turnout *in the swing states.  Obama's five point lead in Ohio, for example, won't matter if his folks don't show up.  Same thing in Pennsylvania.  The pollsters try to gauge intensity, but that's gotta be a pretty inexact science, especially when you're already dealing with likely voters.
> 
> .



And that's where Obama has an advantage. He has twice as many feild offices in the Swing States and a very active GOTV machine.


----------



## Inthemiddle

JimH52 said:


> True, and I am sure those calculations are added to the equation.  Nate now has Obama with a 52.9% chance of winning Virginia.



Until yesterday I would not have entertained any notion that Obama might win VA.  But now that I'm seeing all the protesting about the GOP trying to legislatively insert things into people's vaginae, I'm back to thinking there's a slim chance.  I think the GOP would be making a catastrophic mistake to abandon Ohio in favor of PA.  Pennsylvania will not go red.  It just won't happen.  They should continue to focus on Ohio, and sure up Wisconsin as well.  If the GOP takes both Ohio and Wisconsin, it becomes impossible for Obama to win.  At best, Obama would be able to pull a tie under those circumstances (which would become a Romney win in Congress).  But even then, he'd need to win VA in order to tie.


----------



## Conservative

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm no expert on polls, but it seems like they're stabilizing somewhat and the key is going to be not just the swing states, but the *turnout *in the swing states.  *Obama's five point lead in Ohio*, for example, won't matter if his folks don't show up.  Same thing in Pennsylvania.  The pollsters try to gauge intensity, but that's gotta be a pretty inexact science, especially when you're already dealing with likely voters.
> 
> .



RCP average is 2.1


----------



## Inthemiddle

Conservative said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'm no expert on polls, but it seems like they're stabilizing somewhat and the key is going to be not just the swing states, but the *turnout *in the swing states.  *Obama's five point lead in Ohio*, for example, won't matter if his folks don't show up.  Same thing in Pennsylvania.  The pollsters try to gauge intensity, but that's gotta be a pretty inexact science, especially when you're already dealing with likely voters.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RCP average is 2.1
Click to expand...


Then again, RCP hand picks variant polls to average together to come to its results.  Highly unreliable.


----------



## Conservative

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'm no expert on polls, but it seems like they're stabilizing somewhat and the key is going to be not just the swing states, but the *turnout *in the swing states.  Obama's five point lead in Ohio, for example, won't matter if his folks don't show up.  Same thing in Pennsylvania.  The pollsters try to gauge intensity, but that's gotta be a pretty inexact science, especially when you're already dealing with likely voters.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where Obama has an advantage.* He has twice as many feild offices in the Swing States* and a very active GOTV machine.
Click to expand...


link?


----------



## Mr. Shaman

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and *why should any of us care??!*


Understood.

His methodology is *math-driven*....not exactly a.....



> .....*Teabagger-favorite*.




​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

LadyGunSlinger said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya....nice try...you know who he is and you know how accurate he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I actually don't nor do I care if he works for the NY Liberal Slimes.. that's all I need to know.
> 
> 
> BTW- You liberal Zombies are becoming more desperate by the hour.. LOL it's amusing to watch. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Your *desperation* has been noted, *numerous* times.

There's no need for your repetative-efforts.

​


----------



## jillian

Inthemiddle said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'm no expert on polls, but it seems like they're stabilizing somewhat and the key is going to be not just the swing states, but the *turnout *in the swing states.  *Obama's five point lead in Ohio*, for example, won't matter if his folks don't show up.  Same thing in Pennsylvania.  The pollsters try to gauge intensity, but that's gotta be a pretty inexact science, especially when you're already dealing with likely voters.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RCP average is 2.1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then again, RCP hand picks variant polls to average together to come to its results.  Highly unreliable.
Click to expand...


i wouldn't say it's higly unreliable. they're right-leaning, but i think they try. and i've always found it more valuable to take averages. historically, they've given a clearer picture than any one poll.

it does appear that when polling by the most respected pollster is consistently +5 then romney has a problem in ohio.

there are no more debates.
there are only ads and campaign stops and ground game.  so the question becomes what changes the dynamic in the next 12 days?


----------



## beretta304

jillian said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> RCP average is 2.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, RCP hand picks variant polls to average together to come to its results.  Highly unreliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i wouldn't say it's higly unreliable. they're right-leaning, but i think they try. and i've always found it more valuable to take averages. historically, they've given a clearer picture than any one poll.
> 
> it does appear that when polling by the most respected pollster is consistently +5 then romney has a problem in ohio.
> 
> there are no more debates.
> there are only ads and campaign stops and ground game.  so the question becomes what changes the dynamic in the next 12 days?
Click to expand...



I suppose the Colorado study is wrong too.


----------



## Liability

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.



Nate is going to look and feel as stupid as you when The ONE loses huge.


----------



## Two Thumbs

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.



did he have a chance to factor in the fact that obama has been caught covering up murders?

I hope not, b/c that would mean that this man knows liberals have no moral bottom or any kind of compass


----------



## jillian

Liability said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate is going to look and feel as stupid as you when The ONE loses huge.
Click to expand...


no one is showing anyone losing "huge". you might want to re-evaluate that, regardless of its pithiness.


----------



## JimH52

I guess as the vote gets closer, the insults and name calling will intensity...To be expected I guess


----------



## Liability

I believe it was our pal Zander who noted yesterday that the lolberals here are engaging in some self-soothing.

That makes Nate whoeverthefuckheis a form of thumb sucking for libbies.

But reality intrudes, you poor things.  The ONE is going to lose his bid for re-election.  It's just that simple.


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did he have a chance to factor in the fact that obama has been caught covering up murders?
> 
> I hope not, b/c that would mean that this man knows liberals have no moral bottom or any kind of compass
Click to expand...


no one covered up murders. you sound absurd.

but you know what else it doesn't factor in? romney's endorsement of the nutter that just cost the GOP the indiana senate seat.


----------



## jillian

JimH52 said:


> I guess as the vote gets closer, the insults and name calling will intensity...To be expected I guess



no surprises. happens every four years


----------



## Liability

JimH52 said:


> I guess as the vote gets closer, the insults and name calling *will intensity*...To be expected I guess



Yes.  You lolberals "will intensity" your name calling and your demands for affirmation of your silly claims.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

jillian said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> RCP average is 2.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, RCP hand picks variant polls to average together to come to its results.  Highly unreliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i wouldn't say it's higly unreliable. they're right-leaning, but i think they try. and i've always found it more valuable to take averages. historically, they've given a clearer picture than any one poll.
> 
> it does appear that when polling by the most respected pollster is consistently +5 then romney has a problem in ohio.
> 
> there are no more debates.
> there are only ads and campaign stops and ground game.  so the question becomes what changes the dynamic in the next 12 days?
Click to expand...


Take a look at this entire paragraph. Improper sentence structure, run on sentences.. Hell, my 1st grader can form better paragraphs! You're an attorney???????????? LMFAO God help your clients!


----------



## Liability

Quick what's another name for the Obama Re-Election Campaign?


Answer:  Like the man himself, "FAIL!"


----------



## beretta304

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did he have a chance to factor in the fact that obama has been caught covering up murders?
> 
> I hope not, b/c that would mean that this man knows liberals have no moral bottom or any kind of compass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one covered up murders. you sound absurd.
> 
> but you know what else it doesn't factor in? romney's endorsement of the nutter that just cost the GOP the indiana senate seat.
Click to expand...



Keep avoiding the Colorado study and repeating Nate Silver, boy blunder who got lucky a few times vesus 20 years of being right.


----------



## jillian

Liability said:


> I believe it was our pal Zander who noted yesterday that the lolberals here are engaging in some self-soothing.
> 
> That makes Nate whoeverthefuckheis a form of thumb sucking for libbies.
> 
> But reality intrudes, you poor things.  The ONE is going to lose his bid for re-election.  It's just that simple.



no offense, i like Z. he's good people. but that wouldn't be who i'd go to for any serious analysis of polling.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Mac1958 said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to know what has you so confident.  I was listening to righty Hugh Hewitt a couple of days ago, and he was already taking victory laps, wondering if it will be a Romney landslide.
> 
> What is it about the numbers that makes you so sure?  Intensity?  I don't see how it could be anything else.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voter enthusiasm.. registered voters who actually turn out.. All trends show Romney moving up in every single swing state.. Obama has ruined the economy and destroyed foreign policy, TWO MAJOR SCANDALS, FAST N FURIOUS, BENGHAZI..
> 
> It's a lovely day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so, intensity.  I'm looking forward to seeing how the final polls compare to the actual vote, I'd like to see the final relationship between "likely voter" and intensity.
> 
> I'm also looking forward to the postmortem because it will mean that this circus is mercifully over.  At least for a short while.
Click to expand...

.....Not to mention, the end of Mitt Romney's political-career (as is typical of _throw-away_ candidates).

Maybe he could secure employment as a spokesman for "*woody*"-pills...like the RNC's last _throw-away_.....


----------



## jillian

Liability said:


> Quick what's another name for the Obama Re-Election Campaign?
> 
> 
> Answer:  Like the man himself, "FAIL!"



er... you're starting to sound a little hysterical, hon. chill... it's an election, not a terminal illness.


----------



## beretta304

LadyGunSlinger said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, RCP hand picks variant polls to average together to come to its results.  Highly unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i wouldn't say it's higly unreliable. they're right-leaning, but i think they try. and i've always found it more valuable to take averages. historically, they've given a clearer picture than any one poll.
> 
> it does appear that when polling by the most respected pollster is consistently +5 then romney has a problem in ohio.
> 
> there are no more debates.
> there are only ads and campaign stops and ground game.  so the question becomes what changes the dynamic in the next 12 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at this entire paragraph. Improper sentence structure, run on sentences.. Hell, my 1st grader can form better paragraphs! You're an attorney???????????? LMFAO God help your clients!
Click to expand...



Notice when I engage her in a serious manner she ignores me but then when it's time for her and Valerie to tag-team flame she's all over me. 

Then she whines that I start with her....

Jilly will leave momentarily and Valerie will log back on and share her words of wisdom post haste....


----------



## JoeB131

jillian said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick what's another name for the Obama Re-Election Campaign?
> 
> 
> Answer:  Like the man himself, "FAIL!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> er... you're starting to sound a little hysterical, hon. chill... it's an election, not a terminal illness.
Click to expand...


A lot of them will require hospitalization when Obama wins...


----------



## Liability

jillian said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick what's another name for the Obama Re-Election Campaign?
> 
> 
> Answer:  Like the man himself, "FAIL!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> er... you're starting to sound a little hysterical, hon. chill... it's an election, not a terminal illness.
Click to expand...


I am not the one backing the dope that's about to lose big, Jilly!  

So, your obvious effort to try to "turn it around on me" is (like the dope you support) a fail.


----------



## Claudette

71% huh??

Excuse me while I stand over here and LMAO.

I don't see that for either candidate. 

Of course the NY Slimes will say Barry is gonna win big but anyone with a working brain cell knows he won't. Hell. I doubt he'll win at all.


----------



## Liability

JoeB131 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick what's another name for the Obama Re-Election Campaign?
> 
> 
> Answer:  Like the man himself, "FAIL!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> er... you're starting to sound a little hysterical, hon. chill... it's an election, not a terminal illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of them will require hospitalization when Obama wins...
Click to expand...


"when."  

Newflash, just for you, JoeBitch.  Your Obamessiah is not going to win.  He is going to lose.  

No.  Those terms are not synonyms.


----------



## Two Thumbs

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did he have a chance to factor in the fact that obama has been caught covering up murders?
> 
> I hope not, b/c that would mean that this man knows liberals have no moral bottom or any kind of compass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one covered up murders. you sound absurd.
> 
> but you know what else it doesn't factor in? romney's endorsement of the nutter that just cost the GOP the indiana senate seat.
Click to expand...


He tried to cover it up as something it wasn't.  He lied about it, blamed it on an innocent man, who is now living in fear for his life and has delayed and delayed the truth.

It had to come from reporters.

So, how does is feel to support an amoral "person" as President?


----------



## Ravi

LadyGunSlinger said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, RCP hand picks variant polls to average together to come to its results.  Highly unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i wouldn't say it's higly unreliable. they're right-leaning, but i think they try. and i've always found it more valuable to take averages. historically, they've given a clearer picture than any one poll.
> 
> it does appear that when polling by the most respected pollster is consistently +5 then romney has a problem in ohio.
> 
> there are no more debates.
> there are only ads and campaign stops and ground game.  so the question becomes what changes the dynamic in the next 12 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at this entire paragraph. Improper sentence structure, run on sentences.. Hell, my 1st grader can form better paragraphs! You're an attorney???????????? LMFAO God help your clients!
Click to expand...

The only thing improper about her paragraph is that she doesn't capitalize.

such a loon you are! How's your latest meltdown going?


----------



## JoeB131

Liability said:


> "when."
> 
> Newflash, just for you, JoeBitch.  Your Obamessiah is not going to win.  He is going to lose.
> 
> No.  Those terms are not synonyms.



Sorry, guy, Obama will win a second term, easily.  

Romney has jumped the shark.   

Ended when he stammered his sweaty forhead through the third debate.


----------



## JoeB131

Two Thumbs said:


> He tried to cover it up as something it wasn't.  He lied about it, blamed it on an innocent man, who is now living in fear for his life and has delayed and delayed the truth.
> 
> It had to come from reporters.
> 
> So, how does is feel to support an amoral "person" as President?



Oh, please, guy.... 

The CIA has said that the movie was a cause of the attack.  

Oh, but look, there was a facebook posting taking credit for the attack. Why wasn't the White House checking Facebook?


----------



## Liability

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> "when."
> 
> Newflash, just for you, JoeBitch.  Your Obamessiah is not going to win.  He is going to lose.
> 
> No.  Those terms are not synonyms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, guy, Obama will win a second term, easily.
> 
> Romney has jumped the shark.
> 
> Ended when he stammered his sweaty forhead through the third debate.
Click to expand...



False as always from you.

It didn't end.  But if you want to identify the moment when The ONE sealed his fate as the LOSER, just replay the First Debate.

Loop it in fact.



Obama:  A one term proposition.

Thank God.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Ravi said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wouldn't say it's higly unreliable. they're right-leaning, but i think they try. and i've always found it more valuable to take averages. historically, they've given a clearer picture than any one poll.
> 
> it does appear that when polling by the most respected pollster is consistently +5 then romney has a problem in ohio.
> 
> there are no more debates.
> there are only ads and campaign stops and ground game.  so the question becomes what changes the dynamic in the next 12 days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at this entire paragraph. Improper sentence structure, run on sentences.. Hell, my 1st grader can form better paragraphs! You're an attorney???????????? LMFAO God help your clients!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing improper about her paragraph is that she doesn't capitalize.
> 
> such a loon you are! How's your latest meltdown going?
Click to expand...


 Raging Ravi is as stoopid as Hagitha.. Quite obvious you don't know what a run on sentence is either but being you're sooo offended that someone insulted a member of your HAG squad, try next time to make a little sense in your retort.. Don't thank me DUMMY, free advice!


----------



## Seawytch

It's not just Nate, who has been one of the most accurate pollsters. The President is the favorite in Vegas too. They haven't been wrong yet.


----------



## Seawytch

And the kids on Nickelodeon? They picked President Obama too...by a HUGE margin. They've gotten 5 out of the last 6 Presidents right.


----------



## Liability

Seawytch said:


> And the kids on Nickelodeon? They picked President Obama too...by a HUGE margin. They've gotten 5 out of the last 6 Presidents right.



^ 

Seabyscuit brings a rich new dimension to the meaning of the phrase, "clutching at straws."


----------



## Seawytch

Liability said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the kids on Nickelodeon? They picked President Obama too...by a HUGE margin. They've gotten 5 out of the last 6 Presidents right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> Seabyscuit brings a rich new dimension to the meaning of the phrase, "clutching at straws."
Click to expand...


How is pointing out facts "clutching at straws"?

They have picked the last 5 out of 6 Presidents. The only got Bush/Kerry wrong....

Or did they? 

http://www.google.com/search?q=what+went+wrong+in+ohio&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari


----------



## Liability

Seawytch said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the kids on Nickelodeon? They picked President Obama too...by a HUGE margin. They've gotten 5 out of the last 6 Presidents right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> Seabyscuit brings a rich new dimension to the meaning of the phrase, "clutching at straws."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is pointing out facts "clutching at straws"?
> 
> They have picked the last 5 out of 6 Presidents. The only got Bush/Kerry wrong....
> 
> Or did they?
> 
> what went wrong in ohio - Google Search
Click to expand...


^ 

If the children say it and they have "called it" correctly 5 out of 6 times, then the race must be over.

You are SUCH a plodding witless hack.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Romney will more than likely take PA and OH. O doesnt have a clear path anymore. I see the dems have taken refuge with 538.  They dropped rcp like a cheap whore.


----------



## buckeye45_73

JoeB131 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> He tried to cover it up as something it wasn't. He lied about it, blamed it on an innocent man, who is now living in fear for his life and has delayed and delayed the truth.
> 
> It had to come from reporters.
> 
> So, how does is feel to support an amoral "person" as President?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please, guy....
> 
> The CIA has said that the movie was a cause of the attack.
> 
> Oh, but look, there was a facebook posting taking credit for the attack. Why wasn't the White House checking Facebook?
Click to expand...

 
OMG you're a fucking moron about the video...it didnt cause shit.....it was released in July....
Wow libtards are dumber than I thought....I thought you guys could see through that one....but I guess you like it up the ass.....no other explanation


----------



## JustSomeGuy

Once upon a time, I respected Nate Silver, but he seems  to have long since jumped the proverbial shark. Look at his most current post declaring how momentum for Romney has stopped. Now go back and look at his posts regarding favorable polling for Romney and how he dismisses them as merely "statistical noise". How does that work?

Looking at RCP, Romney leads in six of ten of the latest polls, Obama leads in three and they are tied in one of them. Even if you go over to TPM and look at their daily tracker, Romney leads in five of the last nine polls while Obama leads in four. Obama doesn't reach the 50% mark on any poll on TPM's tracker while Obama only reaches 50% in one on RCP's average. So how does he predict Obama will get 50% of the vote and has a 71% chance of winning? Dude is weighting some polls more heavily than others is the only explanation I have.

(And even today the AP released a poll with Romney up 2. I wonder what he will say about that?)


----------



## Mr. Shaman

JoeB131 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick what's another name for the Obama Re-Election Campaign?
> 
> 
> Answer:  Like the man himself, "FAIL!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> er... you're starting to sound a little hysterical, hon. chill... it's an election, not a terminal illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of them will require hospitalization when Obama wins...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Liability said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick what's another name for the Obama Re-Election Campaign?
> 
> 
> Answer:  Like the man himself, "FAIL!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> er... you're starting to sound a little hysterical, hon. chill... it's an election, not a terminal illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one backing the dope.....
Click to expand...

'Tis true!!

That'd be.....

*PORKY!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JustSomeGuy said:


> Once upon a time, I respected Nate Silver, but he seems  to have long since jumped the proverbial shark. Look at his most current post declaring how momentum for Romney has stopped. Now go back and look at his posts regarding favorable polling for Romney and how he dismisses them as merely "statistical noise". How does that work?
> 
> Looking at RCP, Romney leads in six of ten of the latest polls, Obama leads in three and they are tied in one of them. Even if you go over to TPM and look at their daily tracker, Romney leads in five of the last nine polls while Obama leads in four. Obama doesn't reach the 50% mark on any poll on TPM's tracker while Obama only reaches 50% in one on RCP's average. So how does he predict Obama will get 50% of the vote and has a 71% chance of winning? Dude is weighting some polls more heavily than others is the only explanation I have.
> 
> (And even today the AP released a poll with Romney up 2. I wonder what he will say about that?)



He's very heavily bent liberal.  He tries to mask it in his write-ups but he bends over for them.


----------



## deaddogseye

JimH52 said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya....nice try...you know who he is and you know how accurate he is.
Click to expand...


I know who he is  --  but what he does is vastly overrated. Its not hard to pick the electoral college just by eyeballing the polls right before the election. he dresses it up with some fancy math and makes a blog of it (and good for him if he can make a little $$$ of that) but its like the wizzard of oz.

how accurate is he really? some articles gush at how he picked 50 of 51 states (counting DC) last time but so what? So did I. im sure a lot of others got all 50. its not hard to pick about 42-46 of the states; they are not in doubt.
  The real key is he missed one and how many were in real doubt? to me if you miss one thats a failure, not a success. right now if you had to pick today id say there are 2 in real doubt -- Iowa and NH, maybe Colorado.

so while he is right that obama is likely to win its really pretty obvious. good for him that he can keep himself busy doing it but he really is much (or at least some) ado about nothing (or not much).

Also, remeber he is a highly partisan Democratic shill and has shown to be highly unethical and deceitful. in 2008 while writing his blog he failed to mention that he was working as an undisclosed consultant for the obama campaign being fed there internal polling data (a campaigns data is generally thought to be the gold standard of polling data) so when he wrote he wasnt writing as just an obama supporter (which he did admit to being) but as an obama advisor -- which is a BIG difference.

Also he subsequently has avoided answering the issue. he says only he has worked as an unpaid advisor to campaigns but of course that is not true here either. he was provided extremely valuable data in return for his services (arguably which you couldnt even put  aprice on its so valuable) so he was clearly compensated -- maybe not in cash but with great value nonetheless.

At the end of the day he is just anotehr democratic hack pushing the narrative that obama is winning in hopes of rallying the vote for him (just as the Republican hacks push the romney is surginy / winning narrative); thats all he really is (note that there is NEVER with him truly good news for a Repub. candidate. Even when he acknoweldges something he goes to great length to then discredit its apparent significane.  And do you really think hed be affiliated with the new yourk times if he were otherwise? Really?


----------



## deaddogseye

BTW -- intrade today has it at about 58% to 42% for Obama. more realistic assessment i think


----------



## JimH52

Obama defeated McCain in Ohio in 2008 by 3%.  I see an average of 2% for Obama in Ohio now.  It is still very close.  There will be no blowout.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!


He might not look it, but he's a *HELL-of-lot-more-hip*..... 



> ....*than your boy MITTENS**!!*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

was this before or after Obama has those divorce records unsealed?


----------



## Zander

I see a lot of medication being ingested in the future,  by self delusional liberals who relied upon Nate Silver, Boy Genius!!  He's a crackpot....


----------



## Dr.House

Zander said:


> I see a lot of medication being ingested in the future,  by self delusional liberals who relied upon Nate Silver, Boy Genius!!  He's a crackpot....



The funny thing is they'll still love and praise him going forward no matter how off he is in his prediction...

teh funneh...


----------



## Dr.House

deaddogseye said:


> BTW -- intrade today has it at about 58% to 42% for Obama. more realistic assessment i think



Intrade had 0bamacare being defeated at 95% 2 hours before SCOTUS ruled...

Just sayin....


----------



## Misty

It's going to be a close one. Another nail biter. 

I'm voting at least 3 times for Romney


----------



## jillian

Dr.House said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of medication being ingested in the future,  by self delusional liberals who relied upon Nate Silver, Boy Genius!!  He's a crackpot....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is they'll still love and praise him going forward no matter how off he is in his prediction...
> 
> teh funneh...
Click to expand...


and what should we follow, gomez, the blaze? fakenews?

come on, honey.. rcp just knocked romney back down to 191 electoral votes. you think the right-leaning real clear politics did that because he's winning?

reality: right now, at this second, it appears that mitt's bounce is done. right now, at this second, it seems obama is a couple of points ahead in ohio. but it can go either way... and anyone who says otherwise is silly.


----------



## Inthemiddle

jillian said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> RCP average is 2.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, RCP hand picks variant polls to average together to come to its results.  Highly unreliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i wouldn't say it's higly unreliable. they're right-leaning, but i think they try. and i've always found it more valuable to take averages. historically, they've given a clearer picture than any one poll.
> 
> it does appear that when polling by the most respected pollster is consistently +5 then romney has a problem in ohio.
> 
> there are no more debates.
> there are only ads and campaign stops and ground game.  so the question becomes what changes the dynamic in the next 12 days?
Click to expand...


I agree that the averages is probably valuable.  It should just be consistent.  If you hand pick results of different polls for different states, the results start to become skewed.  Seems they do try to stay true to predict whether given states will go red or blue, but they take alot of liberties in demonstrating the strength or weakness of leads.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Liability said:


> Nate is going to look and feel as stupid as you when The ONE loses huge.



Nobody is going to "lose huge."  If every true swing state goes to Romney, he still only gains abotu 290 EC votes.  The only way Obama loses "huge" would be for us to give Romney "swing" states that are almost certainly going to go to Obama.  In short, Obama would have to lose very single state that isn't already considered to be a locked in blue.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Liability said:


> I believe it was our pal Zander who noted yesterday that the lolberals here are engaging in some self-soothing.
> 
> That makes Nate whoeverthefuckheis a form of thumb sucking for libbies.
> 
> But reality intrudes, you poor things.  The ONE is going to lose his bid for re-election.  It's just that simple.



You better hope you're right.  If Obama wins, you're going into my sig for sucking your thumb.


----------



## Inthemiddle

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Take a look at this entire paragraph. Improper sentence structure, run on sentences.. Hell, my 1st grader can form better paragraphs! You're an attorney???????????? LMFAO God help your clients!



I think we need a change to the rules around here.  If you invoke your own family members in an insult against another person, they should become fair game to attack back.  Either that, or no using your own family members to insult other people.


----------



## Dr.House

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of medication being ingested in the future,  by self delusional liberals who relied upon Nate Silver, Boy Genius!!  He's a crackpot....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is they'll still love and praise him going forward no matter how off he is in his prediction...
> 
> teh funneh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what should we follow, gomez, the blaze? fakenews?
Click to expand...

I always do my own research from what's available and look at whatever internals they provide...  Nothing that oversamples D's by +7 to +11 is anywhere near what the results will be on election night...



> come on, honey.. rcp just knocked romney back down to 191 electoral votes. you think the right-leaning real clear politics did that because he's winning?


Skewed PPP poll (D+11) put Romney at +5 in NC...  Cutoff for toss-up...

Pay attention to the causality...  Means you have to dig a little...



> reality: right now, at this second, it appears that mitt's bounce is done. right now, at this second, it seems obama is a couple of points ahead in ohio. but it can go either way... and anyone who says otherwise is silly.


I'd say that it's looking good for Romney right now...  He's getting boatloads of money coming in while Barry is borrowing money...  Romney is now putting resources into what was considered "safe" 0bama states...  PA, MI, WI...  A recent MI poll has him TIED there...  DOH!

Any one of those goes Red and the game is over no matter what happens in OH...

I'm liking what I'm seeing...


----------



## Inthemiddle

Claudette said:


> 71% huh??
> 
> Excuse me while I stand over here and LMAO.
> 
> I don't see that for either candidate.
> 
> Of course the NY Slimes will say Barry is gonna win big but anyone with a working brain cell knows he won't. Hell. I doubt he'll win at all.



My guess is that it's probably a meta probability calculation.  He's probably starting from the point of view of noting each candidates locked in states, and then calculating the probability of each subsequent EC vote going to either candidate, with the result being that Obama gets to 270 before Romney does 71% of the time.  The problem with that approach is that Obama is naturally going to win such an approach more often than Romney, because Obama currently has more locked in EC votes.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Liability said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the kids on Nickelodeon? They picked President Obama too...by a HUGE margin. They've gotten 5 out of the last 6 Presidents right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> Seabyscuit brings a rich new dimension to the meaning of the phrase, "clutching at straws."
Click to expand...


Actually, there's a valid point to what she has said.  There have been studies done regarding the uncanny ability for mock pollings of young children to predict election results.  The theories that arise basically suggest that undecided voters, not having strong ideological or partisan drives behind most of their voting decisions, may unknowingly end up relying primarily on the same sub-conscious "likeability" factors that are likely to be driving children's decisions in the mock polls.


----------



## MarcATL

Mac1958 said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya....nice try...you know who he is and you know how accurate he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually don't nor do I care if he works for the NY Liberal Slimes.. that's all I need to know.
> 
> 
> BTW- You liberal Zombies are becoming more desperate by the hour.. LOL it's amusing to watch. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to know what has you so confident.  I was listening to righty Hugh Hewitt a couple of days ago, and he was already taking victory laps, wondering if it will be a Romney landslide.
> 
> What is it about the numbers that makes you so sure?  Intensity?  I don't see how it could be anything else.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That's the same mistake many of us on the left made during Bush's 2nd run for Office. We just KNEW he was gonna lose. There was much intensity.

Actually, he stole the Office twice, but he got it done, by hook or by crook.


----------



## JoeB131

buckeye45_73 said:


> [
> 
> OMG you're a fucking moron about the video...it didnt cause shit.....it was released in July....
> Wow libtards are dumber than I thought....I thought you guys could see through that one....but I guess you like it up the ass.....no other explanation



The video was released in July, but it didn't start getting play in the Islamic world until September.  

So, no, the Video was a factor.  All the groups who protested cited it as a complaint for their protests or attacks on western interests.


----------



## aaronleland

Ravi said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wouldn't say it's higly unreliable. they're right-leaning, but i think they try. and i've always found it more valuable to take averages. historically, they've given a clearer picture than any one poll.
> 
> it does appear that when polling by the most respected pollster is consistently +5 then romney has a problem in ohio.
> 
> there are no more debates.
> there are only ads and campaign stops and ground game.  so the question becomes what changes the dynamic in the next 12 days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at this entire paragraph. Improper sentence structure, run on sentences.. Hell, my 1st grader can form better paragraphs! You're an attorney???????????? LMFAO God help your clients!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing improper about her paragraph is that she doesn't capitalize.
> 
> such a loon you are! How's your latest meltdown going?
Click to expand...


But there ARE bayonets used in the military. THERE ARE! THERE ARE! THERE ARE!


----------



## courseofhistory

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.



Good and *DeSart & Holbrook* have him at an 87% chance of winning!


----------



## Zander

courseofhistory said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good and *DeSart & Holbrook* have him at an 87% chance of winning!
Click to expand...


There are always people that are more extreme than the extremists......more leftwingnuttery...


----------



## blackhawk

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!



He is a liberal blogger who used to do baseball stats moved into politics writing for the hyper liberal Daily Kos and now has his blog on the N.Y. Times and is now pretty much the only place the left can go to find someone to carry Obama's water poll wise.


----------



## deaddogseye

Dr.House said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW -- intrade today has it at about 58% to 42% for Obama. more realistic assessment i think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intrade had 0bamacare being defeated at 95% 2 hours before SCOTUS ruled...
> 
> Just sayin....
Click to expand...


i didnt know that and fair enough but im not sure what type of comparison it is. there is no impirical data on a supreme court vote so even if intrade is setting the line based on betting activity like pari mutual betting even the underl;ying betting which sets the odds in the case of the supreme court is based on nothing. here there is all sorts of impirical data. so i think its a VERY different comparison but as i said, fair enough


----------



## JoeB131

Ooooops.  RCP has Colorado back in Obama's column.


----------



## Inthemiddle

JoeB131 said:


> Ooooops.  RCP has Colorado back in Obama's column.



???

Still labeled as a toss-up from what I can see.

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map


----------



## JoeB131

Inthemiddle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooops.  RCP has Colorado back in Obama's column.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Still labeled as a toss-up from what I can see.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map
Click to expand...


I'm talking about on the No Toss Up map.  

I think Colorado and Virginia are going to be too close to call on Election night.  But Obama could lose both and still win.


----------



## Inthemiddle

JoeB131 said:


> I'm talking about on the No Toss Up map.
> 
> I think Colorado and Virginia are going to be too close to call on Election night.  But Obama could lose both and still win.



Virginia won't got blue.  It won't.  I know this without question.  They are close neighbors where I live.  They won't go blue.

The only way that Obama could lose Colorado and win would be to win Ohio, and also turn Wisconsin into a win.  The chances of Obama winning Wisconsin is very unlikely.  Undecideds will break for Romney much more than they will Obama because of Ryan.


----------



## JoeB131

Inthemiddle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about on the No Toss Up map.
> 
> I think Colorado and Virginia are going to be too close to call on Election night.  But Obama could lose both and still win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia won't got blue.  It won't.  I know this without question.  They are close neighbors where I live.  They won't go blue.
> 
> The only way that Obama could lose Colorado and win would be to win Ohio, and also turn Wisconsin into a win.  The chances of Obama winning Wisconsin is very unlikely.  Undecideds will break for Romney much more than they will Obama because of Ryan.
Click to expand...


Not one poll has Romney winning Wisconsin, and I don't think there are really that many indies to be had.


----------



## Inthemiddle

JoeB131 said:


> Not one poll has Romney winning Wisconsin



No, they all show very slight margins in favor of Obama.  So slight, they are well within margin of error.



> and I don't think there are really that many indies to be had.



Doesn't have to be many independents.  Swing states aren't swing states because they have alot of independents.  A state can be a swing state by having a mostly even balance of R and D with an active even if small group of independents.  Or, it can have a predominantly centrist population of party affiliated voters who are willing to break partisan lines easily, depending on the particular candidates and the particular circumstances.

Wisconsin offers us a window that most other states don't.  Just a few months ago Scott Walker won his recall election, and the rest of the recall affair was largely a failure for Democrats.  This recent event shows us that Wisconsinites who are likely to get out to the polls are more favorable to the GOP cause in the state at the moment than they are of the Democrat cause.  And having a local boy on the GOP Presidential ticket helps to solidify that.


----------



## JoeB131

Inthemiddle said:


> Wisconsin offers us a window that most other states don't.  Just a few months ago Scott Walker won his recall election, and the rest of the recall affair was largely a failure for Democrats.  This recent event shows us that Wisconsinites who are likely to get out to the polls are more favorable to the GOP cause in the state at the moment than they are of the Democrat cause.  And having a local boy on the GOP Presidential ticket helps to solidify that.



I think you are reading WAAAAY too much into the recall election. 

Yeah there were people who voted because they liked Walker. And there were people who didn't like him that much, but realized he was doing things that needed to be done.  And there were people who voted against the recall because they felt the Recall shouldn't be used for anything but eliminating officials who have committed crimes or such.  

The unions were foolish to insist on the second batch of recalls when they came up empty on the first.  But Wisconsin is still a mostly democratic state.  Shit, they are about to send the first openly gay woman to the Senate.


----------



## Inthemiddle

JoeB131 said:


> Shit, they are about to send the first openly gay woman to the Senate.



See, you're presuming too much again.  That race is a tie, and it could very likely motivate the conservative base to make sure to get out and vote against her.  And while they're at it, they'll be making sure to vote against Obama as well.


----------



## Zander

Nate Silver Boy Genius!! now has Obama at 75% chance of winning!!!  He can't lose!! He's a LOCK!!! 
Woohoo!! FORWARD!! OBEY!!! 


Reality? - Nate Silver's career is over. I hope he was amply compensated....


----------



## deaddogseye

Inthemiddle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about on the No Toss Up map.
> 
> I think Colorado and Virginia are going to be too close to call on Election night.  But Obama could lose both and still win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia won't got blue.  It won't.  I know this without question.  They are close neighbors where I live.  They won't go blue.
> 
> The only way that Obama could lose Colorado and win would be to win Ohio, and also turn Wisconsin into a win.  The chances of Obama winning Wisconsin is very unlikely.  Undecideds will break for Romney much more than they will Obama because of Ryan.
Click to expand...


Actually undecideds typically break for the challenger regardless

Also i havent checked but if obama wins ohio  he can win without colorado and wisconsin? I beleive if he gets florida, NC, VA ohio and NH that gets him 270. its a realistic scenario if you think he can win ohio


----------



## Inthemiddle

deaddogseye said:


> Actually undecideds typically break for the challenger regardless



No.


----------



## courseofhistory

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.



He's at 74.4 at the moment.

*Princetion Election Consortium* has him at 97%


----------



## Zander

Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad and Al jazeera have Obama at 100%!!


----------



## Zander

courseofhistory said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's at 74.4 at the moment.
> 
> *Princetion Election Consortium* has him at 97%
Click to expand...


Now seriously, do you actually believe Obama has a 74.4% chance of winning?


----------



## JoeB131

Zander said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's at 74.4 at the moment.
> 
> *Princetion Election Consortium* has him at 97%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now seriously, do you actually believe Obama has a 74.4% chance of winning?
Click to expand...


Yeah, pretty much.  

Because right now, he's got 281 EV's locked up and a good shot at another 22. 

The Electoral College is not the GOP's friend here.


----------



## jillian

Zander said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's at 74.4 at the moment.
> 
> *Princetion Election Consortium* has him at 97%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now seriously, do you actually believe Obama has a 74.4% chance of winning?
Click to expand...


given the electoral map? yes... with about a 25% chance of romney winning.

remember, 74.4% is not 100% and i doubt anyone rational says anything is 100%


----------



## jillian

Zander said:


> Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad and Al jazeera have Obama at 100%!!



if you want to be taken seriously, z, you really should stop that, hon.


----------



## Zander

jillian said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad and Al jazeera have Obama at 100%!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you want to be taken seriously, z, you really should stop that, hon.
Click to expand...


Taken seriously? Like Nate Silver?  

this thread belongs in the rubber room......


----------



## freedombecki

Zander said:


> Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad and Al jazeera have Obama at 100%!!


There's a mainstream media of denial out there, Mr. Zander, and it's not just a river with a delta. The nutcase denier polls? Well, you know how they are.


----------



## candycorn

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.



Romney has only been ahead electorally in RCP's average.  This election has never been very close on electoral votes.  

Silver's numbers reflect reality.


----------



## candycorn

Zander said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's at 74.4 at the moment.
> 
> *Princetion Election Consortium* has him at 97%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now seriously, do you actually believe Obama has a 74.4% chance of winning?
Click to expand...


If you look at the electoral map, he has 100% chance of winning.  But keep sticking to nationwide tracking polls...they're the VORP of political statistics.


----------



## MarcATL

What are the loons of the far right radical fringe, aka today's average Republican, going to do when Obama wins?

lol.

What. are. they. going. to. do?


----------



## JimH52

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Over 80% in Wisconsin...


----------



## candycorn

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...



Sweet!  The firewall is holding.


----------



## Dante

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...



If the President were to lose Minnesota and gain Virginia...lose Colorado and keep Ohio while gaining NH... I need to go back to Cassidy's map

October 28, 2012
Cassidys Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio?
Posted by John Cassidy

Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker


> At the local level, some of the battlegrounds have now broken firmly in one direction or another, effectively narrowing the race to eight states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Wisconsin. On The New Yorkers electoral map,* I am making three changes to reflect this.* I am changing Michigan and Pennsylvania from leaning Obama to firm Obama, and I am changing North Carolina from leaning Romney to firm Romney. In all three of these states, the polls indicate that one of the candidates is now ahead by four points or more.
> 
> Of the remaining eight battlegrounds, I have one state leaning to Romney (Florida); four leaning to Obama (Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin); and three as toss-ups (Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia). I considered moving Virginia to Romneys column, but decided against it. *In the past few days, two polls have shown the race tied. And both of them have come from polling organizations that tend to lean a bit to the Republicans: Gravis Marketing and Purple Strategies.* For Romney to reach two hundred and seventy electoral-college votes, he simply has to carry Virginia, as well as Florida and North Carolina. The fact that the race is still so tight there will be a big concern to Boston.
> 
> In the electoral college, I still have Obama with 277 votes and Romney with 235. Assuming the G.O.P. man does win Virginia, that takes him to 248, leaving him needing another 22 votes. Thatss where the fun starts.
> 
> Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker


----------



## Sherry

Well this dude clearly has his finger on the pulse of his limp wrist.


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the President were to lose Minnesota and gain Virginia...lose Colorado and keep Ohio while gaining NH... I need to go back to Cassidy's map
> 
> October 28, 2012
> Cassidys Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio?
> Posted by John Cassidy
> 
> Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker
> 
> 
> 
> At the local level, some of the battlegrounds have now broken firmly in one direction or another, effectively narrowing the race to eight states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Wisconsin. On The New Yorkers electoral map,* I am making three changes to reflect this.* I am changing Michigan and Pennsylvania from leaning Obama to firm Obama, and I am changing North Carolina from leaning Romney to firm Romney. In all three of these states, the polls indicate that one of the candidates is now ahead by four points or more.
> 
> Of the remaining eight battlegrounds, I have one state leaning to Romney (Florida); four leaning to Obama (Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin); and three as toss-ups (Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia). I considered moving Virginia to Romneys column, but decided against it. *In the past few days, two polls have shown the race tied. And both of them have come from polling organizations that tend to lean a bit to the Republicans: Gravis Marketing and Purple Strategies.* For Romney to reach two hundred and seventy electoral-college votes, he simply has to carry Virginia, as well as Florida and North Carolina. The fact that the race is still so tight there will be a big concern to Boston.
> 
> In the electoral college, I still have Obama with 277 votes and Romney with 235. Assuming the G.O.P. man does win Virginia, that takes him to 248, leaving him needing another 22 votes. Thatss where the fun starts.
> 
> Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ahem........................



> If Romney were to carry the state, he would need just four more votes. Winning New Hampshire, which has exactly four votes, or any of the other battlegrounds, would put him across the line. But increasingly, it is looking like Obama will hold onto Ohio. On Friday, three new polls were published, and they all showed the President ahead. American Research Group and Purple Strategies both put his lead at two points; CNN/Opinion Research put it at four points: 50-46. Sources tell me that the two campaigns internal polling also have Obama ahead, with Romneys vote seemingly stalled in the mid-to-high forties.
> 
> Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker


----------



## The Rabbi

Nate Silver might just win this year's award for Chief Dim Bulb.


----------



## Dante

The Rabbi said:


> Nate Silver might just win this year's award for Chief Dim Bulb.



nah, that would be these two guys...


----------



## mamooth

Latest PPP poll has Obama +1 in Florida. Romney is crumbling all over.


----------



## The Rabbi

mamooth said:


> Latest PPP poll has Obama +1 in Florida. Romney is crumbling all over.



PPP?  Rly?


----------



## Dante

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...



thank you for your service Jim.


----------



## AceRothstein

The Rabbi said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Latest PPP poll has Obama +1 in Florida. Romney is crumbling all over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PPP?  Rly?
Click to expand...


You should take a look at 2008 state polling results, they were much more accurate than Rasmussen's state polling.


----------



## Dr.House

Please, PLEASE...  Keep hanging your liberal hats on Nate Silver....

It will make you look that much more stupid on election day...


----------



## Liability

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...



and still dropping ....



The incumbent is going to lose.  Period.


----------



## Dante

Dr.House said:


> Please, PLEASE...  Keep hanging your liberal hats on Nate Silver....
> 
> It will make you look that much more stupid on election day...


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and still dropping ....
> 
> 
> 
> The incumbent is going to lose.  Period.
Click to expand...


Cassidy's Count has been posted along with Nate





> Sources tell me that the two campaigns internal polling also have Obama ahead, with Romneys vote seemingly stalled in the mid-to-high forties.
> 
> Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker




failure


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, PLEASE...  Keep hanging your liberal hats on Nate Silver....
> 
> It will make you look that much more stupid on election day...
Click to expand...


neg rep from ya?

unrequited love. I told ya, no is no. What part of 'no' do you not understand .. the 'n' or the 'o'?


----------



## jillian

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...



it went up to 60% in Virginia


----------



## Dr.House




----------



## Dante




----------



## Dr.House

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times &#8211; Telegraph Blogs



> 1. Nate isn&#8217;t very good at calling close elections.
> 2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
> 3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
> 4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
> 5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and &#8220;stuff happens.&#8221;


----------



## Leweman

What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.


----------



## Dr.House

Leweman said:


> What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.



Yes, but can you be leftist enough to get the NYSlimes to sponsor you?

Don't forget to change your model a couple of days before the election to "appear" accurate...


----------



## Dante

Leweman said:


> What's so special about Silver? .



people in his field are wowed by him?




what a douche you are

---

Rational Irrationality : The New Yorker



> At the local level, some of the battlegrounds have now broken firmly in one direction or another, effectively narrowing the race to eight states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Wisconsin. On The New Yorker&#8217;s electoral map, I am making three changes to reflect this. I am changing Michigan and Pennsylvania from leaning Obama to firm Obama, and I am changing North Carolina from leaning Romney to firm Romney. In all three of these states, the polls indicate that one of the candidates is now ahead by four points or more.
> 
> Of the remaining eight battlegrounds, I have one state leaning to Romney (Florida); four leaning to Obama (Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin); and three as toss-ups (Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia). I considered moving Virginia to Romney&#8217;s column, but decided against it. In the past few days, two polls have shown the race tied. And both of them have come from polling organizations that tend to lean a bit to the Republicans: Gravis Marketing and Purple Strategies. For Romney to reach two hundred and seventy electoral-college votes, he simply has to carry Virginia, as well as Florida and North Carolina. The fact that the race is still so tight there will be a big concern to Boston.
> 
> Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker




In the electoral college, I still have Obama with 277 votes and Romney with 235. Assuming the G.O.P. man does win Virginia, that takes him to 248, leaving him needing another 22 votes. Thats&#8217;s where the fun starts.

Read more Cassidy's Count: Can Romney Win Without Ohio? : The New Yorker



> October 24, 2012
> Brooks vs. Silver: The Limits of Forecasting Elections
> Posted by John Cassidy
> 
> Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...te-silver-prediction-polls.html#ixzz2AiZDNYe6
> 
> 
> As op-ed columnists often do, Brooks overstates his case. Up to a point, political outcomes are predictable. Sitting here today, I can forecast with certainty that neither candidate will win the popular vote by more than ten percentage points. History and common sense tells us this. Indeed, based on the opinion polls, I can predict with a good deal of confidence that neither candidate will win by more than five points. Voting patterns aren&#8217;t completely random. They reflect history, demography, sociology, economics&#8212;fundamental relationships exist that statisticians can, in principle, attempt to capture and turn into mathematical equations.
> 
> Unfortunately for forecasters, people aren&#8217;t interested in rough predictions, such as &#8220;it&#8217;s going to be close.&#8221; Especially in a tight contest, such as this year&#8217;s, they want to know who is going to win. And when it comes to answering this question, voting models based on fundamental factors don&#8217;t work very well. Years ago, I got interested in the work of Ray Fair, a Yale economist who pioneered the development of forecasting elections based upon a few simple economic statistics, such as G.D.P. growth, inflation, and unemployment. Fair&#8217;s record is mixed. He&#8217;s called most elections correctly, but he&#8217;s also got some wrong, notably 1992, when he predicted a Republican victory, and 2000, when he said that the Democrats would win. (In 2000, to give Fair his due, he correctly predicted that the Democrats would win the popular vote, which they did. But Al Gore lost the election in the electoral college.)
> 
> According to one expert who has looked closely at the record, &#8220;The &#8216;fundamentals&#8217; models, in fact, have had almost no predictive power at all. Over this 16-year period, there has been no relationship between the vote they forecast for the incumbent candidate and how well he actually did&#8212;even though some of them claimed to explain as much as 90 percent of voting results.&#8221; The expert who wrote these words was Silver. If you want to learn about why most political predictions turn out to be wrong, I thoroughly recommend some of the posts he has written on the subject. And if you&#8217;ve got time, you should also consider reading his new book&#8212;&#8220;The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail But Some Don&#8217;t,&#8221; which is largely devoted to the limits of forecasting in areas such as sports, finance, and business&#8212;as well as politics.
> 
> Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...te-silver-prediction-polls.html#ixzz2AiZ3nTDK


----------



## jillian

Leweman said:


> What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.



except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff. 

there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.

no doubt his numbers upset you.

*shrug*


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Who the fuck is this nate dude all the libs are slobbering over?


----------



## Dr.House

Grampa Murked U said:


> Who the fuck is this nate dude all the libs are slobbering over?



A baseball statistician who is over his head in politics....

Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times  Telegraph Blogs



> 1. Nate isnt very good at calling close elections.
> 2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
> 3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
> 4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
> 5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and stuff happens.


----------



## jillian

over his head?

he was dead on last time.

is that what you mean by 'over his head'?



i'll also remind you of my favorite ever thing that i learned in statistics and the only thing i remember. and that's if something actually occurs, then probability becomes 100%. So under any paradigm where the president has a 70% chance of a win and a 30% chance of a loss... there's still a little less than a 1 in 3 chance that he actually loses. 

at which point romney's chances of winning become 100%.

so there ya go.

what i do believe is that the models he uses have been extraordinarily accurate which is why he's massively respected.

again, though.. i understand why people on the right like dismissing him. they have no basis for doing so, but there's not a lot else they can do with his numbers...

except point to the one rasmussen outlier.


----------



## jillian

Dr.House said:


> Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times  Telegraph Blogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nate isnt very good at calling close elections.
> 2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
> 3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
> 4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
> 5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and stuff happens.
Click to expand...


well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.


----------



## The Rabbi

jillian said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.
> 
> there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.
> 
> no doubt his numbers upset you.
> 
> *shrug*
Click to expand...


Yes he did a great job calling sports events.
An election is not a sports event.  He has his head up his ass and will receive the Election Chief Dim Bulb award on Nov 7.


----------



## Leweman

jillian said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.
> 
> there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.
> 
> no doubt his numbers upset you.
> 
> *shrug*
Click to expand...


maybe respected by dems because believing him is all they have to cling too even though he is wrong .  He's been around for how long now?  That university of Colorado study has been right every time since 1980 but that is ignored by Dems today for some reason in favor or Silvers subjectively random selection of polls and random method of weighting them.  I'm sure to him it make sense because it gives the outcome he wants.  

2012 election: why Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com might be wrong and Romney might be doing better than Silver thinks - PointOfLaw Forum

_True, he catapulted to national attention by "correctly predicting" 49 out of 50 states presidential electoral outcomes in 2008. Nicely done. But not nearly as nicely as the number looks at a first glance. You could have predicted the outcomes of about 40 states without any need for polling data. News flash: most states aren't "in play" for president. Still, 9 out of 10 is pretty impressive, but I could have done it by simply guessing that Barack Obama would basically run the table in the swing states - and really, did you really need polling data to know that after McCain and Palin showed us who they were? Seriously, no "calculus" needed._

Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States | The People's View


----------



## AceRothstein

I didn't see anyone on the right having a problem with Silver in 2010 when he predicted the GOP gaining 7 seats in the Senate and 54 in the House.  He was off 1 in the Senate (change of 6) and 8 in the House (change of 63).  The difference in the House can be attributed to the lack of polls for all House races and most of the bigger pollsters not really focusing on individual House races, there are 435 of them after all.

I don't think people realize he just takes the actual polls and puts them into a model to get his numbers.  He doesn't do any polling on his own.


----------



## AceRothstein

Leweman said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.
> 
> there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.
> 
> no doubt his numbers upset you.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe respected by dems because believing him is all they have to cling too even though he is wrong .  He's been around for how long now?  That university of Colorado study has been right every time since 1980 but that is ignored by Dems today for some reason in favor or Silvers subjectively random selection of polls and random method of weighting them.  I'm sure to him it make sense because it gives the outcome he wants.
> 
> 2012 election: why Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com might be wrong and Romney might be doing better than Silver thinks - PointOfLaw Forum
> 
> _True, he catapulted to national attention by "correctly predicting" 49 out of 50 states presidential electoral outcomes in 2008. Nicely done. But not nearly as nicely as the number looks at a first glance. You could have predicted the outcomes of about 40 states without any need for polling data. News flash: most states aren't "in play" for president. Still, 9 out of 10 is pretty impressive, but I could have done it by simply guessing that Barack Obama would basically run the table in the swing states - and really, did you really need polling data to know that after McCain and Palin showed us who they were? Seriously, no "calculus" needed._
> 
> Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States | The People's View
Click to expand...


How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right?  Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.


----------



## Leweman

AceRothstein said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.
> 
> there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.
> 
> no doubt his numbers upset you.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe respected by dems because believing him is all they have to cling too even though he is wrong .  He's been around for how long now?  That university of Colorado study has been right every time since 1980 but that is ignored by Dems today for some reason in favor or Silvers subjectively random selection of polls and random method of weighting them.  I'm sure to him it make sense because it gives the outcome he wants.
> 
> 2012 election: why Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com might be wrong and Romney might be doing better than Silver thinks - PointOfLaw Forum
> 
> _True, he catapulted to national attention by "correctly predicting" 49 out of 50 states presidential electoral outcomes in 2008. Nicely done. But not nearly as nicely as the number looks at a first glance. You could have predicted the outcomes of about 40 states without any need for polling data. News flash: most states aren't "in play" for president. Still, 9 out of 10 is pretty impressive, but I could have done it by simply guessing that Barack Obama would basically run the table in the swing states - and really, did you really need polling data to know that after McCain and Palin showed us who they were? Seriously, no "calculus" needed._
> 
> Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States | The People's View
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right?  Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.
Click to expand...


Do prove it


----------



## AceRothstein

Leweman said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe respected by dems because believing him is all they have to cling too even though he is wrong .  He's been around for how long now?  That university of Colorado study has been right every time since 1980 but that is ignored by Dems today for some reason in favor or Silvers subjectively random selection of polls and random method of weighting them.  I'm sure to him it make sense because it gives the outcome he wants.
> 
> 2012 election: why Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com might be wrong and Romney might be doing better than Silver thinks - PointOfLaw Forum
> 
> _True, he catapulted to national attention by "correctly predicting" 49 out of 50 states presidential electoral outcomes in 2008. Nicely done. But not nearly as nicely as the number looks at a first glance. You could have predicted the outcomes of about 40 states without any need for polling data. News flash: most states aren't "in play" for president. Still, 9 out of 10 is pretty impressive, but I could have done it by simply guessing that Barack Obama would basically run the table in the swing states - and really, did you really need polling data to know that after McCain and Palin showed us who they were? Seriously, no "calculus" needed._
> 
> Nate Silver Just isn't that Good at Calling Close Races in Contested States | The People's View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right?  Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do prove it
Click to expand...


I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times.  I'll even provide a righty news source for you.

Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com



> I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: "Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections."


----------



## Sarah G

We're going to be watching the election, waiting for Virginia and Ohio, just like 2008.  We'll hear them call it for Obama and we'll know he's the winner.


----------



## Dante

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.
> 
> there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.
> 
> no doubt his numbers upset you.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he did a great job calling sports events.
> An election is not a sports event.  He has his head up his ass and will receive the Election Chief Dim Bulb award on Nov 7.
Click to expand...


yeah, sports are unlike elections, but Business is like Government.  okay 

Statistical models.


----------



## Liability

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times  Telegraph Blogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nate isnt very good at calling close elections.
> 2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
> 3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
> 4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
> 5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and stuff happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.
Click to expand...


Actually, if any person or entity says that Nate is partisan based on facts, then it's the facts that make it or break it.


----------



## Dr.House

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times  Telegraph Blogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nate isnt very good at calling close elections.
> 2. People make their minds up at the last minute, which confuses the outcome of close elections.
> 3. Nate weights polls, meaning that he picks and chooses which data sets to run through his model.
> 4. Nate ignores polls that contradict him. So PPP is right and Gallup is wrong.
> 5. Politics is even riskier than baseball and stuff happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.
Click to expand...


That blog backs up Nates failings with facts....

(Nate is a blog, BTW... )

I understand why the libs like nate...  He's feeding you what you want to hear...

His models are off, his weighting is off, and he's selective on the polls he "accepts"...

Sorry, Nate is a hack...


----------



## Dante

AceRothstein said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right?  Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times.  I'll even provide a righty news source for you.
> 
> Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: "Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ace, you don't get IT. Most cons here are lost in arguments that stray too far from doctrine. Post here long enough and you'll hopefully get it,.

There are some here who are genuinely interested in things...I am not sure L is. could be wrong, but...by their actions they will be judged


----------



## Dr.House

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so special about Silver? I can make up random shit too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.
> 
> there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.
> 
> no doubt his numbers upset you.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he did a great job calling sports events.
> An election is not a sports event.  He has his head up his ass and will receive the Election Chief Dim Bulb award on Nov 7.
Click to expand...


Watch Nate magically change his model in the final few days before the election...


----------



## Liability

^Dainty cannot dispute the analysis of Nate's failings, so he ignores it and pretends that it is the conservaives who ignore reality.



Dainty is such a transparent little fraud.


----------



## Leweman

AceRothstein said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be pointed out that the UC model has never actually been right?  Their track record is 0 for 0 right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times.  I'll even provide a righty news source for you.
> 
> Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: "Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Doesn't that just hurt your argument more?  It's right using the data all the way back.  Why would it be wrong this time?


----------



## Dante

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times  Telegraph Blogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That blog backs up Nates failings with facts....
> 
> (Nate is a blog, BTW... )
> 
> I understand why the libs like nate...  He's feeding you what you want to hear...
> 
> His models are off, his weighting is off, and he's selective on the polls he "accepts"...
> 
> Sorry, Nate is a hack...
Click to expand...


Nate is not a seer, but he is a statistician. And a damn good one. Dante uses NAte's Blog along with 

you people are so stuck-on-stupid you think everything is a rigid talking point., You don't listen. You build up straw men with every post. No matter how many times people post other sources to go with Nate's, not validating every point, but backing up the general analysis, people like you go 'na, na, na, na, na, na...


----------



## Liability

New Projection of Election Results: Romney 52, Obama 47 | The Weekly Standard

PROJECTION of 52% for Romney and (I keed you not) 47% for The ONE.


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> ^Dainty cannot dispute the analysis of Nate's failings, so he ignores it and pretends that it is the conservaives who ignore reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Dainty is such a transparent little fraud.



Like Doktor Louse...
you too are so stuck-on-stupid you think everything is a rigid talking point., You don't listen. You build up straw men with every post. No matter how many times people post other sources to go with Nate's, not validating every point, but backing up the general analysis, people like you go 'na, na, na, na, na, na...'

It is obvious to any sane rational person that Nate and every other statistician has failings. What is hilarious is that you always posit these idiocies and think it makes you some kind of debater. It makes you look like the hack you are.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/


----------



## Dr.House

Dante said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, if the telegraph blogs say he's partisan he must be. lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That blog backs up Nates failings with facts....
> 
> (Nate is a blog, BTW... )
> 
> I understand why the libs like nate...  He's feeding you what you want to hear...
> 
> His models are off, his weighting is off, and he's selective on the polls he "accepts"...
> 
> Sorry, Nate is a hack...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nate is not a seer, but he is a statistician. And a damn good one. Dante uses NAte's Blog along with
> 
> you people are so stuck-on-stupid you think everything is a rigid talking point., You don't listen. You build up straw men with every post. No matter how many times people post other sources to go with Nate's, not validating every point, but backing up the general analysis, people like you go 'na, na, na, na, na, na...
Click to expand...


Just because you're fucking stupid doesn't mean the rest of us have to join you....  When you selectively choose your "analysis" you can make anything smell like roses... When you use ridiculous oversampled polls, you can get awesome results to support your preconceived notions...

The evidence of how off nate is is plain as day...  Choosing to ignore facts counter to your beliefs is, well, Dante Gay...

Now fuck off...


----------



## Dante

Dr.House said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> except he doesn't 'make up random' stuff.
> 
> there's a reason he's respected as much as he is.
> 
> no doubt his numbers upset you.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did a great job calling sports events.
> An election is not a sports event.  He has his head up his ass and will receive the Election Chief Dim Bulb award on Nov 7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch Nate magically change his model in the final few days before the election...
Click to expand...


translation from wingnutty to English:

Watch when Nate's changes his predictions based on new data (it's what people do with statistical models) Wingnut World will jump up and down screaming "Look he's changing things!"


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Dainty cannot dispute the analysis of Nate's failings, so he ignores it and pretends that it is the conservaives who ignore reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Dainty is such a transparent little fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Doktor Louse...
> you too are so stuck-on-stupid you think everything is a rigid talking point., You don't listen. You build up straw men with every post. No matter how many times people post other sources to go with Nate's, not validating every point, but backing up the general analysis, people like you go 'na, na, na, na, na, na...'
> 
> It is obvious to any sane rational person that Nate and every other statistician has failings. What is hilarious is that you always posit these idiocies and think it makes you some kind of debater. It makes you look like the hack you are.
Click to expand...


^ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



*CERTIFIED DANTE GAY!*

Dainty cannot even acknowledge the documented and obvious failings of "Nate."

Dainty is gayer than Liberace and less persuasive than TderpM.


----------



## Dr.House




----------



## Dr.House




----------



## AceRothstein

Leweman said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do prove it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times.  I'll even provide a righty news source for you.
> 
> Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: "Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that just hurt your argument more?  It's right using the data all the way back.  Why would it be wrong this time?
Click to expand...


Because nobody knows which data they are using.  I can probably put something together right now that has predicted every election back to 1860.

If you already know the outcome, it is easy to manipulate the data to show what you are looking for.  How do we not know that their data actually predicted only 4 of 9 elections the first time they put it together?  It could have and they could have tweaked it until it showed them predicting every election for the last 32 years.


----------



## Dante




----------



## Dr.House

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100186850/romney-obama-nate-silver-new-york-times/



> Nate isn&#8217;t very good at calling close elections. In 2010, he correctly predicted the outcome of the senate elections with the greatest leads. But in the 5 genuinely close races, he got it wrong in 3. For the House elections, Nate ran this extraordinary headline: &#8220;House Forecast: G.O.P. Plus 54-55 Seats; Significantly Larger or Smaller Gains Possible.&#8221; So, this oracle predicted that the results could have been &#8220;larger&#8221; or &#8220;smaller&#8221; &#8211; how prescient. In fact, they were much larger. The Republicans took 63 seats.





Significantly Larger or Smaller....

Way to be precise, Nate...


----------



## Leweman

AceRothstein said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't believe you haven't seen this yet, it has been posted on here numerous times.  I'll even provide a righty news source for you.
> 
> Model that claims it correctly predicted last 8 presidents picks Romney in 2012 - National Libertarian | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that just hurt your argument more?  It's right using the data all the way back.  Why would it be wrong this time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because nobody knows which data they are using.  I can probably put something together right now that has predicted every election back to 1860.
> 
> If you already know the outcome, it is easy to manipulate the data to show what you are looking for.  How do we not know that their data actually predicted only 4 of 9 elections the first time they put it together?  It could have and they could have tweaked it until it showed them predicting every election for the last 32 years.
Click to expand...


this is their journal article

http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...84a.pdf&code=7872cfbedf0b87f100828a47df480146


----------



## Dr.House

Nate Silver's latest prediction on the election:



> "Obama will win, unless he doesn't." - _Nate Silver_


----------



## mamooth

SurveyUSA shows tie in Florida. Zogby shows Romney +1. Yeah, that PPP is so biased. Florida is a dead heat, and turnout will be everything.

The poll aggregators. Read 'em and weep, righties.

RCP O290-R248
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...mlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/pollster

Pollster.com O277-R206
Pollster: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

Five-thirty-eight.com (Nate Silver) O294.6-R243.4
Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Princeton Election consortium O303-R235
Princeton Election Consortium &#8212; A first draft of electoral history

AP O271-R206
AP Analysis: Advantage Obama in race for electoral votes

InTrade O281-R257
2012 Electoral Map - The Intrade Forecast 10/30/2012

There are some more, but they all say the same thing. One wonders how the evil Nate Silver managed to mind-control all of them.


----------



## Dante

Dr.House said:


> Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times &#8211; Telegraph Blogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate isnt very good at calling close elections. In 2010, he correctly predicted the outcome of the senate elections with the greatest leads. But in the 5 genuinely close races, he got it wrong in 3. For the House elections, Nate ran this extraordinary headline: House Forecast: G.O.P. Plus 54-55 Seats; Significantly Larger or Smaller Gains Possible. So, this oracle predicted that the results could have been larger or smaller  how prescient. In fact, they were much larger. The Republicans took 63 seats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Significantly Larger or Smaller....
> 
> Way to be precise, Nate...
Click to expand...


question is: who correctly called the races in question?


----------



## deaddogseye

MarcATL said:


> What are the loons of the far right radical fringe, aka today's average Republican, going to do when Obama wins?
> 
> lol.
> 
> What. are. they. going. to. do?



i think what republicans will do depends on how obama wins - assuming he wins (which at the moment i still think he will)

Suppose he wins an electoral victory but loses the political war? By that i mean he gets 270 (270-290 is best case) but Romney gets a majority of the popular vote and maybe wins the popular vote by a fullpercent or even alittle more.

What does obama do then? Yes he has won the presdency but he has no ability even in the worlld of political BS to claim any type of vote in favor of his policies. To the contrary. The republicans will be able to claim very credibly that a few people in ohio and wisconsin may be able to decide who is the president but they dont speak for the electorate as to how they want the counrty governed. if anything such a mixed result will enable Republicans to say the vote was in support of their policies -- against taxes, obamacare etc.

As i said Obama will be president but there will be nothing in that kind of result that should tell Rebublicans they need to compromise with him. If anything such results would support the opposite conclusion


----------



## Liability

Dr.House said:


> Nate Silver's latest prediction on the election:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Obama will win, unless he doesn't." - _Nate Silver_
Click to expand...


Later qualified with a firm "maybe."


----------



## Dick Tuck

The Rabbi said:


> Nate Silver might just win this year's award for Chief Dim Bulb.



Of the three major poll analysts, Nate Silver was the most accurate in 2008, coming in ahead of Real Clear and Pollster.   Unlike you, he has a track record.  You just have a big mouth.


----------



## Zander

Here is one thing we can all agree upon; "Nate Silver" will either become a legend (at least for a few years)  for correctly predicting his 2nd POTUS election (yeah, he's only done this one other time) , or he'll be remembered as the hapless dupe that was roped into carrying Obama's poll water.....my money is on the latter.


----------



## Dick Tuck

mamooth said:


> Latest PPP poll has Obama +1 in Florida. Romney is crumbling all over.



Newsmax/Zogby, just put him up by +1 as well.  It still looks good for Romney on paper, but I think the pollsters are underestimating how likely Hispanic turnout is going to be.  That's going to be huge in Florida.


----------



## Zander

Here is one thing we can all agree upon: "Nate Silver" will either become a legend (at least for a few years)  for correctly predicting his 2nd POTUS election (yeah, he's only done this one other time) ; or he'll be remembered as the hapless dupe that was roped into carrying Obama's poll water. 

.....my money is on the latter.


----------



## Oddball

Zander said:


> Here is one thing we can all agree upon; "Nate Silver" will either become a legend (at least for a few years)  for correctly predicting his 2nd POTUS election (yeah, he's only done this one other time) , or he'll be remembered as the hapless dupe that was roped into carrying Obama's poll water.....my money is on the latter.


Why do you hate smart people?


----------



## Oddball

Zander said:


> Here is one thing we can all agree upon: "Nate Silver" will either become a legend (at least for a few years)  for correctly predicting his 2nd POTUS election (yeah, he's only done this one other time) ; or he'll be remembered as the hapless dupe that was roped into carrying Obama's poll water.
> 
> .....my money is on the latter.


This is why your party is dying!


----------



## jwoodie

*Profound Ignorance:  Not knowing that there are things you don't know.*


----------



## Annie

Zander said:


> Here is one thing we can all agree upon; "Nate Silver" will either become a legend (at least for a few years)  for correctly predicting his 2nd POTUS election (yeah, he's only done this one other time) , or he'll be remembered as the hapless dupe that was roped into carrying Obama's poll water.....my money is on the latter.



I can't rep! Wah!


----------



## Politico

Who?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

I have a feeling on November 7th Nate Silver is going to be looking for a new job.


----------



## mamooth

The Nate Silver derangement from the right is bizarre, given that all the other aggregate pollsters agree with him. Apparently, Nate Silver is using his mind control to cause everyone to predict an Obama win.


----------



## Amazed

mamooth said:


> The Nate Silver derangement from the right is bizarre, given that all the other aggregate pollsters agree with him. Apparently, Nate Silver is using his mind control to cause everyone to predict an Obama win.



Ole Nate has the solid votes 185-180.....but never mind.


----------



## candycorn

MarcATL said:


> What are the loons of the far right radical fringe, aka today's average Republican, going to do when Obama wins?
> 
> lol.
> 
> What. are. they. going. to. do?



Frankly...who cares.  They're not happy unless they're pissed off.  I prefer to see them pissed off legitimately other than just being themselves.  I'm very sure I'll get my wish come 11/7.  

I'm glad I've bookmarked many of their more crazy-assed posts.


----------



## MarcATL

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I have a feeling on November 7th Nate Silver is going to be looking for a new job.


What about the toe sucker Dick Morris? You don't think he'll be having to look for a new job?


----------



## Moonglow

deaddogseye said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the loons of the far right radical fringe, aka today's average Republican, going to do when Obama wins?
> 
> lol.
> 
> What. are. they. going. to. do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think what republicans will do depends on how obama wins - assuming he wins (which at the moment i still think he will)
> 
> Suppose he wins an electoral victory but loses the political war? By that i mean he gets 270 (270-290 is best case) but Romney gets a majority of the popular vote and maybe wins the popular vote by a fullpercent or even alittle more.
> 
> What does obama do then? Yes he has won the presdency but he has no ability even in the worlld of political BS to claim any type of vote in favor of his policies. To the contrary. The republicans will be able to claim very credibly that a few people in ohio and wisconsin may be able to decide who is the president but they dont speak for the electorate as to how they want the counrty governed. if anything such a mixed result will enable Republicans to say the vote was in support of their policies -- against taxes, obamacare etc.
> 
> As i said Obama will be president but there will be nothing in that kind of result that should tell Rebublicans they need to compromise with him. If anything such results would support the opposite conclusion
Click to expand...


If Oblama wins he can wollow in his own crepulence. Excellent Smithers.


----------



## Moonglow

MarcATL said:


> What are the loons of the far right radical fringe, aka today's average Republican, going to do when Obama wins?
> 
> lol.
> 
> What. are. they. going. to. do?



get more high blood pressure meds.


----------



## JoeB131

deaddogseye said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the loons of the far right radical fringe, aka today's average Republican, going to do when Obama wins?
> 
> lol.
> 
> What. are. they. going. to. do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think what republicans will do depends on how obama wins - assuming he wins (which at the moment i still think he will)
> 
> Suppose he wins an electoral victory but loses the political war? By that i mean he gets 270 (270-290 is best case) but Romney gets a majority of the popular vote and maybe wins the popular vote by a fullpercent or even alittle more.
> 
> What does obama do then? Yes he has won the presdency but he has no ability even in the worlld of political BS to claim any type of vote in favor of his policies. To the contrary. The republicans will be able to claim very credibly that a few people in ohio and wisconsin may be able to decide who is the president but they dont speak for the electorate as to how they want the counrty governed. if anything such a mixed result will enable Republicans to say the vote was in support of their policies -- against taxes, obamacare etc.
> 
> As i said Obama will be president but there will be nothing in that kind of result that should tell Rebublicans they need to compromise with him. If anything such results would support the opposite conclusion
Click to expand...


Meh... Bush lost the popular vote, probably lost Florida, was put in office by a court decision and lost control of the Senate.  He STILL acted like he was the president and had a mandate to do things.  

Since Republicans argued to the hilt that Bush was legitimate despite the fishy way he was elected, they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Romney won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.


----------



## JimH52

Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call

Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.



> In Ohio, Brown leads GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel by 9 points: 51 percent support to Mandel's 42 percent. Mandel leads among independent voters, 46 percent to 44 percent. Their previous poll, conducted the week prior, also had the race at 51 percent to 42 percent.
> 
> President Obama leads Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the state. The poll was conducted Oct. 23-28 and surveyed 1,110 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.9 percentage points.





> President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the same poll, with the president ahead, 48 percent to 47 percent. Mack has consistently underperformed Romney in public polling. The poll of 1,073 likely Florida voters was conducted Oct. 23-28. The margin of error for the survey is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.




Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.

*OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*


----------



## Truthseeker420

I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.


----------



## JimH52

Truthseeker420 said:


> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.



And I am in Virginia and in the last week, Obama signs have been springing up all over...not a real good indicator I don't suppose...


----------



## TNHarley

This poll shows this. That poll shows that. We won't know untill next week.


----------



## JimH52

TNHarley said:


> This poll shows this. That poll shows that. We won't know untill next week.



Yup, it will be a very good evening for O, it appears.


----------



## konradv

Seems Mitt has hit a roadblock, since he started lying about the jobs situation.  Kiss Ohio good bye.


----------



## Claudette

Well. You can always hope. 

Anyone who puts his faith in a poll is an idiot IMO. 

Polls have to many variables to be taken seriously. 

But hey. Whatever floats your boat. 

Think I'll wait till Nov 7th to see who won.


----------



## Inthemiddle

deaddogseye said:


> The republicans will be able to claim very credibly that a few people in ohio and wisconsin may be able to decide who is the president but they dont speak for the electorate as to how they want the counrty governed.



Demonizing two of the most important battleground states in the Union....I wish them luck with that.


----------



## Samson

Listening said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the guy that the left pays to make an idiot out of himself by claiming this kind of sillyness.
Click to expand...


So you're saying rdean and luddie are not paid.....

Gottchya.


----------



## JimH52

Claudette said:


> Well. You can always hope.
> 
> Anyone who puts his faith in a poll is an idiot IMO.
> 
> Polls have to many variables to be taken seriously.
> 
> But hey. Whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Think I'll wait till Nov 7th to see who won.



Yup....we will all do that!


----------



## JimH52

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Still a few days until the vote....but


----------



## SniperFire

Where is Old Rocks at?

He had it around 340* month*s ago.


LOL



Fail.


----------



## Leweman

ahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... he will be lucky to get 200.


----------



## JustSomeGuy

Isn't Joe the one who tried the "Dear God" schtick? Yeah, real moderate there. 

Anyway, I'll play. In 2008 FL was D+3; Quinnipiac has it D+7 this year. In 2008 Virginia was D+6; Quinnipiac has it D+8 this year. And finally, in 2008 Ohio was D+8; still a D+8. You believe that'll occur this year? Especially with Republicans far more enthusiastic this year than are Democrats?


----------



## Intolerant

And I'm da toof fairy.


----------



## auditor0007

Truthseeker420 said:


> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.



Yard signs are indicative of where you live. If you live in one of the cities like Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, or Toledo, or even Akron or Canton or Youngstown, you will see more Obama signs.  If you live in rural areas, you'll have a hard time finding many.   I live in what would be considered a suburb of Toledo and the yard signs are pretty evenly split.  I would venture to guess that Obama does better in the entire metro Toledo area due to the auto industry having such an impact on this area.


----------



## mamooth

Up to 77.4% today.


----------



## oldfart

But do the polls take account of the effect of Williard's magic underwear?


----------



## auditor0007

JimH52 said:


> Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call
> 
> Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Ohio, Brown leads GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel by 9 points: 51 percent support to Mandel's 42 percent. Mandel leads among independent voters, 46 percent to 44 percent. Their previous poll, conducted the week prior, also had the race at 51 percent to 42 percent.
> 
> President Obama leads Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the state. The poll was conducted Oct. 23-28 and surveyed 1,110 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.9 percentage points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the same poll, with the president ahead, 48 percent to 47 percent. Mack has consistently underperformed Romney in public polling. The poll of 1,073 likely Florida voters was conducted Oct. 23-28. The margin of error for the survey is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.
> 
> *OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*
Click to expand...


Romney has never led in Ohio.  He got close but now the tide is heading back to Obama, no matter what cons want to believe.  Secondly, Florida has been moving back toward Obama for the last two weeks.  Romney was ahead there, and now it is pretty close to a dead heat. It doesn't necessarily mean Obama will win Florida, but his chances are getting better.  

On top of everything, Sandy is going to play into the President's favor.  There is still a small percentage of undecideds out there and his handling of the post hurricane relief over the next week will sway many of those undecideds to give him another chance.  If I were running Obama's campaign, I would not have Obama make another campaign appearance.  I would tell him to concentrate on acting presidential and doing what he can from Washington.  I really believe he will get better positive response from voters going that route versus hitting the campaign trail over the next week.


----------



## buckeye45_73

You guys kill me......signs.... in gay areas will have more obama support

And nytimes polls?  Didnt they just endorse obama?


----------



## mamooth

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Voter enthusiasm.. registered voters who actually turn out..



There is no evidence that the Republican turnout advantage is going to be larger than its usual few points, and that's already accounted for in the polls. You're making the mistake of thinking that your deranged enthusiasm applies to everyone.



> All trends show Romney moving up in every single swing state.



The exact opposite is true. For the past two weeks, Obama has been moving up in every single swing state. All the momentum is with Obama.



> Obama has ruined the economy and destroyed foreign policy, TWO MAJOR SCANDALS, FAST N FURIOUS, BENGHAZI..



You're make the mistake of thinking everyone is as dumb as you are. Just because you were gullible enough to swallow all the idiot propaganda, that doesn't mean others are similarly gullible.


----------



## auditor0007

buckeye45_73 said:


> You guys kill me......signs.... in gay areas will have more obama support
> 
> And nytimes polls?  Didnt they just endorse obama?



You seem to have this obsession with gays.  Is that because you are a closet gay yourself?  It seems that every other post you make has some reference to gays.


----------



## U2Edge

JimH52 said:


> Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call
> 
> Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Ohio, Brown leads GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel by 9 points: 51 percent support to Mandel's 42 percent. Mandel leads among independent voters, 46 percent to 44 percent. Their previous poll, conducted the week prior, also had the race at 51 percent to 42 percent.
> 
> President Obama leads Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the state. The poll was conducted Oct. 23-28 and surveyed 1,110 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.9 percentage points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the same poll, with the president ahead, 48 percent to 47 percent. Mack has consistently underperformed Romney in public polling. The poll of 1,073 likely Florida voters was conducted Oct. 23-28. The margin of error for the survey is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.
> 
> *OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*
Click to expand...


What about Rasmussen Reports in Ohio. Their latest has Romney up by 2 points. Romney 50% Obama 48%.

       Then, take a look at the poll of polls for the nation. In the Real Clear Politics poll of national polls, Romney has led EVERY DAY except for 3 since October 9. He currently leads by 0.8%. The Real Clear Politics poll of national polls was within 1 percentage point of the actual result for the popular vote in 2004 and essentially dead on for the popular vote in 2008. The candidate that wins the popular vote usually wins the electoral college as well. Whats more is that the State polls on average were off by 1.85 percentage points in 2004 and 2.25 percentage points in 2008. By comparison, the national polls on average were only off 0.9 percentage points in 2004 and 0.3 percentage points in 2008.

        The race is very close and the national polls point to a small Romney victory while the State polls point to a small Obama victory. But with things this close and the margin of victory very small in both state and national polls on average, its important to note that at least in 2004 and 2008, the national polls were more accurate than the state polls. 

         So while the average of polls suggest an Obama victory by 2 points in Ohio on average, based on the margin of error in 2008, that could actually mean a Romney victory!

*In any event, if Obama does win, it will be the weakest victory ever by an incumbent President in United States history!*


           Amazing that were at this point at all though. Prior to October, Obama had led EVERY SINGLE DAY in the national polls by margins that ranged for 4 percentage points to 6 percentage points. This is the average of the national polls. Overnight, things changed with the first debate. Months before the first debate, I had concluded that the election was over and that there was no way Romney could win based on the polling and given conditions in the country. I was already thinking about 2016. *What a turn around. Many Obama supporters were feeling the same way. They thought they were insured victory. Even Obama thought that given his first debate performance. But now Obama and the Democrats are running scared. You can see it every time they bring up social issues that never mattered in any race before. I must say, after having concluded months ago that Romney was done period, this is fun to watch!*


----------



## Leweman

Truthseeker420 said:


> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.



I live in ohio and if signs are an indication Romney is winning 3 to 1.  Surprising considering the risk those people take of having their property destroyed by Obama supporters.


----------



## Leweman

How would Romney be crushing Obama in independents, which make up 1/3 of the electorate, but losing? The + Dem turnout would have to be huge and that's not gonna happen this year.  Use some critical thinking when looking at these polls.


----------



## MarcATL

JoeB131 said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the loons of the far right radical fringe, aka today's average Republican, going to do when Obama wins?
> 
> lol.
> 
> What. are. they. going. to. do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think what republicans will do depends on how obama wins - assuming he wins (which at the moment i still think he will)
> 
> Suppose he wins an electoral victory but loses the political war? By that i mean he gets 270 (270-290 is best case) but Romney gets a majority of the popular vote and maybe wins the popular vote by a fullpercent or even alittle more.
> 
> What does obama do then? Yes he has won the presdency but he has no ability even in the worlld of political BS to claim any type of vote in favor of his policies. To the contrary. The republicans will be able to claim very credibly that a few people in ohio and wisconsin may be able to decide who is the president but they dont speak for the electorate as to how they want the counrty governed. if anything such a mixed result will enable Republicans to say the vote was in support of their policies -- against taxes, obamacare etc.
> 
> As i said Obama will be president but there will be nothing in that kind of result that should tell Rebublicans they need to compromise with him. If anything such results would support the opposite conclusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh... Bush lost the popular vote, probably lost Florida, was put in office by a court decision and lost control of the Senate.  *He STILL acted like he was the president and had a mandate to do things.  *
> 
> Since Republicans argued to the hilt that Bush was legitimate despite the fishy way he was elected, they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Romney won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Click to expand...

Exactly. One of the many problems with the Republicans is that they ALWAYS act and govern as if they have some mandate. They ALWAYS overreach...always. They are sick w/power.


----------



## Amazed

MarcATL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think what republicans will do depends on how obama wins - assuming he wins (which at the moment i still think he will)
> 
> Suppose he wins an electoral victory but loses the political war? By that i mean he gets 270 (270-290 is best case) but Romney gets a majority of the popular vote and maybe wins the popular vote by a fullpercent or even alittle more.
> 
> What does obama do then? Yes he has won the presdency but he has no ability even in the worlld of political BS to claim any type of vote in favor of his policies. To the contrary. The republicans will be able to claim very credibly that a few people in ohio and wisconsin may be able to decide who is the president but they dont speak for the electorate as to how they want the counrty governed. if anything such a mixed result will enable Republicans to say the vote was in support of their policies -- against taxes, obamacare etc.
> 
> As i said Obama will be president but there will be nothing in that kind of result that should tell Rebublicans they need to compromise with him. If anything such results would support the opposite conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh... Bush lost the popular vote, probably lost Florida, was put in office by a court decision and lost control of the Senate.  *He STILL acted like he was the president and had a mandate to do things.  *
> 
> Since Republicans argued to the hilt that Bush was legitimate despite the fishy way he was elected, they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Romney won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. One of the many problems with the Republicans is that they ALWAYS act and govern as if they have some mandate. They ALWAYS overreach...always. They are sick w/power.
Click to expand...


Hence AIDS and Crack eh Malcolm, we injected them into the black community, correct?


----------



## Zander

MarcATL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think what republicans will do depends on how obama wins - assuming he wins (which at the moment i still think he will)
> 
> Suppose he wins an electoral victory but loses the political war? By that i mean he gets 270 (270-290 is best case) but Romney gets a majority of the popular vote and maybe wins the popular vote by a fullpercent or even alittle more.
> 
> What does obama do then? Yes he has won the presdency but he has no ability even in the worlld of political BS to claim any type of vote in favor of his policies. To the contrary. The republicans will be able to claim very credibly that a few people in ohio and wisconsin may be able to decide who is the president but they dont speak for the electorate as to how they want the counrty governed. if anything such a mixed result will enable Republicans to say the vote was in support of their policies -- against taxes, obamacare etc.
> 
> As i said Obama will be president but there will be nothing in that kind of result that should tell Rebublicans they need to compromise with him. If anything such results would support the opposite conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh... Bush lost the popular vote, probably lost Florida, was put in office by a court decision and lost control of the Senate.  *He STILL acted like he was the president and had a mandate to do things.  *
> 
> Since Republicans argued to the hilt that Bush was legitimate despite the fishy way he was elected, they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Romney won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. One of the many problems with the Republicans is that they ALWAYS act and govern as if they have some mandate. They ALWAYS overreach...always. They are sick w/power.
Click to expand...

We gonna put you back in chains!!! 



I think I'd prefer being placed in real chains; over the chains the black community voluntarily dons when they support Democrats......Ya'll need to wake up!


----------



## Old Rocks

At present, I would say that the election is pretty much in the bag for the President. 300+ electorial votes, a weak + is my prediction. 

Romney's statements on FEMA are returning to haunt him. In fact, the whole 'Conservative' spiel on disaster relief is looking luduicris in the light of the massive damage in this storm. And the sight of the President and state Governors working together nearly seamlessly definately is impressive.


----------



## Amazed

Old Rocks said:


> At present, I would say that the election is pretty much in the bag for the President. 300+ electorial votes, a weak + is my prediction.
> 
> Romney's statements on FEMA are returning to haunt him. In fact, the whole 'Conservative' spiel on disaster relief is looking luduicris in the light of the massive damage in this storm. And the sight of the President and state Governors working together nearly seamlessly definately is impressive.



Well of course except that nothing backs that up.

Carry on.


----------



## Annie

Amazed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> At present, I would say that the election is pretty much in the bag for the President. 300+ electorial votes, a weak + is my prediction.
> 
> Romney's statements on FEMA are returning to haunt him. In fact, the whole 'Conservative' spiel on disaster relief is looking luduicris in the light of the massive damage in this storm. And the sight of the President and state Governors working together nearly seamlessly definately is impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course except that nothing backs that up.
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...


As someone said earlier, this will be a great post to refer back to on the 7th.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> We still have a few days until the vote, but I heard this morning that the Romney camp may be thinking of shifting resources to Pennsylvania, if Ohio appears lost.  Again, anything can happen at this point, but that comment caught me by surprise...
> 
> Silver's numbers have been going up and down.  I expect to see the same in the coming days.  This is still a very tight race.



Theres really nowhere for Romney to shift resources, the president will win Pennsylvania, Ohio as well. 

Remember also that the president had held consistent leads in most of the battleground states.


----------



## buckeye45_73

auditor0007 said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys kill me......signs.... in gay areas will have more obama support
> 
> And nytimes polls? Didnt they just endorse obama?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have this obsession with gays. Is that because you are a closet gay yourself? It seems that every other post you make has some reference to gays.
Click to expand...

 

Nope, I just love how uncomfortable liberals are with gays, yet the love to promote their radical agenda.....it's quite funny


----------



## buckeye45_73

yeah Auditor, Romney never led in Ohio, except with Rassmussen..


How is he going to lead with +8% democrats? do you guys have any critical thinking skills?


----------



## SniperFire

JustSomeGuy said:


> Isn't Joe the one who tried the "Dear God" schtick? Yeah, real moderate there.
> 
> Anyway, I'll play. In 2008 FL was D+3; Quinnipiac has it D+7 this year. In 2008 Virginia was D+6; Quinnipiac has it D+8 this year. And finally, in 2008 Ohio was D+8; still a D+8. You believe that'll occur this year? Especially with Republicans far more enthusiastic this year than are Democrats?




Exactly.   The turnout will be Republican +1 or so. 

These polls assume the '08 'hopey changey' turnout. 

Romney in a landslide.


----------



## tinydancer

It's tight. This is from the Plain Dealer right in Ohio. Polls are at the link. Most are all within the margin of error. 

* New polls show President Obama tied or slightly ahead in Ohio, Sherrod Brown doing better

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's and President Barack Obama's campaigns both claim they will win Ohio, and either outcome is possible Nov. 6. Several polls released over the past few days suggest Obama is ahead, although still within the margin of error in several of the surveys.*

New polls show President Obama tied or slightly ahead in Ohio, Sherrod Brown doing better | cleveland.com[/B]


----------



## JimH52

I expect that now that Obama has Governor Christie's support, he will begin to pull away.


----------



## bripat9643

A Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS News poll?  That's about as credible as Pravda was during the cold war.




JimH52 said:


> Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call
> 
> Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Ohio, Brown leads GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel by 9 points: 51 percent support to Mandel's 42 percent. Mandel leads among independent voters, 46 percent to 44 percent. Their previous poll, conducted the week prior, also had the race at 51 percent to 42 percent.
> 
> President Obama leads Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the state. The poll was conducted Oct. 23-28 and surveyed 1,110 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.9 percentage points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the same poll, with the president ahead, 48 percent to 47 percent. Mack has consistently underperformed Romney in public polling. The poll of 1,073 likely Florida voters was conducted Oct. 23-28. The margin of error for the survey is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.
> 
> *OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*
Click to expand...


----------



## Nova78

Truthseeker420 said:


> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.



Like Obama really gives a rats ass about Ohio ....


----------



## JimH52

Leweman said:


> How would Romney be crushing Obama in independents, which make up 1/3 of the electorate, but losing? The + Dem turnout would have to be huge and that's not gonna happen this year.  Use some critical thinking when looking at these polls.



The pollsters are far better prepared to use "critical thinking" than any of us.  This is their job, their profession, their livelihood.  Numbers are being honeslty portrayed by people who are using math and science.  Tuesday will tell the tale...


----------



## Bigfoot

Jim, it is likely that you are delusional.


----------



## JimH52

bripat9643 said:


> A Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS News poll?  That's about as credible as Pravda was during the cold war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call
> 
> Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Ohio, Brown leads GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel by 9 points: 51 percent support to Mandel's 42 percent. Mandel leads among independent voters, 46 percent to 44 percent. Their previous poll, conducted the week prior, also had the race at 51 percent to 42 percent.
> 
> President Obama leads Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the state. The poll was conducted Oct. 23-28 and surveyed 1,110 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.9 percentage points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the same poll, with the president ahead, 48 percent to 47 percent. Mack has consistently underperformed Romney in public polling. The poll of 1,073 likely Florida voters was conducted Oct. 23-28. The margin of error for the survey is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.
> 
> *OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Can't wait to find out how close they are?  *Can you?*


----------



## jillian

TNHarley said:


> This poll shows this. That poll shows that. We won't know untill next week.



Except when the polls are Gallup or Rasmussen


----------



## JimH52

Bigfoot said:


> Jim, it is likely that you are delusional.



You look at numbers by a reliable polling professional and you call me delusional...

Tuesday is coming...


----------



## Bigfoot

JimH52 said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, it is likely that you are delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You look at numbers by a reliable polling professional and you call me delusional...
> 
> Tuesday is coming...
Click to expand...


I think that you may be kidding yourself a bit. Yes Tuesday is coming and no matter how the election turns out Wednesday will be coming along shortly after and we will all still be putting one foot in front of the other grinding out a living. I'm not going to waste too much energy on worrying about how the election is going to turn out. I like Romney's message much more then Obama's more government message but either way my family and I will continue to enjoy life. I also hope that you and your family are safe, sound and happy.


----------



## bripat9643

JimH52 said:


> The pollsters are far better prepared to use "critical thinking" than any of us.



You're obviously speaking only for yourself, flat worm brain.



JimH52 said:


> This is their job, their profession, their livelihood.  Numbers are being honeslty portrayed by people who are using math and science.  Tuesday will tell the tale...



For most of them, their job is generating Democrat propaganda.  Anyone who think there's anything objective about polls needs to see me about some investments in Florida swamp land.


----------



## bripat9643

Bigfoot said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, it is likely that you are delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You look at numbers by a reliable polling professional and you call me delusional...
> 
> Tuesday is coming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that you may be kidding yourself a bit. Yes Tuesday is coming and no matter how the election turns out Wednesday will be coming along shortly after and we will all still be putting one foot in front of the other grinding out a living. I'm not going to waste too much energy on worrying about how the election is going to turn out. I like Romney's message much more then Obama's more government message but either way my family and I will continue to enjoy life. I also hope that you and your family are safe, sound and happy.
Click to expand...


You will enjoy life a lot less if Obama gets reelected.


----------



## Pheonixops

JimH52 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am in Virginia and in the last week, Obama signs have been springing up all over...not a real good indicator I don't suppose...
Click to expand...


I see more Romney signs here in Virginia Beach.


----------



## Bigfoot

bripat9643 said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You look at numbers by a reliable polling professional and you call me delusional...
> 
> Tuesday is coming...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you may be kidding yourself a bit. Yes Tuesday is coming and no matter how the election turns out Wednesday will be coming along shortly after and we will all still be putting one foot in front of the other grinding out a living. I'm not going to waste too much energy on worrying about how the election is going to turn out. I like Romney's message much more then Obama's more government message but either way my family and I will continue to enjoy life. I also hope that you and your family are safe, sound and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will enjoy life a lot less if Obama gets reelected.
Click to expand...


Maybe. I sure will be pleased the day I don't have to view Obama as president any longer. But I'm not going to worry myself or my family to much about the whole thing as it's my responsibility to do what I can to keep them healthy and happy and that starts with me keeping a good attitude myself. 

BTW, here's a +1 because I often enjoy you're posts.


----------



## driveby

Truthseeker420 said:


> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.




Get out of the ghetto once in a while......


----------



## blackhawk

A Gallup poll shows Romney up by five it's dismissed by the left this poll shows Obama up by five and Romney is doomed interesting how that worked ain't it? If you look at this race honestly you know it is a toss up along with every swing state out there.


----------



## Dante

JimH52 said:


> Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call
> 
> Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Ohio, Brown leads GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel by 9 points: 51 percent support to Mandel's 42 percent. Mandel leads among independent voters, 46 percent to 44 percent. Their previous poll, conducted the week prior, also had the race at 51 percent to 42 percent.
> 
> President Obama leads Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the state. The poll was conducted Oct. 23-28 and surveyed 1,110 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.9 percentage points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the same poll, with the president ahead, 48 percent to 47 percent. Mack has consistently underperformed Romney in public polling. The poll of 1,073 likely Florida voters was conducted Oct. 23-28. The margin of error for the survey is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.
> 
> *OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*
Click to expand...


Thank you for your service Jim.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You look at numbers by a reliable polling professional and you call me delusional...
> 
> Tuesday is coming...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you may be kidding yourself a bit. Yes Tuesday is coming and no matter how the election turns out Wednesday will be coming along shortly after and we will all still be putting one foot in front of the other grinding out a living. I'm not going to waste too much energy on worrying about how the election is going to turn out. I like Romney's message much more then Obama's more government message but either way my family and I will continue to enjoy life. I also hope that you and your family are safe, sound and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will enjoy life a lot less if Obama gets reelected.
Click to expand...


you want some cheese with that whine?


----------



## jillian

driveby said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get out of the ghetto once in a while......
Click to expand...


Nah... Nothing racist there


----------



## blackhawk

I was looking for the sampling data on the poll to find the percent of Democrats polled and Republicans along with independents interesting that data was not listed with all the poll questions as it is in pretty much every other poll. Does that make the poll skewed I can't say one does wonder why they would leave that out though.


----------



## driveby

jillian said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get out of the ghetto once in a while......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah... Nothing racist there
Click to expand...


That didn't take long...


----------



## Bigfoot

driveby said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get out of the ghetto once in a while......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah... Nothing racist there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That didn't take long...
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's ole Rosie needs a boner's usual play, race.


----------



## blackhawk

Scott Rasmussen said it best tonight when he was asked who he thought would win the election his response was I have no idea and anyone says they do is either lying or deluding themselves truer words were never spoken.


----------



## JimH52

Just how accurate is the Qinnipiac Polling?

Election Polling 101 « Survey Says



> We are currently using the same methodology that we used when we accurately predicted the Florida presidential results in 2004 and 2008.  Respected New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver found that we were the most accurate poll in predicting the 2010 elections.


----------



## Bigfoot

JimH52 said:


> Just how accurate is the Qinnipiac Polling?
> 
> Election Polling 101 « Survey Says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are currently using the same methodology that we used when we accurately predicted the Florida presidential results in 2004 and 2008.  Respected New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver found that we were the most accurate poll in predicting the 2010 elections.
Click to expand...


From what I have been reading voter turnout will be considerably different this election. We will know soon enough and life will go on either way.


----------



## Truthseeker420

auditor0007 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Ohio and if signs are an indication...Obama is winning about 3 to 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yard signs are indicative of where you live. If you live in one of the cities like Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, or Toledo, or even Akron or Canton or Youngstown, you will see more Obama signs.  If you live in rural areas, you'll have a hard time finding many.   I live in what would be considered a suburb of Toledo and the yard signs are pretty evenly split.  I would venture to guess that Obama does better in the entire metro Toledo area due to the auto industry having such an impact on this area.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about rural white central Ohio.


----------



## LibertyLemming

What I don't get is if it is the "independents" who decide elections, especially in swing states, and Romney is up 6 in OH with independents, how is he losing overall....


----------



## Bigfoot

LibertyLemming said:


> What I don't get is if it is the "independents" who decide elections, especially in swing states, and Romney is up 6 in OH with independents, how is he losing overall....



I'm registered Independent and will not vote for Obama. But I also live in a blue state so my votie is academic.


----------



## oreo

JimH52 said:


> Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call
> 
> Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Ohio, Brown leads GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel by 9 points: 51 percent support to Mandel's 42 percent. Mandel leads among independent voters, 46 percent to 44 percent. Their previous poll, conducted the week prior, also had the race at 51 percent to 42 percent.
> 
> President Obama leads Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the state. The poll was conducted Oct. 23-28 and surveyed 1,110 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.9 percentage points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the same poll, with the president ahead, 48 percent to 47 percent. Mack has consistently underperformed Romney in public polling. The poll of 1,073 likely Florida voters was conducted Oct. 23-28. The margin of error for the survey is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.
> 
> *OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*
Click to expand...



The polls you just cited are using 2008 voter turnout--with oversampling of democrats by 9 points.  What they're stating is there are going to be 9 more democrats to every 1 republican that votes.  And they're not including independents in these polls in which Romney is leading by 19 points.

What we're also starting to see is something we haven't seen in decades.  In fact 1980--Reagan democrats who by 25% kicked Carter to the curb to vote for Reagan.  *These democrats did not show up in the polling data back in 1980.  But they showed up on election night. * Democrats are moving to the Romney column this year--we just don't know how many of them there are.  

*Election night is going to be reminiscent of Custer's Last Stand for Barack Obama.*

We may see something similar to this.  Carter v Reagan--1980


----------



## MarcATL

Last number I heard was 75% Nate's predicting.


----------



## JoeB131

MarcATL said:


> Last number I heard was 75% Nate's predicting.



He has it at 79% this morning.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LibertyLemming said:


> What I don't get is if it is the "independents" who decide elections, especially in swing states, and Romney is up 6 in OH with independents, how is he losing overall....



Independents and weak (Reagan) democrats win elections; Romney simply wont get enough democrats to win in Ohio and most of the other BG states.


----------



## JimH52

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

*Okay RW loons, dismiss this Thread quickly!  *


----------



## JimH52

ElectoralVote


----------



## SniperFire

Old Rocks had it @ like 390.

LOL


----------



## mudwhistle

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> *Okay RW loons, dismiss this Thread quickly!  *



Done.


----------



## candycorn

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> *Okay RW loons, dismiss this Thread quickly!  *



Thats about where I have him.  I don't think he gets 300 without Florida.  The important thing is to get 270 of course.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Holy crap, that was mine too...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/258795-electoral-vote-predictions.html

.


----------



## konradv

SniperFire said:


> Old Rocks had it @ like 390.
> 
> LOL



Try 290, liar!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/258346-obamas-2nd-term-or-wheres-barry.html#post6247034


----------



## JimH52

I guess Willard is getting...what's the word....let's see.....Desperate....Yeah....Desperate.

*O can count on Christie's vote!*


----------



## AceRothstein

oreo said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call
> 
> Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Ohio, Brown leads GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel by 9 points: 51 percent support to Mandel's 42 percent. Mandel leads among independent voters, 46 percent to 44 percent. Their previous poll, conducted the week prior, also had the race at 51 percent to 42 percent.
> 
> President Obama leads Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the state. The poll was conducted Oct. 23-28 and surveyed 1,110 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.9 percentage points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in the same poll, with the president ahead, 48 percent to 47 percent. Mack has consistently underperformed Romney in public polling. The poll of 1,073 likely Florida voters was conducted Oct. 23-28. The margin of error for the survey is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.
> 
> *OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The polls you just cited are using 2008 voter turnout--with oversampling of democrats by 9 points.  What they're stating is there are going to be 9 more democrats to every 1 republican that votes.  And they're not including independents in these polls in which Romney is leading by 19 points.
> 
> What we're also starting to see is something we haven't seen in decades.  In fact 1980--Reagan democrats who by 25% kicked Carter to the curb to vote for Reagan.  *These democrats did not show up in the polling data back in 1980.  But they showed up on election night. * Democrats are moving to the Romney column this year--we just don't know how many of them there are.
> 
> *Election night is going to be reminiscent of Custer's Last Stand for Barack Obama.*
> 
> We may see something similar to this.  Carter v Reagan--1980
Click to expand...


Polls don't sample based on prior election turnout! You cons that continue to peddle that lie are fucking idiots.

There is zero chance that this election is close to the 1980 election.


----------



## TNHarley

Hey, if polls (that are BS) make yall happy, then have a happy day! Well see next week


----------



## Warrior102

President Romney will win in a landslide, you Libberhoid nutsacks. 

Shove your predictions for a second failed term into your ass - 

Sideways.


----------



## Nova78

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> *Okay RW loons, dismiss this Thread quickly!  *



* **Yawn***


----------



## Mac1958

Warrior102 said:


> President Romney will win in a landslide, you Libberhoid nutsacks.
> 
> Shove your predictions for a second failed term into your ass -
> 
> Sideways.




Great, post your prediction:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/258795-electoral-vote-predictions.html

.


----------



## Warrior102

Mac1958 said:


> Great, post your prediction:



I will. The night before the election.


----------



## JimH52

Warrior102 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, post your prediction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will. The night before the election.
Click to expand...


I especially want to see you on the board on Wednesday!


----------



## JimH52

TNHarley said:


> Hey, if polls (that are BS) make yall happy, then have a happy day! Well see next week



It is making us very happy!  And, Governor Christie and I thank you!


----------



## Warrior102

JimH52 said:


> I especially want to see you on the board on Wednesday!



Why? Are you going to need tissues and tampons following Barry Hussein Sotero's (or whatever the fuck his name is) defeat?


----------



## OKTexas

When an incumbent consistantly polls below 50% they tend to be in trouble. The only poll I'm going to put an faith in will be taken on Nov. 6th. So we'll see.


----------



## Seawytch

JimH52 said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, post your prediction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will. The night before the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I especially want to see you on the board on Wednesday!
Click to expand...


Likely you won't. When President Obama wins a 2nd term, Warrior will probably cut and run. He's spent too much time blustering about Romney to stick around and eat crow about it.


----------



## Warrior102

Seawytch said:


> Likely you won't. When President Obama wins a 2nd term, Warrior will probably cut and run. He's spent too much time blustering about Romney to stick around and eat crow about it.



Hey, ya stupid carpet munching porker - I will LEAVE THE FUCKING COUNTRY if Obama wins. 

Will you do the same if Romney does? 

Hell no. You're a chickenshit. 

You can't even man-up to an avatar swap. 

Bottom line - in five days, when President Romney is elected - your Foodstamps and welfare check are shut the fuck off. 

Start applying for work at Mickey D's and other establishments commensurate with your education (lack of).


----------



## Old Rocks

Warrior102 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likely you won't. When President Obama wins a 2nd term, Warrior will probably cut and run. He's spent too much time blustering about Romney to stick around and eat crow about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, ya stupid carpet munching porker - I will LEAVE THE FUCKING COUNTRY if Obama wins.
> 
> Will you do the same if Romney does?
> 
> Hell no. You're a chickenshit.
> 
> You can't even man-up to an avatar swap.
> 
> Bottom line - in five days, when President Romney is elected - your Foodstamps and welfare check are shut the fuck off.
> 
> Start applying for work at Mickey D's and other establishments commensurate with your education (lack of).
Click to expand...


Don't let the door hit you in the ass.


----------



## Zarius

Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Ohio now leans Obama as well as VA!

300

80% chance of victory

Feel the pain and salty tears hateful tea party


----------



## Warrior102

Old Rocks said:


> Don't let the door hit you in the ass.



It won't asswipe. 
President Romney will win - rest assured. 
You packing for Tehran or some other Libberhoid vacation destination when that occurs, or are you going to sit on your fat-ass for the next eight years and blame President Romney for your failures?


----------



## Seawytch

Warrior102 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likely you won't. When President Obama wins a 2nd term, Warrior will probably cut and run. He's spent too much time blustering about Romney to stick around and eat crow about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, ya stupid carpet munching porker - I will LEAVE THE FUCKING COUNTRY if Obama wins.
Click to expand...


Don't let the door hit you where the good lord (and hundreds of men) have split ya.



> Will you do the same if Romney does?
> 
> Hell no. You're a chickenshit.



Of course I wouldn't leave the country I love and served just because Reversible Mittens won the Presidency. That's silly and you're lying anyway...unless you plan on hauling your trailer to Canada. 



> You can't even man-up to an avatar swap.



Is this classic deflection? It was an avatar swap that I originally offered you. Dementia setting in? I offered a month long avatar or signature swap and you countered with your ridiculous "I'll leave/you leave" scenario which I countered with I would leave, you would wear an avatar. You refused, pussy. 



> Bottom line - in five days, when President Romney is elected - your Foodstamps and welfare check are shut the fuck off.
> 
> Start applying for work at Mickey D's and other establishments commensurate with your education (lack of).



Thanks, I have a job and my retirement pay. Never even been on unemployment, but your concern is truly touching.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, Warts, I will be staying right here in the good ol' US of A. no matter how the election turns out. And working at my job, as well as on my properties. 

At present, I would have to say that Romney's chances are less than 1 in 4 of winning this election. That is the present reality, and only six days before the election, that is pretty bad odds for the GOP.


----------



## Liberal

Warrior102 said:


> President Romney will win in a landslide, you Libberhoid nutsacks.
> 
> Shove your predictions for a second failed term into your ass -
> 
> Sideways.



Wanna bet? 

Romney never had over a 30% chance of winning. FiveThirtyEight has had O at +75% the whole time and every single electoral vote callout (aggregated or not) has had Obama winning from the beginning.


----------



## The Rabbi

Nate Silver running away with the crack pipe.


----------



## Newby

We're all already 'feeling the pain' and have been for the last four years. If Obama wins reelection for the next four, we'll all be feeling even more pain as things get worse and worse.


----------



## Missourian

More like Obama running away FROM it...


"Mr President,  what about Benghazi?"

"Mr President,  what about Jeep production in China?"

"Mr President,  You've run up a trillion dollars a year in debt with no budget..."

"Mr President,  what's your plan if reelected?"


----------



## Sallow

The Storm may be changing some minds.

No one was talking about FEMA until this week.

I love those Republican Primary Debates.

The gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## hazlnut

Sallow said:


> The Storm may be changing some minds.
> 
> No one was talking about FEMA until this week.
> 
> I love those Republican Primary Debates.
> 
> The gift that keeps on giving.



The anti-science party is going to washed out to sea by Global Warming.


----------



## Zarius

The Obama victory will be great for the middle class. Bad for the hate mongers in the tea party


----------



## insein

From a political game standpoint, Obama is getting more face time right now doing "helpful" things for the public.  Now most people have made up their minds at this point who theyre voting for.  You're not changing anyone's mind on the right or the left with only a week to go.  But the undecided vote which makes up probably a realistic 2-5% of the population is where this may sway.  Obama will push to keep the storm in the headlines for one more week while Republicans have to tread carefully on when to bring it back to the election so as not to seem insensitive. 

It's a tough spot to be in for Romney.  He can't really do anything to help because he's not the president and he can't start talking politics blatantly again without the cries of insensitivity.  Before the storm, I thought Romney had all the right momentum.  Now, I'm not so sure. He needs to make a push this saturday to get things back to the economy and the record of the last 4 years before Obama simply starts planning his 2nd term.


----------



## insein

Zarius said:


> The Obama victory will be great for the middle class. Bad for the hate mongers in the tea party



How exactly? Serious question.


----------



## The Rabbi

insein said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama victory will be great for the middle class. Bad for the hate mongers in the tea party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly? Serious question.
Click to expand...


Every middle class union member and gov't employee will reap huge benefits and outsize pensions.

Of course if you're not a union member or gov't employee you'll take it in the shorts.


----------



## Zarius

insein said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama victory will be great for the middle class. Bad for the hate mongers in the tea party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly? Serious question.
Click to expand...


Plutocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romney is a plutocrat. Get it


----------



## Zarius

The Rabbi said:


> insein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama victory will be great for the middle class. Bad for the hate mongers in the tea party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly? Serious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every middle class union member and gov't employee will reap huge benefits and outsize pensions.
> 
> Of course if you're not a union member or gov't employee you'll take it in the shorts.
Click to expand...


The private sector is full of nepotism and racism and misogynistic culture. Thats why the right loves the private sector.


----------



## mamooth

The poll aggregators and betting markets, 11/1/2012. 10/31 was a good polling day for President Obama, so he made gains in most of the EV counts.


RCP  O290-R248
RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups

Pollster.com  O277-R206
Pollster: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

Five-thirty-eight.com (Nate Silver)  O300.4-R237.6  (79.0%)
Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Princeton Election consortium  O308-R230  (95%)
http://election.princeton.edu/

Election Analytics O294.4-R243.6
Presidential Election 2012 | University of Illinois

InTrade  O303-R235   68%
2012 Electoral Map - The Intrade Forecast 11/1/2012
Intrade - Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012

BetFair  O 1.33-1 (75%)
2012 Presidential Election - Next President bet | US Politics odds | betfair.com

Electoral Vote  O299-R206
ElectoralVote

270 to Win  O281-R257
America's Electoral Map: A 2012 Election Forecast

Votamatic  O332-R206
VOTAMATIC | Forecasts and Polling Analysis for the 2012 Presidential Election


----------



## The Rabbi

Zarius said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> insein said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly? Serious question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every middle class union member and gov't employee will reap huge benefits and outsize pensions.
> 
> Of course if you're not a union member or gov't employee you'll take it in the shorts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The private sector is full of nepotism and racism and misogynistic culture. Thats why the right loves the private sector.
Click to expand...


You don't know jack-shit about the private sector. The closest you ever came to it was typing on the Apple computer your school let you use.


----------



## Liability

AceRothstein said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls Show Two Swing-State Dems Leading - Hotline On Call
> 
> Joe Scarborough on *Morning Joe *used the word "desperation" for the first time, since Willard won the first debate.  I expect many of you to call him another Democratic Hack, but he is one of the more reasonable Republicans out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnipiac is well known for its accuracy.
> 
> *OKAY, YOU CAN BEGIN TELLING ME THIS POLL IS SKEWED NOW!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls you just cited are using 2008 voter turnout--with oversampling of democrats by 9 points.  What they're stating is there are going to be 9 more democrats to every 1 republican that votes.  And they're not including independents in these polls in which Romney is leading by 19 points.
> 
> What we're also starting to see is something we haven't seen in decades.  In fact 1980--Reagan democrats who by 25% kicked Carter to the curb to vote for Reagan.  *These democrats did not show up in the polling data back in 1980.  But they showed up on election night. * Democrats are moving to the Romney column this year--we just don't know how many of them there are.
> 
> *Election night is going to be reminiscent of Custer's Last Stand for Barack Obama.*
> 
> We may see something similar to this.  Carter v Reagan--1980
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polls don't sample based on prior election turnout! You cons that continue to peddle that lie are fucking idiots.
> 
> There is zero chance that this election is close to the 1980 election.
Click to expand...


Deuce loves to spread his ignorance.

Pollsters may not deliberately choose to oversample Dims.  But that doesn't mean that their efforts have not resulted in oversampling Dims.

This is not that difficult, really, except for hacks like Deuce who choose to remain ignorant or dishonest.  For the sake purely of illustration, let's assume a given population IS presently approximately 33.33% GOP, 33.33% Dim and 33.34% Independent.  And let's further assume that the Indy's essentially cancel each other out when they vote.

NOW let's assume that a pollster does a telephone survey of 600 random voters.  They are not even going for "likely" voters.  Just registered voters.  And for whatever (set of) reason(s), the "sample" comes back as 300 Dims, 175 Republicans and 125 Indys.

If Dims, by and large tend to vote Dim and Republicans by and large tend to vote GOP (and the Indy's split) then the poll results will be SKEWED to the Dims.

On Election day, of course, the LIKELY voters are the ones probably going to come out in force.  Registered voters less so.  And Dims will not outnumber Republicans by a margin of close to 2 to 1.  They will probably be closer to 1 to 1 and MAYBE (given Dim indifference to the flaccid record of the incumbent this year) the GOP will have slightly more voters coming to the polls than the Dims.

Given all of that, in that hypothetical example, it is probable that the GOP would win on Election Day in that State or locality.  Such result would come as an absolute SHOCK to idiots like Deuce, of course.

And the reality is that the world is probably operating as a watered down version of the hypothetical.  Dims ARE getting oversampled somewhat, which DOES skew the results.  Sampling registered voters is also misleading in favor of the Dims.  And Dims are NOT likely to find it all that urgent to get the Obamessiah BACK into Office where he has fucked almost everything up.  The GOP is the Party feeling an urgent natural (not artificial) need to get out the vote.

The incumbent is a clusterfuck of fail.  He is going to lose.

And I do hope Deuce feels it.


----------



## insein

Zarius said:


> insein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama victory will be great for the middle class. Bad for the hate mongers in the tea party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly? Serious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plutocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Romney is a plutocrat. Get it
Click to expand...


So it will be "great" for the middle class because Romney is bad.  I think your logic needs some work.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

It is unthinkable that Mitt could win. 

Unthinkable.

I'm terribly happy for wealth of the rw's who post here but I live on my investments and Social Security. I cannot afford what will happen to my investments under a GObP fascist plutocracy. I like paying less for prescriptions and the other breaks under ObamaCare. None of us can afford for the economy to stop growing and the end of new jobs as we would see under the r.  And we sure as hell can't afford a bigger military and more wars.


----------



## Dr.House

Nate Silver...

The liberal's security blanket....

TFF


----------



## Dr.House

If Nate is wrong next Tuesday, do you libs throw him under the bus or start claiming Romney cheated and stole the election?

Just curious...


----------



## mamooth

I'm curious. Given that all the poll aggregators say the same thing as Nate Silver, what's the reason for your deranged NateHate? Why single him out for your bizarre obsession, given he's just one of many saying the same thing?

You don't see liberals obsessing over Nate Silver like the conservatives do. Conservatives seem to have a deep-seated emotional need to have some scapegoats to demonize.


----------



## MarcATL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't get is if it is the "independents" who decide elections, especially in swing states, and Romney is up 6 in OH with independents, how is he losing overall....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Independents and weak (&#8216;Reagan&#8217 democrats win elections; Romney simply won&#8217;t get enough democrats to win in Ohio and most of the other BG states.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised so many people are STILL buying into the myth that the Republicans have created of Reagan. He was no good. I guess that attests to the power of emotion, Republicans just LOVE "feel good" stuff.


----------



## AceRothstein

Liability said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The polls you just cited are using 2008 voter turnout--with oversampling of democrats by 9 points.  What they're stating is there are going to be 9 more democrats to every 1 republican that votes.  And they're not including independents in these polls in which Romney is leading by 19 points.
> 
> What we're also starting to see is something we haven't seen in decades.  In fact 1980--Reagan democrats who by 25% kicked Carter to the curb to vote for Reagan.  *These democrats did not show up in the polling data back in 1980.  But they showed up on election night. * Democrats are moving to the Romney column this year--we just don't know how many of them there are.
> 
> *Election night is going to be reminiscent of Custer's Last Stand for Barack Obama.*
> 
> We may see something similar to this.  Carter v Reagan--1980
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polls don't sample based on prior election turnout! You cons that continue to peddle that lie are fucking idiots.
> 
> There is zero chance that this election is close to the 1980 election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deuce loves to spread his ignorance.
> 
> Pollsters may not deliberately choose to oversample Dims.  But that doesn't mean that their efforts have not resulted in oversampling Dims.
> 
> This is not that difficult, really, except for hacks like Deuce who choose to remain ignorant or dishonest.  For the sake purely of illustration, let's assume a given population IS presently approximately 33.33% GOP, 33.33% Dim and 33.34% Independent.  And let's further assume that the Indy's essentially cancel each other out when they vote.
> 
> NOW let's assume that a pollster does a telephone survey of 600 random voters.  They are not even going for "likely" voters.  Just registered voters.  And for whatever (set of) reason(s), the "sample" comes back as 300 Dims, 175 Republicans and 125 Indys.
> 
> If Dims, by and large tend to vote Dim and Republicans by and large tend to vote GOP (and the Indy's split) then the poll results will be SKEWED to the Dims.
> 
> On Election day, of course, the LIKELY voters are the ones probably going to come out in force.  Registered voters less so.  And Dims will not outnumber Republicans by a margin of close to 2 to 1.  They will probably be closer to 1 to 1 and MAYBE (given Dim indifference to the flaccid record of the incumbent this year) the GOP will have slightly more voters coming to the polls than the Dims.
> 
> Given all of that, in that hypothetical example, it is probable that the GOP would win on Election Day in that State or locality.  Such result would come as an absolute SHOCK to idiots like Deuce, of course.
> 
> And the reality is that the world is probably operating as a watered down version of the hypothetical.  Dims ARE getting oversampled somewhat, which DOES skew the results.  Sampling registered voters is also misleading in favor of the Dims.  And Dims are NOT likely to find it all that urgent to get the Obamessiah BACK into Office where he has fucked almost everything up.  The GOP is the Party feeling an urgent natural (not artificial) need to get out the vote.
> 
> The incumbent is a clusterfuck of fail.  He is going to lose.
> 
> And I do hope Deuce feels it.
Click to expand...


You dunce, you are proving my point for me.  That point is that pollsters DO NOT SAMPLE BASED ON PREVIOUS ELECTIONS.    Thanks!

There is one thing we disagree on and that is you believing that EVERY pollster, besides Rasmussen, is going to be wrong with their results.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Dr.House said:


> If Nate is wrong next Tuesday, do you libs throw him under the bus or start claiming Romney cheated and stole the election?
> 
> Just curious...



Its true that the R is trying their best to steal and/or buy the election. And, they may succeed. 

Have any of you rw's seen the incredible amounts that Kochs, Adelson, Bush's Brain are spending in this last week?

Why are rw's against having an honest election?


----------



## Katzndogz

Has FEMA done anything on the East Coast?    How valuable has FEMA been?   

So far, the electricity is still out, but technicians have been arriving from all over the country to help restore the power.   FEMA didn't do that.

Samaritan's Purse, a charity of volunteer workers are helping individual people dig out their homes.   No FEMA involvement.

Churches and charities have been distributing supplies directly to those in need.   Again, no FEMA.  

The Red Cross is helping people relocate out of shelters into other housing.    No FEMA.

No doubt the TIDE company has their trucks of washers and dryers on the scene so people could do laundry.     Without FEMA.

FEMA is a governmental agency whose sole purpose is to stand around saying "We're from FEMA".


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Katzndogz said:


> Has FEMA done anything on the East Coast?    How valuable has FEMA been?
> 
> So far, the electricity is still out, but technicians have been arriving from all over the country to help restore the power.   FEMA didn't do that.
> 
> Samaritan's Purse, a charity of volunteer workers are helping individual people dig out their homes.   No FEMA involvement.
> 
> Churches and charities have been distributing supplies directly to those in need.   Again, no FEMA.
> 
> The Red Cross is helping people relocate out of shelters into other housing.    No FEMA.
> 
> No doubt the TIDE company has their trucks of washers and dryers on the scene so people could do laundry.     Without FEMA.
> 
> FEMA is a governmental agency whose sole purpose is to stand around saying "We're from FEMA".



Gawd but you really are stooopid.

Have you been watching or reading the news?

No, not fuxdredgelushbo. 

Real news. 

Try the internet.

Or, stay stoooid.


----------



## Zander

This is the person that leftist/communist/socialist/green/progressive/democrats are all counting on....






forget the past 4 yrs, forget Obama's record, forget the 2010 midterm thrashing, forget the "tea party, forget reality!! Just for "forward"  and OBEY!! Yes folks, this man-child has called the election for Obama ....it's over, Nate Silver said so!


----------



## mamooth

Zander said:


> This is the person that leftist/communist/socialist/green/progressive/democrats are all counting on....



Yup, Nate Silver looks like a geek. Why is that supposed to call his statistical algorithm into question?

Oh, post your photo now, so we can judge the quality of your posts. Along with the documentation that proves it's you.


----------



## Liability

AceRothstein said:


> * * * *
> 
> You dunce, you are proving my point for me.  That point is that pollsters DO NOT SAMPLE BASED ON PREVIOUS ELECTIONS.    Thanks!



I never said they did you fucking moron.   Although, some of them probably do.  But that's not important, you fucking imbecile.



AceRothstein said:


> There is one thing we disagree on and that is you believing that EVERY pollster, besides Rasmussen, is going to be wrong with their results.



I didn't say that either.  Your fail is complete.  You idiot.


----------



## Dr.House

luddly.neddite said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Nate is wrong next Tuesday, do you libs throw him under the bus or start claiming Romney cheated and stole the election?
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its true that the R is trying their best to steal and/or buy the election. And, they may succeed.
> 
> Have any of you rw's seen the incredible amounts that Kochs, Adelson, Bush's Brain are spending in this last week?
> 
> Why are rw's against having an honest election?
Click to expand...


What is dishonest about the election?  I mean other than the obvious 0bama lies...

So you're in the "Nate was right and Romney stoled our precious" camp?


----------



## Zander

mamooth said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the person that leftist/communist/socialist/green/progressive/democrats are all counting on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Nate Silver looks like a geek. Why is that supposed to call his statistical algorithm into question?
> 
> Oh, post your photo now, so we can judge the quality of your posts. Along with the documentation that proves it's you.
Click to expand...


I have all kinds of very impressive mathematical stuff at my very own poll aggregation site: Five-30-Ate.com  You can trust me too, I correctly predicted that Obama would win in 2008. I also predicted that Jerry Brown, the governor of California, would roll out a tax increase proposal. I'm THAT good. really. 

Here is a photo of ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 me crossing my toes. I have my fingers crossed too.....


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *
> 
> You dunce, you are proving my point for me.  That point is that pollsters DO NOT SAMPLE BASED ON PREVIOUS ELECTIONS.    Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they did you fucking moron.   Although, some of them probably do.  But that's not important, you fucking imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing we disagree on and that is you believing that EVERY pollster, besides Rasmussen, is going to be wrong with their results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that either.  Your fail is complete.  You idiot.
Click to expand...


Your constant hysterical shouting and cursing is not convincing people you actually have anything of any substance to say.


----------



## Conservative

luddly.neddite said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Nate is wrong next Tuesday, do you libs throw him under the bus or start claiming Romney cheated and stole the election?
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its true that the R is trying their best to steal and/or buy the election. And, they may succeed.
> 
> Have any of you rw's seen the incredible amounts that Kochs, Adelson, Bush's Brain are spending in this last week?
> 
> Why are rw's against having an honest election?
Click to expand...


Spending money in order to support your desired candidate is dishonest? Only for Republicans though, right?

Dumb ass.


----------



## Zarius

The Rabbi said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every middle class union member and gov't employee will reap huge benefits and outsize pensions.
> 
> Of course if you're not a union member or gov't employee you'll take it in the shorts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The private sector is full of nepotism and racism and misogynistic culture. Thats why the right loves the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know jack-shit about the private sector. The closest you ever came to it was typing on the Apple computer your school let you use.
Click to expand...


This is the dumbest post I have ever read and that is saying something. Do tell why you posted this garbage?


----------



## Zarius

Dr.House said:


> If Nate is wrong next Tuesday, do you libs throw him under the bus or start claiming Romney cheated and stole the election?
> 
> Just curious...



What about all the other sources in which none, not one of them have romney winning?


----------



## Zarius

Katzndogz said:


> Has FEMA done anything on the East Coast?    How valuable has FEMA been?
> 
> So far, the electricity is still out, but technicians have been arriving from all over the country to help restore the power.   FEMA didn't do that.
> 
> Samaritan's Purse, a charity of volunteer workers are helping individual people dig out their homes.   No FEMA involvement.
> 
> Churches and charities have been distributing supplies directly to those in need.   Again, no FEMA.
> 
> The Red Cross is helping people relocate out of shelters into other housing.    No FEMA.
> 
> No doubt the TIDE company has their trucks of washers and dryers on the scene so people could do laundry.     Without FEMA.
> 
> FEMA is a governmental agency whose sole purpose is to stand around saying "We're from FEMA".



Did you start drinking and fall into the wrong thread? This is about mitt getting his ass handed to him


----------



## Dr.House

Zarius said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Nate is wrong next Tuesday, do you libs throw him under the bus or start claiming Romney cheated and stole the election?
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other sources in which none, not one of them have romney winning?
Click to expand...


GIGO...

Plenty of information in the polls if you remove the weighting being done...


You didn't answer the question:  If Nate is wrong, do you throw him under the bus or claim Romney cheated?


----------



## Zarius

Dr.House said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Nate is wrong next Tuesday, do you libs throw him under the bus or start claiming Romney cheated and stole the election?
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other sources in which none, not one of them have romney winning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GIGO...
> 
> Plenty of information in the polls if you remove the weighting being done...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question:  If Nate is wrong, do you throw him under the bus or claim Romney cheated?
Click to expand...


He and the countless others should leave the business if they miss it by that much. Obama is now at 80%. Don't you get that. If he had romney at that right now I would be preparing me and my family for the hell that would come with this mean plutocrat in office. You are telling me that you really think this guy would destroy his career to help Obama? I would look at reality if I were you guys. Obama throttled McCain and it was covered up by the media. He has lost some ground since then but not nearly enough for a loser candidate like romney to win


----------



## Katzndogz

obama is at 80%!  Where?


----------



## expatriate

Katzndogz said:


> obama is at 80%!  Where?



at 538... that is their odds of his winning.


----------



## expatriate

Dr.House said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Nate is wrong next Tuesday, do you libs throw him under the bus or start claiming Romney cheated and stole the election?
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other sources in which none, not one of them have romney winning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GIGO...
> 
> Plenty of information in the polls if you remove the weighting being done...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question:  If Nate is wrong, do you throw him under the bus or claim Romney cheated?
Click to expand...


If SIlver is wrong, then all of us who believe that Obama has this thing won are wrong as well... I don't think Romney could cheat enough to actually have his cheating WIN him an election he would otherwise have lost, so, if he DOES win, then we've all misread the tea leaves, I guess.


----------



## Dr.House

Zarius said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other sources in which none, not one of them have romney winning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GIGO...
> 
> Plenty of information in the polls if you remove the weighting being done...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question:  If Nate is wrong, do you throw him under the bus or claim Romney cheated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He and the countless others should leave the business if they miss it by that much. Obama is now at 80%. Don't you get that. If he had romney at that right now I would be preparing me and my family for the hell that would come with this mean plutocrat in office. You are telling me that you really think this guy would destroy his career to help Obama? I would look at reality if I were you guys. Obama throttled McCain and it was covered up by the media. He has lost some ground since then but not nearly enough for a loser candidate like romney to win
Click to expand...


I expect Nate to adjust his model a couple of days before the election and make the race much, much tighter...  That whay he can save a little face from the Romney win...


----------



## Katzndogz

Early voting in Ohio has wiped out obama's lead.

Early voting buoys Romney - Right Turn - The Washington Post


----------



## AceRothstein

Dr.House said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> GIGO...
> 
> Plenty of information in the polls if you remove the weighting being done...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question:  If Nate is wrong, do you throw him under the bus or claim Romney cheated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He and the countless others should leave the business if they miss it by that much. Obama is now at 80%. Don't you get that. If he had romney at that right now I would be preparing me and my family for the hell that would come with this mean plutocrat in office. You are telling me that you really think this guy would destroy his career to help Obama? I would look at reality if I were you guys. Obama throttled McCain and it was covered up by the media. He has lost some ground since then but not nearly enough for a loser candidate like romney to win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I expect Nate to adjust his model a couple of days before the election and make the race much, much tighter...  That whay he can save a little face from the Romney win...
Click to expand...


He is actually predicting a fairly tight race, his model is just predicting that Obama has much better odds of winning a tight race than Romney.


----------



## Dr.House

expatriate said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other sources in which none, not one of them have romney winning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GIGO...
> 
> Plenty of information in the polls if you remove the weighting being done...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question:  If Nate is wrong, do you throw him under the bus or claim Romney cheated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If SIlver is wrong, then all of us who believe that Obama has this thing won are wrong as well... I don't think Romney could cheat enough to actually have his cheating WIN him an election he would otherwise have lost, so, if he DOES win, then we've all misread the tea leaves, I guess.
Click to expand...


We've been telling you that for weeks now...  Using heavily oversampled polls just makes the statistics warped beyond reality...  Nothing anywhere is pointing to a democrat / republican turnout model similar to 2008...    In fact, you are seeing it in evidence with early voting...  The D's are just not coming out in numbers like they did in 2008, while R's are expanding on their 2008 numbers... 

Barry relied on early voting for his win in OH in 2008...  if he doesn't get the same turnout, and the R's continue on their pace, election night is going to shock you Nate Followers...


----------



## Dr.House

AceRothstein said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> He and the countless others should leave the business if they miss it by that much. Obama is now at 80%. Don't you get that. If he had romney at that right now I would be preparing me and my family for the hell that would come with this mean plutocrat in office. You are telling me that you really think this guy would destroy his career to help Obama? I would look at reality if I were you guys. Obama throttled McCain and it was covered up by the media. He has lost some ground since then but not nearly enough for a loser candidate like romney to win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expect Nate to adjust his model a couple of days before the election and make the race much, much tighter...  That whay he can save a little face from the Romney win...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is actually predicting a fairly tight race, his model is just predicting that Obama has much better odds of winning a tight race than Romney.
Click to expand...


So if Romney wins you'll all just say "Well, I guess that 30% happened."?

Kinda throws off his predictive abilities, wouldn't you say...

Does he get tossed under if it's not a tight race and Romney wins easily?


----------



## Conservative

Katzndogz said:


> Early voting in Ohio has wiped out obama's lead.
> 
> Early voting buoys Romney - Right Turn - The Washington Post



everyone knows your source is a shill organization for the GOP.

Isn't that what the libatrds usually say?


----------



## AceRothstein

Dr.House said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expect Nate to adjust his model a couple of days before the election and make the race much, much tighter...  That whay he can save a little face from the Romney win...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is actually predicting a fairly tight race, his model is just predicting that Obama has much better odds of winning a tight race than Romney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if Romney wins you'll all just say "Well, I guess that 30% happened."?
> 
> Kinda throws off his predictive abilities, wouldn't you say...
> 
> Does he get tossed under if it's not a tight race and Romney wins easily?
Click to expand...


It depends how Romney wins, if that happens.  If it is a blowout then he'll look really bad.  If it is close then I would chalk it up to the 30% happening.

There is no reason to toss him under, his predictions actually have nothing to do with why Obama would lose.  I doubt you'll see many people citing him in 2014 or 2016 if he is wrong this year though.

He does rely on the polls of others in his methodology.  If, and that's a big if, all of the polls are wrong then he is easily going to be wrong.  I see a lot of people claim that the polls are often wrong but not a lot of proof to back it up.


----------



## AceRothstein

Conservative said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Early voting in Ohio has wiped out obama's lead.
> 
> Early voting buoys Romney - Right Turn - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> everyone knows your source is a shill organization for the GOP.
> 
> Isn't that what the libatrds usually say?
Click to expand...


Did you check out the author of that piece?  She is most certainly a conservative, no doubt about that.


----------



## Dr.House

AceRothstein said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is actually predicting a fairly tight race, his model is just predicting that Obama has much better odds of winning a tight race than Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if Romney wins you'll all just say "Well, I guess that 30% happened."?
> 
> Kinda throws off his predictive abilities, wouldn't you say...
> 
> Does he get tossed under if it's not a tight race and Romney wins easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends how Romney wins, if that happens.  If it is a blowout then he'll look really bad.  If it is close then I would chalk it up to the 30% happening.
> 
> There is no reason to toss him under, his predictions actually have nothing to do with why Obama would lose.  I doubt you'll see many people citing him in 2014 or 2016 if he is wrong this year though.
> 
> He does rely on the polls of others in his methodology.  If, and that's a big if, all of the polls are wrong then he is easily going to be wrong.  I see a lot of people claim that the polls are often wrong but not a lot of proof to back it up.
Click to expand...


I've explained why the polls are wrong often...  It's not a surprise...

Turnout is NOT going to be like 2008, dispite your beliefs it will...

Early voting is backing me up right now...


----------



## Dick Tuck

The Rabbi said:


> Nate Silver running away with the crack pipe.



Do you get high sucking Roger Ailes crack?


----------



## AceRothstein

Dr.House said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if Romney wins you'll all just say "Well, I guess that 30% happened."?
> 
> Kinda throws off his predictive abilities, wouldn't you say...
> 
> Does he get tossed under if it's not a tight race and Romney wins easily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends how Romney wins, if that happens.  If it is a blowout then he'll look really bad.  If it is close then I would chalk it up to the 30% happening.
> 
> There is no reason to toss him under, his predictions actually have nothing to do with why Obama would lose.  I doubt you'll see many people citing him in 2014 or 2016 if he is wrong this year though.
> 
> He does rely on the polls of others in his methodology.  If, and that's a big if, all of the polls are wrong then he is easily going to be wrong.  I see a lot of people claim that the polls are often wrong but not a lot of proof to back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've explained why the polls are wrong often...  It's not a surprise...
> 
> Turnout is NOT going to be like 2008, dispite your beliefs it will...
> 
> Early voting is backing me up right now...
Click to expand...


You've never shown any evidence of polls actually being wrong at all, especially for presidential elections.

Early voting is backing you up if you believe 2 national polls, you yourself say they are all wrong, and Romney's campaign.


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *
> 
> You dunce, you are proving my point for me.  That point is that pollsters DO NOT SAMPLE BASED ON PREVIOUS ELECTIONS.    Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they did you fucking moron.   Although, some of them probably do.  But that's not important, you fucking imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing we disagree on and that is you believing that EVERY pollster, besides Rasmussen, is going to be wrong with their results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that either.  Your fail is complete.  You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant hysterical shouting and cursing is not convincing people you actually have anything of any substance to say.
> 
> * * * *
Click to expand...


Nothing you EVER say confuses anybody that you have ever said anything intelligent or worthwhile or substantive.

Your fail is as eternal and boundless and timeless as the universe, Dainty.

And folks don't shout via  the written word on a computer screen, you simpleton.


----------



## Dr.House

AceRothstein said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends how Romney wins, if that happens.  If it is a blowout then he'll look really bad.  If it is close then I would chalk it up to the 30% happening.
> 
> There is no reason to toss him under, his predictions actually have nothing to do with why Obama would lose.  I doubt you'll see many people citing him in 2014 or 2016 if he is wrong this year though.
> 
> He does rely on the polls of others in his methodology.  If, and that's a big if, all of the polls are wrong then he is easily going to be wrong.  I see a lot of people claim that the polls are often wrong but not a lot of proof to back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained why the polls are wrong often...  It's not a surprise...
> 
> Turnout is NOT going to be like 2008, dispite your beliefs it will...
> 
> Early voting is backing me up right now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never shown any evidence of polls actually being wrong at all, especially for presidential elections.
> 
> Early voting is backing you up if you believe 2 national polls, you yourself say they are all wrong, and Romney's campaign.
Click to expand...


I've shown that they are oversampled and you don't beleive it...  You believe turnout is the same as 2008 and I'm seeing evidence to the contrary...  You can ignore the evidence if you want, but I'm going to rub your nose in it on election day...


----------



## Katzndogz

It's a good thing democrats have Nate Silver.  Without him, they got nothing.  If early OH voting is any indication, obama is going to lose by a very wide margin.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Missourian said:


> More like Obama running away FROM it...
> 
> 
> "Mr President,  what about Benghazi?"



What about it?  We've learned it was al Qaeda that murdered Americans.  We're investigating who those individuals are.  We'll target them and kill them, just like we killed Bin Laden.



> "Mr President,  what about Jeep production in China?"



What about it?  Chrysler is still in business.  They're expanding their production in China to avoid tariffs, and for sale in the Asian markets.  They're also expanding their production in the USA, for the North American markets.  Mitt would have put them out of business.



> "Mr President,  You've run up a trillion dollars a year in debt with no budget..."



We've had the smallest increase in discretionary spending since Carter.  Were you too stupid to understand how a debt financed tax cut would impact us if the economy came to a near collapse?



> "Mr President,  what's your plan if reelected?"



Work toward a lowering of the deficit, using spending cuts and revenue increases.  Subsidizing retraining of American workers for jobs that are actually out there.  Improving education to keep us competitive.  Would you prefer the Ryan/Romney plan of cutting things like student loans and Pell Grants?


----------



## AceRothstein

Dr.House said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained why the polls are wrong often...  It's not a surprise...
> 
> Turnout is NOT going to be like 2008, dispite your beliefs it will...
> 
> Early voting is backing me up right now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never shown any evidence of polls actually being wrong at all, especially for presidential elections.
> 
> Early voting is backing you up if you believe 2 national polls, you yourself say they are all wrong, and Romney's campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've shown that they are oversampled and you don't beleive it...  You believe turnout is the same as 2008 and I'm seeing evidence to the contrary...  You can ignore the evidence if you want, but I'm going to rub your nose in it on election day...
Click to expand...


So you are giving no evidence of any polls actually being wrong previously.  This is the year they are suddenly going to be off is what you are saying.


----------



## AceRothstein

Katzndogz said:


> It's a good thing democrats have Nate Silver.  Without him, they got nothing.  If early OH voting is any indication, obama is going to lose by a very wide margin.



Wrong.  Every poll aggregation site is currently showing Obama in the lead.  What do you cons have?


----------



## Dick Tuck

Dr.House said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained why the polls are wrong often...  It's not a surprise...
> 
> Turnout is NOT going to be like 2008, dispite your beliefs it will...
> 
> Early voting is backing me up right now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never shown any evidence of polls actually being wrong at all, especially for presidential elections.
> 
> Early voting is backing you up if you believe 2 national polls, you yourself say they are all wrong, and Romney's campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've shown that they are oversampled and you don't beleive it...  You believe turnout is the same as 2008 and I'm seeing evidence to the contrary...  You can ignore the evidence if you want, but I'm going to rub your nose in it on election day...
Click to expand...


You've shown that you're fucking clueless.  There's no oversampling.  All polls, done by reputable polling organizations, use randomness.  You're probably too stupid to understand that.  I agree there is a bias in their "LV" algorithms, and it tends to diminish the likeliness of Hispanic turnout.  What exactly was the D v R turnout four years ago?


----------



## MarcATL

How are the polls skewed to Dems?

Can anyone explain that?

Are Dems the ppl that are known to have home phones, or Republicans (aka older people)?


----------



## hjmick




----------



## Dick Tuck

MarcATL said:


> How are the polls skewed to Dems?
> 
> Can anyone explain that?
> 
> Are Dems the ppl that are known to have home phones, or Republicans (aka older people)?



Most polls today call any random phone number, and it does matter whether its a landline, a cell, or VOIP.  The moronic right wing wants to believe that polling organizations go out of their way to oversample some demographics, so they don't have to deal with reality.  How fucking stupid is that argument?

Perhaps, just saying, Republicans are just more sociopathic misanthropic and don't respond to people asking them simple questions about their beliefs and opinions.  Personally, I tend to dismiss that argument when I see their moronic ignorance and logic on message boards.  To me, they tend to be the loudest bunch of motherfucking people around.


----------



## Dr.House

AceRothstein said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never shown any evidence of polls actually being wrong at all, especially for presidential elections.
> 
> Early voting is backing you up if you believe 2 national polls, you yourself say they are all wrong, and Romney's campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown that they are oversampled and you don't beleive it...  You believe turnout is the same as 2008 and I'm seeing evidence to the contrary...  You can ignore the evidence if you want, but I'm going to rub your nose in it on election day...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are giving no evidence of any polls actually being wrong previously.  This is the year they are suddenly going to be off is what you are saying.
Click to expand...



I'm telling you that using 2008 turnout models is absolutely wrong... 

You are seeing it now...

You look at the internals and your picture becomes clearer...  Look at the HUGE support for Romney with independents...  Double digits, mostly...  Thats just one indication that Barry is in for a world of hurt on the 6th...


----------



## candycorn

Zarius said:


> Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Ohio now leans Obama as well as VA!
> 
> 300
> 
> 80% chance of victory
> 
> Feel the pain and salty tears hateful tea party



He's never been behind electorally.  

You do bring up an interesting topic for 2016.  In 1992, Clinton embraced some conservative principles to get elected.  And to date is probably as popular as almost any other ex president.  This year, Romney saw that his campaign was falling apart as long as he tried to come off as a whackjob conservative and became "Moderate Mitt".  His popularity was there for a few moments and began to wane when it was pointed out that he, because of the strong TEA party influence, had to push himself so far to the right in the primary...he now looks like someone who will say anything to get elected.  

Those of us who watched the stunt saw it all along and you see RW loons here trying to legitimize it--it is so bad.  In 2016 it is only going to get worse for the Republicans who will again have to play one hand in the Spring and Summer and a different hand in the Fall.  They'll have Obama fatigue on their side of course but it's a warning they should heed.


----------



## AceRothstein

Dr.House said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown that they are oversampled and you don't beleive it...  You believe turnout is the same as 2008 and I'm seeing evidence to the contrary...  You can ignore the evidence if you want, but I'm going to rub your nose in it on election day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are giving no evidence of any polls actually being wrong previously.  This is the year they are suddenly going to be off is what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you that using 2008 turnout models is absolutely wrong...
> 
> You are seeing it now...
> 
> You look at the internals and your picture becomes clearer...  Look at the HUGE support for Romney with independents...  Double digits, mostly...  Thats just one indication that Barry is in for a world of hurt on the 6th...
Click to expand...


THEY DON'T USE 2008 TURNOUT MODELS!  No pollsters use prior election turnout models in their polls!


----------



## Zarius

AceRothstein said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are giving no evidence of any polls actually being wrong previously.  This is the year they are suddenly going to be off is what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you that using 2008 turnout models is absolutely wrong...
> 
> You are seeing it now...
> 
> You look at the internals and your picture becomes clearer...  Look at the HUGE support for Romney with independents...  Double digits, mostly...  Thats just one indication that Barry is in for a world of hurt on the 6th...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY DON'T USE 2008 TURNOUT MODELS!  No pollsters use prior election turnout models in their polls!
Click to expand...

Why try? If he finds comfort in such foolishness then let him. This time next week he will need prozac


----------



## Dr.House

AceRothstein said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are giving no evidence of any polls actually being wrong previously.  This is the year they are suddenly going to be off is what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you that using 2008 turnout models is absolutely wrong...
> 
> You are seeing it now...
> 
> You look at the internals and your picture becomes clearer...  Look at the HUGE support for Romney with independents...  Double digits, mostly...  Thats just one indication that Barry is in for a world of hurt on the 6th...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY DON'T USE 2008 TURNOUT MODELS!  No pollsters use prior election turnout models in their polls!
Click to expand...


I'm telling you that any poll coming out woith a D+8 sample is NOT an accurate snapshot of how the electorate will turnout for this election....  

You can pretend it is if you want...  Snuggle up to it all you like...


----------



## Dr.House

How did Nate the Wunderkid do in the Scott recall prediction?

How did he do in the 2010 Election predictions?


----------



## Zarius

Dr.House said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you that using 2008 turnout models is absolutely wrong...
> 
> You are seeing it now...
> 
> You look at the internals and your picture becomes clearer...  Look at the HUGE support for Romney with independents...  Double digits, mostly...  Thats just one indication that Barry is in for a world of hurt on the 6th...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEY DON'T USE 2008 TURNOUT MODELS!  No pollsters use prior election turnout models in their polls!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm telling you that any poll coming out woith a D+8 sample is NOT an accurate snapshot of how the electorate will turnout for this election....
> 
> You can pretend it is if you want...  Snuggle up to it all you like...
Click to expand...


You use your feelings toward Obama and then say "no way will they come out", Bull shit. I dont know anyone who will not vote for Obama this time that did last time. Even more are registered now than before and will go Obama.


----------



## Zarius

Dr.House said:


> How did Nate the Wunderkid do in the Scott recall prediction?
> 
> How did he do in the 2010 Election predictions?



Why want you talk about all the other maps that have Obama winning? Get off Nate and show me the romney winning maps?


----------



## AceRothstein

You could have easily found this information yourself.



Dr.House said:


> How did Nate the Wunderkid do in the Scott recall prediction?



Late Polls Find Walker Is Still Favored - NYTimes.com



Dr.House said:


> How did he do in the 2010 Election predictions?



34 of 37 Senate races

36 of 37 Governor races

For the House, he doesn't predict each specific race.  He predicted a 55 seat turnover, ended up being 63.


----------



## Zarius

Come on back and answer damn it!


----------



## Caroljo

luddly.neddite said:


> It is unthinkable that Mitt could win.
> 
> Unthinkable.
> 
> I'm terribly happy for wealth of the rw's who post here but I live on my investments and Social Security. I cannot afford what will happen to my investments under a GObP fascist plutocracy. I like paying less for prescriptions and the other breaks under ObamaCare. None of us can afford for the economy to stop growing and the end of new jobs as we would see under the r.  And we sure as hell can't afford a bigger military and more wars.


----------



## expatriate

Dr.House said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> GIGO...
> 
> Plenty of information in the polls if you remove the weighting being done...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question:  If Nate is wrong, do you throw him under the bus or claim Romney cheated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If SIlver is wrong, then all of us who believe that Obama has this thing won are wrong as well... I don't think Romney could cheat enough to actually have his cheating WIN him an election he would otherwise have lost, so, if he DOES win, then we've all misread the tea leaves, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been telling you that for weeks now...  Using heavily oversampled polls just makes the statistics warped beyond reality...  Nothing anywhere is pointing to a democrat / republican turnout model similar to 2008...    In fact, you are seeing it in evidence with early voting...  The D's are just not coming out in numbers like they did in 2008, while R's are expanding on their 2008 numbers...
> 
> Barry relied on early voting for his win in OH in 2008...  if he doesn't get the same turnout, and the R's continue on their pace, election night is going to shock you Nate Followers...
Click to expand...


shock me?  hardly.  sadden me slightly, perhaps.  I certainly would prefer if Obama won, but if he doesn't, all my income sources will continue to grind out money for me and I will still love life in Mexico!

But, if Obama DOES win, I will ROFLMFAO and come on back here and rub his victory in your face.


----------



## auditor0007

Newby said:


> We're all already 'feeling the pain' and have been for the last four years. If Obama wins reelection for the next four, we'll all be feeling even more pain as things get worse and worse.



Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.  

One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they did you fucking moron.   Although, some of them probably do.  But that's not important, you fucking imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that either.  Your fail is complete.  You idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your constant hysterical shouting and cursing is not convincing people you actually have anything of any substance to say.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you EVER say confuses anybody that you have ever said anything intelligent or worthwhile or substantive.
> 
> Your fail is as eternal and boundless and timeless as the universe, Dainty.
> 
> And *folks don't shout via  the written word on a computer screen*, you simpleton.
Click to expand...


really? *IF YOU SAY SO.*


----------



## Dante

Katzndogz said:


> It's a good thing democrats have Nate Silver.  Without him, they got nothing.  If early OH voting is any indication, obama is going to lose by a very wide margin.



note: keeper post


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MarcATL said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't get is if it is the "independents" who decide elections, especially in swing states, and Romney is up 6 in OH with independents, how is he losing overall....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Independents and weak (Reagan) democrats win elections; Romney simply wont get enough democrats to win in Ohio and most of the other BG states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm surprised so many people are STILL buying into the myth that the Republicans have created of Reagan. He was no good. I guess that attests to the power of emotion, Republicans just LOVE "feel good" stuff.
Click to expand...


There have always been what political scientists have referred to as weak democrats well before Reagan; theyre registered democrats, tend to vote democratic in local or state-wide elections, but will abandon the Party for a charismatic republican presidential candidate, such as Reagan. 

Romney may be a lot of things but hes no Reagan. 

Consequently hes not going to get the needed weak, non-partisan democratic votes; some of these weak democrats may not vote for Obama, but they wont vote for Romney either  theyll just stay home.  



MarcATL said:


> How are the polls skewed to Dems?
> 
> Can anyone explain that?
> 
> Are Dems the ppl that are known to have home phones, or Republicans (aka older people)?



Which brings up an interesting point: Romney and republicans should want to see some skewed to democrats polls, to see if hell indeed get the needed democratic votes.


----------



## EriktheRed

Thanx for the pos-rep, Mr. Clayton, but I moved the post to a better thread.


----------



## MarcATL

Dick Tuck said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are the polls skewed to Dems?
> 
> Can anyone explain that?
> 
> Are Dems the ppl that are known to have home phones, or Republicans (aka older people)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most polls today call any random phone number, and it does matter whether its a landline, a cell, or VOIP.  The moronic right wing wants to believe that polling organizations go out of their way to oversample some demographics, so they don't have to deal with reality.  How fucking stupid is that argument?
> 
> Perhaps, just saying, Republicans are just more sociopathic misanthropic and don't respond to people asking them simple questions about their beliefs and opinions.  Personally, I tend to dismiss that argument when I see their moronic ignorance and logic on message boards.  To me, they tend to be the loudest bunch of motherfucking people around.
Click to expand...

If Republicans aren't playing the victim they don't feel good about themselves. It's as if it gives them power to always be batching and moaning, crying, wailing and gnashing their teeth for some trumped up slight or the other.

It's utterly sickening.


----------



## The Rabbi

auditor0007 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're all already 'feeling the pain' and have been for the last four years. If Obama wins reelection for the next four, we'll all be feeling even more pain as things get worse and worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
Click to expand...


Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.


----------



## Zarius

The Rabbi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're all already 'feeling the pain' and have been for the last four years. If Obama wins reelection for the next four, we'll all be feeling even more pain as things get worse and worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
Click to expand...


And apparently you are to fucking stupid to explain the most stupid post I ever read. Or maybe you are afraid it will show the right for what the fuck it is


----------



## JimH52

Nate Silver to Joe Scarborough: Wanna Bet? - Yahoo! News

*This should be good!*


----------



## Dr.House




----------



## blackhawk

Here are some interesting poll numbers a NBC poll has Obama leading by three in Wisconsin in likely voters the number was 24% said they were strong Republican 28% strong Democrat under registered voters 27% strong Democrat 23% strong Republican in both cases they polled 4% more Democrats than Republicans and the result of the poll was Obama plus three.Here is a one from Wisconsin public radio they polled 42% Democrat 32% Republican and 22% independent and this poll shows Obama up by 9. We also have a Marquette University Poll on Wisconsin they polled 29% Republicans 34% Democrat and 33% independent and this one had Obama + 8. Do you notice a trend in these polls? That the Obama lead tends to closely follow the difference between the percent of Democrats polled compared to Republicans.


----------



## Oddball

blackhawk said:


> Here are some interesting poll numbers a NBC poll has Obama leading by three in Wisconsin in likely voters the number was 24% said they were strong Republican 28% strong Democrat under registered voters 27% strong Democrat 23% strong Republican in both cases they polled 4% more Democrats than Republicans and the result of the poll was Obama plus three.Here is a one from Wisconsin public radio they polled 42% Democrat 32% Republican and 22% independent and this poll shows Obama up by 9. We also have a Marquette University Poll on Wisconsin they polled 29% Republicans 34% Democrat and 33% independent and this one had Obama + 8. Do you notice a trend in these polls? That the Obama lead tends to closely follow the difference between the percent of Democrats polled compared to Republicans.


I'm not even replying to calls that aren't business, family or friends...I can't help but wonder how many people like me there are, who aren't even participating in those polls.


----------



## hazlnut

Liability said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and still dropping ....
> 
> 
> 
> The incumbent is going to lose.  Period.
Click to expand...


Tuesday is going to be a shitty day for you.


----------



## Dr.House

hazlnut said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Over 80% in Wisconsin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and still dropping ....
> 
> 
> 
> The incumbent is going to lose.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tuesday is going to be a shitty day for you.
Click to expand...


Bookmarked....


----------



## EriktheRed

The Rabbi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're all already 'feeling the pain' and have been for the last four years. If Obama wins reelection for the next four, we'll all be feeling even more pain as things get worse and worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you're too fucking stupid to understand this:

Romney's Jobs Math Doesn't Add Up - NationalJournal.com


----------



## MarcATL

Nate Silver was the RW media darling as far, far back as 2010 when he was predicting the Tea Party wins...

Burkablog :: FiveThirtyEight&#8217;s Nate Silver on the Tea Party and the GOP

Republicans only care about party.


----------



## Zander

MarcATL said:


> Nate Silver was the RW media darling as far, far back as 2010 when he was predicting the Tea Party wins...
> 
> Burkablog :: FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver on the Tea Party and the GOP
> 
> Republicans only care about party.



...I've never heard of him until 2012, after he became the security blanket for the left......


----------



## expatriate

The Rabbi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're all already 'feeling the pain' and have been for the last four years. If Obama wins reelection for the next four, we'll all be feeling even more pain as things get worse and worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
Click to expand...


say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.


----------



## MarcATL

Zander said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver was the RW media darling as far, far back as 2010 when he was predicting the Tea Party wins...
> 
> Burkablog :: FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver on the Tea Party and the GOP
> 
> Republicans only care about party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've never heard of him until 2012, after he became the security blanket for the left......
Click to expand...

He was widely lauded by RW pundits in 2010 though, and he's been around from 2008 and before.

His fame is peaking now...he's the "It Boy" in 2012.

You know how fame works, it goes in stages...you are typically coming up until you're famous.


----------



## expatriate

Zander said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver was the RW media darling as far, far back as 2010 when he was predicting the Tea Party wins...
> 
> Burkablog :: FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver on the Tea Party and the GOP
> 
> Republicans only care about party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've never heard of him until 2012, after he became the security blanket for the left......
Click to expand...

 anybody who hadn't heard of Nate Silver prior to this year wasn't paying any attention to politics whatsoever and probably ought not, therefore, act like some know-it-all pundit now.

Nate Silver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dr.House

Nate gets thrown under the bus on November 7th...

Libs are a fickle bunch...


----------



## MarcATL

LoL!!!

"Fickle" coming from the party that praised fat boy Chris Christie as the 2nd Coming of Raygunn mere months ago...and is now watching him get squeezed under the RW bus.



CLASSIC!!!


----------



## AceRothstein

Dr.House said:


> Nate gets thrown under the bus on November 7th...
> 
> Libs are a fickle bunch...



I keep seeing this from you and after the twentieth time it still doesn't make sense. If Obama does lose, it isn't going to be Silver's fault.


----------



## buckeye45_73

LOL...Nate Silver....wow liberal put all their trust in this guy.....Obama is God he must be Jesus to them.....I wonder who they thin of as the Holy Ghost


----------



## Politico

Dismiss what? That saying something over and over doesn't make it true?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAdGhMRBbzY]How many lights? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Darkwind

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Warts, I will be staying right here in the good ol' US of A. no matter how the election turns out. And working at my job, as well as on my properties.
> 
> At present, I would have to say that Romney's chances are less than 1 in 4 of winning this election. That is the present reality, and only six days before the election, that is pretty bad odds for the GOP.


Might want to look closer.

The race is a toss up....that is a 50/50 chance of winning.

I can't wait for Nov. 6th.  Win or lose, I'm going to shed Myself of this place and the whole lot of you.


----------



## MarcATL

Sister House hasn't answered the question yet...once Zarius smacked her down w/facts from the 2010 election.

Quiet as a church mouse on that.


lol


----------



## JoeB131

Zander said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver was the RW media darling as far, far back as 2010 when he was predicting the Tea Party wins...
> 
> Burkablog :: FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver on the Tea Party and the GOP
> 
> Republicans only care about party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've never heard of him until 2012, after he became the security blanket for the left......
> 
> ]
Click to expand...


So because you're ignorant of something, that means it doesn't exist...

Hmmmmmm..... 


Explains a lot.


----------



## candycorn

Obama is Cruising.  Watch. Learn. Grieve.


----------



## The Rabbi

expatriate said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
Click to expand...


The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?


----------



## JimH52

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

I heard that the Republican National Committee is calling for a Sick Out next Wednesday....instead of the *Blue Flu,* it will be called *Red* wish they were *Dead*...


----------



## Votto

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> I heard that the Republican National Committee is calling for a Sick Out next Wednesday....instead of the *Blue Flu,* it will be called *Red* wish they were *Dead*...



A 4 in 1 chance of winning?  Yes, but there is only a 10% chance of that.


----------



## AceRothstein

Look for the number to jump once again today since Rasmussen is going to move from R+2 to a tie today.  From R+4 on Saturday to a tie just 6 days later.  But Romney has the momentum!


----------



## Mad Scientist

Hmm, a quick check of blogs this morning shows:

Charlie Gold has Romney up 53-47.

Bill Aluminum has Romney up by 6.

Sally Copper also sees a Romney win next Tuesday.

Steve Bismuth (ever heard of him?) sees a Romney runaway as well.

The only one I can see predicting an Obama win is Joe Steel.


----------



## expatriate

The Rabbi said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
Click to expand...


blame?  If Romney wins, there will be no one to blame, just as if Obama wins, there will be no one to blame.  As always, a plurality of a plurality of registered voters will decide who our next president will be.  Only they are to "blame".  I happen to believe that Obama will win.  Nate Silver thinks so... Newt Gingrich thinks so... lot's of folks do.  If I am wrong, I will be disappointed, but, for me, life will keep cruising along just fine. For some of you hard core righties, I am afraid your heads will explode if and when Obama prevails.... 

Oh... and I have always thought that those folks who couldn't even SPELL champagne, probably couldn't tell a good one from a lousy one and probably should just go with Miller High Life instead... it IS the champagne of bottled beer, you know.  My election night libation:  Corralejo Anejo - my new favorite tequila.... and I plan on drinking several glasses of it no matter who prevails on election night.


----------



## Mad Scientist

expatriate said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> blame?  If Romney wins, there will be no one to blame, just as if Obama wins, there will be no one to blame.  As always, a plurality of a plurality of registered voters will decide who our next president will be.  Only they are to "blame".  I happen to believe that Obama will win.  Nate Silver thinks so... Newt Gingrich thinks so... lot's of folks do.  If I am wrong, I will be disappointed, but, for me, life will keep cruising along just fine. For some of you hard core righties, I am afraid your heads will explode if and when Obama prevails....
> 
> Oh... and I have always thought that those folks who couldn't even SPELL champagne, probably couldn't tell a good one from a lousy one and probably should just go with Miller High Life instead... it IS the champagne of bottled beer, you know.  *My election night libation:  Corralejo Anejo - my new favorite tequila*.... and I plan on drinking several glasses of it no matter who prevails on election night.
Click to expand...

Tequila is my *long time* nemesis. 

When I was younger and drank that stuff I wanted to fight, now that I'm older I just say whatever comes to mind to any female around!


----------



## expatriate

Mad Scientist said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blame?  If Romney wins, there will be no one to blame, just as if Obama wins, there will be no one to blame.  As always, a plurality of a plurality of registered voters will decide who our next president will be.  Only they are to "blame".  I happen to believe that Obama will win.  Nate Silver thinks so... Newt Gingrich thinks so... lot's of folks do.  If I am wrong, I will be disappointed, but, for me, life will keep cruising along just fine. For some of you hard core righties, I am afraid your heads will explode if and when Obama prevails....
> 
> Oh... and I have always thought that those folks who couldn't even SPELL champagne, probably couldn't tell a good one from a lousy one and probably should just go with Miller High Life instead... it IS the champagne of bottled beer, you know.  *My election night libation:  Corralejo Anejo - my new favorite tequila*.... and I plan on drinking several glasses of it no matter who prevails on election night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tequila is my *long time* nemesis.
> 
> When I was younger and drank that stuff I wanted to fight, now that I'm older I just say whatever comes to mind to any female around!
Click to expand...


It is actually my newfound drink of choice.  I ascribe it to the effects of "changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes".  I used to be a scotch guy, but scotch seems suited to club chairs in front of roaring fires.... tequila, on the other hand, works wonderfully in a hacienda chair next to a potted palm under a ceiling fan.

In the past, my nemesis was martinis.  My Mom used to say that martinis made one see double and feel single.  I stay away from them now.


----------



## mamooth

Betfair, a place where you can bet money on the election, currently gives the following odds.

Obama 1.31 to 1 (76.3%)

Romney 4.3 to 1 (23.2%)

Yes, it doesn't add up to 100. House edge. Point is, if you think Romney is such a sure thing, go put some money on it. Should be easy cash for you, right?

InTrade has Obama at 67.7%, but InTrade is more of a toy. InTrade severely limits your buy-in, and has a significant fixed fee. The best I could do in InTrade on Obama is make $50, half of which would go to fees. That makes it a not-rational investment, and explains why the Obama numbers aren't higher -- the fixed fees eat up much less of the possible higher Romney return, encouraging more Romney investment.


----------



## Old Rocks

Mad Scientist said:


> Hmm, a quick check of blogs this morning shows:
> 
> Charlie Gold has Romney up 53-47.
> 
> Bill Aluminum has Romney up by 6.
> 
> Sally Copper also sees a Romney win next Tuesday.
> 
> Steve Bismuth (ever heard of him?) sees a Romney runaway as well.
> 
> The only one I can see predicting an Obama win is Joe Steel.



Really?

President Obama  290   Governor Romney  248

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups

President Obama  303   Governor  Romney 235

Chances of election   President Obama  81%   Governor Romney 19%

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Chances of election  President Obama  67%   Governor Romney  33%

President Obama  290   Governor Romney  248

2012 Electoral Map - The Intrade Forecast 11/2/2012


----------



## AceRothstein

Old Rocks said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, a quick check of blogs this morning shows:
> 
> Charlie Gold has Romney up 53-47.
> 
> Bill Aluminum has Romney up by 6.
> 
> Sally Copper also sees a Romney win next Tuesday.
> 
> Steve Bismuth (ever heard of him?) sees a Romney runaway as well.
> 
> The only one I can see predicting an Obama win is Joe Steel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> President Obama  290   Governor Romney  248
> 
> RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups
> 
> President Obama  303   Governor  Romney 235
> 
> Chances of election   President Obama  81%   Governor Romney 19%
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Chances of election  President Obama  67%   Governor Romney  33%
> 
> President Obama  290   Governor Romney  248
> 
> 2012 Electoral Map - The Intrade Forecast 11/2/2012
Click to expand...


I don't think he was being serious.  Check out the names in his post.


----------



## Old Rocks

AceRothstein said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, a quick check of blogs this morning shows:
> 
> Charlie Gold has Romney up 53-47.
> 
> Bill Aluminum has Romney up by 6.
> 
> Sally Copper also sees a Romney win next Tuesday.
> 
> Steve Bismuth (ever heard of him?) sees a Romney runaway as well.
> 
> The only one I can see predicting an Obama win is Joe Steel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> President Obama  290   Governor Romney  248
> 
> RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups
> 
> President Obama  303   Governor  Romney 235
> 
> Chances of election   President Obama  81%   Governor Romney 19%
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Chances of election  President Obama  67%   Governor Romney  33%
> 
> President Obama  290   Governor Romney  248
> 
> 2012 Electoral Map - The Intrade Forecast 11/2/2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he was being serious.  Check out the names in his post.
Click to expand...


----------



## JimH52

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

But please don't cancel the GOP Victory Parties.  Your purchases will help create more jobs.


----------



## Harry Dresden

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> But please don't cancel the GOP Victory Parties.  Your purchases will help create more jobs.



well thats it then......Nate Silver called it......might as well stop the voting....


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Don't give a fuck what he thinks.


----------



## blackhawk




----------



## NYcarbineer

Harry Dresden said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> But please don't cancel the GOP Victory Parties.  Your purchases will help create more jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats it then......Nate Silver called it......might as well stop the voting....
Click to expand...


Why so grouchy?

All it means is that he is handicapping the contest in such a way that predicts that for every ten times a presidential race would be where this one is, in the polls, at this point in the race,  

the guy in Obama's current position is going to win at least 8 of those times.

I'd say that's a reasonable bet.


----------



## Plasmaball

Grampa Murked U said:


> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.



Ah but if it was gallup or ras we would have 20 threads on that shit because you would care then.....

Cherry pickers.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Harry Dresden said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> But please don't cancel the GOP Victory Parties.  Your purchases will help create more jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats it then......Nate Silver called it......might as well stop the voting....
Click to expand...


Why?  Zombie still has a one in five chance of winning.


----------



## JimH52

Grampa Murked U said:


> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.



Yes, we know.  But do enjoy your weekend!  Wednesday is going to be a tough day...


----------



## Dick Tuck

Plasmaball said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but if it was gallup or ras we would have 20 threads on that shit because you would care then.....
> 
> Cherry pickers.
Click to expand...


That's what's cool about Nate.  He uses past performance of various pollsters to weigh the results.  He was the only pollster who put Indiana in the toss up in 2008.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Why doesnt he just bump it up to 100 percent.  His methodologies have contradicting inverse relationships that vary widely. But,  statisticians have an out. When he loses he can easily point to that 13 percent without having to be accountable. What a deal.


----------



## Katzndogz

It's a good thing democrats have Nate Silver.  They got nothing else.


----------



## Billo_Really

Nate Silver is a God among pollsters and is never wrong.


----------



## grunt11b

Early voting polls show Romney above 50% in turnout compared to Obama. I'd say that Nate is another left wing hack moron.


----------



## Dick Tuck

LordBrownTrout said:


> Why doesnt he just bump it up to 100 percent.  His methodologies have contradicting inverse relationships that vary widely. But,  statisticians have an out. When he loses he can easily point to that 13 percent without having to be accountable. What a deal.



You haven't a clue about his methodology or his model.  The base of his model is to weigh the various polls, based on their past accuracy.  It's really that simple.  There's no contradicting inverse relationship there.


----------



## Billo_Really

grunt11b said:


> Early voting polls show Romney above 50% in turnout compared to Obama. I'd say that Nate is another left wing hack moron.



What you say is wrong!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Fridays polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. *There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls*, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida.
> 
> [These polls] represent powerful evidence against the idea that the race is a tossup. A tossup race isnt likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other  any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses. (The probability of a fair coin doing so is about 1 chance in 50,000.)
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



The strong jobs data, the presidents adroit handling of the storm  according to New Jerseys republican governor  and a faltering Romney campaign are clearly trending the numbers toward the president. 

Given this data and evidence, its perfectly appropriate for democrats to expect Obama to be re-elected this Tuesday.


----------



## EriktheRed

grunt11b said:


> Early voting polls show Romney above 50% in turnout compared to Obama. I'd say that Nate is another left wing hack moron.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

JimH52 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we know.  But do enjoy your weekend!  Wednesday is going to be a tough day...
Click to expand...


Wednesday will be just like the Wednesday the week before idiot. Nothing in our individual lives will change but our level of hope. 

That is as simple and honest as it gets.


----------



## Katzndogz

obama's handling of the storm turns out to be a photo op where Janet Napolitano congratulated him on his adroit handling of the storm.  Meanwhile there is no aid and no help.  Right about now, Governor Christie should be realizing that obama used him for a photo op and planned all along to ignore him.   Christie praised obama for the same reason obama got the Nobel Peace Prize.  On what he said he was going to do.


----------



## NYcarbineer

LordBrownTrout said:


> Why doesnt he just bump it up to 100 percent.  His methodologies have contradicting inverse relationships that vary widely. But,  statisticians have an out. When he loses he can easily point to that 13 percent without having to be accountable. What a deal.[/QUOTE
> 
> Are you denying that the late/final averages of the state polls have a measurable track record of accuracy based on historical results?
> 
> Why would you deny that?


----------



## decker

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> But please don't cancel the GOP Victory Parties.  Your purchases will help create more jobs.


well i am more confident then last week but nowhere near as much then nate is

its a 50/50 election for me and although i think president had a good week , i just hope dems can get turn out on the day. That what worriess me. That potential lead in early voting won,t matter if dem are low on turn out in key states like ohio.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Plasmaball said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but if it was gallup or ras we would have 20 threads on that shit because you would care then.....
> 
> Cherry pickers.
Click to expand...


Those are credible pollsters with YEARS of expeeience. Nate is a left wing god apparently but that still does not equate to experience or credibility


----------



## decker

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Fridays polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. *There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls*, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida.
> 
> [These polls] represent powerful evidence against the idea that the race is a tossup. A tossup race isnt likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other  any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses. (The probability of a fair coin doing so is about 1 chance in 50,000.)
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The strong jobs data, the presidents adroit handling of the storm  according to New Jerseys republican governor  and a faltering Romney campaign are clearly trending the numbers toward the president.
> 
> Given this data and evidence, its perfectly appropriate for democrats to expect Obama to be re-elected this Tuesday.
Click to expand...

well obama had a better week but it still 5-0/50 election and it going to be who get their turn out on tuesday. 

next 72 hours are going to be huge from both sides before election day.


----------



## blackhawk

People can cite all the polls they want they and give as many opinions on them as they want no longer matter. I will repeat a response Scott Rasmussen gave earlier this week when he was asked who would win the election his answer I don't know and anyone who claims they do is either lying or deluding themselves. There is only one poll left that matters now the one on Tuesday.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Dick Tuck said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why doesnt he just bump it up to 100 percent.  His methodologies have contradicting inverse relationships that vary widely. But,  statisticians have an out. When he loses he can easily point to that 13 percent without having to be accountable. What a deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue about his methodology or his model.  The base of his model is to weigh the various polls, based on their past accuracy.  It's really that simple.  There's no contradicting inverse relationship there.
Click to expand...


Yes there is.


----------



## EriktheRed

Grampa Murked U said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but if it was gallup or ras we would have 20 threads on that shit because you would care then.....
> 
> Cherry pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are credible pollsters with YEARS of expeeience. Nate is a left wing god apparently but that still does not equate to experience or credibility
Click to expand...


He's not a pollster *himself*, dumbass.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

EriktheRed said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but if it was gallup or ras we would have 20 threads on that shit because you would care then.....
> 
> Cherry pickers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are credible pollsters with YEARS of expeeience. Nate is a left wing god apparently but that still does not equate to experience or credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not a pollster *himself*, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Way to point out the obvious Sherlock.


----------



## decker

Grampa Murked U said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are credible pollsters with YEARS of expeeience. Nate is a left wing god apparently but that still does not equate to experience or credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not a pollster *himself*, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to point out the obvious Sherlock.
Click to expand...

in end it all about turn out on the day

obama team need to work 72 hours to work on getting turn out in ohio, wi, pa,mi and nev.  got to fight for those states like their lives depend on it. need get bigger rallies and more ground game going


----------



## mamooth

If the polls are not biased, then Obama is the winner. The sheer volume of statistics is too overwhelming to deny that. Odds are something like one in a thousand that random noise alone could show this kind of Obama swing state lead among all the polls.

So, conservatives have to pin their hopes on the polls being somehow biased, even though they haven't been biased before, and they're not doing anything differently. Good luck with that.


----------



## EriktheRed

Grampa Murked U said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are credible pollsters with YEARS of expeeience. Nate is a left wing god apparently but that still does not equate to experience or credibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not a pollster *himself*, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to point out the obvious Sherlock.
Click to expand...


He uses Gallup and Rasmussen in his methodology. You and the others dissing the guy don't wtf you're talking about when you put him down. He's not partisan, he's GOOD. Tough shit if you don't like where his conclusions go.


----------



## EriktheRed

LordBrownTrout said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why doesnt he just bump it up to 100 percent.  His methodologies have contradicting inverse relationships that vary widely. But,  statisticians have an out. When he loses he can easily point to that 13 percent without having to be accountable. What a deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue about his methodology or his model.  The base of his model is to weigh the various polls, based on their past accuracy.  It's really that simple.  There's no contradicting inverse relationship there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
Click to expand...



You got more to back up your assertion than "Yes there is"?


----------



## PredFan

We should get this info out right away. Obama is sure to win so there's no reason for obama supporters to vote now. Don't waste your time people, stay home and count your EBT cards.


----------



## Plasmaball

Grampa Murked U said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but if it was gallup or ras we would have 20 threads on that shit because you would care then.....
> 
> Cherry pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are credible pollsters with YEARS of expeeience. Nate is a left wing god apparently but that still does not equate to experience or credibility
Click to expand...


And there we have it.....and you wonder why people think you a partisan.


----------



## decker

mamooth said:


> If the polls are not biased, then Obama is the winner. The sheer volume of statistics is too overwhelming to deny that. Odds are something like one in a thousand that random noise alone could show this kind of Obama swing state lead among all the polls.
> 
> So, conservatives have to pin their hopes on the polls being somehow biased, even though they haven't been biased before, and they're not doing anything differently. Good luck with that.


well i hope their right. only caution i say is exist polls in ohio had john kerry 52 % to 48% ahead in 2004 on election day. he went on to lose the state

so obama team need to fight every day to get turn out. also get bigger rallies to make it look better on tv.


----------



## decker

PredFan said:


> We should get this info out right away. Obama is sure to win so there's no reason for obama supporters to vote now. Don't waste your time people, stay home and count your EBT cards.


clever but hope they don,t listen to you. supporters need come out for obama pn electipon day. gop turn out could be far bigger on the day and that could decide it. So get the turn out obama people. get it out.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Grampa Murked U said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but if it was gallup or ras we would have 20 threads on that shit because you would care then.....
> 
> Cherry pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are credible pollsters with YEARS of expeeience. Nate is a left wing god apparently but that still does not equate to experience or credibility
Click to expand...


Okay, let's base Rasmussen's current battleground state poll numbers on their 2008 record in the polls:


Rasmussen's record in some battleground state polls in 2008:

Final 2008 Rasmussen poll vs. real result:

Colorado - Obama +4, Obama +8.5 - Rasmussen misses by 4.5 in McCain's favor

Florida - McCain +1, Obama 2.5 - Rasmussen misses by 3.5 in McCain's favor

Michigan - Obama +10, Obama +16.5 - Rasmussen misses by 6.5 in McCain's favor

Nevada - Obama +4, Obama +12.4 - Rasmussen misses by 8.4 in McCain's favor

N. Hampshire Obama +7, Obama +9.5 - Rasmussen misses by 2.5 in McCain's favor

New Mexico - Obama +10, Obama +14.7 - Rasmussen misses by 4.7 in McCain's favor

North Carolina - McCain +1, Obama +.4 - Rasmussen misses by 1.4 in McCain's favor

Ohio - TIE, Obama +4 - Rasmussen misses by 4 in McCain's favor

Penna - Obama +6, Obama +10.4 - Rasmussen misses by 4.4 in McCain's favor

Virginia - Obama +4, Obama +6.3 - Rasmussen misses by 2.3 in McCain's favor

Wisconsin - Obama +7, Obama +13.9 - Rasmussen misses by 6.9 in McCain's favor.

Looks to me like Rasmussen's reliability is that they're reliably biased towards the GOP.


----------



## PredFan

decker said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should get this info out right away. Obama is sure to win so there's no reason for obama supporters to vote now. Don't waste your time people, stay home and count your EBT cards.
> 
> 
> 
> clever but hope they don,t listen to you. supporters need come out for obama pn electipon day. gop turn out could be far bigger on the day and that could decide it. So get the turn out obama people. get it out.
Click to expand...


Why bother? Nate says it's a 71% obama victory. 

You should just stay home.


----------



## NYcarbineer

decker said:


> [well i hope their right. only caution i say is exist polls in ohio had john kerry 52 % to 48% ahead in 2004 on election day. he went on to lose the state



That's because they polled the voters, not the machines.


----------



## decker

PredFan said:


> decker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should get this info out right away. Obama is sure to win so there's no reason for obama supporters to vote now. Don't waste your time people, stay home and count your EBT cards.
> 
> 
> 
> clever but hope they don,t listen to you. supporters need come out for obama pn electipon day. gop turn out could be far bigger on the day and that could decide it. So get the turn out obama people. get it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother? Nate says it's a 71% obama victory.
> 
> You should just stay home.
Click to expand...

well i hope dems don,t listen to nate and get out. this is 50/50 election and gop could overwhelm the dems on election day on turning out their base

again to robert gobbs and team. get the base out. get the base out. you must or its defeat


----------



## Liability

Is Nate Silver's value at risk? | The Daily Caller



Nate is a joke.

The SHOCK on the faces, the despair, the agony of the Obama Fluffers the morning AFTER his defeat will be  a wonder and a joy to behold.


----------



## decker

NYcarbineer said:


> decker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [well i hope their right. only caution i say is exist polls in ohio had john kerry 52 % to 48% ahead in 2004 on election day. he went on to lose the state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because they polled the voters, not the machines.
Click to expand...

well i don,t know about that. all i know is more important then ever to get the base out on election day. i hate seeing small rallies. got get bigger rallies for the obama team over next few days and explain why it so important to vote. all or nothing. if they don,t  then romney is 45th president of united states of america


----------



## Harry Dresden

NYcarbineer said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> But please don't cancel the GOP Victory Parties.  Your purchases will help create more jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats it then......Nate Silver called it......might as well stop the voting....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so grouchy?
> 
> All it means is that he is handicapping the contest in such a way that predicts that for every ten times a presidential race would be where this one is, in the polls, at this point in the race,
> 
> the guy in Obama's current position is going to win at least 8 of those times.
> 
> I'd say that's a reasonable bet.
Click to expand...


that was being grouchy?......... i thought it was just as "grouchy" as your statement was....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dick Tuck said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> But please don't cancel the GOP Victory Parties.  Your purchases will help create more jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well thats it then......Nate Silver called it......might as well stop the voting....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  *Zombie* still has a one in five chance of winning.
Click to expand...


Obama has that bad of odds?....you were referring to him right?....


----------



## Harry Dresden

JimH52 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give a fuck what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we know.  But do enjoy your weekend!  Wednesday is going to be a tough day...
Click to expand...


not for me......no more election bullshit to deliver.....Hallelujah!....


----------



## PredFan

Liability said:


> Is Nate Silver's value at risk? | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> 
> Nate is a joke.
> 
> The SHOCK on the faces, the despair, the agony of the Obama Fluffers the morning AFTER his defeat will be  a wonder and a joy to behold.



O....M......G........yes.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> Is Nate Silver's value at risk? | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> 
> Nate is a joke.
> 
> The SHOCK on the faces, the despair, the agony of the Obama Fluffers the morning AFTER his defeat will be  a wonder and a joy to behold.



there are so many of these sorts of posts from wildly overconfident republicans... I sort of wish I could figure out how to collect them all in one big multiquote and then just have about five or six lines of "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" underneath them all on the off chance that Obama is reelected... but then, I think I'll just go out by the pool with another tequila and enjoy the sunshine instead.


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Nate Silver's value at risk? | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> 
> Nate is a joke.
> 
> The SHOCK on the faces, the despair, the agony of the Obama Fluffers the morning AFTER his defeat will be  a wonder and a joy to behold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are so many of these sorts of posts from wildly overconfident republicans... I sort of wish I could figure out how to collect them all in one big multiquote and then just have about five or six lines of "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" underneath them all on the off chance that Obama is reelected... but then, I think I'll just go out by the pool with another tequila and enjoy the sunshine instead.
Click to expand...


here's a "Newsflash" for ya newbie, nobody here cares what you think or do...


----------



## Liability

Zander said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Nate Silver's value at risk? | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> 
> Nate is a joke.
> 
> The SHOCK on the faces, the despair, the agony of the Obama Fluffers the morning AFTER his defeat will be  a wonder and a joy to behold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are so many of these sorts of posts from wildly overconfident republicans... I sort of wish I could figure out how to collect them all in one big multiquote and then just have about five or six lines of "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" underneath them all on the off chance that Obama is reelected... but then, I think I'll just go out by the pool with another tequila and enjoy the sunshine instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here's a "Newsflash" for ya newbie, nobody here cares what you think or do...
Click to expand...


True dat.


----------



## Zander

Note to Nate Silver- politics ain't baseball son.....


----------



## Liability

expat's belief or disbelief is no more controlling than Nate's re-statement of the state polls' consensus calls.

The ONE has sucked moose dick in hell as President (with one or two exceptions).  

There is no evidence to suggest tht the Dims are motivated to throng to the polls.  Indeed, for those reading the hints and tidbits of information, the better view appears to be that they are simply not all that motivated to get The ONE re-elected.

Assuming that he needs a pretty solid turnout (rivaling 2008) to get re-elected, then all the poll predictions about close races (e.g., Obama up by POINT one percent supposedly in Ohio per today's RCP) seem like so much -- yep -- FLUFF.

Absent that kind of turnout, the GOP voters will outvote the Dims.  And the Indys will likely more or less split, with a slight leaning toward Mitt.

That leaves the incumbent's electoral fate in the hands of the presently undecided voters.

I'd really like to read some informative reply about WHY we should expect the undecideds at this late stage to side with the incumbent given the incumbent's remarkable record of fail?


----------



## Star

.
.
.
.
*Nate Silver has Obama with 83.7% chance of second term... (+9.3 since Oct. 2)*
.
.
.
.


----------



## mamooth

4 days until Romney goes under the bus. After that, who becomes the new conservative messiah? These are conservatives, so they have to have some kind of daddy-figure. Not Ryan, as he'll forever have the stench of this failure attached to him.


----------



## expatriate

Zander said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Nate Silver's value at risk? | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> 
> Nate is a joke.
> 
> The SHOCK on the faces, the despair, the agony of the Obama Fluffers the morning AFTER his defeat will be  a wonder and a joy to behold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are so many of these sorts of posts from wildly overconfident republicans... I sort of wish I could figure out how to collect them all in one big multiquote and then just have about five or six lines of "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" underneath them all on the off chance that Obama is reelected... but then, I think I'll just go out by the pool with another tequila and enjoy the sunshine instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here's a "Newsflash" for ya newbie, nobody here cares what you think or do...
Click to expand...

here's a newsflash for you zander... I'm really not as new as I seem... and I take it that you, too, are sensing the impending crash of the GOP ticket?  Everything seems to be shifting - just a little bit - but shifting, nonetheless, and all the movement is in one direction.  

Wow... for a bunch of guys who have been proclaiming that Obama is the absolute worst president ever in the history of the universe... to see him building an electoral college firewall that looks like it will stand.. and to see this guy whom you hate so much win AGAIN... it must just drive you nuts!


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> I'd really like to read some informative reply about WHY we should expect the undecideds at this late stage to side with the incumbent given the incumbent's remarkable record of fail?



that photo of Obama and Christie working as a compassionate team in consoling the Sandy victims... pictures are worth a thousand words.  bipartisanship displayed for everyone to see.

and you are right... it is my opinion... and the opinion of RealClearPolitics who show the poll of polls moving in Obama's direction and him holding firm or gaining in all the swing state polls he had led in last week... his firewall looks like it will hold, and Mitt will come up JUST SHORT.  damn.


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are so many of these sorts of posts from wildly overconfident republicans... I sort of wish I could figure out how to collect them all in one big multiquote and then just have about five or six lines of "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" underneath them all on the off chance that Obama is reelected... but then, I think I'll just go out by the pool with another tequila and enjoy the sunshine instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's a "Newsflash" for ya newbie, nobody here cares what you think or do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here's a newsflash for you zander... I'm really not as new as I seem... and I take it that you, too, are sensing the impending crash of the GOP ticket?  Everything seems to be shifting - just a little bit - but shifting, nonetheless, and all the movement is in one direction.
> 
> Wow... for a bunch of guys who have been proclaiming that Obama is the absolute worst president ever in the history of the universe... to see him building an electoral college firewall that looks like it will stand.. and to see this guy whom you hate so much win AGAIN... it must just drive you nuts!
Click to expand...


Methinks Obama's "firewall" will be proven to be little more than a smokescreen......


----------



## expatriate

Zander said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's a "Newsflash" for ya newbie, nobody here cares what you think or do...
> 
> 
> 
> here's a newsflash for you zander... I'm really not as new as I seem... and I take it that you, too, are sensing the impending crash of the GOP ticket?  Everything seems to be shifting - just a little bit - but shifting, nonetheless, and all the movement is in one direction.
> 
> Wow... for a bunch of guys who have been proclaiming that Obama is the absolute worst president ever in the history of the universe... to see him building an electoral college firewall that looks like it will stand.. and to see this guy whom you hate so much win AGAIN... it must just drive you nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks Obama's "firewall" will be proven to be little more than a smokescreen......
Click to expand...


Oh... I got that... I understand full well that you are ignoring the polling data and the movement of the polls over the past three or four days... got it.  the question remains:  what will you do if Obama wins?  WIll you head explode, or what????


----------



## Liability

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd really like to read some informative reply about WHY we should expect the undecideds at this late stage to side with the incumbent given the incumbent's remarkable record of fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that photo of Obama and Christie working as a compassionate team in consoling the Sandy victims... pictures are worth a thousand words.  bipartisanship displayed for everyone to see.
> 
> and you are right... it is my opinion... and the opinion of RealClearPolitics who show the poll of polls moving in Obama's direction and him holding firm or gaining in all the swing state polls he had led in last week... his firewall looks like it will hold, and Mitt will come up JUST SHORT.  damn.
Click to expand...


LOL.

expat is so spectacularly stupid and silly that he thinks a photo op of two guys doing what should be done in a crisis is THE THING that will "turn" the undecideds into Obama voters.


----------



## Zander

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd really like to read some informative reply about WHY we should expect the undecideds at this late stage to side with the incumbent given the incumbent's remarkable record of fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that photo of Obama and Christie working as a compassionate team in consoling the Sandy victims... pictures are worth a thousand words.  bipartisanship displayed for everyone to see.
> 
> and you are right... it is my opinion... and the opinion of RealClearPolitics who show the poll of polls moving in Obama's direction and him holding firm or gaining in all the swing state polls he had led in last week... his firewall looks like it will hold, and Mitt will come up JUST SHORT.  damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> expat is so spectacularly stupid and silly that he thinks a photo op of two guys doing what should be done in a crisis is THE THING that will "turn" the undecideds into Obama voters.
Click to expand...


In expats tiny mind Obama's record of failure suddenly "doesn't matter" he's acting "bi-partisan" in a crisis!!!   "Oh Lookie !! Obama's singing Kum-by-a with Chris Christie!!! Aw shucks. let's give the incompetent another chance!!!" 

nah, I don't see that scenario happening....


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd really like to read some informative reply about WHY we should expect the undecideds at this late stage to side with the incumbent given the incumbent's remarkable record of fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that photo of Obama and Christie working as a compassionate team in consoling the Sandy victims... pictures are worth a thousand words.  bipartisanship displayed for everyone to see.
> 
> and you are right... it is my opinion... and the opinion of RealClearPolitics who show the poll of polls moving in Obama's direction and him holding firm or gaining in all the swing state polls he had led in last week... his firewall looks like it will hold, and Mitt will come up JUST SHORT.  damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> expat is so spectacularly stupid and silly that he thinks a photo op of two guys doing what should be done in a crisis is THE THING that will "turn" the undecideds into Obama voters.
Click to expand...


time will tell... every undecided is riding a razor's edge and it won't take much to tip them one way or the other at this late stage... some may actually enter the voting booth not entirely sure what they will do, and then, when the time comes to put pen to ballot... some little image can be all it takes to move them one way or the other.

As I said earlier, I think that Obama will win, but I certainly am not betting the farm that it will happen that way... you and some of your rightie pals are acting incredibly cocky and I wonder how that will play out on Wednesday if Mittens DOES happen to fall just a bit short?

I wonder if you will have the grace to come back here on Wednesday and apologize for calling everyone "spectacularly stupid" who didn't see things the way you did and whose vision, in the final analysis, was better than yours?

Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## expatriate

Zander said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> that photo of Obama and Christie working as a compassionate team in consoling the Sandy victims... pictures are worth a thousand words.  bipartisanship displayed for everyone to see.
> 
> and you are right... it is my opinion... and the opinion of RealClearPolitics who show the poll of polls moving in Obama's direction and him holding firm or gaining in all the swing state polls he had led in last week... his firewall looks like it will hold, and Mitt will come up JUST SHORT.  damn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> expat is so spectacularly stupid and silly that he thinks a photo op of two guys doing what should be done in a crisis is THE THING that will "turn" the undecideds into Obama voters.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In expats tiny mind Obama's record of failure suddenly "doesn't matter" he's acting "bi-partisan" in a crisis!!!   "Oh Lookie !! Obama's singing Kum-by-a with Chris Christie!!! Aw shucks. let's give the incompetent another chance!!!"
> 
> nah, I don't see that scenario happening....
Click to expand...


last chance:  let's bet some real money on it.  Say.... $1000?  whaddaya say?

Are you all hat and no cattle or what?  

edit:  and there is no reason to be insulting, is there?  I'd wager another G that my mind is not as tiny as you would think and I'd match my CV against yours any day.


----------



## Liability

There is NOT ONE race that is AS CLOSE as the polls tell you willing lib sheep.

Watch and learn.

It may very well be true that Mitt will not win in a landslide.  But win he will.


----------



## NYcarbineer

decker said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> decker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [well i hope their right. only caution i say is exist polls in ohio had john kerry 52 % to 48% ahead in 2004 on election day. he went on to lose the state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because they polled the voters, not the machines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well i don,t know about that. all i know is more important then ever to get the base out on election day. i hate seeing small rallies. got get bigger rallies for the obama team over next few days and explain why it so important to vote. all or nothing. if they don,t  then romney is 45th president of united states of america
Click to expand...


The 2004 Ohio final poll average had Bush winning by 2 points.


----------



## Dot Com

Looks like people vividly remember what happened w/ Bush II's tax-cuts & deregulation. Been there, done that, lost the shirt off of our backs.

Incidentally Silver has O widening the gap rw'ers 

83.7% probability of winning 

Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dot Com said:


> Looks like people vividly remember what happened w/ Bush II's tax-cuts & deregulation. Been there, done that, lost the shirt off of our backs.
> 
> Incidentally Silver has O widening the gap rw'ers
> 
> 83.7% probability of winning
> 
> Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



A  thread with the updated number had been put up, but someone merged it into this old thread.


----------



## Cowman

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased







So it's getting worse and worse for Romney. Interestingly enough though, conservatives seem to believe that it's getting better and better for Romney and that Obama is steadily losing support and chances of winning.

Why is this? Is it because a few of the polls you see that conform to your views, rather than looking at everything in a grand overview?


I want this thread to be a reminder to people when the election is over, so that they can realize Nate Silver is not a person you exactly want to be betting against because he has a brilliant mind for these things.

Why are you so confident Nate Silver is wrong?


----------



## Stephanie

nyslimes..


----------



## Cowman

Stephanie said:


> nyslimes..



What the fuck does the fact that he's now employed by the ny times have to do with anything. He still has an amazing track record and he's brilliant at this stuff.

Your guy needs a miracle from his Mormon god. HE NEEDS TO GET HIS ASS OFF KOLOB.


----------



## Plasmaball

Stephanie said:


> nyslimes..



^^ lunchlady


----------



## blackhawk

Everyone be careful you don't step in all the bullshit in here.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Plasmaball said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> nyslimes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ lunchlady
Click to expand...


She got fired from that job after she refused to wear a hairnet on her chin.


----------



## Stephanie

NYcarbineer said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> nyslimes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ lunchlady
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She got fired from that job after she refused to wear a hairnet on her chin.
Click to expand...


nope, going on four years now...sorry I'm not as important to you liberals as a teacher..I feed your rugrats when you don't feed them AT HOME


----------



## Liability

Dot Com said:


> Looks like people vividly remember what happened w/ Bush II's tax-cuts & deregulation. Been there, done that, lost the shirt off of our backs.
> 
> Incidentally Silver has O widening the gap rw'ers
> 
> 83.7% probability of winning
> 
> Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



Same reaction. 

If we didn't buy his bullshit when he was at ~79%, why would we care that his bullshit has led to the now even more absurdly erroneous "probability" statement?  

Mitt is still going to win.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Another nate silver cocksucker    how funny...


----------



## jillian

Cowman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> nyslimes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does the fact that he's now employed by the ny times have to do with anything. He still has an amazing track record and he's brilliant at this stuff.
> 
> Your guy needs a miracle from his Mormon god. HE NEEDS TO GET HIS ASS OFF KOLOB.
Click to expand...


she's dumb as toast. there really isn't any point to trying to educate her sorry butt.

as for nate silver... he's either right... or wrong. but he isn't the story, much as they want to make him the story. his numbers are the story. if he's wrong, he's going to be fink as a statistician.

if not... he's a hero.

and either way, they're still loons.


----------



## Cowman

Stephanie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ lunchlady
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She got fired from that job after she refused to wear a hairnet on her chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, going on four years now...sorry I'm not as important to you liberals as a teacher..I feed your rugrats when you don't feed them AT HOME
Click to expand...


You probably spit in their food as well, I mean what with all the disdain you conservatives have about youth these days.


----------



## OCA

Here is the thing, the current crop of neocons cannot bring theirselves to believe that with as bad a job as Barry has done, that they are still going to lose. They refuse to look inward to figure out why the populace refuses to trust them.

Think Fall 2008 and the current economic proposals they are putting forward, people aren't that gullible.


----------



## Stephanie

Cowman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> She got fired from that job after she refused to wear a hairnet on her chin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope, going on four years now...sorry I'm not as important to you liberals as a teacher..I feed your rugrats when you don't feed them AT HOME
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably spit in their food as well, I mean what with all the disdain you conservatives have about youth these days.
Click to expand...


I'm not like you or your liberal buddies here, hateful and vengeful


----------



## OCA

Liability said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like people vividly remember what happened w/ Bush II's tax-cuts & deregulation. Been there, done that, lost the shirt off of our backs.
> 
> Incidentally Silver has O widening the gap rw'ers
> 
> 83.7% probability of winning
> 
> Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reaction.
> 
> If we didn't buy his bullshit when he was at ~79%, why would we care that his bullshit has led to the now even more absurdly erroneous "probability" statement?
> 
> Mitt is still going to win.
Click to expand...


You are delusional...Mitt is the guy who couldn't defeat the guy who couldn't defeat Obama.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> nyslimes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does the fact that he's now employed by the ny times have to do with anything. He still has an amazing track record and he's brilliant at this stuff.
> 
> * * * *
Click to expand...


Nate's got a silly "record."  Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## Liability

OCA said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like people vividly remember what happened w/ Bush II's tax-cuts & deregulation. Been there, done that, lost the shirt off of our backs.
> 
> Incidentally Silver has O widening the gap rw'ers
> 
> 83.7% probability of winning
> 
> Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reaction.
> 
> If we didn't buy his bullshit when he was at ~79%, why would we care that his bullshit has led to the now even more absurdly erroneous "probability" statement?
> 
> Mitt is still going to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional...Mitt is the guy who couldn't defeat the guy who couldn't defeat Obama.
Click to expand...


Mitt is the guy that nobody wanted to be the head of the GOP ticket in 2012.  Yet there he is.

Mitt was the one who was supposed to be dead in the water by the Dim Convention.  Yet, there he was.  

He was the one who was going to get his as handed to him in a sling by the greatest orator of our age in the debates.  Except, somebody forgot to tell him to suck and somebody forgot to tell the greatest orator of our age to be a great orator.  And there he still is.

This election was supposed to be over before it began, and yet, The ONE is not even going to get all of the same states he won in 2008.  

You goobers on the left insist that the "polls" have The ONE winning.  Yet as others have noted, Team Obama is investing money mere days before the election in fucking states that were supposed to BE "his."

Mitt is taking it away from The ONE.

I realize you can't quite wrap your mind around that prospect.  But it's happening.  

You and all your fellow Obama Fluffers are the ones who are delusional.

The President said it himself:  "one term proposition."


----------



## OCA

Liability said:


> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reaction.
> 
> If we didn't buy his bullshit when he was at ~79%, why would we care that his bullshit has led to the now even more absurdly erroneous "probability" statement?
> 
> Mitt is still going to win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional...Mitt is the guy who couldn't defeat the guy who couldn't defeat Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitt is the guy that nobody wanted to be the head of the GOP ticket in 2012.  Yet there he is.
> 
> Mitt was the one who was supposed to be dead in the water by the Dim Convention.  Yet, there he was.
> 
> He was the one who was going to get his as handed to him in a sling by the greatest orator of our age in the debates.  Except, somebody forgot to tell him to suck and somebody forgot to tell the greatest orator of our age to be a great orator.  And there he still is.
> 
> This election was supposed to be over before it began, and yet, The ONE is not even going to get all of the same states he won in 2008.
> 
> You goobers on the left insist that the "polls" have The ONE winning.  Yet as others have noted, Team Obama is investing money mere days before the election in fucking states that were supposed to BE "his."
> 
> Mitt is taking it away from The ONE.
> 
> I realize you can't quite wrap your mind around that prospect.  But it's happening.
> 
> You and all your fellow Obama Fluffers are the ones who are delusional.
> 
> The President said it himself:  "one term proposition."
Click to expand...


Mitt got smoked in 2 out of 3 debates lol...Ryan got bent over and fucked by Biden in the VP debate lol.

Don't show up Nov.6 or 7, it won't be pretty for you.


----------



## EriktheRed

OCA said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional...Mitt is the guy who couldn't defeat the guy who couldn't defeat Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt is the guy that nobody wanted to be the head of the GOP ticket in 2012.  Yet there he is.
> 
> Mitt was the one who was supposed to be dead in the water by the Dim Convention.  Yet, there he was.
> 
> He was the one who was going to get his as handed to him in a sling by the greatest orator of our age in the debates.  Except, somebody forgot to tell him to suck and somebody forgot to tell the greatest orator of our age to be a great orator.  And there he still is.
> 
> This election was supposed to be over before it began, and yet, The ONE is not even going to get all of the same states he won in 2008.
> 
> You goobers on the left insist that the "polls" have The ONE winning.  Yet as others have noted, Team Obama is investing money mere days before the election in fucking states that were supposed to BE "his."
> 
> Mitt is taking it away from The ONE.
> 
> I realize you can't quite wrap your mind around that prospect.  But it's happening.
> 
> You and all your fellow Obama Fluffers are the ones who are delusional.
> 
> The President said it himself:  "one term proposition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitt got smoked in 2 out of 3 debates lol...Ryan got bent over and fucked by Biden in the VP debate lol.
> 
> Don't show up Nov.6 or 7, it won't be pretty for you.
Click to expand...



Not to worry, he will be here and he'll act the same way, whether wrong or not.


----------



## OCA

EriktheRed said:


> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt is the guy that nobody wanted to be the head of the GOP ticket in 2012.  Yet there he is.
> 
> Mitt was the one who was supposed to be dead in the water by the Dim Convention.  Yet, there he was.
> 
> He was the one who was going to get his as handed to him in a sling by the greatest orator of our age in the debates.  Except, somebody forgot to tell him to suck and somebody forgot to tell the greatest orator of our age to be a great orator.  And there he still is.
> 
> This election was supposed to be over before it began, and yet, The ONE is not even going to get all of the same states he won in 2008.
> 
> You goobers on the left insist that the "polls" have The ONE winning.  Yet as others have noted, Team Obama is investing money mere days before the election in fucking states that were supposed to BE "his."
> 
> Mitt is taking it away from The ONE.
> 
> I realize you can't quite wrap your mind around that prospect.  But it's happening.
> 
> You and all your fellow Obama Fluffers are the ones who are delusional.
> 
> The President said it himself:  "one term proposition."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt got smoked in 2 out of 3 debates lol...Ryan got bent over and fucked by Biden in the VP debate lol.
> 
> Don't show up Nov.6 or 7, it won't be pretty for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not to worry, he will be here and he'll act the same way, whether wrong or not.
Click to expand...


So you are saying he's retarded?


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, by Wednesday we will know for sure who's prognostications are correct.


----------



## expatriate

expatriate said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> expat is so spectacularly stupid and silly that he thinks a photo op of two guys doing what should be done in a crisis is THE THING that will "turn" the undecideds into Obama voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In expats tiny mind Obama's record of failure suddenly "doesn't matter" he's acting "bi-partisan" in a crisis!!!   "Oh Lookie !! Obama's singing Kum-by-a with Chris Christie!!! Aw shucks. let's give the incompetent another chance!!!"
> 
> nah, I don't see that scenario happening....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> last chance:  let's bet some real money on it.  Say.... $1000?  whaddaya say?
> 
> Are you all hat and no cattle or what?
> 
> edit:  and there is no reason to be insulting, is there?  I'd wager another G that my mind is not as tiny as you would think and I'd match my CV against yours any day.
Click to expand...


zander....oh, zander!  where'd ya go?  I suggest a gentleman's wager and you disappear.  hmmmmmm.


----------



## Liability

OCA said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt got smoked in 2 out of 3 debates lol...Ryan got bent over and fucked by Biden in the VP debate lol.
> 
> Don't show up Nov.6 or 7, it won't be pretty for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to worry, he will be here and he'll act the same way, whether wrong or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying he's retarded?
Click to expand...


erik is another old time douche nozzle.  Who cares what he's saying?  Like you, he's a fucking moron.

It's simple.

The President is going to lose.

I will be here after election day because I only leave if I lose the bet.  But I won't.


----------



## mamooth

Liability gave himself an excuse to cut and run, by making a bet with someone else that the loser would leave. He doesn't have the cojones to stick around and face the music.

At least not under his current name. After the election, we'll get to play the "match the Republican noob to his old account" game.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

As romney pulls farther away, silver gives him less a chance. Who knew.


----------



## Liability

OCA said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional...Mitt is the guy who couldn't defeat the guy who couldn't defeat Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt is the guy that nobody wanted to be the head of the GOP ticket in 2012.  Yet there he is.
> 
> Mitt was the one who was supposed to be dead in the water by the Dim Convention.  Yet, there he was.
> 
> He was the one who was going to get his as handed to him in a sling by the greatest orator of our age in the debates.  Except, somebody forgot to tell him to suck and somebody forgot to tell the greatest orator of our age to be a great orator.  And there he still is.
> 
> This election was supposed to be over before it began, and yet, The ONE is not even going to get all of the same states he won in 2008.
> 
> You goobers on the left insist that the "polls" have The ONE winning.  Yet as others have noted, Team Obama is investing money mere days before the election in fucking states that were supposed to BE "his."
> 
> Mitt is taking it away from The ONE.
> 
> I realize you can't quite wrap your mind around that prospect.  But it's happening.
> 
> You and all your fellow Obama Fluffers are the ones who are delusional.
> 
> The President said it himself:  "one term proposition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitt got smoked in 2 out of 3 debates lol...Ryan got bent over and fucked by Biden in the VP debate lol.
> 
> Don't show up Nov.6 or 7, it won't be pretty for you.
Click to expand...


Mitt slaughtered the failed incumbent in Debate #1.

The only reason idiots like you imagine that The ONE won debates 2 and 3 is because your expectations had sunk so low. 

Both 2 & 3 were draws.

Biden looked like a raving idiot.  He is.  Truth in advertising.

You lack the mental integrity required to admit that Team Obummer took it up the ass in all the debates, therefore.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to worry, he will be here and he'll act the same way, whether wrong or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying he's retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> erik is another old time douche nozzle.  Who cares what he's saying?  Like you, he's a fucking moron.
> 
> It's simple.
> 
> The President is going to lose.
> 
> I will be here after election day because I only leave if I lose the bet.  But I won't.
Click to expand...


you really shouldn't leave... you should just show up in a dress with a sign pinned on the back that says, "kick me" and you should let liberal after liberal verbally abuse you and your only reply should be, "can I have another, sir?"


----------



## Liability

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying he's retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> erik is another old time douche nozzle.  Who cares what he's saying?  Like you, he's a fucking moron.
> 
> It's simple.
> 
> The President is going to lose.
> 
> I will be here after election day because I only leave if I lose the bet.  But I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really shouldn't leave... you should just show up in a dress with a sign pinned on the back that says, "kick me" and you should let liberal after liberal verbally abuse you and your only reply should be, "can I have another, sir?"
Click to expand...


Why would I leave?

The ONE is the one who will be getting shown
the door, you idiot.

Try to keep up.


----------



## Cowman

mamooth said:


> Liability gave himself an excuse to cut and run, by making a bet with someone else that the loser would leave. He doesn't have the cojones to stick around and face the music.
> 
> At least not under his current name. After the election, we'll get to play the "match the Republican noob to his old account" game.



Hahaha. Agreed.

That was a very stupid bet. I mean, making bets like that alone is retarded, but Liability is especially retarded to bet on Romney.


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> erik is another old time douche nozzle.  Who cares what he's saying?  Like you, he's a fucking moron.
> 
> It's simple.
> 
> The President is going to lose.
> 
> I will be here after election day because I only leave if I lose the bet.  But I won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you really shouldn't leave... you should just show up in a dress with a sign pinned on the back that says, "kick me" and you should let liberal after liberal verbally abuse you and your only reply should be, "can I have another, sir?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I leave?
> 
> The ONE is the one who will be getting shown
> the door, you idiot.
> 
> Try to keep up.
Click to expand...


I'll bookmark this post for you. But ohhh, wait... you won't fucking be here to enjoy it.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liability gave himself an excuse to cut and run, by making a bet with someone else that the loser would leave. He doesn't have the cojones to stick around and face the music.
> 
> At least not under his current name. After the election, we'll get to play the "match the Republican noob to his old account" game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha. Agreed.
> 
> That was a very stupid bet. I mean, making bets like that alone is retarded, but Liability is especially retarded to bet on Romney.
Click to expand...


One flaming asshole says some seriously stupid shit, and Cowflop promptly "agrees."   

How expected.

In reality, the bet was fine.  And betting against the failed incumbent is pretty much a safe bet.

Even the soon to be FORMER Pres. Obama laughs at you idiots.


----------



## OCA

Liability said:


> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt is the guy that nobody wanted to be the head of the GOP ticket in 2012.  Yet there he is.
> 
> Mitt was the one who was supposed to be dead in the water by the Dim Convention.  Yet, there he was.
> 
> He was the one who was going to get his as handed to him in a sling by the greatest orator of our age in the debates.  Except, somebody forgot to tell him to suck and somebody forgot to tell the greatest orator of our age to be a great orator.  And there he still is.
> 
> This election was supposed to be over before it began, and yet, The ONE is not even going to get all of the same states he won in 2008.
> 
> You goobers on the left insist that the "polls" have The ONE winning.  Yet as others have noted, Team Obama is investing money mere days before the election in fucking states that were supposed to BE "his."
> 
> Mitt is taking it away from The ONE.
> 
> I realize you can't quite wrap your mind around that prospect.  But it's happening.
> 
> You and all your fellow Obama Fluffers are the ones who are delusional.
> 
> The President said it himself:  "one term proposition."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt got smoked in 2 out of 3 debates lol...Ryan got bent over and fucked by Biden in the VP debate lol.
> 
> Don't show up Nov.6 or 7, it won't be pretty for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitt slaughtered the failed incumbent in Debate #1.
> 
> The only reason idiots like you imagine that The ONE won debates 2 and 3 is because your expectations had sunk so low.
> 
> Both 2 & 3 were draws.
> 
> Biden looked like a raving idiot.  He is.  Truth in advertising.
> 
> You lack the mental integrity required to admit that Team Obummer took it up the ass in all the debates, therefore.
Click to expand...


You mean Biden looked worse than the weasel going to the water bottle in his cage every 5 minutes because his sweating was a telltale sign of his lying?

LMFAO.......you are funny for a fucking babbling retard.

Do you go around the nighborhood asking people if you could pick dogshit off their lawns for that loghouse you are building?


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> you really shouldn't leave... you should just show up in a dress with a sign pinned on the back that says, "kick me" and you should let liberal after liberal verbally abuse you and your only reply should be, "can I have another, sir?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I leave?
> 
> The ONE is the one who will be getting shown
> the door, you idiot.
> 
> Try to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bookmark this post for you. But ohhh, wait... you won't fucking be here to enjoy it.
Click to expand...


I'll be here to rub the failed ONE's loss in your stupid surprised mug.


----------



## EriktheRed

Liability said:


> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to worry, he will be here and he'll act the same way, whether wrong or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying he's retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> erik is another old time douche nozzle.  Who cares what he's saying?  Like you, he's a fucking moron.
> 
> It's simple.
> 
> The President is going to lose.
> 
> I will be here after election day because I only leave if I lose the bet.  But I won't.
Click to expand...



One thing I know I'm right about is that you were wrong back in '06 and it didn't stop you from coming back and being the shit-talker you always are. Personally, I don't think you're half as sure about the outcome on Tues as you make yourself out to be, but that's ok. I know by now you just can't help yourself.


----------



## OCA

EriktheRed said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying he's retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> erik is another old time douche nozzle.  Who cares what he's saying?  Like you, he's a fucking moron.
> 
> It's simple.
> 
> The President is going to lose.
> 
> I will be here after election day because I only leave if I lose the bet.  But I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I know I'm right about is that you were wrong back in '06 and it didn't stop you from coming back and being the shit-talker you always are. Personally, I don't think you're half as sure about the outcome on Tues as you make yourself out to be, but that's ok. I know by now you just can't help yourself.
Click to expand...


Most idiots are that way, i'm guessing he is one of those douches, 5'3 a buck15 with a barbwire tatoo around his bicep thinking he's a tough guy.


----------



## Liability

OCA said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt got smoked in 2 out of 3 debates lol...Ryan got bent over and fucked by Biden in the VP debate lol.
> 
> Don't show up Nov.6 or 7, it won't be pretty for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt slaughtered the failed incumbent in Debate #1.
> 
> The only reason idiots like you imagine that The ONE won debates 2 and 3 is because your expectations had sunk so low.
> 
> Both 2 & 3 were draws.
> 
> Biden looked like a raving idiot.  He is.  Truth in advertising.
> 
> You lack the mental integrity required to admit that Team Obummer took it up the ass in all the debates, therefore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Biden looked worse than the weasel going to the water bottle in his cage every 5 minutes because his sweating was a telltale sign of his lying?
> 
> LMFAO.......you are funny for a fucking babbling retard.
> 
> Do you go around the nighborhood asking people if you could pick dogshit off their lawns for that loghouse you are building?
Click to expand...


You are an amazingly delusional asshat.

Of COURSE Biden looked worse.

Ryan looked thirsty.

Biden looked like a fucking hack idiot.


----------



## Liability

EriktheRed said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying he's retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> erik is another old time douche nozzle.  Who cares what he's saying?  Like you, he's a fucking moron.
> 
> It's simple.
> 
> The President is going to lose.
> 
> I will be here after election day because I only leave if I lose the bet.  But I won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I know I'm right about is that you were wrong back in '06 and it didn't stop you from coming back and being the shit-talker you always are. Personally, I don't think you're half as sure about the outcome on Tues as you make yourself out to be, but that's ok. I know by now you just can't help yourself.
Click to expand...


You are a lying sack of pus.  Too bad more people don't know you for what you are.

Tell me, you scumbag lying fuckchop what I was supposedly wrong about in 2006?

I don't care what a fucking lying scumbag like you believes about me or not.  I am confidant that The ONE is going to lose.  And I will rub your stupid nose in it too, you lowlife lying pussy.


----------



## EriktheRed

Liability said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> erik is another old time douche nozzle.  Who cares what he's saying?  Like you, he's a fucking moron.
> 
> It's simple.
> 
> The President is going to lose.
> 
> I will be here after election day because I only leave if I lose the bet.  But I won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I know I'm right about is that you were wrong back in '06 and it didn't stop you from coming back and being the shit-talker you always are. Personally, I don't think you're half as sure about the outcome on Tues as you make yourself out to be, but that's ok. I know by now you just can't help yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a lying sack of pus.  Too bad more people don't know you for what you are.
> 
> Tell me, you scumbag lying fuckchop what I was supposedly wrong about in 2006?
> 
> I don't care what a fucking lying scumbag like you believes about me or not.  I am confidant that The ONE is going to lose.  And I will rub your stupid nose in it too, you lowlife lying pussy.
Click to expand...



Consider yourself quoted.


----------



## Liability

EriktheRed said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I know I'm right about is that you were wrong back in '06 and it didn't stop you from coming back and being the shit-talker you always are. Personally, I don't think you're half as sure about the outcome on Tues as you make yourself out to be, but that's ok. I know by now you just can't help yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lying sack of pus.  Too bad more people don't know you for what you are.
> 
> Tell me, you scumbag lying fuckchop what I was supposedly wrong about in 2006?
> 
> I don't care what a fucking lying scumbag like you believes about me or not.  I am confidant that The ONE is going to lose.  And I will rub your stupid nose in it too, you lowlife lying pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Consider yourself quoted.
Click to expand...


So?  Quote away, you lying motherfucker.

Consider yourself a lying sack of shit.  

Here:  I'll paraphrase you (unless you find your tiny little nadz long enough to man up and just say it yourself):

YOU are a scumsucking pig who actually predicts that Pres. Obama is going to win re-election.


----------



## Harry Dresden

expatriate said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are so many of these sorts of posts from wildly overconfident republicans... I sort of wish I could figure out how to collect them all in one big multiquote and then just have about five or six lines of "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" underneath them all on the off chance that Obama is reelected... but then, I think I'll just go out by the pool with another tequila and enjoy the sunshine instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's a "Newsflash" for ya newbie, nobody here cares what you think or do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here's a newsflash for you zander... I'm really not as new as I seem... and I take it that you, too, are sensing the impending crash of the GOP ticket?  Everything seems to be shifting - just a little bit - but shifting, nonetheless, and all the movement is in one direction.
> *
> Wow... for a bunch of guys who have been proclaiming that Obama is the absolute worst president ever in the history of the universe... to see him building an electoral college firewall that looks like it will stand.. and to see this guy whom you hate so much win AGAIN... it must just drive you nuts*!
Click to expand...


is this how the Democrats felt when Bush beat Kerry?.......just wonderin....


----------



## EriktheRed

Liability said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lying sack of pus.  Too bad more people don't know you for what you are.
> 
> Tell me, you scumbag lying fuckchop what I was supposedly wrong about in 2006?
> 
> I don't care what a fucking lying scumbag like you believes about me or not.  I am confidant that The ONE is going to lose.  And I will rub your stupid nose in it too, you lowlife lying pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider yourself quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  Quote away, you lying motherfucker.
> 
> Consider yourself a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Here:  I'll paraphrase you (unless you find your tiny little nadz long enough to man up and just say it yourself):
> 
> YOU are a scumsucking pig who actually predicts that Pres. Obama is going to win re-election.
Click to expand...


Have you been hitting the sauce early today?


----------



## Liability

EriktheRed said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider yourself quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Quote away, you lying motherfucker.
> 
> Consider yourself a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Here:  I'll paraphrase you (unless you find your tiny little nadz long enough to man up and just say it yourself):
> 
> YOU are a scumsucking pig who actually predicts that Pres. Obama is going to win re-election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been hitting the sauce early today?
Click to expand...


Have you ever stopped sticking needles into your veins?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Article 15 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.




The date stamp on the op is 09-10-2012, 07:01 AM but the date of the article is today. 

A glitch with the board?

In any event, I sure as hell hope Nate is right but that number seems too high. 

As long as President Obama wins, I don't much care what the numbers are.


----------



## Harry Dresden

expatriate said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's a newsflash for you zander... I'm really not as new as I seem... and I take it that you, too, are sensing the impending crash of the GOP ticket?  Everything seems to be shifting - just a little bit - but shifting, nonetheless, and all the movement is in one direction.
> 
> Wow... for a bunch of guys who have been proclaiming that Obama is the absolute worst president ever in the history of the universe... to see him building an electoral college firewall that looks like it will stand.. and to see this guy whom you hate so much win AGAIN... it must just drive you nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks Obama's "firewall" will be proven to be little more than a smokescreen......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh... I got that... I understand full well that you are ignoring the polling data and the movement of the polls over the past three or four days... got it.  the question remains:  what will you do if Obama wins?  WIll you head explode, or what????
Click to expand...


i bet he wont move to a foreign Country....


----------



## Liability

luddly.neddite said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The date stamp on the op is 09-10-2012, 07:01 AM but the date of the article is today.
> 
> A glitch with the board?
> 
> In any event, I sure as hell hope Nate is right.
Click to expand...


He's not.  He is entirely derivative.

What the state polls say, he merely regurgitates.

Since they are wrong, so is Nate.


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> In expats tiny mind Obama's record of failure suddenly "doesn't matter" he's acting "bi-partisan" in a crisis!!!   "Oh Lookie !! Obama's singing Kum-by-a with Chris Christie!!! Aw shucks. let's give the incompetent another chance!!!"
> 
> nah, I don't see that scenario happening....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> last chance:  let's bet some real money on it.  Say.... $1000?  whaddaya say?
> 
> Are you all hat and no cattle or what?
> 
> edit:  and there is no reason to be insulting, is there?  I'd wager another G that my mind is not as tiny as you would think and I'd match my CV against yours any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> zander....oh, zander!  where'd ya go?  I suggest a gentleman's wager and you disappear.  hmmmmmm.
Click to expand...


----------



## expatriate

Harry Dresden said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks Obama's "firewall" will be proven to be little more than a smokescreen......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... I got that... I understand full well that you are ignoring the polling data and the movement of the polls over the past three or four days... got it.  the question remains:  what will you do if Obama wins?  WIll you head explode, or what????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i bet he wont move to a foreign Country....
Click to expand...


even if he had the chance to have a fabulous adventure and live like a king?  I bet he might consider it, if he had anything other than social security to live on when he hit retirement age, that is.


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... I got that... I understand full well that you are ignoring the polling data and the movement of the polls over the past three or four days... got it.  the question remains:  what will you do if Obama wins?  WIll you head explode, or what????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i bet he wont move to a foreign Country....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even if he had the chance to have a fabulous adventure and live like a king?  I bet he might consider it, if he had anything other than social security to live on when he hit retirement age, that is.
Click to expand...


I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

luddly.neddite said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The date stamp on the op is 09-10-2012, 07:01 AM but the date of the article is today.
> 
> A glitch with the board?
> 
> In any event, I sure as hell hope Nate is right but that number seems too high.
> 
> As long as President Obama wins, I don't much care what the numbers are.
Click to expand...


The numbers are high because Silver doesnt  play the toss up game; he assigns states to each candidate based on the polling data and projections, in this case giving NH, Virginia, and Colorado to Obama, along with both Iowa and Nevada. Of course the president needs only Ohio and either Iowa or Nevada to win re-election. 

I agree with the projection that theres currently an 84 percent chance of the president winning the EC, but the count will be between 277 to 281, not to exceed 300.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Zander said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> i bet he wont move to a foreign Country....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even if he had the chance to have a fabulous adventure and live like a king?  I bet he might consider it, if he had anything other than social security to live on when he hit retirement age, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....
Click to expand...


well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....


----------



## Cowman

Harry Dresden said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> even if he had the chance to have a fabulous adventure and live like a king?  I bet he might consider it, if he had anything other than social security to live on when he hit retirement age, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....
Click to expand...


No.

You fucking idiot.


----------



## Sundial

Link.

In the post-mortem, what are the reasons people will give for why Romney lost?

Too conservative?

Too etch-a-sketchy?

Too smug?

Too Mormon?


----------



## Zander

Harry Dresden said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> even if he had the chance to have a fabulous adventure and live like a king?  I bet he might consider it, if he had anything other than social security to live on when he hit retirement age, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....
Click to expand...


You must live east of the 405....poor guy!


----------



## expatriate

Harry Dresden said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> even if he had the chance to have a fabulous adventure and live like a king?  I bet he might consider it, if he had anything other than social security to live on when he hit retirement age, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....
Click to expand...


Folks who talk as if Mexico is one homogenous region clearly have never been here, or, for that matter, have not travelled enough around the US to ascertain the wide disparity in living conditions present there either.  Living in Bar Harbor, Maine is a world away from south central LA.  Similarly, living in San Miguel de Allende, or Merida is a world away from Matamoros or Tijuana.  And living anywhere with a boatload of disposable income is a world away from living in the same place without it.


----------



## candycorn

Sundial said:


> Link.
> 
> In the post-mortem, what are the reasons people will give for why Romney lost?
> 
> Too conservative?
> 
> *Too etch-a-sketchy?*
> 
> Too smug?
> 
> Too Mormon?



That is the #1 reason. 
Too aloof and aristocratic is a close second.


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Folks who talk as if Mexico is one homogenous region clearly have never been here, or, for that matter, have not travelled enough around the US to ascertain the wide disparity in living conditions present there either.  Living in Bar Harbor, Maine is a world away from south central LA.  Similarly, living in San Miguel de Allende, or Merida is a world away from Matamoros or Tijuana.  And living anywhere with a boatload of disposable income is a world away from living in the same place without it.
Click to expand...


You can have San Miguel Allende, Merida, Lake Chapala, etc..- that's where old, poor, Social Security recipients with no other assets move to die.....

Next you'll be touting the myriad benefits of living in Thailand or Ecuador!! Live like a king on pennies a day!!! Come to Chang Mai!!! .. 

Sorry bub, I don't need to live in a third world nation to have a superb lifestyle. I simply practice Capitalism and do it here, in the Good ole' USA.


----------



## Zarius

Sundial said:


> Link.
> 
> In the post-mortem, what are the reasons people will give for why Romney lost?
> 
> Too conservative?
> 
> Too etch-a-sketchy?
> 
> Too smug?
> 
> Too Mormon?



limpballs has already started the defense. "if we lose they will try to blame conservatives" 
fuck him and anyone who agrees with him


----------



## expatriate

Zander said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks who talk as if Mexico is one homogenous region clearly have never been here, or, for that matter, have not travelled enough around the US to ascertain the wide disparity in living conditions present there either.  Living in Bar Harbor, Maine is a world away from south central LA.  Similarly, living in San Miguel de Allende, or Merida is a world away from Matamoros or Tijuana.  And living anywhere with a boatload of disposable income is a world away from living in the same place without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can have San Miguel Allende, Merida, Lake Chapala, etc..- that's where old, poor, Social Security recipients with no other assets move to die.....
> 
> Next you'll be touting the myriad benefits of living in Thailand or Ecuador!! Live like a king on pennies a day!!! Come to Chang Mai!!! ..
> 
> Sorry bub, I don't need to live in a third world nation to have a superb lifestyle. I simply practice Capitalism and do it here, in the Good ole' USA.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a man who has never been to any of those places.  Do you have the slightest idea what the average gringo home costs in San Miguel Centro?  

You seemed to avoid commenting on my suggestion that we make a gentleman's wager on the election.  You seem so sure that I am deluding myself, why not take advantage of my delusions and bet me $1000 on the presidential outcome?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Harry Dresden said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks Obama's "firewall" will be proven to be little more than a smokescreen......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... I got that... I understand full well that you are ignoring the polling data and the movement of the polls over the past three or four days... got it.  the question remains:  what will you do if Obama wins?  WIll you head explode, or what????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i bet he wont move to a foreign Country....
Click to expand...


What does Lush Rimbaw have to do with this?

Oh wait - That was just another in his long list of lies.

Damn but it would be SO nice if he kept his promise next Wednesday ....


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks who talk as if Mexico is one homogenous region clearly have never been here, or, for that matter, have not travelled enough around the US to ascertain the wide disparity in living conditions present there either.  Living in Bar Harbor, Maine is a world away from south central LA.  Similarly, living in San Miguel de Allende, or Merida is a world away from Matamoros or Tijuana.  And living anywhere with a boatload of disposable income is a world away from living in the same place without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have San Miguel Allende, Merida, Lake Chapala, etc..- that's where old, poor, Social Security recipients with no other assets move to die.....
> 
> Next you'll be touting the myriad benefits of living in Thailand or Ecuador!! Live like a king on pennies a day!!! Come to Chang Mai!!! ..
> 
> Sorry bub, I don't need to live in a third world nation to have a superb lifestyle. I simply practice Capitalism and do it here, in the Good ole' USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a man who has never been to any of those places.  Do you have the slightest idea what the average gringo home costs in San Miguel Centro?
> 
> You seemed to avoid commenting on my suggestion that we make a gentleman's wager on the election.  You seem so sure that I am deluding myself, why not take advantage of my delusions and bet me $1000 on the presidential outcome?
Click to expand...


I've traveled to all of those places, San Miguel Allende included (nice little town to visit- wouldn't want to live there unless I was living on Social Security). 


....as for the "wager"...sorry, I don't make $ bets with random strangers in the internet. 

I've already made my Election prognostications quite clear and in a rather bold fashion.  Obama will lose, and he will lose badly.  If I am wrong and somehow he wins, I will still be here to face comeuppance......


----------



## Dot Com

Zarius said:


> Sundial said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link.
> 
> In the post-mortem, what are the reasons people will give for why Romney lost?
> 
> Too conservative?
> 
> Too etch-a-sketchy?
> 
> Too smug?
> 
> Too Mormon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limpballs has already started the defense. "if we lose they will try to blame conservatives"
> fuck him and anyone who agrees with him
Click to expand...


oxyRush? Hillbilly heroin Rush?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Sundial said:


> Link.
> 
> In the post-mortem, what are the reasons people will give for why Romney lost?
> 
> Too conservative?
> 
> Too etch-a-sketchy?
> 
> Too smug?
> 
> Too Mormon?



Romney being inconsistent and vague on the issues will contribute, yes; but it will also be a collective GOP failure.


----------



## JoeB131

Sundial said:


> Link.
> 
> In the post-mortem, what are the reasons people will give for why Romney lost?
> 
> Too conservative?
> 
> Too etch-a-sketchy?
> 
> Too smug?
> 
> Too Mormon?



I'm going with "Too Mormon"... 

Although no one but me will say that out loud.


----------



## MarcATL

The Rabbi said:


> Liability gave himself an excuse to cut and run, by making a bet with someone else that the loser would leave. He doesn't have the cojones to stick around and face the music.
> 
> At least not under his current name. After the election, we'll get to play the "match the Republican noob to his old account" game.


Was that a separate bet than this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...tening-one-shall-rise-and-one-shall-fall.html ?


----------



## MarcATL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sundial said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link.
> 
> In the post-mortem, what are the reasons people will give for why Romney lost?
> 
> Too conservative?
> 
> Too etch-a-sketchy?
> 
> Too smug?
> 
> Too Mormon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney being inconsistent and vague on the issues will contribute, yes; but it will also be a collective GOP failure.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same thing...in that this election will have ramifications for the losing side. I believe that if Obama loses it will also spell a lot of Dems losing, and the same goes for Republicans. If Romney loses it will mean that many Republicans are losing their jobs as well. Folks are going to vote largely down the ticket on party. Luckily for us, things are in Obama's favor so it's going to be a bloodbath for Republicans.

This one is a dedication to the Republicans...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFNZEDAyP9g]Capleton - Dem doom - YouTube[/ame]

Dem will BLOODCLOT loose!!!


----------



## Zander

thread bookmarked for resurrection and taunting......


----------



## Cowman

Zander said:


> thread bookmarked for resurrection and taunting......



Oh I'll bookmark this post for you too, then.

I mean, it's only fair.


----------



## expatriate

Zander said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can have San Miguel Allende, Merida, Lake Chapala, etc..- that's where old, poor, Social Security recipients with no other assets move to die.....
> 
> Next you'll be touting the myriad benefits of living in Thailand or Ecuador!! Live like a king on pennies a day!!! Come to Chang Mai!!! ..
> 
> Sorry bub, I don't need to live in a third world nation to have a superb lifestyle. I simply practice Capitalism and do it here, in the Good ole' USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a man who has never been to any of those places.  Do you have the slightest idea what the average gringo home costs in San Miguel Centro?
> 
> You seemed to avoid commenting on my suggestion that we make a gentleman's wager on the election.  You seem so sure that I am deluding myself, why not take advantage of my delusions and bet me $1000 on the presidential outcome?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've traveled to all of those places, San Miguel Allende included (nice little town to visit- wouldn't want to live there unless I was living on Social Security).
> 
> 
> ....as for the "wager"...sorry, I don't make $ bets with random strangers in the internet.
> 
> I've already made my Election prognostications quite clear and in a rather bold fashion.  Obama will lose, and he will lose badly.  If I am wrong and somehow he wins, I will still be here to face comeuppance......
Click to expand...


as will I, sir... as will I.

First... you COULDN'T live in San Miguel if all you had were social security, despite the two ladies that claimed in a paperback book that they did - a long time ago before real estate prices in the town shot through the roof, even for rentals.

Second.  There is a town on your list that is much better than San Miguel  on real estate price and value, close to the beach, fabulous state of the art healthcare, symphony orchestra, several art galleries and museums,  wonderful upscale restaurants, almost zero crime, vibrant, but not overwhelmingly large, quite cultured, socially responsible and socially extroverted expatriate crowd.

Third... we all - on both sides of the border, so to speak -  will need to accept and acknowledge our philosophical differences going forward.  It's difficult to find consensus and synthesis with someone who you publicly castigate... civility needs to be expected here.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Cowman said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


go to El Centro Moron......see how far your English gets you....then try Bell Ca.....its one thing that gets me is people that dont live in this State acting like they do...there are more Mexicans in the greater LA area then anywhere in the world except Mexico City......there are more Illegals in S.Cal than anywhere in this Country......hey Cow.....let me make you feel at home........MOooooo.......


----------



## Harry Dresden

Zander said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must live east of the 405....poor guy!
Click to expand...

 OC actually but some parts of Santa Ana..............Cowshit did not understand what we are talking about.....but he Moooed anyway....


----------



## Harry Dresden

expatriate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to move to Mexico to live like a king.....although I do enjoy vacationing there from time to time.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in Mexico now.....are we not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Folks who talk as if Mexico is one homogenous region clearly have never been here, or, for that matter, have not travelled enough around the US to ascertain the wide disparity in living conditions present there either.  Living in Bar Harbor, Maine is a world away from south central LA.  Similarly, living in San Miguel de Allende, or Merida is a world away from Matamoros or Tijuana.  And living anywhere with a boatload of disposable income is a world away from living in the same place without it.
Click to expand...


here is another one.....no one said anything about Mexico......we are talking about S.Cal....and some of its areas......which are just about all Mexican and English the secondary Language....pay attention....


----------



## Harry Dresden

luddly.neddite said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... I got that... I understand full well that you are ignoring the polling data and the movement of the polls over the past three or four days... got it.  the question remains:  what will you do if Obama wins?  WIll you head explode, or what????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i bet he wont move to a foreign Country....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Lush Rimbaw have to do with this?
> 
> Oh wait - That was just another in his long list of lies.
> 
> Damn but it would be SO nice if he kept his promise next Wednesday ....
Click to expand...


no one mentioned Rush but you..........next time Dudley......READ THE FUCKING POSTS.....before you jump in......now go eat your Pablum its getting cold....


----------



## expatriate

Harry Dresden said:


> well we just about are living in *Mexico* now.....are we not?....







> here is another one.....no one said anything about *Mexico*.....



you could have fooled me.  It seems as if someone actually DID mention Mexico and... oh look... that someone was YOU.  

But to your larger point:  What we have is immigrants bringing the customs and traditions of their former homes to the USA.  Do you honestly think that is some NEW phenomenon that only Mexican and Hispanic immigrants have practiced?


----------



## Star

.
.

*Nate Silver's Political Calculus*
.
.


----------



## Liability

ALL the money "donated" to the President for purposes of getting his dopey ass re-elected is wasted.

President Romney will not be holding any grudges, though.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MarcATL said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sundial said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link.
> 
> In the post-mortem, what are the reasons people will give for why Romney lost?
> 
> Too conservative?
> 
> Too etch-a-sketchy?
> 
> Too smug?
> 
> Too Mormon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney being inconsistent and vague on the issues will contribute, yes; but it will also be a collective GOP failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing...in that this election will have ramifications for the losing side. I believe that if Obama loses it will also spell a lot of Dems losing, and the same goes for Republicans. If Romney loses it will mean that many Republicans are losing their jobs as well. Folks are going to vote largely down the ticket on party. Luckily for us, things are in Obama's favor so it's going to be a bloodbath for Republicans.
> 
> This one is a dedication to the Republicans...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFNZEDAyP9g]Capleton - Dem doom - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Dem will BLOODCLOT loose!!!
Click to expand...


Consider the republican strategy during Obamas first term  it was about teleprompters and birth certificates, not jobs and the economy. It was about personal attacks against the president, not a debate concerning public policy, and it was about House leadership willing to destroy the country to get rid of Obama, the credit rating debacle being the most damning example. 

Romney was as much battling the scorched earth policy of congressional republicans as he was the Obama re-election campaign.


----------



## MarcATL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney being inconsistent and vague on the issues will contribute, yes; but it will also be a collective GOP failure.
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing...in that this election will have ramifications for the losing side. I believe that if Obama loses it will also spell a lot of Dems losing, and the same goes for Republicans. If Romney loses it will mean that many Republicans are losing their jobs as well. Folks are going to vote largely down the ticket on party. Luckily for us, things are in Obama's favor so it's going to be a bloodbath for Republicans.
> 
> This one is a dedication to the Republicans...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFNZEDAyP9g]Capleton - Dem doom - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Dem will BLOODCLOT loose!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consider the republican strategy during Obamas first term  it was about teleprompters and birth certificates, not jobs and the economy. It was about personal attacks against the president, not a debate concerning public policy, and it was about House leadership willing to destroy the country to get rid of Obama, the credit rating debacle being the most damning example.
> 
> Romney was as much battling the scorched earth policy of congressional republicans as he was the Obama re-election campaign.
Click to expand...

Yep...they. are. TOAST!


----------



## Liability

President Romney laughs at you idiot libs.

He's such a nice guy.

Too bad you backed the horse's ass, Mmm  Mmm Mmm Barack Insane Obama.


----------



## Chris

Romney is done.

O-H-I-O


----------



## catzmeow

Hey, Liability...
I'll see you at that other forum on Wednesday, aight?



p.s.  Now at 85%, which is higher than before the first debate.

Money quote:

_Friday&#8217;s polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida._

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> President Romney laughs at you idiot libs.
> 
> He's such a nice guy.
> 
> Too bad you backed the horse's ass, Mmm  Mmm Mmm Barack Insane Obama.



President Romney?

God, your delusions are really taking a toll on you.

Obama is still President you know. And even if Romney were to make a pact with Satan and win this election, Obama would still be President until Romney is sworn in.


----------



## Liability

catzmeow said:


> Hey, Liability...
> I'll see you at that other forum on Wednesday, aight?
> 
> 
> 
> p.s.  Now at 85%, which is higher than before the first debate.
> 
> Money quote:
> 
> _Fridays polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida._
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



FiveThirtyEight.



UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics

Dim turnout will end up being sluggish overall, at best.

Without a massive 2008 style Dim turnout, The ONE is toast.

Idiotic drivel like FiveThirtyEight cannot tell you that since all they do is regurgitate what the skewed polls have been "finding," based on dopey and inaccurate methodology.

Libs and other delusional types will finally figure it out when the returns from Ohio and Virginia and Colorado shock the pundits and the other sheep incapable of thinking outside of the box.

Mitt is going to win.  The incumbent IS going to lose.

Bank on it.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Romney laughs at you idiot libs.
> 
> He's such a nice guy.
> 
> Too bad you backed the horse's ass, Mmm  Mmm Mmm Barack Insane Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Romney?
> 
> God, your delusions are really taking a toll on you.
> 
> Obama is still President you know. And even if Romney were to make a pact with Satan and win this election, Obama would still be President until Romney is sworn in.
Click to expand...


Hey ya fuckin' moron.  Everyone knows that The ONE is still President.  Damn, you're a drip.

But it will be PRESIDENT Romney come Inauguration Day.  And that's the point.  I use the honorific now to get you imbeciles USED to it.  

I realize that a pathetic asshole like you cannot possibly fathom that yet.  Good.  Enjoy the upcoming butthurt you will be subjected to, you cretinous imbecile.


----------



## Liability

Chris said:


> Romney is done.
> 
> O-H-I-O



Ohio will go to Mitt, you dip shit moron.


----------



## Cowman

Hey, hacks: Nate Silver&#8217;s not taking your job - Salon.com



> What Silver does is actually fairly simple and many of the most prominent of his detractors seem disturbingly (and hilariously) incapable of figuring it out. One issue that people seem to refuse to believe is that if Nate Silver&#8217;s famous model &#8212; a model that mostly just averages and weighs publicly available polls &#8212; forecast a likely Romney win, Silver would be writing, every day, about why Romney looked likely to win. He is not working backward from a conclusion, as pundits who write &#8220;why [...] will win&#8221; stories do. Before the election began, he made a series of assumptions, based on past elections, about how to weigh and interpret polls (and economic and historical data) and built a model that has been spitting out forecasts wholly without his interference ever since.
> 
> (Also, a bunch of the dumber conservatives seem to think that Silver is himself conducting polls. Which he is not.)





> Some are also annoyed that Silver can &#8220;have it both ways&#8221;  &#8212; that is, if Obama wins, he&#8217;s right, and if Obama loses, he can claim he gave Romney decent odds &#8212; and thus he will weasel out of responsibility for &#8220;getting it wrong.&#8221; That&#8217;s also silly. If Obama loses and it turns out the majority of state polls were totally wrong , that&#8217;s not actually Nate Silver&#8217;s fault. If the electoral map ends up looking significantly different from Silver&#8217;s projected map, though, I am pretty sure he&#8217;ll acknowledge his failure, explain what went wrong, and try to fix his model for next time. (Or he&#8217;ll quit politics forever and go back to poker.)


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney is done.
> 
> O-H-I-O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohio will go to Mitt, you dip shit moron.
Click to expand...


I'll bookmark this post for you, and if I ever find out where you've gone after leaving this forum(provided you have the balls to keep up your end of the bargain), you can suck my dick then.


----------



## LibertyLemming

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Romney laughs at you idiot libs.
> 
> He's such a nice guy.
> 
> Too bad you backed the horse's ass, Mmm  Mmm Mmm Barack Insane Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Romney?
> 
> God, your delusions are really taking a toll on you.
> 
> Obama is still President you know. And even if Romney were to make a pact with Satan and win this election, Obama would still be President until Romney is sworn in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey ya fuckin' moron.  Everyone knows that The ONE is still President.  Damn, you're a drip.
> 
> But it will be PRESIDENT Romney come Inauguration Day.  And that's the point.  I use the honorific now to get you imbeciles USED to it.
> 
> I realize that a pathetic asshole like you cannot possibly fathom that yet.  Good.  Enjoy the upcoming butthurt you will be subjected to, you cretinous imbecile.
Click to expand...


And very little will change. Liberals will start complaining about Romney's policy even though it will likely be exactly what Obama had done... just like Republicans are bitching over Obama's policies now when they are almost identitcal to GWB's.


----------



## catzmeow

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Liability...
> I'll see you at that other forum on Wednesday, aight?
> 
> 
> 
> p.s.  Now at 85%, which is higher than before the first debate.
> 
> Money quote:
> 
> _Fridays polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida._
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FiveThirtyEight.
> 
> 
> 
> UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics
> 
> Dim turnout will end up being sluggish overall, at best.
> 
> Without a massive 2008 style Dim turnout, The ONE is toast.
> 
> Idiotic drivel like FiveThirtyEight cannot tell you that since all they do is regurgitate what the skewed polls have been "finding," based on dopey and inaccurate methodology.
> 
> Libs and other delusional types will finally figure it out when the returns from Ohio and Virginia and Colorado shock the pundits and the other sheep incapable of thinking outside of the box.
> 
> Mitt is going to win.  The incumbent IS going to lose.
> 
> Bank on it.
Click to expand...


Silver links to the actual polls, which you'd know, if you'd ever ventured off of the Corner and foxnews.com.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney is done.
> 
> O-H-I-O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohio will go to Mitt, you dip shit moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bookmark this post for you, and if I ever find out where you've gone after leaving this forum(provided you have the balls to keep up your end of the bargain), you can suck my dick then.
Click to expand...



You remain a complete fucking asshole.  Suck your own dick.  Nevermind, you can't even find your own dick, you pussy.

I will have no need to "honor" my bet, you turd.  President Obama is going to get defeated.

And I will be here laughing at you thereafter.

Now, fuck off you worthless piece of shit.

That's a good cowflop.


----------



## catzmeow

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohio will go to Mitt, you dip shit moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bookmark this post for you, and if I ever find out where you've gone after leaving this forum(provided you have the balls to keep up your end of the bargain), you can suck my dick then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a complete fucking asshole.  Suck your own dick.  Nevermind, you can't even find your own dick, you pussy.
> 
> I will have no need to "honor" my bet, you turd.  President Obama is going to get defeated.
> 
> And I will be here laughing at you thereafter.
> 
> Now, fuck off you worthless piece of shit.
> 
> That's a good cowflop.
Click to expand...


^magical thinking.

Now, click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no president but Mitt.  There's no president but Mitt."


----------



## Liability

catzmeow said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Liability...
> I'll see you at that other forum on Wednesday, aight?
> 
> 
> 
> p.s.  Now at 85%, which is higher than before the first debate.
> 
> Money quote:
> 
> _Fridays polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida._
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FiveThirtyEight.
> 
> 
> 
> UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics
> 
> Dim turnout will end up being sluggish overall, at best.
> 
> Without a massive 2008 style Dim turnout, The ONE is toast.
> 
> Idiotic drivel like FiveThirtyEight cannot tell you that since all they do is regurgitate what the skewed polls have been "finding," based on dopey and inaccurate methodology.
> 
> Libs and other delusional types will finally figure it out when the returns from Ohio and Virginia and Colorado shock the pundits and the other sheep incapable of thinking outside of the box.
> 
> Mitt is going to win.  The incumbent IS going to lose.
> 
> Bank on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silver links to the actual polls, which you'd know, if you'd ever ventured off of the Corner and foxnews.com.
Click to expand...


The actual polls are skewed, so linking to them is a classic example of GiGo.

You'd know that if you'd open your mind a bit.

I cannot keep repeating it.  Not even for you, and I like you.

But the basic premise is: check the numbers buttressing those polls, kiddo.

Don't bother trusting the main stream media.  They lie.  It's not an accident.


----------



## LibertyLemming

It's crazy how angry people will get over which one of the twins will be elected.


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohio will go to Mitt, you dip shit moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bookmark this post for you, and if I ever find out where you've gone after leaving this forum(provided you have the balls to keep up your end of the bargain), you can suck my dick then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a complete fucking asshole.  Suck your own dick.  Nevermind, you can't even find your own dick, you pussy.
> 
> I will have no need to "honor" my bet, you turd.  President Obama is going to get defeated.
> 
> And I will be here laughing at you thereafter.
> 
> Now, fuck off you worthless piece of shit.
> 
> That's a good cowflop.
Click to expand...


My my, you're all kinds of worked up!


----------



## Cowman

LibertyLemming said:


> It's crazy how angry people will get over which one of the twins will be elected.



He's hysterical and in denial because he made a retard's bet.

You know... I just can't understand all the confidence in Mitt Romney winning.

You know after Obama wins, all that "confidence" is going to be turned into cries of foul play.

Pretty fucking sad, pathetic and predictable.


----------



## Liability

catzmeow said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bookmark this post for you, and if I ever find out where you've gone after leaving this forum(provided you have the balls to keep up your end of the bargain), you can suck my dick then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a complete fucking asshole.  Suck your own dick.  Nevermind, you can't even find your own dick, you pussy.
> 
> I will have no need to "honor" my bet, you turd.  President Obama is going to get defeated.
> 
> And I will be here laughing at you thereafter.
> 
> Now, fuck off you worthless piece of shit.
> 
> That's a good cowflop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^magical thinking.
> 
> Now, click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no president but Mitt.  There's no president but Mitt."
Click to expand...


The magical thinking is mainly from the brain dead tools who refuse to accept the OBVIOUS flaws with the major polls.  

I harbor some small hope that you need not be one of them much longer.


----------



## catzmeow

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> FiveThirtyEight.
> 
> 
> 
> UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics
> 
> Dim turnout will end up being sluggish overall, at best.
> 
> Without a massive 2008 style Dim turnout, The ONE is toast.
> 
> Idiotic drivel like FiveThirtyEight cannot tell you that since all they do is regurgitate what the skewed polls have been "finding," based on dopey and inaccurate methodology.
> 
> Libs and other delusional types will finally figure it out when the returns from Ohio and Virginia and Colorado shock the pundits and the other sheep incapable of thinking outside of the box.
> 
> Mitt is going to win.  The incumbent IS going to lose.
> 
> Bank on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver links to the actual polls, which you'd know, if you'd ever ventured off of the Corner and foxnews.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The actual polls are skewed, so linking to them is a classic example of GiGo.
> 
> You'd know that if you'd open your mind a bit.
> 
> I cannot keep repeating it.  Not even for you, and I like you.
> 
> But the basic premise is: check the numbers buttressing those polls, kiddo.
> 
> Don't bother trusting the main stream media.  They lie.  It's not an accident.
Click to expand...


You realize Silver predicted 2008 more accurately than any other source, don't you?


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's crazy how angry people will get over which one of the twins will be elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's hysterical and in denial because he made a retard's bet.
Click to expand...


False.  I am not hysterical and the bet I made is fine.  Nothing to be in denial about on my end.

YOU, however, REFUSE to see evidence placed directly before you dull eyes.

The problem is entirely with you.

And you are such a classic asshole, you will still be shocked when Mitt wins.  And win he will.  

Morons like you can't even fathom that.


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a complete fucking asshole.  Suck your own dick.  Nevermind, you can't even find your own dick, you pussy.
> 
> I will have no need to "honor" my bet, you turd.  President Obama is going to get defeated.
> 
> And I will be here laughing at you thereafter.
> 
> Now, fuck off you worthless piece of shit.
> 
> That's a good cowflop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^magical thinking.
> 
> Now, click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no president but Mitt.  There's no president but Mitt."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The magical thinking is mainly from the brain dead tools who refuse to accept the OBVIOUS flaws with the major polls.
> 
> I harbor some small hope that you need not be one of them much longer.
Click to expand...


And those obvious flaws didn't exist back in 2008 then.

A black president just poofed them into existence.


----------



## catzmeow

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a complete fucking asshole.  Suck your own dick.  Nevermind, you can't even find your own dick, you pussy.
> 
> I will have no need to "honor" my bet, you turd.  President Obama is going to get defeated.
> 
> And I will be here laughing at you thereafter.
> 
> Now, fuck off you worthless piece of shit.
> 
> That's a good cowflop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^magical thinking.
> 
> Now, click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no president but Mitt.  There's no president but Mitt."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The magical thinking is mainly from the brain dead tools who refuse to accept the OBVIOUS flaws with the major polls.
> 
> I harbor some small hope that you need not be one of them much longer.
Click to expand...


I'm worried about the state of your equilibrium come Wednesday.  If Obama loses, I'll be fine (at least Romney will have a Democratic Senate to keep him in check).  If Romney loses, I don't think you're going to be fine.


----------



## LibertyLemming

catzmeow said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silver links to the actual polls, which you'd know, if you'd ever ventured off of the Corner and foxnews.com.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual polls are skewed, so linking to them is a classic example of GiGo.
> 
> You'd know that if you'd open your mind a bit.
> 
> I cannot keep repeating it.  Not even for you, and I like you.
> 
> But the basic premise is: check the numbers buttressing those polls, kiddo.
> 
> Don't bother trusting the main stream media.  They lie.  It's not an accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize Silver predicted 2008 more accurately than any other source, don't you?
Click to expand...


If we wanna play that game, Gallup has only guessed 2 elections wrong since their inception and has Romney well ahead.


----------



## Liability

catzmeow said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silver links to the actual polls, which you'd know, if you'd ever ventured off of the Corner and foxnews.com.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual polls are skewed, so linking to them is a classic example of GiGo.
> 
> You'd know that if you'd open your mind a bit.
> 
> I cannot keep repeating it.  Not even for you, and I like you.
> 
> But the basic premise is: check the numbers buttressing those polls, kiddo.
> 
> Don't bother trusting the main stream media.  They lie.  It's not an accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize Silver predicted 2008 more accurately than any other source, don't you?
Click to expand...


Another fallacy.  But I don't mind you believing it.


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's crazy how angry people will get over which one of the twins will be elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's hysterical and in denial because he made a retard's bet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  I am not hysterical and the bet I made is fine.  Nothing to be in denial about on my end.
> 
> YOU, however, REFUSE to see evidence placed directly before you dull eyes.
> 
> The problem is entirely with you.
> 
> And you are such a classic asshole, you will still be shocked when Mitt wins.  And win he will.
> 
> Morons like you can't even fathom that.
Click to expand...


I will believe in god again if Mitt Romney wins.


----------



## Liability

catzmeow said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^magical thinking.
> 
> Now, click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no president but Mitt.  There's no president but Mitt."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical thinking is mainly from the brain dead tools who refuse to accept the OBVIOUS flaws with the major polls.
> 
> I harbor some small hope that you need not be one of them much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm worried about the state of your equilibrium come Wednesday.  If Obama loses, I'll be fine (at least Romney will have a Democratic Senate to keep him in check).  If Romney loses, I don't think you're going to be fine.
Click to expand...


The Senate is likely to go GOP, too.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's hysterical and in denial because he made a retard's bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.  I am not hysterical and the bet I made is fine.  Nothing to be in denial about on my end.
> 
> YOU, however, REFUSE to see evidence placed directly before you dull eyes.
> 
> The problem is entirely with you.
> 
> And you are such a classic asshole, you will still be shocked when Mitt wins.  And win he will.
> 
> Morons like you can't even fathom that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will believe in god again if Mitt Romney wins.
Click to expand...


Why would I or anybody else care what a fucking asshole like you believes in?


----------



## catzmeow

LibertyLemming said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual polls are skewed, so linking to them is a classic example of GiGo.
> 
> You'd know that if you'd open your mind a bit.
> 
> I cannot keep repeating it.  Not even for you, and I like you.
> 
> But the basic premise is: check the numbers buttressing those polls, kiddo.
> 
> Don't bother trusting the main stream media.  They lie.  It's not an accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize Silver predicted 2008 more accurately than any other source, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we wanna play that game, Gallup has only guessed 2 elections wrong since their inception and has Romney well ahead.
Click to expand...



Actually, Gallup has been off by as much as 8 points in recent elections:

Election Polls -- Accuracy Record in Presidential Elections


----------



## catzmeow

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual polls are skewed, so linking to them is a classic example of GiGo.
> 
> You'd know that if you'd open your mind a bit.
> 
> I cannot keep repeating it.  Not even for you, and I like you.
> 
> But the basic premise is: check the numbers buttressing those polls, kiddo.
> 
> Don't bother trusting the main stream media.  They lie.  It's not an accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize Silver predicted 2008 more accurately than any other source, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another fallacy.  But I don't mind you believing it.
Click to expand...


Who was more accurate?


----------



## LibertyLemming

I didn't say the predicted the exact ratio, just the winner.


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The magical thinking is mainly from the brain dead tools who refuse to accept the OBVIOUS flaws with the major polls.
> 
> I harbor some small hope that you need not be one of them much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm worried about the state of your equilibrium come Wednesday.  If Obama loses, I'll be fine (at least Romney will have a Democratic Senate to keep him in check).  If Romney loses, I don't think you're going to be fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate is likely to go GOP, too.
Click to expand...








Yeah... okay.

You know, in 2008 Nate Silver predicted EVERY SINGLE senatorial race of the 35 that happened.

Good luck dude.

You're fucking delusional.


----------



## catzmeow

LibertyLemming said:


> I didn't say the predicted the exact ratio, just the winner.



In a race that most polls are showing as being within 2-3 percentage points, Gallop's wide swings aren't very credible.  But, cling to whatever you need to cling to.


----------



## LibertyLemming

Nostrafuckindomus in the hizzzzzle


----------



## LibertyLemming

catzmeow said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say the predicted the exact ratio, just the winner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a race that most polls are showing as being within 2-3 percentage points, Gallop's wide swings aren't very credible.  But, cling to whatever you need to cling to.
Click to expand...


I don't need to cling to anything. Unlike most people here going back and forth about which master they want to serve, I know we are FUCKED with either one of these morons.


----------



## catzmeow

LibertyLemming said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say the predicted the exact ratio, just the winner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a race that most polls are showing as being within 2-3 percentage points, Gallop's wide swings aren't very credible.  But, cling to whatever you need to cling to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to cling to anything. Unlike most people here going back and forth about which master they want to serve, I know we are FUCKED with either one of these morons.
Click to expand...


We're not fucked because of the presidential candidates.  We're fucked because "We the People" are mostly morons these days.


----------



## Cowman

LibertyLemming said:


> Nostrafuckindomus in the hizzzzzle



You know, if Nostradamus was as accurate as Nate Silver, he'd have more than just a couple shitty shows on the History Channel. History as we know it would have radically been different.


----------



## LibertyLemming

catzmeow said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a race that most polls are showing as being within 2-3 percentage points, Gallop's wide swings aren't very credible.  But, cling to whatever you need to cling to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to cling to anything. Unlike most people here going back and forth about which master they want to serve, I know we are FUCKED with either one of these morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not fucked because of the presidential candidates.  We're fucked because "We the People" are mostly morons these days.
Click to expand...


I suppose. Same difference though, the Presidents is fucking us too but we're letting/willing it happen.


----------



## catzmeow

LibertyLemming said:


> I suppose. Same difference though, the Presidents is fucking us too but we're letting/willing it happen.



A president can't do jack shit without congress and the courts.


----------



## LibertyLemming

catzmeow said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose. Same difference though, the Presidents is fucking us too but we're letting/willing it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A president can't do jack shit without congress and the courts.
Click to expand...



He could veto unjust legislation. He could not promote unjust legislation. He could not use executive powers to attack soverign nations.


----------



## Liability

Catz, you are not included since you are not quite a lib.

But for scum-sucking morons like cowflop, I want you jerk-offs to do a little (almost) painless mental exercise.

For just one moment, suspend your disbelief of anything I say that deviates from what you are being instructed to believe by the liberal media.

For just one moment simply picture the alternative.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's Election Day NIGHT.  The networks are reporting the numbers.  Ohio goes to Mitt!  Your heads spin.

  FL, NC and VA go to Mitt.  Darn!  You had SO hoped.

NH goes to Mitt. COLORADO goes to Mitt.  Holy FUCK!  Even WI goes to Mitt.  You break out in a sweat.  Your vision blurs.

The numbers stun you to your cores.  You find small solace in Obama retaining PA.  The figures from MI are close.  You can't believe it, but even if the Obamessiah takes MI, it's too late.  *He has LOST the Electoral Vote.* 

*His own prediction about being a ONE TERM PROPOSITION comes to pass.*

Like the candy-ass liberal talking heads at NBC, See B.S. ABC, MSLSD and CNN, you too are in shock.  You JUST DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING!

Oh!  the wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, fuck yourselves.  Lots of us tied to warn you.

Ok.  Return now to your magical thinking.  In your opium induced stupor, you are allowed to continue to BELIEVE that the Obamessiah will win.


----------



## catzmeow

LibertyLemming said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose. Same difference though, the Presidents is fucking us too but we're letting/willing it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A president can't do jack shit without congress and the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He could veto unjust legislation. He could not promote unjust legislation. He could not use executive powers to attack soverign nations.
Click to expand...


Can you think of a single president in the history of our nation that fits this standard?

I can't.


----------



## catzmeow

Liability said:


> Ok.  Return now to your magical thinking.  In your opium induced stupor, you are allowed to continue to BELIEVE that the Obamessiah will win.



What's the difference between the leftists and you, exactly?  You think that your sources are better, more accurate, and guarantee a Romney win.

They're no different.

So...magical thinking all around!  Whee!

I realize that even with 22 polls showing Obama ahead, he could still lose in key swing states, and Romney would win.  The margins are just that close.

But I hope he doesn't, for all of our sakes.


----------



## LibertyLemming

catzmeow said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> A president can't do jack shit without congress and the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could veto unjust legislation. He could not promote unjust legislation. He could not use executive powers to attack soverign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you think of a single president in the history of our nation that fits this standard?
> 
> I can't.
Click to expand...


Somoene who filled it perfectly, probably not. I can certainly think of a lot who have filled their position much more nobly than the others. Likewise I can think of those who authorized disgusting things like prison camps for citizens and habeas corpus denials.


----------



## Liability

Fucking retarded assholes like cowflop don't even grasp "how" Nate supposedly "predicted" so many of the 2008 races 'accurately.'


----------



## Liability

catzmeow said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Return now to your magical thinking.  In your opium induced stupor, you are allowed to continue to BELIEVE that the Obamessiah will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between the leftists and you, exactly?  You think that your sources are better, more accurate, and guarantee a Romney win.
> 
> They're no different.
> 
> So...magical thinking all around!  Whee!
> 
> I realize that even with 22 polls showing Obama ahead, he could still lose in key swing states, and Romney would win.  The margins are just that close.
> 
> But I hope he doesn't, for all of our sakes.
Click to expand...


The differences are vast.  The lefties are so certain because the left wing media has so instructed them.

They cannot think outside the box.

I (unlike them) have considered their sources and others.

The margins are not as close as the fucking misleading polls now suggest.  For a lot of reasons.  Idiots like cowflop cannot grasp how or why that's true..


----------



## catzmeow

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Liability...
> I'll see you at that other forum on Wednesday, aight?
> 
> 
> 
> p.s.  Now at 85%, which is higher than before the first debate.
> 
> Money quote:
> 
> _Fridays polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida._
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FiveThirtyEight.
> 
> 
> 
> UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics
> 
> Dim turnout will end up being sluggish overall, at best.
> 
> Without a massive 2008 style Dim turnout, The ONE is toast.
> 
> Idiotic drivel like FiveThirtyEight cannot tell you that since all they do is regurgitate what the skewed polls have been "finding," based on dopey and inaccurate methodology.
> 
> Libs and other delusional types will finally figure it out when the returns from Ohio and Virginia and Colorado shock the pundits and the other sheep incapable of thinking outside of the box.
> 
> Mitt is going to win.  The incumbent IS going to lose.
> 
> Bank on it.
Click to expand...


Why do you consider that source credible, exactly?  I have spent the last 20 minutes reading there.  Does this guy even have a track record of predicting elections reliably?


----------



## Chris

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Return now to your magical thinking.  In your opium induced stupor, you are allowed to continue to BELIEVE that the Obamessiah will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between the leftists and you, exactly?  You think that your sources are better, more accurate, and guarantee a Romney win.
> 
> They're no different.
> 
> So...magical thinking all around!  Whee!
> 
> I realize that even with 22 polls showing Obama ahead, he could still lose in key swing states, and Romney would win.  The margins are just that close.
> 
> But I hope he doesn't, for all of our sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The differences are vast.  The lefties are so certain because the left wing media has so instructed them.
> 
> They cannot think outside the box.
> 
> I (unlike them) have considered their sources and others.
> 
> The margins are not as close as the fucking misleading polls now suggest.  For a lot of reasons.  Idiots like cowflop cannot grasp how or why that's true..
Click to expand...


Prepare for a big letdown on Tuesday night.


----------



## catzmeow

I feel like shipping Liability a bottle of scotch.  I have a feeling he's going to need it.


----------



## LibertyLemming

I have a feeling none of you have a fucking clue how this is gonna turn out (unless of course you are of the opinion that its gonna turn out really fucking bad either way ).


----------



## catzmeow

LibertyLemming said:


> I have a feeling none of you have a fucking clue how this is gonna turn out (unless of course you are of the opinion that its gonna turn out really fucking bad either way ).



I think the odds are good that obama will win, but I'd put it at like 54-46 odds.  I'm nowhere near at 85% confidence.


----------



## LibertyLemming

Yeah its basically 50/50 for me. I hear so many conflicting things. Obama leads overall polls but Romney leads with independents and draws bigger crowds and blah blah blah


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> Fucking retarded assholes like cowflop don't even grasp "how" Nate supposedly "predicted" so many of the 2008 races 'accurately.'



He has a fucking model and it's run over all the polling data that comes in. Not SOME of it... ALL of it.

I think that's what you're failing to grasp.


----------



## Chris

catzmeow said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a feeling none of you have a fucking clue how this is gonna turn out (unless of course you are of the opinion that its gonna turn out really fucking bad either way ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the odds are good that obama will win, but I'd put it at like 54-46 odds.  I'm nowhere near at 85% confidence.
Click to expand...


In Nate we trust.


----------



## catzmeow

Chris said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a feeling none of you have a fucking clue how this is gonna turn out (unless of course you are of the opinion that its gonna turn out really fucking bad either way ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the odds are good that obama will win, but I'd put it at like 54-46 odds.  I'm nowhere near at 85% confidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Nate we trust.
Click to expand...


I'm from Missouri, originally.  I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Chris

catzmeow said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the odds are good that obama will win, but I'd put it at like 54-46 odds.  I'm nowhere near at 85% confidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Nate we trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from Missouri, originally.  I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...


17,000 people were polled in Ohio in all the polls combined.

It's in the bag.


----------



## Listening

November 6th can't get here soon enough.


----------



## LibertyLemming

Listening said:


> November 6th can't get here soon enough.



Meh, 4 more years of the exact same conversation coming up regardless of the winner!


----------



## Dante

LibertyLemming said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> November 6th can't get here soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, 4 more years of the exact same conversation coming up regardless of the winner!
Click to expand...


gawd you're boring


outta here


----------



## LibertyLemming

Dante said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> November 6th can't get here soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, 4 more years of the exact same conversation coming up regardless of the winner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gawd you're boring
> 
> 
> outta here
Click to expand...


Thanks bro!


----------



## MarcATL

Listening said:


> November 6th can't get here soon enough.



Before you leave for good, please ask the MODs about transferring all your REPs to me.

Kinda like Highlander you see.

There can be only one.


----------



## Dick Tuck

catzmeow said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bookmark this post for you, and if I ever find out where you've gone after leaving this forum(provided you have the balls to keep up your end of the bargain), you can suck my dick then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a complete fucking asshole.  Suck your own dick.  Nevermind, you can't even find your own dick, you pussy.
> 
> I will have no need to "honor" my bet, you turd.  President Obama is going to get defeated.
> 
> And I will be here laughing at you thereafter.
> 
> Now, fuck off you worthless piece of shit.
> 
> That's a good cowflop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^magical thinking.
> 
> Now, click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no president but Mitt.  There's no president but Mitt."
Click to expand...


Just don't look behind the curtain.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> FiveThirtyEight.
> 
> 
> 
> UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics
> 
> Dim turnout will end up being sluggish overall, at best.
> 
> Without a massive 2008 style Dim turnout, The ONE is toast.
> 
> Idiotic drivel like FiveThirtyEight cannot tell you that since all they do is regurgitate what the skewed polls have been "finding," based on dopey and inaccurate methodology.
> 
> Libs and other delusional types will finally figure it out when the returns from Ohio and Virginia and Colorado shock the pundits and the other sheep incapable of thinking outside of the box.
> 
> Mitt is going to win.  The incumbent IS going to lose.
> 
> Bank on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver links to the actual polls, which you'd know, if you'd ever ventured off of the Corner and foxnews.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The actual polls are skewed, so linking to them is a classic example of GiGo.
> 
> You'd know that if you'd open your mind a bit.
> 
> I cannot keep repeating it.  Not even for you, and I like you.
> 
> But the basic premise is: check the numbers buttressing those polls, kiddo.
> 
> Don't bother trusting the main stream media.  They lie.  It's not an accident.
Click to expand...


You stupid piece of shit.  The brilliance of Silver is to use the documented accuracy of the various pollsters, and to weigh them in his model's prediction.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a complete fucking asshole.  Suck your own dick.  Nevermind, you can't even find your own dick, you pussy.
> 
> I will have no need to "honor" my bet, you turd.  President Obama is going to get defeated.
> 
> And I will be here laughing at you thereafter.
> 
> Now, fuck off you worthless piece of shit.
> 
> That's a good cowflop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^magical thinking.
> 
> Now, click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no president but Mitt.  There's no president but Mitt."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The magical thinking is mainly from the brain dead tools who refuse to accept the OBVIOUS flaws with the major polls.
> 
> I harbor some small hope that you need not be one of them much longer.
Click to expand...


Three more days until Liability runs away like a little sissy.  You really ought to puke up all your sophmoric polemic before then.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual polls are skewed, so linking to them is a classic example of GiGo.
> 
> You'd know that if you'd open your mind a bit.
> 
> I cannot keep repeating it.  Not even for you, and I like you.
> 
> But the basic premise is: check the numbers buttressing those polls, kiddo.
> 
> Don't bother trusting the main stream media.  They lie.  It's not an accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize Silver predicted 2008 more accurately than any other source, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another fallacy.  But I don't mind you believing it.
Click to expand...


Name another poll analyst who put Indiana in the toss up category.  He nosed out Pollster, and beat RCP like a 25 cent whore pimp.


----------



## decker

Dick Tuck said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize Silver predicted 2008 more accurately than any other source, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another fallacy.  But I don't mind you believing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name another poll analyst who put Indiana in the toss up category.  He nosed out Pollster, and beat RCP like a 25 cent whore pimp.
Click to expand...

all i know is that obama needs to get turn out ;. i am worried that clinton going to pa on monday and romney in pa on sunday.

he must win pa. must otherwise its  over.


----------



## Mac1958

.

As of this writing, RCP national average showing Obama 47.4, Romney 47.2.

5.4% either undecided or voting for someone else?  That sounds pretty high to me.

.


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> As of this writing, RCP national average showing Obama 47.4, Romney 47.2.
> 
> 5.4% either undecided or voting for someone else?  That sounds pretty high to me.
> 
> .



each poll has it's own margin of error. but there's no question that national numbers are a statistical dead heat.

which is why it's the individual state numbers that are so important. and that's where fivethirtyeight's analysis kicks in.



> For Romney To Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased



Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased - NYTimes.com


----------



## Sarah G

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As of this writing, RCP national average showing Obama 47.4, Romney 47.2.
> 
> 5.4% either undecided or voting for someone else?  That sounds pretty high to me.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> each poll has it's own margin of error. but there's no question that national numbers are a statistical dead heat.
> 
> which is why it's the individual state numbers that are so important. and that's where fivethirtyeight's analysis kicks in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Romney To Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...


I was watching Charlie Cook talk to Chuck Todd last night and he has Obama up in every swing state except Florida and that is tight.  He also said that the Governors are going to be heavy red this year and that has been a trend.

He went through every state for the senate and has Democrats winning by 5 plus one Inde.  Also every NE state is going to Obama, even NH.

It's interesting how it's going state by state.


----------



## AceRothstein

Liability said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Liability...
> I'll see you at that other forum on Wednesday, aight?
> 
> 
> 
> p.s.  Now at 85%, which is higher than before the first debate.
> 
> Money quote:
> 
> _Fridays polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida._
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FiveThirtyEight.
> 
> 
> 
> UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics
> 
> Dim turnout will end up being sluggish overall, at best.
> 
> Without a massive 2008 style Dim turnout, The ONE is toast.
> 
> Idiotic drivel like FiveThirtyEight cannot tell you that since all they do is regurgitate what the skewed polls have been "finding," based on dopey and inaccurate methodology.
> 
> Libs and other delusional types will finally figure it out when the returns from Ohio and Virginia and Colorado shock the pundits and the other sheep incapable of thinking outside of the box.
> 
> Mitt is going to win.  The incumbent IS going to lose.
> 
> Bank on it.
Click to expand...


Unskewedpolls


----------



## jillian

unskewed polls?

why not just make up numbers?

oh wait... they are.


----------



## EriktheRed

Dick Tuck said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^magical thinking.
> 
> Now, click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no president but Mitt.  There's no president but Mitt."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical thinking is mainly from the brain dead tools who refuse to accept the OBVIOUS flaws with the major polls.
> 
> I harbor some small hope that you need not be one of them much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three more days until Liability runs away like a little sissy.  You really ought to puke up all your sophmoric polemic before then.
Click to expand...



Like I said before, he won't run away. He'll just keep acting the same way no matter how much shit he talks now.


----------



## Toro

Obama is going to win.  He is leading in too many swing states.  There has to be a real national swing at the last minute for him to lose.

Can that happen?  Sure.  But the odds aren't great that it will.


----------



## Dot Com

Sarah G said:


> I was watching Charlie Cook talk to Chuck Todd last night and he has Obama up in every swing state except Florida and that is tight.  He also said that the Governors are going to be heavy red this year and that has been a trend.
> 
> He went through every state for the senate and has Democrats winning by 5 plus one Inde.  Also every NE state is going to Obama, even NH.
> 
> It's interesting how it's going state by state.



yea. Cook is a bonafide Guru in everything political. He even has his own index for evaluating politicians partisanship. Very useful: Cook Partisan Voting Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> the PVI was refined in 1997 by Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan political newsletter, working with Polidata, a political statistics analysis firm.


----------



## Article 15

85% chance for Obama now.  Is reality setting in yet, nutters?


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> As of this writing, RCP national average showing Obama 47.4, Romney 47.2.
> 
> 5.4% either undecided or voting for someone else?  That sounds pretty high to me.
> 
> .



Gary Johnson will pick up a big hunk of that 5%


----------



## The Rabbi

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As of this writing, RCP national average showing Obama 47.4, Romney 47.2.
> 
> 5.4% either undecided or voting for someone else?  That sounds pretty high to me.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Johnson will pick up a big hunk of that 5%
Click to expand...


NO, he wont.  With the election that close people will think 3 or 4 times before throwing their vote to a loser like Johnson.


----------



## Harry Dresden

expatriate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in *Mexico* now.....are we not?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is another one.....no one said anything about *Mexico*.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you could have fooled me.  It seems as if someone actually DID mention Mexico and... oh look... that someone was YOU.
> 
> But to your larger point:  What we have is immigrants bringing the customs and traditions of their former homes to the USA.  Do you honestly think that is some NEW phenomenon that only Mexican and Hispanic immigrants have practiced?
Click to expand...

me and Zander were talking about ......S.Cal....and some of its areas......which are just about all Mexican and English the secondary Language......which would give you the IMPRESSION that you are in MEXICO......now do you understand why Mexico was mentioned?....


----------



## Article 15

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As of this writing, RCP national average showing Obama 47.4, Romney 47.2.
> 
> 5.4% either undecided or voting for someone else?  That sounds pretty high to me.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Johnson will pick up a big hunk of that 5%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, he wont.  With the election that close people will think 3 or 4 times before throwing their vote to a loser like Johnson.
Click to expand...


Johnson is going to get anywhere from 2-4 points nationally.

Sucks for you.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Chris said:


> Romney is done.
> 
> O-H-I-O



Chris will you still post here if Obama loses?....i dont want to miss the Romney people piling on you.....Walkers re-election was just a sample.....this will be worth logging on for....


----------



## Harry Dresden

LibertyLemming said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Romney?
> 
> God, your delusions are really taking a toll on you.
> 
> Obama is still President you know. And even if Romney were to make a pact with Satan and win this election, Obama would still be President until Romney is sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey ya fuckin' moron.  Everyone knows that The ONE is still President.  Damn, you're a drip.
> 
> But it will be PRESIDENT Romney come Inauguration Day.  And that's the point.  I use the honorific now to get you imbeciles USED to it.
> 
> I realize that a pathetic asshole like you cannot possibly fathom that yet.  Good.  Enjoy the upcoming butthurt you will be subjected to, you cretinous imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And very little will change. Liberals will start complaining about Romney's policy even though it will likely be exactly what Obama had done... just like Republicans are bitching over Obama's policies now when they are almost identitcal to GWB's.
Click to expand...


vote 3rd party for REAL change......otherwise your right......3 years from now.....same old shit....same old complaints....


----------



## Article 15

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney is done.
> 
> O-H-I-O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris will you still post here if Obama loses?....i dont want to miss the Romney people piling on you.....Walkers re-election was just a sample.....this will be worth logging on for....
Click to expand...


The people who still think Romney is going to win are as delusional as those who still thought Walker would lose in the final days leading up to that election.


----------



## Amazed

Article 15 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney is done.
> 
> O-H-I-O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris will you still post here if Obama loses?....i dont want to miss the Romney people piling on you.....Walkers re-election was just a sample.....this will be worth logging on for....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who still think Romney is going to win are as delusional as those who still thought Walker would lose in the final days leading up to that election.
Click to expand...


LOL.....sure kid.

This shows a true lack of integrity and experience.


----------



## Article 15

Amazed said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris will you still post here if Obama loses?....i dont want to miss the Romney people piling on you.....Walkers re-election was just a sample.....this will be worth logging on for....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who still think Romney is going to win are as delusional as those who still thought Walker would lose in the final days leading up to that election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.....sure kid.
> 
> This shows a true lack of integrity and experience.
Click to expand...


Lack of integrity?  

Looks like we found one of those delusional people I was talking about.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Why would one stop posting on an anonymous message board if a candidate he supports loses  particularly if he supports Obama, where its perfectly reasonable to assume the president will win based on the polling and other data. 

Seems childish and ridiculous, the politics and debate will continue regardless the outcome.


----------



## expatriate

Harry Dresden said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> well we just about are living in *Mexico* now.....are we not?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is another one.....no one said anything about *Mexico*.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you could have fooled me.  It seems as if someone actually DID mention Mexico and... oh look... that someone was YOU.
> 
> But to your larger point:  What we have is immigrants bringing the customs and traditions of their former homes to the USA.  Do you honestly think that is some NEW phenomenon that only Mexican and Hispanic immigrants have practiced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> me and Zander were talking about ......S.Cal....and some of its areas......which are just about all Mexican and English the secondary Language......which would give you the IMPRESSION that you are in MEXICO......now do you understand why Mexico was mentioned?....
Click to expand...


("Zander and I", not "me and zander"... your grammar is atrocious!) so you admit that you DID say something about Mexico?  Thanks for admitting the previous misstatement.

Again... as to your gripe.... What we have is immigrants bringing the customs and traditions of their former homes to the USA.  Do you honestly think that is some NEW phenomenon that only Mexican and Hispanic immigrants have practiced?  Here's a clue:  every ethnic group who has immigrated to America has brought their language and their customs and their cultures and their traditions with them.  Just like YOUR ancestors did when THEY got here from somewhere else.  Don't like that particular aspect of American life?  tough shit.


----------



## Amazed

Article 15 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who still think Romney is going to win are as delusional as those who still thought Walker would lose in the final days leading up to that election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.....sure kid.
> 
> This shows a true lack of integrity and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of integrity?
> 
> Looks like we found one of those delusional people I was talking about.
Click to expand...


Absolute lack of integrity.

But then thats what being a hack does to you, it demands you suspend any attachment to reality....and you have gladly accepted that condition.


----------



## Article 15

Amazed said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.....sure kid.
> 
> This shows a true lack of integrity and experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of integrity?
> 
> Looks like we found one of those delusional people I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute lack of integrity.
> 
> But then thats what being a hack does to you, it demands you suspend any attachment to reality....and you have gladly accepted that condition.
Click to expand...


Integrity or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the statement I made.

Go buy a dictionary.


----------



## Zander

Don't worry libs, Nate Silver will take the blame when Obama loses. He'll say "I always said there was a 15% chance Obama would lose, these things happen".  You'll then cry and say "but Obama got his ass handed to him in the biggest defeat since Carter! He never had a chance! You misled us!! ".  Nate will say, "Yes, but you had a great weekend, right?"......


----------



## Amazed

Article 15 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of integrity?
> 
> Looks like we found one of those delusional people I was talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute lack of integrity.
> 
> But then thats what being a hack does to you, it demands you suspend any attachment to reality....and you have gladly accepted that condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Integrity or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the statement I made.
> 
> Go buy a dictionary.
Click to expand...


Integrity hs everything to do with ignoring the reality of any given issue.

You...instead of being honest about whats happening politically in this nation choose instead to simply parrot the "election is over" mantra perpetuated by the media...

That is a lack of integrity no matter how you slice it.


----------



## Article 15

Amazed said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute lack of integrity.
> 
> But then thats what being a hack does to you, it demands you suspend any attachment to reality....and you have gladly accepted that condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the statement I made.
> 
> Go buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Integrity hs everything to do with ignoring the reality of any given issue.
> 
> You...instead of being honest about whats happening politically in this nation choose instead to simply parrot the "election is over" mantra perpetuated by the media...
> 
> That is a lack of integrity no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...


I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.  

Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.

You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.


----------



## Zander

Article 15 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the statement I made.
> 
> Go buy a dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity hs everything to do with ignoring the reality of any given issue.
> 
> You...instead of being honest about whats happening politically in this nation choose instead to simply parrot the "election is over" mantra perpetuated by the media...
> 
> That is a lack of integrity no matter how you slice it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.
> 
> Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.
> 
> You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.
Click to expand...


You're awfully cocky son.....Your comeuppance starts Weds.


----------



## Article 15

Zander said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity hs everything to do with ignoring the reality of any given issue.
> 
> You...instead of being honest about whats happening politically in this nation choose instead to simply parrot the "election is over" mantra perpetuated by the media...
> 
> That is a lack of integrity no matter how you slice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.
> 
> Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.
> 
> You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're awfully cocky son.....Your comeuppance starts Weds.
Click to expand...


I'm as cocky as you are delusional, Zand.

Obama is going to win Tuesday.  

You can take that to the bank.


----------



## expatriate

Zander said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity hs everything to do with ignoring the reality of any given issue.
> 
> You...instead of being honest about whats happening politically in this nation choose instead to simply parrot the "election is over" mantra perpetuated by the media...
> 
> That is a lack of integrity no matter how you slice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.
> 
> Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.
> 
> You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're awfully cocky son.....Your comeuppance starts Weds.
Click to expand...


yours might begin then instead, you know.


----------



## decker

Article 15 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.
> 
> Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.
> 
> You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're awfully cocky son.....Your comeuppance starts Weds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm as cocky as you are delusional, Zand.
> 
> Obama is going to win Tuesday.
> 
> You can take that to the bank.
Click to expand...

i hope your right but gop getting pretty cocky at the moment. think they have it in the bag.


----------



## Amazed

Article 15 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the statement I made.
> 
> Go buy a dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity hs everything to do with ignoring the reality of any given issue.
> 
> You...instead of being honest about whats happening politically in this nation choose instead to simply parrot the "election is over" mantra perpetuated by the media...
> 
> That is a lack of integrity no matter how you slice it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.
> 
> Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.
> 
> You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.
Click to expand...


Integrity demands honesty, you aren't exhibiting any.

Integrity and honesty would require you to look at the polls , not just you...me...everyone...and simply say that we have no idea about what is going to happen...

We don't, none of us do....thanks for your service...you haven't a clue as to anyone's mindset...which speaks to your lack of integrity and honesty...sorry...its just the way it is.


----------



## Article 15

Amazed said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity hs everything to do with ignoring the reality of any given issue.
> 
> You...instead of being honest about whats happening politically in this nation choose instead to simply parrot the "election is over" mantra perpetuated by the media...
> 
> That is a lack of integrity no matter how you slice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.
> 
> Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.
> 
> You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Integrity demands honesty, you aren't exhibiting any.
> 
> Integrity and honesty would require you to look at the polls , not just you...me...everyone...and simply say that we have no idea about what is going to happen...
> 
> We don't, none of us do....thanks for your service...you haven't a clue as to anyone's mindset...which speaks to your lack of integrity and honesty...sorry...its just the way it is.
Click to expand...


Stating the people who think Romney will win on Tuesday are delusion is not being "dishonest"

And my statement of their delusion is based on the polls, tard.

Jeez, get a clue.


----------



## Amazed

decker said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're awfully cocky son.....Your comeuppance starts Weds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm as cocky as you are delusional, Zand.
> 
> Obama is going to win Tuesday.
> 
> You can take that to the bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i hope your right but gop getting pretty cocky at the moment. think they have it in the bag.
Click to expand...


LOL....we aren't getting "cocky", that would be the Left and a very quick perusal of the Left postings on this board will confirm that.


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.
> 
> Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.
> 
> You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're awfully cocky son.....Your comeuppance starts Weds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yours might begin then instead, you know.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely right! In fact, according to Nate Silver "boy genius" -  I have an 85% chance of being severely chastened!!  Oh my!! 

Of course there is the tiniest of chances that Nate Silver (along with his slobbering liberal sycophants)  is suffering from a severe case of "confirmation bias" ......

All will be revealed soon.....


----------



## Amazed

Article 15 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about integrity.  Integrity First the first core value of the USAF.  Integrity is doing the right thing, especially when nobody is watching.  It's about being a man of your word.
> 
> Integrity has nothing to do with making an opinion based statement regarding the mindset of a soon to be losing candidate's supporters.
> 
> You are as clueless about integrity as you are Romney's chances on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity demands honesty, you aren't exhibiting any.
> 
> Integrity and honesty would require you to look at the polls , not just you...me...everyone...and simply say that we have no idea about what is going to happen...
> 
> We don't, none of us do....thanks for your service...you haven't a clue as to anyone's mindset...which speaks to your lack of integrity and honesty...sorry...its just the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating the people who think Romney will win on Tuesday are delusion is not being "dishonest"
> 
> And my statement of their delusion is based on the polls, tard.
> 
> Jeez, get a clue.
Click to expand...


Nope, your statement is based on emotion, nothing else, the polls indicate a horse race...and a very close one.

Your "observation" concerning any other persons views are rooted in emotion too...you simply spout these things from a position of emotional weakness, not from any empirical evidence discerned from any polls.

No integrity, no honesty.


----------



## Article 15

Amazed said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity demands honesty, you aren't exhibiting any.
> 
> Integrity and honesty would require you to look at the polls , not just you...me...everyone...and simply say that we have no idea about what is going to happen...
> 
> We don't, none of us do....thanks for your service...you haven't a clue as to anyone's mindset...which speaks to your lack of integrity and honesty...sorry...its just the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the people who think Romney will win on Tuesday are delusion is not being "dishonest"
> 
> And my statement of their delusion is based on the polls, tard.
> 
> Jeez, get a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, your statement is based on emotion, nothing else, the polls indicate a horse race...and a very close one.
> 
> Your "observation" concerning any other persons views are rooted in emotion too...you simply spout these things from a position of emotional weakness, not from any empirical evidence discerned from any polls.
> 
> No integrity, no honesty.
Click to expand...


Even if the statement were based on emotion integrity still has nothing to do with it.

And no matter how hard you try to deny reality the polls do not indicate a horse race.  Obama is a CLEAR favorite going into Tuesday.

What I wonder is when Romney loses will you come back to this thread and say that I was right?  That's integrity.


----------



## Star

Article 15 said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the people who think Romney will win on Tuesday are delusion is not being "dishonest"
> 
> And my statement of their delusion is based on the polls, tard.
> 
> Jeez, get a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, your statement is based on emotion, nothing else, the polls indicate a horse race...and a very close one.
> 
> Your "observation" concerning any other persons views are rooted in emotion too...you simply spout these things from a position of emotional weakness, not from any empirical evidence discerned from any polls.
> 
> No integrity, no honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if the statement were based on emotion integrity still has nothing to do with it.
> 
> And no matter how hard you try to deny reality the polls do not indicate a horse race. Obama is a CLEAR favorite going into Tuesday.
> 
> What I wonder is when Romney loses will you come back to this thread and say that I was right? That's integrity.
Click to expand...

 

Has anyone else noticed -- the board administrator won't allow the title of this thread about polls to be updated. 


Back in the first part of September, according to Nate Silver's 538 site, Romney's chances of becoming POTUS was 29%. Now-----now we're into November and-----and according to Nate Silver's 538 site Romney's chances of becoming POTUS is all the way down to 14.9%. 


This thread has over 700 messages, keeping up with what's has been previously said on this thread is like reading War and Peace, over and over and over again and-----and much of this thread is six weeks old -- WTF. My question is why-----why won't the board administrator allow threads with updated titles be posted?


----------



## Harry Dresden

Article 15 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney is done.
> 
> O-H-I-O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris will you still post here if Obama loses?....i dont want to miss the Romney people piling on you.....Walkers re-election was just a sample.....this will be worth logging on for....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who still think Romney is going to win are as delusional as those who still thought Walker would lose in the final days leading up to that election.
Click to expand...


dont matter....Chris showed what kind of a puss he was when he never showed up in HIS Walker thread after the election....i just want to see if he will do the same here.....i have no doubt he will show up here acting like an ass if Obama wins....thats the way Pussies operate....


----------



## Harry Dresden

expatriate said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> you could have fooled me.  It seems as if someone actually DID mention Mexico and... oh look... that someone was YOU.
> 
> But to your larger point:  What we have is immigrants bringing the customs and traditions of their former homes to the USA.  Do you honestly think that is some NEW phenomenon that only Mexican and Hispanic immigrants have practiced?
> 
> 
> 
> me and Zander were talking about ......S.Cal....and some of its areas......which are just about all Mexican and English the secondary Language......which would give you the IMPRESSION that you are in MEXICO......now do you understand why Mexico was mentioned?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ("Zander and I", not "me and zander"... your grammar is atrocious!) so you admit that you DID say something about Mexico?  Thanks for admitting the previous misstatement.
> 
> Again... as to your gripe.... What we have is immigrants bringing the customs and traditions of their former homes to the USA.  Do you honestly think that is some NEW phenomenon that only Mexican and Hispanic immigrants have practiced?  Here's a clue:  every ethnic group who has immigrated to America has brought their language and their customs and their cultures and their traditions with them.  Just like YOUR ancestors did when THEY got here from somewhere else.  Don't like that particular aspect of American life?  tough shit.
Click to expand...


if you want proper grammer Nancy go to Miss Prisses board......and you just cant figure out what me and Zander were referring too...can ya?....take your fucking head out of your ass....that might help.....


----------



## Dr.House

Natey Boy is starting to walk back his prediction now...

From Twitter:


> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.



So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC... 

FYI, Barry won't win the popular vote....


----------



## Liability

Wanna know why the polls are so off?

Look at this:  





> Q11 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
> press 2. If you are an independent or identify
> with another party, press 3.
> Democrat ........................................................ 48%
> Republican...................................................... 38%
> Independent/Other.......................................... 14%


 -- http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_PAWI_1103.pdf  That's how they conducted that Poll in PA.  

If the Dims come to the polls in like numbers, the poll may be more or less accurate.

But if they don't, then the poll's conclusion is already marred by a poor assumption.

I don't say that Mitt will win PA.  Possible, but unlikely.  I do say that it serves as a good example of the silly assumptions underlying the current polling.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Star said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, your statement is based on emotion, nothing else, the polls indicate a horse race...and a very close one.
> 
> Your "observation" concerning any other persons views are rooted in emotion too...you simply spout these things from a position of emotional weakness, not from any empirical evidence discerned from any polls.
> 
> No integrity, no honesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the statement were based on emotion integrity still has nothing to do with it.
> 
> And no matter how hard you try to deny reality the polls do not indicate a horse race. Obama is a CLEAR favorite going into Tuesday.
> 
> What I wonder is when Romney loses will you come back to this thread and say that I was right? That's integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed -- the board administrator won't allow the title of this thread about polls to be updated.
> 
> 
> Back in the first part of September, according to Nate Silver's 538 site, Romney's chances of becoming POTUS was 29%. Now-----now we're into November and-----and according to Nate Silver's 538 site Romney's chances of becoming POTUS is all the way down to 14.9%.
> 
> 
> This thread has over 700 messages, keeping up with what's has been previously said on this thread is like reading War and Peace, over and over and over again and-----and much of this thread is six weeks old -- WTF. My question is why-----why won't the board administrator allow threads with updated titles be posted?
Click to expand...


why dont you PM Meister or Cereal......and ask them......like your supposed to do.....


----------



## elvis

Sounds like these athletes today who try to act like joe Namath but can't quite pull it off. 

We will win I guarantee it.... As long as we play our game, etc.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> Wanna know why the polls are so off?
> 
> Look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q11 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
> press 2. If you are an independent or identify
> with another party, press 3.
> Democrat ........................................................ 48%
> Republican...................................................... 38%
> Independent/Other.......................................... 14%
> 
> 
> 
> -- http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_PAWI_1103.pdf  That's how they conducted that Poll in PA.
> 
> If the Dims come to the polls in like numbers, the poll may be more or less accurate.
> 
> But if they don't, then the poll's conclusion is already marred by a poor assumption.
> 
> I don't say that Mitt will win PA.  Possible, but unlikely.  I do say that it serves as a good example of the silly assumptions underlying the current polling.
Click to expand...


You think it is unlikely that Mitt will win PA, but you are absolutely certain he will win the election.  Yeah... that makes sense.


----------



## Liability

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna know why the polls are so off?
> 
> Look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q11 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
> press 2. If you are an independent or identify
> with another party, press 3.
> Democrat ........................................................ 48%
> Republican...................................................... 38%
> Independent/Other.......................................... 14%
> 
> 
> 
> -- http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_PAWI_1103.pdf  That's how they conducted that Poll in PA.
> 
> If the Dims come to the polls in like numbers, the poll may be more or less accurate.
> 
> But if they don't, then the poll's conclusion is already marred by a poor assumption.
> 
> I don't say that Mitt will win PA.  Possible, but unlikely.  I do say that it serves as a good example of the silly assumptions underlying the current polling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it is unlikely that Mitt will win PA, but you are absolutely certain he will win the election.  Yeah... that makes sense.
Click to expand...


You seem to imagine (because you are spectacularly stupid) that Mitt would have to win PA to win the Election.

That is of course quite totally ignorant of you.  

The latter is expected.  You are ignorant, stupid and dishonest.
Muddle on, ya little bitch.


----------



## The Rabbi

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna know why the polls are so off?
> 
> Look at this:   -- http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_PAWI_1103.pdf  That's how they conducted that Poll in PA.
> 
> If the Dims come to the polls in like numbers, the poll may be more or less accurate.
> 
> But if they don't, then the poll's conclusion is already marred by a poor assumption.
> 
> I don't say that Mitt will win PA.  Possible, but unlikely.  I do say that it serves as a good example of the silly assumptions underlying the current polling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is unlikely that Mitt will win PA, but you are absolutely certain he will win the election.  Yeah... that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to imagine (because you are spectacularly stupid) that Mitt would have to win PA to win the Election.
> 
> That is of course quite totally ignorant of you.
> 
> The latter is expected.  You are ignorant, stupid and dishonest.
> Muddle on, ya little bitch.
Click to expand...


It's like saying if Mitt doesnt win Ohio then he can't win.  It isn't true.  Add New Hampshire, Iowa, and Wisconsin and he's done it.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna know why the polls are so off?
> 
> Look at this:   -- http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_PAWI_1103.pdf  That's how they conducted that Poll in PA.
> 
> If the Dims come to the polls in like numbers, the poll may be more or less accurate.
> 
> But if they don't, then the poll's conclusion is already marred by a poor assumption.
> 
> I don't say that Mitt will win PA.  Possible, but unlikely.  I do say that it serves as a good example of the silly assumptions underlying the current polling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is unlikely that Mitt will win PA, but you are absolutely certain he will win the election.  Yeah... that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to imagine (because you are spectacularly stupid) that Mitt would have to win PA to win the Election.
> 
> That is of course quite totally ignorant of you.
> 
> The latter is expected.  You are ignorant, stupid and dishonest.
> Muddle on, ya little bitch.
Click to expand...


PA... the state where Mitt is campaigning in his final days... why would he spend time there if he didn't think it was important?  He's not campaigning in CA or NY or IL even though they have more EC votes because he knows that he can't win them and that he doesn't NEED to win them in order to get to 270.  Why PA?  Why now?  I understand full well that there are many paths to 270 for both Mitt and Obama... and PA is not a required win for either of them to get to 270... my point was, you think it is unlikely that he will win a state where he is campaigning hard at the end, yet you have this ridiculous absolute certainty of his overall election victory.  That is incongruous.  And your ad hominem attacks on people you don't really know.... your assessments of our knowledge, intellect and integrity... they really tend to diminish the gravitas anyone might otherwise associate with your opinions.

And the fact that you are on record as not being brave enough to come back here on Wednesday should Mitt lose the election speaks volumes.


----------



## The Rabbi

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is unlikely that Mitt will win PA, but you are absolutely certain he will win the election.  Yeah... that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to imagine (because you are spectacularly stupid) that Mitt would have to win PA to win the Election.
> 
> That is of course quite totally ignorant of you.
> 
> The latter is expected.  You are ignorant, stupid and dishonest.
> Muddle on, ya little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA... the state where Mitt is campaigning in his final days... why would he spend time there if he didn't think it was important?  He's not campaigning in CA or NY or IL even though they have more EC votes because he knows that he can't win them and that he doesn't NEED to win them in order to get to 270.  Why PA?  Why now?  I understand full well that there are many paths to 270 for both Mitt and Obama... and PA is not a required win for either of them to get to 270... my point was, you think it is unlikely that he will win a state where he is campaigning hard at the end, yet you have this ridiculous absolute certainty of his overall election victory.  That is incongruous.  And your ad hominem attacks on people you don't really know.... your assessments of our knowledge, intellect and integrity... they really tend to diminish the gravitas anyone might otherwise associate with your opinions.
> 
> And the fact that you are on record as not being brave enough to come back here on Wednesday should Mitt lose the election speaks volumes.
Click to expand...


Your post is a muddle of contradictions.


----------



## Sarah G

Dot Com said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching Charlie Cook talk to Chuck Todd last night and he has Obama up in every swing state except Florida and that is tight.  He also said that the Governors are going to be heavy red this year and that has been a trend.
> 
> He went through every state for the senate and has Democrats winning by 5 plus one Inde.  Also every NE state is going to Obama, even NH.
> 
> It's interesting how it's going state by state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea. Cook is a bonafide Guru in everything political. He even has his own index for evaluating politicians partisanship. Very useful: Cook Partisan Voting Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> the PVI was refined in 1997 by Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan political newsletter, working with Polidata, a political statistics analysis firm.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You'll need $350 if you want to subscribe to The Cook Political Report.


----------



## Liability

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is unlikely that Mitt will win PA, but you are absolutely certain he will win the election.  Yeah... that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to imagine (because you are spectacularly stupid) that Mitt would have to win PA to win the Election.
> 
> That is of course quite totally ignorant of you.
> 
> The latter is expected.  You are ignorant, stupid and dishonest.
> Muddle on, ya little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA... the state where Mitt is campaigning in his final days... why would he spend time there if he didn't think it was important?  He's not campaigning in CA or NY or IL even though they have more EC votes because he knows that he can't win them and that he doesn't NEED to win them in order to get to 270.  Why PA?  Why now?  I understand full well that there are many paths to 270 for both Mitt and Obama... and PA is not a required win for either of them to get to 270... my point was, you think it is unlikely that he will win a state where he is campaigning hard at the end, yet you have this ridiculous absolute certainty of his overall election victory.  That is incongruous.  And your ad hominem attacks on people you don't really know.... your assessments of our knowledge, intellect and integrity... they really tend to diminish the gravitas anyone might otherwise associate with your opinions.
> 
> And the fact that you are on record as not being brave enough to come back here on Wednesday should Mitt lose the election speaks volumes.
Click to expand...


Oh good, another complete jackass Obama Fluffer heard from.

They campaign wherever they think they might win.

He still has a shot in PA, you fucking idiot.  So why not try to grab it and make The ONE defend what was supposedly already "his?"

Were you bounced on your head repeatedly as a baby?


----------



## expatriate

The Rabbi said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to imagine (because you are spectacularly stupid) that Mitt would have to win PA to win the Election.
> 
> That is of course quite totally ignorant of you.
> 
> The latter is expected.  You are ignorant, stupid and dishonest.
> Muddle on, ya little bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA... the state where Mitt is campaigning in his final days... why would he spend time there if he didn't think it was important?  He's not campaigning in CA or NY or IL even though they have more EC votes because he knows that he can't win them and that he doesn't NEED to win them in order to get to 270.  Why PA?  Why now?  I understand full well that there are many paths to 270 for both Mitt and Obama... and PA is not a required win for either of them to get to 270... my point was, you think it is unlikely that he will win a state where he is campaigning hard at the end, yet you have this ridiculous absolute certainty of his overall election victory.  That is incongruous.  And your ad hominem attacks on people you don't really know.... your assessments of our knowledge, intellect and integrity... they really tend to diminish the gravitas anyone might otherwise associate with your opinions.
> 
> And the fact that you are on record as not being brave enough to come back here on Wednesday should Mitt lose the election speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is a muddle of contradictions.
Click to expand...


where do I contradict myself?  I find it odd that Mitt is spending valuable time in PA - a state that Liability thinks he is "unlikely" to win.... I also find it odd that someone would express absolute certainty about a race that is this close.


----------



## Cowman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Why would one stop posting on an anonymous message board if a candidate he supports loses  particularly if he supports Obama, where its perfectly reasonable to assume the president will win based on the polling and other data.
> 
> Seems childish and ridiculous, the politics and debate will continue regardless the outcome.



That's what I've been saying all long. It's a stupid bet for either party, and it's an especially stupid bet for the guy betting against Obama. Maybe not early was it... but right now?

And the way Liability is so god damn confident Obama will lose despite all the evidence to the contrary.

It's miserable watching a guy be so delirious out of it, even though he's such a nasty douche.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to imagine (because you are spectacularly stupid) that Mitt would have to win PA to win the Election.
> 
> That is of course quite totally ignorant of you.
> 
> The latter is expected.  You are ignorant, stupid and dishonest.
> Muddle on, ya little bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA... the state where Mitt is campaigning in his final days... why would he spend time there if he didn't think it was important?  He's not campaigning in CA or NY or IL even though they have more EC votes because he knows that he can't win them and that he doesn't NEED to win them in order to get to 270.  Why PA?  Why now?  I understand full well that there are many paths to 270 for both Mitt and Obama... and PA is not a required win for either of them to get to 270... my point was, you think it is unlikely that he will win a state where he is campaigning hard at the end, yet you have this ridiculous absolute certainty of his overall election victory.  That is incongruous.  And your ad hominem attacks on people you don't really know.... your assessments of our knowledge, intellect and integrity... they really tend to diminish the gravitas anyone might otherwise associate with your opinions.
> 
> And the fact that you are on record as not being brave enough to come back here on Wednesday should Mitt lose the election speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good, another complete jackass Obama Fluffer heard from.
> 
> They campaign wherever they think they might win.
> 
> He still has a shot in PA, you fucking idiot.  So why not try to grab it and make The ONE defend what was supposedly already "his?"
> 
> Were you bounced on your head repeatedly as a baby?
Click to expand...


He has a "shot" in any state where the polling has him down less than double digits... certainly according to your proposition that all the polls are biased and that Mitt is competitive across the board... 

Like I said... the fact that you express absolute certainty about this election result is, in and off itself, proof of your foolishness.  the fact that you won't come back on Wednesday if Mitt does not prevail is proof of your cowardice.  I guess if your avatar were a picture of you so we could see how fugly you really were, that would be strike three.


----------



## Liability

expatriate said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA... the state where Mitt is campaigning in his final days... why would he spend time there if he didn't think it was important?  He's not campaigning in CA or NY or IL even though they have more EC votes because he knows that he can't win them and that he doesn't NEED to win them in order to get to 270.  Why PA?  Why now?  I understand full well that there are many paths to 270 for both Mitt and Obama... and PA is not a required win for either of them to get to 270... my point was, you think it is unlikely that he will win a state where he is campaigning hard at the end, yet you have this ridiculous absolute certainty of his overall election victory.  That is incongruous.  And your ad hominem attacks on people you don't really know.... your assessments of our knowledge, intellect and integrity... they really tend to diminish the gravitas anyone might otherwise associate with your opinions.
> 
> And the fact that you are on record as not being brave enough to come back here on Wednesday should Mitt lose the election speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is a muddle of contradictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where do I contradict myself?  I find it odd that Mitt is spending valuable time in PA - a state that Liability thinks he is "unlikely" to win.... I also find it odd that someone would express absolute certainty about a race that is this close.
Click to expand...

Because you are tragically stupid.

I say Mitt IS going to win.  He does not need PA to do that.  It would be nice.  It's still possible.  It's just not terribly likely.  But then again, so what?

There is no contradiction if he doesn't NEED PA in order to win.

Damn, you're fucking stupid.

I don't think Mitt's going to win NY or California, either.  Yet -- wait for it fuckchop -- I STILL say he IS going to win.

Get an adult to help you out, ya hapless idiot.


----------



## The Rabbi

expatriate said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA... the state where Mitt is campaigning in his final days... why would he spend time there if he didn't think it was important?  He's not campaigning in CA or NY or IL even though they have more EC votes because he knows that he can't win them and that he doesn't NEED to win them in order to get to 270.  Why PA?  Why now?  I understand full well that there are many paths to 270 for both Mitt and Obama... and PA is not a required win for either of them to get to 270... my point was, you think it is unlikely that he will win a state where he is campaigning hard at the end, yet you have this ridiculous absolute certainty of his overall election victory.  That is incongruous.  And your ad hominem attacks on people you don't really know.... your assessments of our knowledge, intellect and integrity... they really tend to diminish the gravitas anyone might otherwise associate with your opinions.
> 
> And the fact that you are on record as not being brave enough to come back here on Wednesday should Mitt lose the election speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is a muddle of contradictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where do I contradict myself?  I find it odd that Mitt is spending valuable time in PA - a state that Liability thinks he is "unlikely" to win.... I also find it odd that someone would express absolute certainty about a race that is this close.
Click to expand...


Nothing odd about it, unless you're a 'tard.
Mitt is pretty certain about some states and is looking to pick off others.  With Obama's anti-coal, anti heavy industry bias PA is perfect for Mitt.  Mitt has been surging in states previously called for Obama.  PA might be the next one.  But he will force Obama to spend resources there and might win the state.  If he does, who cares about Ohio.  It is win-win for Mitt.  But I think it indicates optimism in his camp about his chances, that he would spend time and money on a marginal state like PA. If he were less certain he would be shoring up his base.


----------



## expatriate

The Rabbi said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is a muddle of contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where do I contradict myself?  I find it odd that Mitt is spending valuable time in PA - a state that Liability thinks he is "unlikely" to win.... I also find it odd that someone would express absolute certainty about a race that is this close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing odd about it, unless you're a 'tard.
> Mitt is pretty certain about some states and is looking to pick off others.  With Obama's anti-coal, anti heavy industry bias PA is perfect for Mitt.  Mitt has been surging in states previously called for Obama.  PA might be the next one.  But he will force Obama to spend resources there and might win the state.  If he does, who cares about Ohio.  It is win-win for Mitt.  But I think it indicates optimism in his camp about his chances, that he would spend time and money on a marginal state like PA. If he were less certain he would be shoring up his base.
Click to expand...


You never said where I contradicted myself.... and if Mitt DOES win PA, and IA and WI and MI, you might be right.  My larger point is that I find absolute certainty in this discussion to be idiotic.  My personal prediction is that Obama's EC firewall WILL hold, but I wouldn't bet my house on it... I'd bet $1000, just because I am a gambling man and I think it is a good bet, but not a sure bet.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is a muddle of contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where do I contradict myself?  I find it odd that Mitt is spending valuable time in PA - a state that Liability thinks he is "unlikely" to win.... I also find it odd that someone would express absolute certainty about a race that is this close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you are tragically stupid.
> 
> I say Mitt IS going to win.  He does not need PA to do that.  It would be nice.  It's still possible.  It's just not terribly likely.  But then again, so what?
> 
> There is no contradiction if he doesn't NEED PA in order to win.
> 
> Damn, you're fucking stupid.
> 
> I don't think Mitt's going to win NY or California, either.  Yet -- wait for it fuckchop -- I STILL say he IS going to win.
> 
> Get an adult to help you out, ya hapless idiot.
Click to expand...


again... your absolute certainty is funny... and if you had the nuts to show back up here on Wednesday if Mitt loses, it would be great sport to rub your nose in it... but it would get old quickly, I think... kind of like how pelting a retarded kid with snowballs does.


----------



## Liability

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do I contradict myself?  I find it odd that Mitt is spending valuable time in PA - a state that Liability thinks he is "unlikely" to win.... I also find it odd that someone would express absolute certainty about a race that is this close.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are tragically stupid.
> 
> I say Mitt IS going to win.  He does not need PA to do that.  It would be nice.  It's still possible.  It's just not terribly likely.  But then again, so what?
> 
> There is no contradiction if he doesn't NEED PA in order to win.
> 
> Damn, you're fucking stupid.
> 
> I don't think Mitt's going to win NY or California, either.  Yet -- wait for it fuckchop -- I STILL say he IS going to win.
> 
> Get an adult to help you out, ya hapless idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again... your absolute certainty is funny... and if you had the nuts to show back up here on Wednesday if Mitt loses, it would be great sport to rub your nose in it... but it would get old quickly, I think... kind of like how pelting a retarded kid with snowballs does.
Click to expand...


It would be wrong to show up here if the Election is accurately called and I am on the losing side.

Thankfully, that won't happen.

Why not join the bet?

If Obama get re-elected, I'm gone.  But if Mitt gets elected, you go.

Deal, you sack of hot air?

Nah.  I didn't think so.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Ronda Rhodium has Mitts' chance of election at 72.295%


----------



## Cowman

Mad Scientist said:


> Ronda Rhodium has Mitts' chance of election at 72.295%



Who the fuck is Ronda Rhodium?


----------



## Liability

This guy on the corner says Obama is a lock.

However, the guy behind the counter at the coffee shop notes that there is a 93% chance that Mitt will win.


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> This guy on the corner says Obama is a lock.
> 
> However, the guy behind the counter at the coffee shop notes that there is a 93% chance that Mitt will win.



Good thing it's polls that are taken into account, not the opinions of random people.


----------



## The Rabbi

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy on the corner says Obama is a lock.
> 
> However, the guy behind the counter at the coffee shop notes that there is a 93% chance that Mitt will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it's polls that are taken into account, not the opinions of random people.
Click to expand...


Do you actually understand what you just wrote? LOL!


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy on the corner says Obama is a lock.
> 
> However, the guy behind the counter at the coffee shop notes that there is a 93% chance that Mitt will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it's polls that are taken into account, not the opinions of random people.
Click to expand...


Nothing "good" about it when Nate is doing his hack work relying on fucked up polls, you idiot.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> The Saturday before the election produced a predictably large volume of polling in battleground states &#8212; but also some predictable-seeming results, with most of the polls coming close to the average of other polls.
> 
> Because President Obama leads in the polling average in most of the swing states, this means that most of the polls there on Saturday showed him ahead as well. *Among the 21 polls in battleground states on Saturday, 16 had Mr. Obama ahead as compared with just two leads for Mr. Romne*y; three other battleground state polls had the race tied.
> 
> Nov. 3: Romney's Reason to Play for Pennsylvania - NYTimes.com



With regard to the National polls: 



> On Sunday, Mr. Obama led by an average of about one percentage point among seven national surveys. That is not much of an edge, but better than had generally been the case for him just after the Denver debate.
> 
> If the national polls show a tie on average, then Mr. Romney will be more of an underdog than you might think, since that is when Mr. Obama&#8217;s Electoral College advantages will tend to give him their greatest benefit. In the FiveThirtyEight simulation on Saturday,* Mr. Obama won the Electoral College about 80 percent of the time when the national popular vote was tied.*
> 
> Nov. 3: Romney's Reason to Play for Pennsylvania - NYTimes.com


----------



## Cowman

The Rabbi said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy on the corner says Obama is a lock.
> 
> However, the guy behind the counter at the coffee shop notes that there is a 93% chance that Mitt will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it's polls that are taken into account, not the opinions of random people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually understand what you just wrote? LOL!
Click to expand...


Yes, I do... you fucking idiot. Polls on who people are likely to vote for, thousands of them, is entirely different than some schmuck on the street corner or behind the cash register saying who they think will win.

Dumbass.


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy on the corner says Obama is a lock.
> 
> However, the guy behind the counter at the coffee shop notes that there is a 93% chance that Mitt will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it's polls that are taken into account, not the opinions of random people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing "good" about it when Nate is doing his hack work relying on fucked up polls, you idiot.
Click to expand...


Oh. I'm sorry they're not "skewed" in your favor.

It's going to be rough for your taking it hard in the ass come election day. All those fucked up polls will have really fucked your ass raw.

But there won't be a bit of pity in the building here for you.


----------



## The Rabbi

Cowman said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it's polls that are taken into account, not the opinions of random people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually understand what you just wrote? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do... you fucking idiot. Polls on who people are likely to vote for, thousands of them, is entirely different than some schmuck on the street corner or behind the cash register saying who they think will win.
> 
> Dumbass.
Click to expand...


Wow.  You just don't get it.  No wonder you're an Obama supporter.


----------



## Cowman

The Rabbi said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually understand what you just wrote? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do... you fucking idiot. Polls on who people are likely to vote for, thousands of them, is entirely different than some schmuck on the street corner or behind the cash register saying who they think will win.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  You just don't get it.  No wonder you're an Obama supporter.
Click to expand...


What don't I get, Rabbi?

Please, fucking ENLIGHTEN me.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it's polls that are taken into account, not the opinions of random people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing "good" about it when Nate is doing his hack work relying on fucked up polls, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh. I'm sorry they're not "skewed" in your favor.
> 
> It's going to be rough for your taking it hard in the ass come election day. All those fucked up polls will have really fucked your ass raw.
Click to expand...


You ARE sorry.  But you are also fucking moronic.  I didn't ask you to be skewed in my favor, you dickwad.

I will enjoy watching stupid pussy motherfuckers like you squirm when the results come in and your Obamessiah goes down to inglorious electoral defeat.

Now, get back to eating the corn out of my shit, you useless clump of dumb.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it's polls that are taken into account, not the opinions of random people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually understand what you just wrote? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do... you fucking idiot. Polls on who people are likely to vote for, thousands of them, is entirely different than some schmuck on the street corner or behind the cash register saying who they think will win.
> 
> Dumbass.
Click to expand...

*
WHOOOOSSSHHHHH!*


----------



## Cowman

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually understand what you just wrote? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do... you fucking idiot. Polls on who people are likely to vote for, thousands of them, is entirely different than some schmuck on the street corner or behind the cash register saying who they think will win.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> WHOOOOSSSHHHHH!*
Click to expand...


Come on then, explain what's so fucking whooosh about it.

You fucking can't, because you know I'm right. Some jackass giving his magic number pulled out of his slimy asshole is entirely different than armies of pollsters calling people and aggregating their data of voting preferences.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do... you fucking idiot. Polls on who people are likely to vote for, thousands of them, is entirely different than some schmuck on the street corner or behind the cash register saying who they think will win.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> WHOOOOSSSHHHHH!*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on then, explain what's so fucking whooosh about it.
> 
> * * * *
Click to expand...


^  

*WHOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!*


----------



## Cowman

Right. Exactly as I said.

You fucking can't. And anyone with half a brain can see that too.

So all you have is sound effects that make you feel smart, but when challenged to explain yourself you come up with NOTHING.

I don't know how I ever had as much respect for you as I once did.

You're pathetic. Might as well get it over-with and change your title to Exiled for Life.


----------



## The Rabbi

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do... you fucking idiot. Polls on who people are likely to vote for, thousands of them, is entirely different than some schmuck on the street corner or behind the cash register saying who they think will win.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> WHOOOOSSSHHHHH!*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on then, explain what's so fucking whooosh about it.
> 
> You fucking can't, because you know I'm right. Some jackass giving his magic number pulled out of his slimy asshole is entirely different than armies of pollsters calling people and aggregating their data of voting preferences.
Click to expand...


What do you think polls are, idiot?  They are the opinions of random people.


----------



## Liability

Cowman said:


> Right. Exactly as I said.
> 
> You fucking can't. And anyone with half a brain can see that too.
> 
> So all you have is sound effects that make you feel smart, but when challenged to explain yourself you come up with NOTHING.
> 
> I don't know how I ever had as much respect for you as I once did.
> 
> You're pathetic. Might as well get it over-with and change your title to Exiled for Life.




cowflop is beyond pathetic.


----------



## Cowman

The Rabbi said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> WHOOOOSSSHHHHH!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on then, explain what's so fucking whooosh about it.
> 
> You fucking can't, because you know I'm right. Some jackass giving his magic number pulled out of his slimy asshole is entirely different than armies of pollsters calling people and aggregating their data of voting preferences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think polls are, idiot?  They are the opinions of random people.
Click to expand...


DO YOU KNOW HOW TO FUCKING READ? THE OPINIONS OF WHO PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR IS ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT THAN THE OPINIONS OF WHO PEOPLE THINK WILL WIN THE ELECTION BY WHAT PERCENTAGE CHANCE, YOU FUCKING DUMB SHIT.

There. I used my allotment of caps lock for the millennium.

God, you're fucking stupid and borderline illiterate.


----------



## The Rabbi

Cowman said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on then, explain what's so fucking whooosh about it.
> 
> You fucking can't, because you know I'm right. Some jackass giving his magic number pulled out of his slimy asshole is entirely different than armies of pollsters calling people and aggregating their data of voting preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think polls are, idiot?  They are the opinions of random people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DO YOU KNOW HOW TO FUCKING READ? THE OPINIONS OF WHO PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR IS ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT THAN THE OPINIONS OF WHO PEOPLE THINK WILL WIN THE ELECTION BY WHAT PERCENTAGE CHANCE, YOU FUCKING DUMB SHIT.
> 
> There. I used my allotment of caps lock for the millennium.
> 
> God, you're fucking stupid and borderline illiterate.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one who wrote that the opinions of a bunch of random people are better than the opinions of a bunch of random people.
That would be you, fishface.


----------



## Misty

Silver is in the soros pack. He endorses Obama, he went to college in Chicago. 

He is risking nothing if he blows this. He is helping his friend Obama.


----------



## Annie

I was wondering, after Silver's dead on call of states in 2008, how'd he do in 2010? Awaiting enlightenment from his proponents.


----------



## Rocko

Fuck Nate Silver. He don't know shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Article 15 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this has been posted


----------



## Amazed

These dumbfaucks glammedonto to Silver because he is giving them what they want, thats all it is.

Never mind his methods, they need to hear Bammy is going to win.

Tuesday they will come in here screaming somebody cheated and we will all just laugh in their faces....


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are tragically stupid.
> 
> I say Mitt IS going to win.  He does not need PA to do that.  It would be nice.  It's still possible.  It's just not terribly likely.  But then again, so what?
> 
> There is no contradiction if he doesn't NEED PA in order to win.
> 
> Damn, you're fucking stupid.
> 
> I don't think Mitt's going to win NY or California, either.  Yet -- wait for it fuckchop -- I STILL say he IS going to win.
> 
> Get an adult to help you out, ya hapless idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again... your absolute certainty is funny... and if you had the nuts to show back up here on Wednesday if Mitt loses, it would be great sport to rub your nose in it... but it would get old quickly, I think... kind of like how pelting a retarded kid with snowballs does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be wrong to show up here if the Election is accurately called and I am on the losing side.
> 
> Thankfully, that won't happen.
> 
> Why not join the bet?
> 
> If Obama get re-elected, I'm gone.  But if Mitt gets elected, you go.
> 
> Deal, you sack of hot air?
> 
> Nah.  I didn't think so.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one claiming certainty.  you are.  Is that too difficult for you to grasp?  I have no problem with people who strongly believe that Romney will win... or that strongly HOPE that Romney wins... I have exactly those same beliefs and hopes for Obama.  What I find amusing is your obnoxiousness and insults as you proclaim your absolute certainty about the outcome.  That's funny to me.  And I find it illuminating that you will be here to say "I told you so" and rub a Romney victory in the faces of all the Obama supporters - most of whom are nowhere near as obnoxious and insulting as YOU are and most of whom do not express the unrealistic degree of certainty that you do - but yet, if your certainty proves to be in error, you will run away and hide like a nutless girlieman rather than allow your foolishness to be rubbed in your face by the folks who you have so routinely abused here.  That's really fucking pathetic.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Cowman said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronda Rhodium has Mitts' chance of election at 72.295%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck is Ronda Rhodium?
Click to expand...

Her and Iris Iridium predict Presidential elections based on volatility of Precious Metals prices. Their methodology is too complex to explain here. You should check out their blogs.


----------



## Amazed

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> again... your absolute certainty is funny... and if you had the nuts to show back up here on Wednesday if Mitt loses, it would be great sport to rub your nose in it... but it would get old quickly, I think... kind of like how pelting a retarded kid with snowballs does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be wrong to show up here if the Election is accurately called and I am on the losing side.
> 
> Thankfully, that won't happen.
> 
> Why not join the bet?
> 
> If Obama get re-elected, I'm gone.  But if Mitt gets elected, you go.
> 
> Deal, you sack of hot air?
> 
> Nah.  I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming certainty.  you are.  Is that too difficult for you to grasp?  I have no problem with people who strongly believe that Romney will win... or that strongly HOPE that Romney wins... I have exactly those same beliefs and hopes for Obama.  What I find amusing is your obnoxiousness and insults as you proclaim your absolute certainty about the outcome.  That's funny to me.  And I find it illuminating that you will be here to say "I told you so" and rub a Romney victory in the faces of all the Obama supporters - most of whom are nowhere near as obnoxious and insulting as YOU are and most of whom do not express the unrealistic degree of certainty that you do - but yet, if your certainty proves to be in error, you will run away and hide like a nutless girlieman rather than allow your foolishness to be rubbed in your face by the folks who you have so routinely abused here.  That's really fucking pathetic.
Click to expand...



The sad thing is that there is NOTHING to suggest certainty for either side....


----------



## expatriate

Amazed said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be wrong to show up here if the Election is accurately called and I am on the losing side.
> 
> Thankfully, that won't happen.
> 
> Why not join the bet?
> 
> If Obama get re-elected, I'm gone.  But if Mitt gets elected, you go.
> 
> Deal, you sack of hot air?
> 
> Nah.  I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming certainty.  you are.  Is that too difficult for you to grasp?  I have no problem with people who strongly believe that Romney will win... or that strongly HOPE that Romney wins... I have exactly those same beliefs and hopes for Obama.  What I find amusing is your obnoxiousness and insults as you proclaim your absolute certainty about the outcome.  That's funny to me.  And I find it illuminating that you will be here to say "I told you so" and rub a Romney victory in the faces of all the Obama supporters - most of whom are nowhere near as obnoxious and insulting as YOU are and most of whom do not express the unrealistic degree of certainty that you do - but yet, if your certainty proves to be in error, you will run away and hide like a nutless girlieman rather than allow your foolishness to be rubbed in your face by the folks who you have so routinely abused here.  That's really fucking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that there is NOTHING to suggest certainty for either side....
Click to expand...


Liability believes otherwise.


----------



## Amazed

expatriate said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming certainty.  you are.  Is that too difficult for you to grasp?  I have no problem with people who strongly believe that Romney will win... or that strongly HOPE that Romney wins... I have exactly those same beliefs and hopes for Obama.  What I find amusing is your obnoxiousness and insults as you proclaim your absolute certainty about the outcome.  That's funny to me.  And I find it illuminating that you will be here to say "I told you so" and rub a Romney victory in the faces of all the Obama supporters - most of whom are nowhere near as obnoxious and insulting as YOU are and most of whom do not express the unrealistic degree of certainty that you do - but yet, if your certainty proves to be in error, you will run away and hide like a nutless girlieman rather than allow your foolishness to be rubbed in your face by the folks who you have so routinely abused here.  That's really fucking pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that there is NOTHING to suggest certainty for either side....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liability believes otherwise.
Click to expand...


as does 90% of the Lefty's on this board


----------



## Liability

expatriate said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming certainty.  you are.  Is that too difficult for you to grasp?  I have no problem with people who strongly believe that Romney will win... or that strongly HOPE that Romney wins... I have exactly those same beliefs and hopes for Obama.  What I find amusing is your obnoxiousness and insults as you proclaim your absolute certainty about the outcome.  That's funny to me.  And I find it illuminating that you will be here to say "I told you so" and rub a Romney victory in the faces of all the Obama supporters - most of whom are nowhere near as obnoxious and insulting as YOU are and most of whom do not express the unrealistic degree of certainty that you do - but yet, if your certainty proves to be in error, you will run away and hide like a nutless girlieman rather than allow your foolishness to be rubbed in your face by the folks who you have so routinely abused here.  That's really fucking pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that there is NOTHING to suggest certainty for either side....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liability believes otherwise.
Click to expand...


Confidence is not a synonym for certainty.

I believe that Mitt will win strongly enough to place a wager on the outcome.  You don't.  That's fine.  

But don't try to speak for me.  You suck badly enough trying to speak for you.


----------



## Liability

Amazed said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be wrong to show up here if the Election is accurately called and I am on the losing side.
> 
> Thankfully, that won't happen.
> 
> Why not join the bet?
> 
> If Obama get re-elected, I'm gone.  But if Mitt gets elected, you go.
> 
> Deal, you sack of hot air?
> 
> Nah.  I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming certainty.  you are.  Is that too difficult for you to grasp?  I have no problem with people who strongly believe that Romney will win... or that strongly HOPE that Romney wins... I have exactly those same beliefs and hopes for Obama.  What I find amusing is your obnoxiousness and insults as you proclaim your absolute certainty about the outcome.  That's funny to me.  And I find it illuminating that you will be here to say "I told you so" and rub a Romney victory in the faces of all the Obama supporters - most of whom are nowhere near as obnoxious and insulting as YOU are and most of whom do not express the unrealistic degree of certainty that you do - but yet, if your certainty proves to be in error, you will run away and hide like a nutless girlieman rather than allow your foolishness to be rubbed in your face by the folks who you have so routinely abused here.  That's really fucking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that there is NOTHING to suggest certainty for either side....
Click to expand...


Maybe not.  But there are very good reasons to doubt the strength of the case for those claiming that the incumbent "is" going to win re-election or that the "probabilities" strongly favor that outcome.


----------



## Amazed

Liability said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming certainty.  you are.  Is that too difficult for you to grasp?  I have no problem with people who strongly believe that Romney will win... or that strongly HOPE that Romney wins... I have exactly those same beliefs and hopes for Obama.  What I find amusing is your obnoxiousness and insults as you proclaim your absolute certainty about the outcome.  That's funny to me.  And I find it illuminating that you will be here to say "I told you so" and rub a Romney victory in the faces of all the Obama supporters - most of whom are nowhere near as obnoxious and insulting as YOU are and most of whom do not express the unrealistic degree of certainty that you do - but yet, if your certainty proves to be in error, you will run away and hide like a nutless girlieman rather than allow your foolishness to be rubbed in your face by the folks who you have so routinely abused here.  That's really fucking pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that there is NOTHING to suggest certainty for either side....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not.  But there are very good reasons to doubt the strength of the case for those claiming that the incumbent "is" going to win re-election or that the "probabilities" strongly favor that outcome.
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree, screaming anything is certain at this point is just silly....but its just better to laugh at them, it infuriates them.


----------



## Dr.House

Dr.House said:


> Natey Boy is starting to walk back his prediction now...
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. *30% if it's R+1.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> FYI, Barry won't win the popular vote....
Click to expand...


As I predicted, Nate is refining his prediction to try and save face...

Too late...  The libs are gonna be pissed at him anyway...


----------



## Cowman

Dr.House said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natey Boy is starting to walk back his prediction now...
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. *30% if it's R+1.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> FYI, Barry won't win the popular vote....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I predicted, Nate is refining his prediction to try and save face...
> 
> Too late...  The libs are gonna be pissed at him anyway...
Click to expand...


I'll bookmark this post for you.


----------



## Dr.House

Cowman said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natey Boy is starting to walk back his prediction now...
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> FYI, Barry won't win the popular vote....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, Nate is refining his prediction to try and save face...
> 
> Too late...  The libs are gonna be pissed at him anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bookmark this post for you.
Click to expand...


Ditto, fuckstain...


----------



## blackhawk

A little something to think about in regards to this subject it's a two person race so no matter if it's Nate Sliver, Rasmussen, Gallup, FOX, CNN, myself or anyone else on this board we all have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.


----------



## Cowman

blackhawk said:


> A little something to think about in regards to this subject it's a two person race so no matter if it's Nate Sliver, Rasmussen, Gallup, FOX, CNN, myself or anyone else on this board we all have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.



Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.

If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.

Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.


----------



## Amazed

Cowman said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little something to think about in regards to this subject it's a two person race so no matter if it's Nate Sliver, Rasmussen, Gallup, FOX, CNN, myself or anyone else on this board we all have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
Click to expand...


Wow.

What a stupid fuck.


----------



## Cowman

Amazed said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little something to think about in regards to this subject it's a two person race so no matter if it's Nate Sliver, Rasmussen, Gallup, FOX, CNN, myself or anyone else on this board we all have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> What a stupid fuck.
Click to expand...


You must be one of those fucking retards that bets on the field in craps thinking that because it's 7 out of 11 of the numbers you'll rake in easy dough.

Fucking stupid idiots.


----------



## blackhawk

Cowman said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little something to think about in regards to this subject it's a two person race so no matter if it's Nate Sliver, Rasmussen, Gallup, FOX, CNN, myself or anyone else on this board we all have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
Click to expand...


Political partisan double talk at the end of the day everyone has the exact same chance of getting it right.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that there is NOTHING to suggest certainty for either side....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability believes otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confidence is not a synonym for certainty.
> 
> I believe that Mitt will win strongly enough to place a wager on the outcome.  You don't.  That's fine.
> 
> But don't try to speak for me.  You suck badly enough trying to speak for you.
Click to expand...


wager?  a silly "wager" where you only have to change your screen name and you can return immediately.  That's no wager.  My dad always told me that poker was a waste of time if it didn't hurt when you lost... I'll bet you $1000 on the outcome of the election.  If Romney wins, I will pay you that amount... if Obama wins, you will pay ME that amount.  THAT is a wager.  What kind of confidence do you REALLY have?  Are you in or are you just a bullshit artist who is a lot of talk?


----------



## Amazed

Cowman said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> What a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be one of those fucking retards that bets on the field in craps thinking that because it's 7 out of 11 of the numbers you'll rake in easy dough.
> 
> Fucking stupid idiots.
Click to expand...


I am one of those stupid fucks that understands that NOBODY knows what is going to happen on Tuesday....you are a hack that will scream someone cheated if it doesn't go your way.

Anyway, you are an idiot kid.


----------



## Dr.House

Cowman said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little something to think about in regards to this subject it's a two person race so no matter if it's Nate Sliver, Rasmussen, Gallup, FOX, CNN, myself or anyone else on this board we all have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> *Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. *Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
Click to expand...


According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....


----------



## Chris

Dr.House said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little something to think about in regards to this subject it's a two person race so no matter if it's Nate Sliver, Rasmussen, Gallup, FOX, CNN, myself or anyone else on this board we all have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> *Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. *Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
Click to expand...


Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.


----------



## Zander

Chris said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> *Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. *Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
Click to expand...


----------



## Chris

Zander said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Want to bet?


----------



## expatriate

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liability believes otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confidence is not a synonym for certainty.
> 
> I believe that Mitt will win strongly enough to place a wager on the outcome.  You don't.  That's fine.
> 
> But don't try to speak for me.  You suck badly enough trying to speak for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wager?  a silly "wager" where you only have to change your screen name and you can return immediately.  That's no wager.  My dad always told me that poker was a waste of time if it didn't hurt when you lost... I'll bet you $1000 on the outcome of the election.  If Romney wins, I will pay you that amount... if Obama wins, you will pay ME that amount.  THAT is a wager.  What kind of confidence do you REALLY have?  Are you in or are you just a bullshit artist who is a lot of talk?
Click to expand...


I figured liability would run from this... here's the deal:  monopoly money ain't real money.  If you believe strongly enough that Mitt will win to place a wager on the outcome, place a fucking wager... really.  Either do that or shut the fuck up.


----------



## Dr.House

Chris said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> *Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. *Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
Click to expand...


Pay attention, dumbfuck....

From Twitter:


> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.



So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...


----------



## Chris

Dr.House said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay attention, dumbfuck....
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
Click to expand...


And if I had wings I could fly.


----------



## Listening

Chris said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, dumbfuck....
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if I had wings I could fly.
Click to expand...


If you had a brain, you could think.

You lose on both accounts.


----------



## Listening

Chris said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want to bet?
Click to expand...


Sure....


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay attention, dumbfuck....
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
Click to expand...


Silver states that if Romney wins the popular vote Obama still has a 30% shot at winning and you think that's a GOOD sign for you?!


----------



## Article 15

86.3% today

Now Cast at 88%

Oh my ....


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay attention, dumbfuck....
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
Click to expand...


How fucking dumb House Gimp is for thinking that this is anything but a horrible sign for Romney bears repeating.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Nutters,

Why do you think the popular vote will be close? Any ideas? 

Is it because he is such a popular guy?

Silly nutters.


----------



## expatriate

it's funny... indications are that liability is indeed online this morning, but, for some strange reason, he hasn't stopped by this thread yet.  coincidence?  I think not.  





expatriate said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confidence is not a synonym for certainty.
> 
> I believe that Mitt will win strongly enough to place a wager on the outcome.  You don't.  That's fine.
> 
> But don't try to speak for me.  You suck badly enough trying to speak for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wager?  a silly "wager" where you only have to change your screen name and you can return immediately.  That's no wager.  My dad always told me that poker was a waste of time if it didn't hurt when you lost... I'll bet you $1000 on the outcome of the election.  If Romney wins, I will pay you that amount... if Obama wins, you will pay ME that amount.  THAT is a wager.  What kind of confidence do you REALLY have?  Are you in or are you just a bullshit artist who is a lot of talk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figured liability would run from this... here's the deal:  monopoly money ain't real money.  If you believe strongly enough that Mitt will win to place a wager on the outcome, place a fucking wager... really.  Either do that or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


----------



## LibertyLemming

yes betting with strangers on the internet that you have zero chance of getting payment from if they choose not to pay is a brilliant idea.


----------



## expatriate

LibertyLemming said:


> yes betting with strangers on the internet that you have zero chance of getting payment from if they choose not to pay is a brilliant idea.



if someone "chooses not to pay", that's cool.  It just shows how devoid of character and integrity they are... it's not like I need the money.  

He talks about him making a wager and that I am afraid to make one... well, I made one.  His is a "wager" that little girls make.  "If my guy loses, I'll go away and never come back"... but we all know that re-registering with a new name is pretty easy to do.


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:
			
		

> it's funny... indications are that liability is indeed online this morning, but, for some strange reason, he hasn't stopped by this thread yet.  coincidence?  I think not.



You need to get a life bub....


----------



## expatriate

Zander said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's funny... indications are that liability is indeed online this morning, but, for some strange reason, he hasn't stopped by this thread yet.  coincidence?  I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get a life bub....
Click to expand...


I got one... just finishing the morning cup of coffee before I head over the the construction site...  and then I have to study for my spanish lesson....my plate's pretty full, actually.


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, dumbfuck....
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silver states that if Romney wins the popular vote Obama still has a 30% shot at winning and you think that's a GOOD sign for you?!
Click to expand...


30% with R+1, idiot...  

Gonna go to Vegas and lay down serious cash with them odds, loserboi?

You should bet the ranch on 0bama...


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 85% Obama wins. Early voting has it in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, dumbfuck....
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. 30% if it's R+1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking dumb House Gimp is for thinking that this is anything but a horrible sign for Romney bears repeating.
Click to expand...

Ardickless15....

Want to up the bet for another 2 weeks of control?  Make it 10 total...


----------



## Zander

expatriate said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's funny... indications are that liability is indeed online this morning, but, for some strange reason, he hasn't stopped by this thread yet.  coincidence?  I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get a life bub....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got one... just finishing the morning cup of coffee before I head over the the construction site...  and then I have to study for my spanish lesson....my plate's pretty full, actually.
Click to expand...

You've made 35 posts in this thread over the last 2 days....you need help.


----------



## Liability

Making a money bet is certainly dumber than making a loser leaves bet.

I realize that asshole twats like expat have no principles.

If he made the same bet I had made and lost the bet, he WOULD simply come back under a different username.

and I won't.

There's one key difference.

If I made a money wager with a pindick cocksmoker like him, he's absolutely welch.

My offer stands, ya pindick.  I know you will avoid it.  It's what pussies like you do.


----------



## HUGGY

Liability said:


> Making a mnoney bet is certainly dumber than making a loser leaves bet.
> 
> IO realize that asshole twats like expat have no priniviples.
> 
> If he made the same bet I had made and lost the bet, he WOULD simply come back under a different username.
> 
> and I won't.
> 
> There's one key difference.
> 
> If I made a money wager with a pindick cocksmoker like him, he's absolutely welch.
> 
> My offer stands, ya pindick.  I know you will avoid it.  It's what pussies like you do.



Good form shyster!  Don't pack...just burn the old place to the ground.


----------



## Liability

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making a mnoney bet is certainly dumber than making a loser leaves bet.
> 
> IO realize that asshole twats like expat have no priniviples.
> 
> If he made the same bet I had made and lost the bet, he WOULD simply come back under a different username.
> 
> and I won't.
> 
> There's one key difference.
> 
> If I made a money wager with a pindick cocksmoker like him, he's absolutely welch.
> 
> My offer stands, ya pindick.  I know you will avoid it.  It's what pussies like you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good form shyster!  Don't pack...just burn the old place to the ground.
Click to expand...


As always, Smuggly, you make less than no sense at all.  I realize you truly are pretty fucking stupid, but to say shit as dumb as your post, you also have to be dishonest.

I made a bet.  I will honor the bet if I lose.

However, don't wet your panties, ya hapless lil bitch.  The President is not getting re-elected, so I will be winning the bet.


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, dumbfuck....
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking dumb House Gimp is for thinking that this is anything but a horrible sign for Romney bears repeating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ardickless15....
> 
> Want to up the bet for another 2 weeks of control?  Make it 10 total...
Click to expand...


Absolutely!

You foolishly dont realize that stat indicates how bad of an electoral i disadvantage Romney has.

Just say the word and we can make it 12.


----------



## Zander

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking dumb House Gimp is for thinking that this is anything but a horrible sign for Romney bears repeating.
> 
> 
> 
> Ardickless15....
> 
> Want to up the bet for another 2 weeks of control?  Make it 10 total...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You foolishly dont realize that stat indicates how bad of an electoral i disadvantage Romney has.
> 
> Just say the word and we can make it 12.
Click to expand...


How many bets are you making? You already have a bet with me douchenozzle.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...iation-to-repeal-obamacare-7.html#post5535991


I didn't forget....


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking dumb House Gimp is for thinking that this is anything but a horrible sign for Romney bears repeating.
> 
> 
> 
> Ardickless15....
> 
> Want to up the bet for another 2 weeks of control?  Make it 10 total...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You foolishly dont realize that stat indicates how bad of an electoral i disadvantage Romney has.
> 
> Just say the word and we can make it 12.
Click to expand...


12 it is.....

You are one of the dumbest libroids here...  Kudos on that honor...


----------



## Liability

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking dumb House Gimp is for thinking that this is anything but a horrible sign for Romney bears repeating.
> 
> 
> 
> Ardickless15....
> 
> Want to up the bet for another 2 weeks of control?  Make it 10 total...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You foolishly dont realize that stat indicates how bad of an electoral i disadvantage Romney has.
> 
> Just say the word and we can make it 12.
Click to expand...



Not quite what that "stat [sic]" shows.

It suggests (from a "mega-analysis" of other peoples' polling) that IF the turnout is even slightly higher for Mitt than it is for the incumbent, the incumbent's prospects plummet.

All the happy good news pro-Obama "results" getting predicted by Natey are predicated on the assumption that the turnout will be more heavily pro Obama than pro Mitt or (at worst) tied.

Challenge that underlying assumption, however, and even Natey's bogus mega-analysis reveals that The ONE could be in re-election peril.  BIG peril.

And guess what?

There are simply not going to be anywhere near the number of Obamabots thronging to the polls as back in 2008.

Thus, if you can decipher Nate's bullshit, you will realize that this President's re-election prospects are pretty dim.

In a strange way, Nate has told you guys as much.


----------



## elvis

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ardickless15....
> 
> Want to up the bet for another 2 weeks of control?  Make it 10 total...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You foolishly dont realize that stat indicates how bad of an electoral i disadvantage Romney has.
> 
> Just say the word and we can make it 12.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12 it is.....
> 
> You are one of the dumbest libroids here...  Kudos on that honor...
Click to expand...


12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ardickless15....
> 
> Want to up the bet for another 2 weeks of control?  Make it 10 total...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You foolishly dont realize that stat indicates how bad of an electoral i disadvantage Romney has.
> 
> Just say the word and we can make it 12.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12 it is.....
> 
> You are one of the dumbest libroids here...  Kudos on that honor...
Click to expand...


Excellent!!!


----------



## Dr.House

elvis said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You foolishly dont realize that stat indicates how bad of an electoral i disadvantage Romney has.
> 
> Just say the word and we can make it 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 it is.....
> 
> You are one of the dumbest libroids here...  Kudos on that honor...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?
Click to expand...


Complete control of Avy/Sig/Custom title/Location...

I'm not worried...  He should be, but he's either blind or stupid...

The hardest part will be coming up with 12 individual themes for him...lol


----------



## paulitician

Romney wins big. It won't be that close. You heard it here first.


----------



## elvis

Dr.House said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 it is.....
> 
> You are one of the dumbest libroids here...  Kudos on that honor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete control of Avy/Sig/Custom title/Location...
> 
> I'm not worried...  He should be, but he's either blind or stupid...
> 
> The hardest part will be coming up with 12 individual themes for him...lol
Click to expand...


You're that confident Romney is gonna win tomorrow?


----------



## Article 15

elvis said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You foolishly dont realize that stat indicates how bad of an electoral i disadvantage Romney has.
> 
> Just say the word and we can make it 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 it is.....
> 
> You are one of the dumbest libroids here...  Kudos on that honor...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?
Click to expand...


12 weeks to be used at the winner's discretion of full sig and avatar control.


----------



## elvis

paulitician said:


> Romney wins big. It won't be that close. You heard it here first.



I can't stand you.  But I will give you double rep (positive) if he wins.


----------



## paulitician

elvis said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney wins big. It won't be that close. You heard it here first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't stand you.  But I will give you double rep (positive) if he wins.
Click to expand...


Deal.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> Making a mnoney bet is certainly dumber than making a loser leaves bet.
> 
> I realize that asshole twats like expat have no principles.
> 
> If he made the same bet I had made and lost the bet, he WOULD simply come back under a different username.
> 
> and I won't.
> 
> There's one key difference.
> 
> If I made a money wager with a pindick cocksmoker like him, he's absolutely welch.
> 
> My offer stands, ya pindick.  I know you will avoid it.  It's what pussies like you do.



all hot air and nothing to back it up... MY offer stands.  Your offer is a girl's bet and a dodge because you know that you can and will come back under a new names when Obama wins.

I promise to post here win or lose as expatriate, and if you bet me, and Obama does lose, I will most assuredly pay you and provide proof to anyone who cares to see it.  Now... do you actually own a set of nuts, or are you really just a flaming gasbag?


----------



## Liability

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making a mnoney bet is certainly dumber than making a loser leaves bet.
> 
> I realize that asshole twats like expat have no principles.
> 
> If he made the same bet I had made and lost the bet, he WOULD simply come back under a different username.
> 
> and I won't.
> 
> There's one key difference.
> 
> If I made a money wager with a pindick cocksmoker like him, he's absolutely welch.
> 
> My offer stands, ya pindick.  I know you will avoid it.  It's what pussies like you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all hot air and nothing to back it up... MY offer stands.  Your offer is a girl's bet and a dodge because you know that you can and will come back under a new names when Obama wins.
> 
> I promise to post here win or lose as expatriate, and if you bet me, and Obama does lose, I will most assuredly pay you and provide proof to anyone who cares to see it.  Now... do you actually own a set of nuts, or are you really just a flaming gasbag?
Click to expand...


Face it.  You now stand exposed as the total bitch you are.

And when Mitt wins, you will also look and feel even dumber than the pussy you have shown yourself to be already.

It certainly sucks to be you, expat.


----------



## Dr.House

elvis said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete control of Avy/Sig/Custom title/Location...
> 
> I'm not worried...  He should be, but he's either blind or stupid...
> 
> The hardest part will be coming up with 12 individual themes for him...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're that confident Romney is gonna win tomorrow?
Click to expand...


Very...

Here's the reasons:

* Romney WAY up in independents - double digits up...  Even with the D oversampling...

* Early vote numbers are down in key counties in most swing states...  EV carried OH for the empty chair in 2008...

* Have you seen the crowd sizes at the Romney rallies compared to the 0bama ones?

* Turnout...  No matter what they pretend, the excitement for Barry just isn't there...  The base will always swoon over their 0ssiah, but ind and crossover R just ain't happening this time...  Add in blue dogs in coal country and it's game over...


I'm quite confident...


----------



## Zander

Article 15 said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 it is.....
> 
> You are one of the dumbest libroids here...  Kudos on that honor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12 weeks to be used at the winner's discretion of full sig and avatar control.
Click to expand...


Typical liberal piece of shit. You already bet your sig line.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...iation-to-repeal-obamacare-7.html#post5538889


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making a mnoney bet is certainly dumber than making a loser leaves bet.
> 
> I realize that asshole twats like expat have no principles.
> 
> If he made the same bet I had made and lost the bet, he WOULD simply come back under a different username.
> 
> and I won't.
> 
> There's one key difference.
> 
> If I made a money wager with a pindick cocksmoker like him, he's absolutely welch.
> 
> My offer stands, ya pindick.  I know you will avoid it.  It's what pussies like you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all hot air and nothing to back it up... MY offer stands.  Your offer is a girl's bet and a dodge because you know that you can and will come back under a new names when Obama wins.
> 
> I promise to post here win or lose as expatriate, and if you bet me, and Obama does lose, I will most assuredly pay you and provide proof to anyone who cares to see it.  Now... do you actually own a set of nuts, or are you really just a flaming gasbag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face it.  You now stand exposed as the total bitch you are.
> 
> And when Mitt wins, you will also look and feel even dumber than the pussy you have shown yourself to be already.
> 
> It certainly sucks to be you, expat.
Click to expand...


more hot air.... more running away from a real wager.  just like a nutless girlieman.

and if you only KNEW how much it DIDN'T suck being me....


----------



## Dr.House

Zander said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks to be used at the winner's discretion of full sig and avatar control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical liberal piece of shit. You already bet your sig line.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...iation-to-repeal-obamacare-7.html#post5538889
Click to expand...


I'll coordinate with you so that the weeks I choose don't overlap with yours...


----------



## Article 15

Zander said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks to be used at the winner's discretion of full sig and avatar control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical liberal piece of shit. You already bet your sig line.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...iation-to-repeal-obamacare-7.html#post5538889
Click to expand...


So? I have multiple bets on the election.  In the slim chance I lose I will be here to honor each bet.

If to want something to whine about go talk to the people who have multiple loser leaves town bets.


----------



## Toro

Is there an election bets compilation thread?


----------



## elvis

Article will honor the bets.  I know him.  And he won't Dave.


----------



## Toro

Anyone who wants to make a monetary bet can do so on Intrade. Just tell us if you have.


----------



## Article 15

BTW thx for reminding me, Zander, I had forgotten.


----------



## EriktheRed

> The latest WSJ/NBC national poll puts Obama up over Romney by the narrowest margin, 48 percent to 47 percent. But *its the polls breakdown of respondents who are either undecided or still willing to consider switching that stands out. According to NBC, the 9 percent of voters who fit the bill are overwhelmingly warmer to Obama.* They approve of his performance by a 48-41 margin and like him personally by a 46-29 margin, both better than his national averages. Romney, by contrast, fares much worse with a 22-46 favorability rating.
> 
> Its a small sample size, but as long as they dont break strongly to Romney  and those numbers seem to suggest they wont  Obama is in good shape. Neil Newhouse, Romneys pollster, recently predicted victory in key states like Ohio in part because Obama often polls below 50% and the remaining undecideds are likely to flock to the challenger. If that shift doesnt come, Obamas leads are likely to hold up.
> 
> The Obama campaign has been making the opposing case to Romneys for months, arguing that the available data on undecided voters suggests theyre less friendly towards Romney even if theyre arent fans of Obama. Based on their current polling, campaign officials are expecting something resembling a 50-50 split.
> 
> *Looking at the latest numbers, theres little indication that undecideds are turning to Romney this week and at least some signs that point the other way.* Pews final election poll used a regression model to game out where the remaining undecideds were headed based on their demographics, ideological leanings, and feelings towards the candidates. The result was an even split: Obama led 48-45 without the model, 50-47 with it.



Polls: Undecided Voters Aren&#8217;t Breaking To Romney En Masse | TPM2012


----------



## konradv

Kind of debunks the notion by some on the board that Obama knows he's losing!

Nate Silver: Obama Has 86.3 Percent Chance of Winning Election | Alternet


----------



## candycorn

konradv said:


> Kind of debunks the notion by some on the board that Obama knows he's losing!
> 
> Nate Silver: Obama Has 86.3 Percent Chance of Winning Election | Alternet



Supposedly he got every state right except one last time around so this is a good sign for the President.


----------



## EriktheRed

> *2.* Its the job of any candidate losing in the polls to pretend that theres a good chance the polls are wrong, as the Romney campaign is doing. All losing campaigns do this. They would be irresponsible not to. Thats especially true for presidential campaigns; if they admit that theyre losing, its possible that they could hurt the rest of the ticket. But all losing campaigns will, and should, talk up their chances until the bitter end.
> 
> *3.* Some of this spin has been directed at poll-based predictors and polling aggregators, such as Nate Silver. Its silly. The problem for Mitt Romney is the polls, not the way people are manipulating them.



A quick and easy guide to the polling wars


----------



## konradv

Why post to this thread?  Nate Silver has upped the odds to 86.3%.  Like Romney, this thread is old news.


----------



## Zander

konradv said:


> Why post to this thread?  Nate Silver has upped the odds to 86.3%.  Like Romney, this thread is old news.



....he's upped it to 115% now.  It's in the bag!


----------



## Cowman

Dr.House said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little something to think about in regards to this subject it's a two person race so no matter if it's Nate Sliver, Rasmussen, Gallup, FOX, CNN, myself or anyone else on this board we all have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> *Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. *Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
Click to expand...


How fucking retarded are you? He hasn't changed his prediction at all. His prediction is all formulaic and it does the work for him. The reason it's 85% in favor of Obama has been because of the predicted 1% + or so lead Obama will have over Romney.

He's saying that if those predictions are wrong, and the popular vote ends up being 1% or so in Romney's favor, nearly the opposite would be true.

How FUCKING dense are you dude? I can't tell if you're dense, or you're actually being intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Cowman

Anyone still willing to make wild and foolish bets?

I will bet you your ETERNAL SOUL, to be mine forever, and sold/given to whomever I should choose at any time up until the end of time. That Obama will win.

Come on you Christian fanatics. Bet Cowman your soul. You're that confident about it.

Name your counterbet.


----------



## Political Junky

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Today Nate gives Obama a 91.4% chance of winning and Romney an 8.6% chance.


----------



## Amazed

Cowman said:


> Anyone still willing to make wild and foolish bets?
> 
> I will bet you your ETERNAL SOUL, to be mine forever, and sold/given to whomever I should choose at any time up until the end of time. That Obama will win.
> 
> Come on you Christian fanatics. Bet Cowman your soul. You're that confident about it.
> 
> Name your counterbet.



This is just so your stupid post can't go anywhere.

Tomorrow we will all just be laughing at your abject stupidity.


----------



## Zander

Political Junky said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Today Nate gives Obama a 91.4% chance of winning and Romney an 8.6% chance.



Tomorrow Nate disappears.....in shame.


----------



## Cowman

Amazed said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone still willing to make wild and foolish bets?
> 
> I will bet you your ETERNAL SOUL, to be mine forever, and sold/given to whomever I should choose at any time up until the end of time. That Obama will win.
> 
> Come on you Christian fanatics. Bet Cowman your soul. You're that confident about it.
> 
> Name your counterbet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just so your stupid post can't go anywhere.
> 
> Tomorrow we will all just be laughing at your abject stupidity.
Click to expand...


If that's the case, why not bet you soul to me?

You've nothing to lose... but your soul.

Christians believe in that sort of thing right? I mean fuck, I'd feel that it was worthless if I won your soul. I have NOTHING to gain and everything to lose!


----------



## Amazed

It is going to be hilarious watching you morons howl in pain.


----------



## Article 15

92.2% 

Oh nooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## MarcATL

Cowman said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on then, explain what's so fucking whooosh about it.
> 
> You fucking can't, because you know I'm right. Some jackass giving his magic number pulled out of his slimy asshole is entirely different than armies of pollsters calling people and aggregating their data of voting preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think polls are, idiot?  They are the opinions of random people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DO YOU KNOW HOW TO FUCKING READ? THE OPINIONS OF WHO PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR IS ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT THAN THE OPINIONS OF WHO PEOPLE THINK WILL WIN THE ELECTION BY WHAT PERCENTAGE CHANCE, YOU FUCKING DUMB SHIT.
> 
> There. I used my allotment of caps lock for the millennium.
> 
> God, you're fucking stupid and borderline illiterate.
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## Dr.House

Amazed said:


> It is going to be hilarious watching you morons howl in pain.



They're going all in with Nate...

TFF...


----------



## Article 15

Cowman said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two person race doesn't make it a 50/50 chance of a candidate winning when you factor in all the variables. I don't think you know how odds are.
> 
> If it was just a two people, where opinions weren't yet decided, the country wasn't divided, and everything was just equal throughout the campaign... then it'd be 50/50.
> 
> *Right now it's about 85/15 in Obama's favor. *Rick Romney has the odds stacked heavily against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking retarded are you? He hasn't changed his prediction at all. His prediction is all formulaic and it does the work for him. The reason it's 85% in favor of Obama has been because of the predicted 1% + or so lead Obama will have over Romney.
> 
> He's saying that if those predictions are wrong, and the popular vote ends up being 1% or so in Romney's favor, nearly the opposite would be true.
> 
> How FUCKING dense are you dude? I can't tell if you're dense, or you're actually being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...


It's funny that House Gimp thinks Nate "changed" is prediction.  All he did was cite something that is on his page every day ... the chances Romney wins the popular vote but losed the EC.

Romney having a 30% to lose the EC even when he wins the popular vote is TERRIBLE news for him and his supporters.

House Gimp is proving that a drowning man (and I use this term very loosely here) will clutch at a straw.


----------



## Lakhota

It's now *92.2%* in Obama's favor.


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your dreamboat Nate, only if the popular vote is D+1...  If it's R+1 then it's a 30% chance Barry wins...  Natey Boy adjusted his prediction today....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking retarded are you? He hasn't changed his prediction at all. His prediction is all formulaic and it does the work for him. The reason it's 85% in favor of Obama has been because of the predicted 1% + or so lead Obama will have over Romney.
> 
> He's saying that if those predictions are wrong, and the popular vote ends up being 1% or so in Romney's favor, nearly the opposite would be true.
> 
> How FUCKING dense are you dude? I can't tell if you're dense, or you're actually being intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny that House Gimp thinks Nate "changed" is prediction.  All he did was cite something that is on his page every day ... the chances Romney wins the popular vote but losed the EC.
> 
> Romney having a 30% to lose the EC even when he wins the popular vote is TERRIBLE news for him and his supporters.
> 
> House Gimp is proving that a drowning man (and I use this term very loosely here) will clutch at a straw.
Click to expand...

Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....

I've already shown why your boi hero is off...

"How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night.... 

It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...


----------



## Zander

Here is Nate Silver tomorrow...  on the ground getting kicked in the face like the Obama ass sniffing bitch that he is.....


----------



## Lakhota

Why are NaziCons kicking Nate Silver?


----------



## Zander

Lakhota said:


> Why are NaziCons kicking Nate Silver?



Those aren't Nazi-cons, they are leftist/commie/progressive/socialist/liberals, upset at being lied to....


----------



## Dante

Cassidy's Count

Nate Silver analyzes poll data. 


...and Docktor Hosejob?


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking retarded are you? He hasn't changed his prediction at all. His prediction is all formulaic and it does the work for him. The reason it's 85% in favor of Obama has been because of the predicted 1% + or so lead Obama will have over Romney.
> 
> He's saying that if those predictions are wrong, and the popular vote ends up being 1% or so in Romney's favor, nearly the opposite would be true.
> 
> How FUCKING dense are you dude? I can't tell if you're dense, or you're actually being intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that House Gimp thinks Nate "changed" is prediction.  All he did was cite something that is on his page every day ... the chances Romney wins the popular vote but losed the EC.
> 
> Romney having a 30% to lose the EC even when he wins the popular vote is TERRIBLE news for him and his supporters.
> 
> House Gimp is proving that a drowning man (and I use this term very loosely here) will clutch at a straw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....
> 
> I've already shown why your boi hero is off...
> 
> "How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night....
> 
> It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...
Click to expand...


It's hilarious that you actually believe that.

Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.

You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.

You're effed now.


----------



## Zander

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that House Gimp thinks Nate "changed" is prediction.  All he did was cite something that is on his page every day ... the chances Romney wins the popular vote but losed the EC.
> 
> Romney having a 30% to lose the EC even when he wins the popular vote is TERRIBLE news for him and his supporters.
> 
> House Gimp is proving that a drowning man (and I use this term very loosely here) will clutch at a straw.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....
> 
> I've already shown why your boi hero is off...
> 
> "How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night....
> 
> It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
Click to expand...


InTrade had ObamaCare at 95% chance of being "unconstitutional". Garbage in = Garbage out.....


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that House Gimp thinks Nate "changed" is prediction.  All he did was cite something that is on his page every day ... the chances Romney wins the popular vote but losed the EC.
> 
> Romney having a 30% to lose the EC even when he wins the popular vote is TERRIBLE news for him and his supporters.
> 
> House Gimp is proving that a drowning man (and I use this term very loosely here) will clutch at a straw.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....
> 
> I've already shown why your boi hero is off...
> 
> "How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night....
> 
> It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
Click to expand...


Hang on to Nate...  Don't throw him under the bus on Wednesday...  Even though he'll probably quit predicting political elections...

Intrade had SCOTUS overturning 0bamacare at 95% 2 hours before the decision....

Please be here on Wednesday....


----------



## Dr.House

Zander said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....
> 
> I've already shown why your boi hero is off...
> 
> "How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night....
> 
> It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> InTrade had ObamaCare at 95% chance of being "unconstitutional". Garbage in = Garbage out.....
Click to expand...


Shhh...  Fuck you and your facts!

Nate the boi geenyus will just blame the polling firms...  Watch it happen...


----------



## Dante

Cassidy's Count: Obama's Electoral College Firewall Is Just Holding : The New Yorker


----------



## Article 15

SCOTUS decision =/= National election with extensive polling data

Talk about grasping at straws!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dante

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....
> 
> I've already shown why your boi hero is off...
> 
> "How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night....
> 
> It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on to Nate...  Don't throw him under the bus on Wednesday...  Even though he'll probably quit predicting political elections...
> 
> Intrade had SCOTUS overturning 0bamacare at 95% 2 hours before the decision....
> 
> Please be here on Wednesday....
Click to expand...


FOX News and CNN had the SCOTUS overturning Obamacare after they did not. This while reading the decision and not comprehending it.


----------



## Zander

Article 15 said:


> SCOTUS decision =/= National election with extensive polling data
> 
> Talk about grasping at straws!!!!!!!!



Your face, reality, and the ground will be meeting soon........


----------



## Chris

Zander said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS decision =/= National election with extensive polling data
> 
> Talk about grasping at straws!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your face, reality, and the ground will be meeting soon........
Click to expand...


Want to bet?


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> SCOTUS decision =/= National election with extensive polling data
> 
> Talk about grasping at straws!!!!!!!!



Again, you fucking idiot, GIGO....

There will NOT be a D+11 turnout...

You and your 0ssiah are fucked...  Big Time...


----------



## Zander

Chris said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS decision =/= National election with extensive polling data
> 
> Talk about grasping at straws!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your face, reality, and the ground will be meeting soon........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want to bet?
Click to expand...


I bet you'll still be a mindless moron,  regardless of how short Obama comes up in his failed bid at a second term....like this poor schlub....that's you and Obama


----------



## Lakhota

Is Zander German?  He seems very evil.


----------



## Zander

Lakhota said:


> Is Zander German?  He seems very evil.



No,Not German or evil. I just found a great site for fail gifs.... Here are the Democrats in this election...


----------



## Dante

Zander is the House Mime. He moves around a lot, but actually says nothing


----------



## Dr.House

Dainty...  Go be gay elsewhere...


----------



## Chris

Zander said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your face, reality, and the ground will be meeting soon........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to bet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you'll still be a mindless moron,  regardless of how short Obama comes up in his failed bid at a second term....like this poor schlub....that's you and Obama
Click to expand...


Coward.


----------



## Dante

Dr.House said:


> Dainty...  Go be gay elsewhere...


----------



## Dante

Chris said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you'll still be a mindless moron,  regardless of how short Obama comes up in his failed bid at a second term....like this poor schlub....that's you and Obama
> 
> http://gifs.gifbin.com/052012/1336405435_fat_guy_trampoline_dunk_fail.gif/IMG][/QUOTE]
> 
> Coward.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Most Bullies are Cowards.
> 
> go figure
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr.House

Dante said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dainty...  Go be gay elsewhere...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Zander said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS decision =/= National election with extensive polling data
> 
> Talk about grasping at straws!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your face, reality, and the ground will be meeting soon........
Click to expand...


That's the fucking best GIF I've ever seen. Send me that link. NVM, got it.


----------



## Dante

Dante Fevah!!!  It's covered as a pre-existing condition under Obamacare.​


----------



## Chris

Dante said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you'll still be a mindless moron,  regardless of how short Obama comes up in his failed bid at a second term....like this poor schlub....that's you and Obama
> 
> http://gifs.gifbin.com/052012/1336405435_fat_guy_trampoline_dunk_fail.gif/IMG][/quote]
> 
> Coward.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Most Bullies are Cowards.
> 
> go figure[/QUOTE]
> 
> Romney certainly is both a bully and a coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr.House




----------



## Article 15

It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.


----------



## Chris

Article 15 said:


> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.



The arc of justice and progress is slow but steady.


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.



It is...

Please be here wednesday...


----------



## Chris

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
Click to expand...


We will.


----------



## Dante

Dr.House said:


> [IMGttp://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx121/DrHouse-USMB/trolls/Dante-tampons.jpg[/IMG]



Dante Fevah - Covered as a Pre-existing Condition under Obamacare


----------



## Dante

Chris said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will.
Click to expand...


Tuesday night the stampede will begin...


----------



## Article 15

Chris said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will.
Click to expand...


That we will!


----------



## Dr.House

God I hope so...


----------



## Dante

anyone else notice what a HUGE collection of Dante images House has in his account?

makes one wonder, no?


----------



## Cowman

Zander said:


> Here is Nate Silver tomorrow...  on the ground getting kicked in the face like the Obama ass sniffing bitch that he is.....



Wow. This post DEFNIITELY needs a bookmark. I'll bookmark this post for you.


----------



## MikeK

If Silver is wrong it will be the first time.


----------



## JimH52

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com


----------



## LoneLaugher

Well, he's a little light in his loafers......so you can't really trust what he has to say, can you?


----------



## Truthseeker420

Does that include Republicans suppressing the votes of blacks,Latino and poor?


----------



## WillowTree

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



Who is Nate Silver


----------



## JimH52

Willow, a call to the RNC to encourage them to activate their suicide phone lines, might be a good idea.  Just a suggestion...


----------



## Mac1958

.

Dang, I wish I had started a thread where we all posted the predictions of the "experts" from both sides.  Would have been great fun giggling at them tomorrow.

Some big names on the Right are predicting an easy Romney win. 

.


----------



## Stephanie

Truthseeker420 said:


> Does that include Republicans suppressing the votes of blacks,Latino and poor?



well you've got that talking point down pat..you should feel smart


----------



## JimH52

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Dang, I wish I had started a thread where we all posted the predictions of the "experts" from both sides.  Would have been great fun giggling at them tomorrow.
> 
> Some big names on the Right are predicting an easy Romney win.
> 
> .



No, I think the word "landslide" was used...


----------



## jillian

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



nate's numbers seem to match the realclearpolitics average.

can both nate and rcp's poll of poll's be wrong?

and only the outliers at rasmussen and gallup be correct?

that is the question of the day.

if you're a stats' geek.


----------



## Stephanie

why didn't Nattie just go out on a limb and give it 100% CHANCE


----------



## Truthseeker420

Stephanie said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include Republicans suppressing the votes of blacks,Latino and poor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well you've got that talking point down pat..you should feel smart
Click to expand...


  it should be factored in his results.


----------



## JimH52

Looks like Florida has also gone Blue...if that happens...well


----------



## Cheddarmelon

JimH52 said:


> Looks like Florida has also gone Blue...if that happens...well



I predict Florida for Obama.  By a razor thin margin.

But it won't be like Florida-a-la Bushhangingchad.  It won't matter.


----------



## LoneLaugher

If Obama wins Florida, it will not be due to a lack of Romney yard signs. Those fuckers will never be collectors items.


----------



## Toro

JimH52 said:


> Looks like Florida has also gone Blue...if that happens...well



I think FL will go for Romney. But if Obama wins FL, it is very much over.


----------



## Rocko

JimH52 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com



I can't wait till Nate Sivler's career is over. Fortunately, I don't have to wait long.


----------



## JimH52

But the votes will still need to be counted...


----------



## konradv

WillowTree said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Nate Silver
Click to expand...


After today, people are going to be asking, "Who is Mitt Romney?"


----------



## Article 15

Toro said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Florida has also gone Blue...if that happens...well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think FL will go for Romney. But if Obama wins FL, it is very much over.
Click to expand...


Romney needs to win VA, OH, and one other state all while not losing FL.

Not. Looking. Good.


----------



## Leweman

Article 15 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Florida has also gone Blue...if that happens...well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think FL will go for Romney. But if Obama wins FL, it is very much over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romney needs to win VA, OH, and one other state all while not losing FL.
> 
> Not. Looking. Good.
Click to expand...


Looks damn good.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oversampling Dems is a polite way of counting the non-living, the most dependable Dem voting bloc


----------



## Article 15

Leweman said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think FL will go for Romney. But if Obama wins FL, it is very much over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney needs to win VA, OH, and one other state all while not losing FL.
> 
> Not. Looking. Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks damn good.
Click to expand...


To delusional wingnuts.


----------



## Liberal

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oversampling Dems is a polite way of counting the non-living, the most dependable Dem voting bloc



You are an idiot.

This is not a poll, it is a confidence interval (PROBABILITY) based off of all of the state polls.. 

Which are conducted by various right/left/un biased groups, NOT Nate Silver himself.


----------



## Katzndogz

Bob Dylan sobered up enough to predict obama in a landslide.

Bob Dylan predicts Obama 'in a landslide' - Yahoo! News


----------



## The Rabbi

Katzndogz said:


> Bob Dylan sobered up enough to predict obama in a landslide.
> 
> Bob Dylan predicts Obama 'in a landslide' - Yahoo! News



OK.  NOW I'm worried.  If a leftist loon has-been musician like Dylan predicts a win for Obama then you know it must be right.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Nate Silver: NYT polling expert gives Obama a big edge on Election Day.

*WOWSA!!​*
Also includes his appearance on Colbert last night.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Would you like to make an avatar bet on that Luddite? Obama wins and you chose my avatar for two weeks? Romney wins and I chose yours?

No Daving, I promise.


----------



## decker

luddly.neddite said:


> Nate Silver: NYT polling expert gives Obama a big edge on Election Day.
> 
> *WOWSA!!​*
> Also includes his appearance on Colbert last night.


the promblem with just following that is in uk i support the lib dems and he said they would get 120 seats in general election in 2010. they lost three seats and got 59.

just saying we won,t know who right or wrong till 12.00am uk time tonight or 7..00pm us eastern time.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

A lot of us are looking for new avatars right now but I can't say I give a flip about yours. 

Thanks anyway.


----------



## Sarah G

Mitt has a defeated look about him.  It just seems like he is not confident at all, hope that look is genuine.


----------



## Valerie

Sarah G said:


> Mitt has a defeated look about him.  It just seems like he is not confident at all, hope that look is genuine.





Whatever happens, I think it's good we should have a record voter turn-out!  Mitt put up as good a fight as any of the other GOP contenders could have ever hoped for.


----------



## decker

Valerie said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt has a defeated look about him.  It just seems like he is not confident at all, hope that look is genuine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happens, I think it's good we should have a record voter turn-out!  Mitt put up as good a fight as any of the other GOP contenders could have ever hoped for.
Click to expand...

well i hope we have good turn out for democray sake


----------



## decker

Sarah G said:


> Mitt has a defeated look about him.  It just seems like he is not confident at all, hope that look is genuine.


well i don,t think  we can tell either way. he like obama is nervious as i doubt neither man is sure if he win or not

the networks at 7pm us time will start telling us from then on who will be in white house for next four years.


----------



## Conservative

could a mod merge this with one of the other 87 'Nate gives Obama a <insert number of the day> chance of winning' threads, please?


----------



## Liability

Liberal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oversampling Dems is a polite way of counting the non-living, the most dependable Dem voting bloc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> This is not a poll, it is a confidence interval (PROBABILITY) based off of all of the state polls..
> 
> Which are conducted by various right/left/un biased groups, NOT Nate Silver himself.
Click to expand...


And the polls (mostly left wing) all seem to have a problem with the over-sampling of Dims.  

Assessing their conclusions as a valid predictor of the eventual outcome of actual voting in any poll-sampled state REQUIRES that one also make the assumption that the voter turnout is going to mirror the sample in the polling.  

Yeah.  That's laughable.

And it follows that all Nate is doing is basing some theoretical conclusion (an alleged statistical probability) on dubious data.  GiGo.  Nate seems not to grasp that.  Evidently, neither do you.


----------



## Liability

konradv said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Nate Silver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After today, people are going to be asking, "Who is Mitt Romney?"
Click to expand...


Because after today, people will want to know a bit more about our President-Elect.


----------



## decker

Conservative said:


> could a mod merge this with one of the other 87 'Nate gives Obama a <insert number of the day> chance of winning' threads, please?


in end nate got it wrong big time in general election in uk and midterm in us

so i don,t think we can look to one pollster as a guide

in end poll tonight from networks is most important one


----------



## deaddogseye

decker said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> could a mod merge this with one of the other 87 'Nate gives Obama a <insert number of the day> chance of winning' threads, please?
> 
> 
> 
> in end nate got it wrong big time in general election in uk and midterm in us
> 
> so i don,t think we can look to one pollster as a guide
> 
> in end poll tonight from networks is most important one
Click to expand...


you are right about the midterms for sure -- he wasnt even close AND he missed three senate races as well which is a real lot.  its a big illusion -- picking 48 out of 50 states when anyone could predict 46 of them -- BFD

bottom line he really isnt very good and there isnt really much to what he does -- he just dresses it up to make it look like there is a lot to it and the media buys in because it can help be filler for their stories. Basically he is a snake oil salesman and of course a consultant to the obama campaign which he conveniently neglects to tell anyone.

at least the various pundits are openly identified with one side or the other and you can filter what they say accordingly. this guy tries to act like he isnt and hes just a dishonest person.


----------



## Zander

jillian said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nate's numbers seem to match the realclearpolitics average.
> 
> can both nate and rcp's poll of poll's be wrong?
> 
> and only the outliers at rasmussen and gallup be correct?
> 
> that is the question of the day.
> 
> if you're a stats' geek.
Click to expand...


Nate is a perfect, living example of "confirmation bias"......I have a feeling we won't be hearing about him after today! 

Best of luck!


----------



## Toro

On his blog, Silver has 10-15 polls taken on Monday showing that almost all of them have moved towards Obama over the past few days based on the difference between each poll and their last poll.


----------



## The Rabbi

Toro said:


> On his blog, Silver has 10-15 polls taken on Monday showing that almost all of them have moved towards Obama over the past few days based on the difference between each poll and their last poll.



Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
If the polls had a margin of error of say 4 [oints and the polls showed a 2 point movement then there is no actual movement at all.  They would both be within margin of error.


----------



## Zander

Toro said:


> On his blog, Silver has 10-15 polls taken on Monday showing that almost all of them have moved towards Obama over the past few days based on the difference between each poll and their last poll.



 

3 reason Nate is full of shit 

1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?  

2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?  

3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?


----------



## tjvh

I guess I'll stay home... Some guy named Nate Silver has already called the election.


----------



## Zander

tjvh said:


> I guess I'll stay home... Some guy named Nate Silver has already called the election.





that's what the Dems are hoping......


----------



## Cheddarmelon

decker said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver: NYT polling expert gives Obama a big edge on Election Day.
> 
> *WOWSA!!​*
> Also includes his appearance on Colbert last night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the promblem with just following that is in uk i support the lib dems and he said they would get 120 seats in general election in 2010. they lost three seats and got 59.
> 
> just saying we won,t know who right or wrong till 12.00am uk time tonight or 7..00pm us eastern time.
Click to expand...


After Obama wins, what are you going to concern troll about?


----------



## Synthaholic

@ 1:09 pm


----------



## Conservative

could a mod please merge this with one of the other 87 Nate Silver threads? thanks.


----------



## Leweman

looks like nate silver wont be touted much in 2016


----------



## Zander




----------



## LordBrownTrout

In a couple of hours, Silver will have O with 538.


----------



## Liability

Who doesn't think there should be a few threads dedicated to Nate Silver and his magic elixir?


----------



## Toro

Zander said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> On his blog, Silver has 10-15 polls taken on Monday showing that almost all of them have moved towards Obama over the past few days based on the difference between each poll and their last poll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 reason Nate is full of shit
> 
> 1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?
> 
> 2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?
> 
> 3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?
Click to expand...


What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states. 

Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Liability said:


> Who doesn't think there should be a few threads dedicated to Nate Silver and his magic elixir?



Pixie dust is everywhere.   O gains 5 percent and 20 more electoral votes every hour in Silver's magical poll.


----------



## Liability

Toro said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> On his blog, Silver has 10-15 polls taken on Monday showing that almost all of them have moved towards Obama over the past few days based on the difference between each poll and their last poll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 reason Nate is full of shit
> 
> 1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?
> 
> 2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?
> 
> 3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
Click to expand...


When the polls seem to have a built in bias that ASSUMES that more Dims (by a hefty margin) will be thronging to the polls than GOP voters, there certainly IS a reason to doubt the polls.

And Natey merely recapitulates the "findings" of such polls.    GiGo.

There is no reason to give either much credence.

IF, as I am still assuming, the Dims have a noticeably lower overall rate of "turnout" than they had in 2008, then the illusory Obama lead "predicted" by the polls will dissipate.  THEN, assuming that the Independents ARE actually leaning (fairly decisively) toward, Mitt, the outcome even in the "swing" states is likely to be decidedly in Mitt's favor.

Natey can be rationally ignored since he isn't saying ANYTHING that isn't determined by the polls themselves.  

What does matter is how accurate or inaccurate the polls have been (and may still be as the voters go to the real polling booths).  There have been MANY good reasons to conclude that the professional polling done in the lead up to the actual vote has been inaccurate.  The pollsters COULD have made some corrections (and may made done some belated minor efforts along those lines) as the flaws got exposed and analyzed.  That they chose not to do so is a reflection of where they were headed.


----------



## candycorn

Article 15 said:


> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.



It must.  Thinking about blowing off this evening though.  There is a large steakhouse here in town with a giant R&R billboard in front of it.  Great steak and good people work there.  Thinking about going there tonight and getting a 10 ounce ribeye with baked potato.  

My way of ending the partisanship.


----------



## Zander

Toro said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> On his blog, Silver has 10-15 polls taken on Monday showing that almost all of them have moved towards Obama over the past few days based on the difference between each poll and their last poll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 reason Nate is full of shit
> 
> 1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?
> 
> 2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?
> 
> 3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
Click to expand...

I always appreciate the dialogue Toro, we simply disagree!  Silver does more than just report the polls, he weights them according to his own "gut" feelings and other factors - and puts out an opinion.  He's been the sole source of leftist comfort these last 2-3 weeks as Romney has surged to the lead. I think after tomorrow he will be forever enshrined as a living breathing example of "confirmation bias".   

As for the polls - not all of them are wrong,  just most of them. The only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Gallup - and they are being very conservative in their turnout models.  Most of the media and various college polls are assuming that Obama will replicate the D+7 turnout advantage that they enjoyed in 2008. Some have D+11 or even higher!! In my opinion, there is no possible way that D's are going to have a 7pt advantage in turnout- they will be lucky to match the Republicans.  The electorate has changed. Obama has a "RECORD" now.  He's not the blank canvas he was in 2008...

Let me go out on a limb here - Romney is going to kick Obama's skinny ass in this election like it was the first debate! 

What do you think happened to all the people who were upset about Obamacare? What happened to all those people who voted in 2010? Does anyone really believe that those Tea party type Fiscal Conservatives are going to stay home?  No...they won't. 

What about those college students, ideologues, and welfare mothers that support Obama? Will a shiny new "Obama phone" be enough for them?  Will graduating from college with a huge debt and no job prospects land Obama More or Less support from college students than he enjoyed in '08? 

 

I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot! 

The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!


----------



## Toro

Liability said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 reason Nate is full of shit
> 
> 1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?
> 
> 2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?
> 
> 3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the polls seem to have a built in bias that ASSUMES that more Dims (by a hefty margin) will be thronging to the polls than GOP voters, there certainly IS a reason to doubt the polls.
> 
> And Natey merely recapitulates the "findings" of such polls.    GiGo.
> 
> There is no reason to give either much credence.
> 
> IF, as I am still assuming, the Dims have a noticeably lower overall rate of "turnout" than they had in 2008, then the illusory Obama lead "predicted" by the polls will dissipate.  THEN, assuming that the Independents ARE actually leaning (fairly decisively) toward, Mitt, the outcome even in the "swing" states is likely to be decidedly in Mitt's favor.
> 
> Natey can be rationally ignored since he isn't saying ANYTHING that isn't determined by the polls themselves.
> 
> What does matter is how accurate or inaccurate the polls have been (and may still be as the voters go to the real polling booths).  There have been MANY good reasons to conclude that the professional polling done in the lead up to the actual vote has been inaccurate.  The pollsters COULD have made some corrections (and may made done some belated minor efforts along those lines) as the flaws got exposed and analyzed.  That they chose not to do so is a reflection of where they were headed.
Click to expand...


That's possible. And we may find that all of the polls were oversampling Democrats. But three dozen or so?  Probably not.


----------



## Synthaholic

Zander said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 reason Nate is full of shit
> 
> 1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?
> 
> 2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?
> 
> 3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always appreciate the dialogue Toro, we simply disagree!  *Silver does more than just report the polls, he weights them according to his own "gut" feelings and other factors - and puts out an opinion.*  He's been the sole source of leftist comfort these last 2-3 weeks as Romney has surged to the lead. I think after tomorrow he will be forever enshrined as a living breathing example of "confirmation bias".
> 
> As for the polls - not all of them are wrong,  just most of them. The only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Gallup - and they are being very conservative in their turnout models.  Most of the media and various college polls are assuming that Obama will replicate the D+7 turnout advantage that they enjoyed in 2008. Some have D+11 or even higher!! In my opinion, there is no possible way that D's are going to have a 7pt advantage in turnout- they will be lucky to match the Republicans.  The electorate has changed. Obama has a "RECORD" now.  He's not the blank canvas he was in 2008...
> 
> Let me go out on a limb here - Romney is going to kick Obama's skinny ass in this election like it was the first debate!
> 
> What do you think happened to all the people who were upset about Obamacare? What happened to all those people who voted in 2010? Does anyone really believe that those Tea party type Fiscal Conservatives are going to stay home?  No...they won't.
> 
> What about those college students, ideologues, and welfare mothers that support Obama? Will a shiny new "Obama phone" be enough for them?  Will graduating from college with a huge debt and no job prospects land Obama More or Less support from college students than he enjoyed in '08?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot!
> 
> The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!
Click to expand...



He has never used "gut" feeling, and has never injected his opinion.

His methodology is the same model he used for a poker prediction program he used to amass $300k in online poker.  When the government started restricting and making illegal a lot of these online parlours, he switched to political predictions.

All data, no emotion.


----------



## Synthaholic

Conservative said:


> could a mod please merge this with one of the other 87 Nate Silver threads? thanks.


You are clearly unhinged and upset.


----------



## Zander

Synthaholic said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> I always appreciate the dialogue Toro, we simply disagree!  *Silver does more than just report the polls, he weights them according to his own "gut" feelings and other factors - and puts out an opinion.*  He's been the sole source of leftist comfort these last 2-3 weeks as Romney has surged to the lead. I think after tomorrow he will be forever enshrined as a living breathing example of "confirmation bias".
> 
> As for the polls - not all of them are wrong,  just most of them. The only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Gallup - and they are being very conservative in their turnout models.  Most of the media and various college polls are assuming that Obama will replicate the D+7 turnout advantage that they enjoyed in 2008. Some have D+11 or even higher!! In my opinion, there is no possible way that D's are going to have a 7pt advantage in turnout- they will be lucky to match the Republicans.  The electorate has changed. Obama has a "RECORD" now.  He's not the blank canvas he was in 2008...
> 
> Let me go out on a limb here - Romney is going to kick Obama's skinny ass in this election like it was the first debate!
> 
> What do you think happened to all the people who were upset about Obamacare? What happened to all those people who voted in 2010? Does anyone really believe that those Tea party type Fiscal Conservatives are going to stay home?  No...they won't.
> 
> What about those college students, ideologues, and welfare mothers that support Obama? Will a shiny new "Obama phone" be enough for them?  Will graduating from college with a huge debt and no job prospects land Obama More or Less support from college students than he enjoyed in '08?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot!
> 
> The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He has never used "gut" feeling, and has never injected his opinion.
> 
> His methodology is the same model he used for a poker prediction program he used to amass $300k in online poker.  When the government started restricting and making illegal a lot of these online parlours, he switched to political predictions.
> 
> All data, no emotion.
Click to expand...

yeah sure..... I watched him explain his "model"  on TV. He explained how he uses his "gut"  to weigh each poll - just like he uses his "gut" in Poker.


----------



## Synthaholic

Zander said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always appreciate the dialogue Toro, we simply disagree!  *Silver does more than just report the polls, he weights them according to his own "gut" feelings and other factors - and puts out an opinion.*  He's been the sole source of leftist comfort these last 2-3 weeks as Romney has surged to the lead. I think after tomorrow he will be forever enshrined as a living breathing example of "confirmation bias".
> 
> As for the polls - not all of them are wrong,  just most of them. The only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Gallup - and they are being very conservative in their turnout models.  Most of the media and various college polls are assuming that Obama will replicate the D+7 turnout advantage that they enjoyed in 2008. Some have D+11 or even higher!! In my opinion, there is no possible way that D's are going to have a 7pt advantage in turnout- they will be lucky to match the Republicans.  The electorate has changed. Obama has a "RECORD" now.  He's not the blank canvas he was in 2008...
> 
> Let me go out on a limb here - Romney is going to kick Obama's skinny ass in this election like it was the first debate!
> 
> What do you think happened to all the people who were upset about Obamacare? What happened to all those people who voted in 2010? Does anyone really believe that those Tea party type Fiscal Conservatives are going to stay home?  No...they won't.
> 
> What about those college students, ideologues, and welfare mothers that support Obama? Will a shiny new "Obama phone" be enough for them?  Will graduating from college with a huge debt and no job prospects land Obama More or Less support from college students than he enjoyed in '08?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot!
> 
> The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has never used "gut" feeling, and has never injected his opinion.
> 
> His methodology is the same model he used for a poker prediction program he used to amass $300k in online poker.  When the government started restricting and making illegal a lot of these online parlours, he switched to political predictions.
> 
> All data, no emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah sure..... I watched him explain his "model"  on TV. He explained how he uses his "gut"  to weigh each poll - just like he uses his "gut" in Poker.
Click to expand...

Link?

I call bullshit.


----------



## Toro

Zander said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 reason Nate is full of shit
> 
> 1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?
> 
> 2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?
> 
> 3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always appreciate the dialogue Toro, we simply disagree!  Silver does more than just report the polls, he weights them according to his own "gut" feelings and other factors - and puts out an opinion.  He's been the sole source of leftist comfort these last 2-3 weeks as Romney has surged to the lead. I think after tomorrow he will be forever enshrined as a living breathing example of "confirmation bias".
> 
> As for the polls - not all of them are wrong,  just most of them. The only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Gallup - and they are being very conservative in their turnout models.  Most of the media and various college polls are assuming that Obama will replicate the D+7 turnout advantage that they enjoyed in 2008. Some have D+11 or even higher!! In my opinion, there is no possible way that D's are going to have a 7pt advantage in turnout- they will be lucky to match the Republicans.  The electorate has changed. Obama has a "RECORD" now.  He's not the blank canvas he was in 2008...
> 
> Let me go out on a limb here - Romney is going to kick Obama's skinny ass in this election like it was the first debate!
> 
> What do you think happened to all the people who were upset about Obamacare? What happened to all those people who voted in 2010? Does anyone really believe that those Tea party type Fiscal Conservatives are going to stay home?  No...they won't.
> 
> What about those college students, ideologues, and welfare mothers that support Obama? Will a shiny new "Obama phone" be enough for them?  Will graduating from college with a huge debt and no job prospects land Obama More or Less support from college students than he enjoyed in '08?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot!
> 
> The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!
Click to expand...


Where did you read that he goes on his gut?  

I like Intrade better but I respect his work. 

My guess is that conservatives are finding any reason why they aren't losing. Conservatives might be right but this seems highly emotional.


----------



## Synthaholic

Toro said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> I always appreciate the dialogue Toro, we simply disagree!  Silver does more than just report the polls, he weights them according to his own "gut" feelings and other factors - and puts out an opinion.  He's been the sole source of leftist comfort these last 2-3 weeks as Romney has surged to the lead. I think after tomorrow he will be forever enshrined as a living breathing example of "confirmation bias".
> 
> As for the polls - not all of them are wrong,  just most of them. The only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Gallup - and they are being very conservative in their turnout models.  Most of the media and various college polls are assuming that Obama will replicate the D+7 turnout advantage that they enjoyed in 2008. Some have D+11 or even higher!! In my opinion, there is no possible way that D's are going to have a 7pt advantage in turnout- they will be lucky to match the Republicans.  The electorate has changed. Obama has a "RECORD" now.  He's not the blank canvas he was in 2008...
> 
> Let me go out on a limb here - Romney is going to kick Obama's skinny ass in this election like it was the first debate!
> 
> What do you think happened to all the people who were upset about Obamacare? What happened to all those people who voted in 2010? Does anyone really believe that those Tea party type Fiscal Conservatives are going to stay home?  No...they won't.
> 
> What about those college students, ideologues, and welfare mothers that support Obama? Will a shiny new "Obama phone" be enough for them?  Will graduating from college with a huge debt and no job prospects land Obama More or Less support from college students than he enjoyed in '08?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot!
> 
> The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you read that he goes on his gut?
> 
> I like Intrade better but I respect his work.
> 
> My guess is that conservatives are finding any reason why they aren't losing. Conservatives might be right but this seems highly emotional.
Click to expand...

It would be funny to find out that Intrade is using Nate Silver as their criteria.


----------



## candycorn

Toro said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> I always appreciate the dialogue Toro, we simply disagree!  Silver does more than just report the polls, he weights them according to his own "gut" feelings and other factors - and puts out an opinion.  He's been the sole source of leftist comfort these last 2-3 weeks as Romney has surged to the lead. I think after tomorrow he will be forever enshrined as a living breathing example of "confirmation bias".
> 
> As for the polls - not all of them are wrong,  just most of them. The only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Gallup - and they are being very conservative in their turnout models.  Most of the media and various college polls are assuming that Obama will replicate the D+7 turnout advantage that they enjoyed in 2008. Some have D+11 or even higher!! In my opinion, there is no possible way that D's are going to have a 7pt advantage in turnout- they will be lucky to match the Republicans.  The electorate has changed. Obama has a "RECORD" now.  He's not the blank canvas he was in 2008...
> 
> Let me go out on a limb here - Romney is going to kick Obama's skinny ass in this election like it was the first debate!
> 
> What do you think happened to all the people who were upset about Obamacare? What happened to all those people who voted in 2010? Does anyone really believe that those Tea party type Fiscal Conservatives are going to stay home?  No...they won't.
> 
> What about those college students, ideologues, and welfare mothers that support Obama? Will a shiny new "Obama phone" be enough for them?  Will graduating from college with a huge debt and no job prospects land Obama More or Less support from college students than he enjoyed in '08?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot!
> 
> The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you read that he goes on his gut?
> 
> I like Intrade better but I respect his work.
> 
> My guess is that conservatives are finding any reason why they aren't losing. Conservatives might be right but this seems highly emotional.
Click to expand...


If Obama wins, I bet Unskewed polls still has Romney ahead.


----------



## Zander

Toro said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> I always appreciate the dialogue Toro, we simply disagree!  Silver does more than just report the polls, he weights them according to his own "gut" feelings and other factors - and puts out an opinion.  He's been the sole source of leftist comfort these last 2-3 weeks as Romney has surged to the lead. I think after tomorrow he will be forever enshrined as a living breathing example of "confirmation bias".
> 
> As for the polls - not all of them are wrong,  just most of them. The only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Gallup - and they are being very conservative in their turnout models.  Most of the media and various college polls are assuming that Obama will replicate the D+7 turnout advantage that they enjoyed in 2008. Some have D+11 or even higher!! In my opinion, there is no possible way that D's are going to have a 7pt advantage in turnout- they will be lucky to match the Republicans.  The electorate has changed. Obama has a "RECORD" now.  He's not the blank canvas he was in 2008...
> 
> Let me go out on a limb here - Romney is going to kick Obama's skinny ass in this election like it was the first debate!
> 
> What do you think happened to all the people who were upset about Obamacare? What happened to all those people who voted in 2010? Does anyone really believe that those Tea party type Fiscal Conservatives are going to stay home?  No...they won't.
> 
> What about those college students, ideologues, and welfare mothers that support Obama? Will a shiny new "Obama phone" be enough for them?  Will graduating from college with a huge debt and no job prospects land Obama More or Less support from college students than he enjoyed in '08?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot!
> 
> The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you read that he goes on his gut?
> 
> I like Intrade better but I respect his work.
> 
> My guess is that conservatives are finding any reason why they aren't losing. Conservatives might be right but this seems highly emotional.
Click to expand...


I didn't read it, I watched him on TV. He's a nice young man. He likes to gamble.


----------



## Political Junky

Sarah G said:


> Mitt has a defeated look about him.  It just seems like he is not confident at all, hope that look is genuine.


If there is anything genuine about Willard.


----------



## The Rabbi

Political Junky said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt has a defeated look about him.  It just seems like he is not confident at all, hope that look is genuine.
> 
> 
> 
> If there is anything genuine about Willard.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right.  Defeated.





As opposed to Obama:


----------



## Zander

Synthaholic said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has never used "gut" feeling, and has never injected his opinion.
> 
> His methodology is the same model he used for a poker prediction program he used to amass $300k in online poker.  When the government started restricting and making illegal a lot of these online parlours, he switched to political predictions.
> 
> All data, no emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah sure..... I watched him explain his "model"  on TV. He explained how he uses his "gut"  to weigh each poll - just like he uses his "gut" in Poker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> I call bullshit.
Click to expand...


Good for you! Silver was on a TV show explaining what he does a while back. It was interesting.   He's a really nice guy that likes to gamble.   I don't care if your believe me or not. 

Here is what he says about how he weights polls at his NY Times blog: 

 "a combination of freshness, sample size, past accuracy, and methodological standards".  

I see plenty of room for human factors in that explanation.   

Bottom line- He's a gambler. If he's right- he'll make a bloody FORTUNE.  If he's wrong, he'll make a tiny little less. He can't walk away from the pot odds...he wins either way.


----------



## Dot Com

...bump


----------



## candycorn

Liability said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 reason Nate is full of shit
> 
> 1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?
> 
> 2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?
> 
> 3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote has nothing to do with Silver. He's merely reporting the polls. Basically, what you're saying is that all the polls are wrong, including Ras who now has Obama leading in swing states.
> 
> Are all the polls wrong?  Maybe. But probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the polls seem to have a built in bias that ASSUMES that more Dims (by a hefty margin) will be thronging to the polls than GOP voters, there certainly IS a reason to doubt the polls.
> 
> And Natey merely recapitulates the "findings" of such polls.    GiGo.
> 
> There is no reason to give either much credence.
> 
> IF, as I am still assuming, the Dims have a noticeably lower overall rate of "turnout" than they had in 2008, then the illusory Obama lead "predicted" by the polls will dissipate.  THEN, assuming that the Independents ARE actually leaning (fairly decisively) toward, Mitt, the outcome even in the "swing" states is likely to be decidedly in Mitt's favor.
> 
> Natey can be rationally ignored since he isn't saying ANYTHING that isn't determined by the polls themselves.
> 
> What does matter is how accurate or inaccurate the polls have been (and may still be as the voters go to the real polling booths).  There have been MANY good reasons to conclude that the professional polling done in the lead up to the actual vote has been inaccurate.  The pollsters COULD have made some corrections (and may made done some belated minor efforts along those lines) as the flaws got exposed and analyzed.  That they chose not to do so is a reflection of where they were headed.
Click to expand...


I have a question.

You call Obama "The One".
Will you now call Romney "The Zero"?


----------



## Cowman

So can we figure out after this is all over just how precise Nate Silver predicted this election?

Because it'll be a total cockslap to the right.


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
Click to expand...


Hi House Gimp.


----------



## candycorn

Zander said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah sure..... I watched him explain his "model"  on TV. He explained how he uses his "gut"  to weigh each poll - just like he uses his "gut" in Poker.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> I call bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you! Silver was on a TV show explaining what he does a while back. It was interesting.   He's a really nice guy that likes to gamble.   I don't care if your believe me or not.
> 
> Here is what he says about how he weights polls at his NY Times blog:
> 
> "a combination of freshness, sample size, past accuracy, and methodological standards".
> 
> I see plenty of room for human factors in that explanation.
> 
> Bottom line- He's a gambler. If he's right- he'll make a bloody FORTUNE.  If he's wrong, he'll make a tiny little less. He can't walk away from the pot odds...he wins either way.
Click to expand...


You're awfully quiet tonight?  What happened?


----------



## Dot Com

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi House Gimp.
Click to expand...


yeah. Where is he?


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 it is.....
> 
> You are one of the dumbest libroids here...  Kudos on that honor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks with An avatar of arts choice of you lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete control of Avy/Sig/Custom title/Location...
> 
> I'm not worried...  He should be, but he's either blind or stupid...
> 
> The hardest part will be coming up with 12 individual themes for him...lol
Click to expand...


Oh my ...

You must be under your covers crying right now.


----------



## Old Rocks

The Rabbi said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt has a defeated look about him.  It just seems like he is not confident at all, hope that look is genuine.
> 
> 
> 
> If there is anything genuine about Willard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  Defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to Obama:
Click to expand...


331 to 204. Yeah, right. Defeated.


----------



## Old Rocks

Whoa. Ohio just turned red. Won't change the election, but does change the numbers.


----------



## Dot Com

Old Rocks said:


> Whoa. Ohio just turned red. Won't change the election, but does change the numbers.



NBC has Ohio as Blue but, if its close, you know provisional ballots cannot be counted until 10 days after the election?


----------



## AceRothstein

Dot Com said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa. Ohio just turned red. Won't change the election, but does change the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NBC has Ohio as Blue but, if its close, you know provisional ballots cannot be counted until 10 days after the election?
Click to expand...


It won't matter once Colorado is called for Obama.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Synthaholic said:


> @ 1:09 pm



The guy is frigging amazing.


----------



## expatriate

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barack obama, the worst president ever, according to some of your losers on the right, just got reelected.  Suck deez nutz!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Greenbeard

Dick Tuck said:


> The guy is frigging amazing.



He is helped intensely by the fact that he is up against absolute fucking idiots.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Dick Tuck said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ 1:09 pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy is frigging amazing.
Click to expand...


He is amazing. Amazing how he can get so many retards like you to vote for him.


----------



## Politico

Paint the Dem states blue and the GOP states red. Yeah just amazing duh. Took a lot of thought.


----------



## AceRothstein

AceRothstein said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa. Ohio just turned red. Won't change the election, but does change the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NBC has Ohio as Blue but, if its close, you know provisional ballots cannot be counted until 10 days after the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It won't matter once Colorado is called for Obama.
Click to expand...


Ohio doesn't matter any longer.  Time to concede Mitt.


----------



## expatriate

Dr.House said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 weeks to be used at the winner's discretion of full sig and avatar control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal piece of shit. You already bet your sig line.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...iation-to-repeal-obamacare-7.html#post5538889
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll coordinate with you so that the weeks I choose don't overlap with yours...
Click to expand...


you should walk around your workplace with your dick hanging out of your pants for anyone to spank for the next week or so, just for being such a total asshole during this discussion.


----------



## expatriate

Liability said:


> Who doesn't think there should be a few threads dedicated to Nate Silver and his magic elixir?



who doesn't think that you should take your sorry ass and crawl the fuck on out of here never to be seen again?


----------



## JoeB131

Every state Nate said Obama would win, he did. 

He also said Florida was a tossup, and we STILL don't know who won Florida as of this morning.


----------



## EriktheRed

AzMike said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ 1:09 pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy is frigging amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is amazing. Amazing how he can get so many retards like you to vote for him.
Click to expand...


He's not talking about the President, you moron.


----------



## EriktheRed

EriktheRed said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I know I'm right about is that you were wrong back in '06 and it didn't stop you from coming back and being the shit-talker you always are. Personally, I don't think you're half as sure about the outcome on Tues as you make yourself out to be, but that's ok. I know by now you just can't help yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lying sack of pus.  Too bad more people don't know you for what you are.
> 
> Tell me, you scumbag lying fuckchop what I was supposedly wrong about in 2006?
> 
> I don't care what a fucking lying scumbag like you believes about me or not.  I am confidant that The ONE is going to lose.  And I will rub your stupid nose in it too, you lowlife lying pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Consider yourself quoted.
Click to expand...


You lost.

Get over it.


----------



## Synthaholic

The Romney "Landslide" That Wasn't | Blog | Media Matters for America





&#8226; Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"
 &#8226; Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college."
 &#8226; Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls -- Points to a Romney Landslide"
 &#8226; Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"
 &#8226; George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217
 &#8226; Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"
 &#8226; Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide."


It didn't work out that way.

And again, this wasn't simply a case of partisans rooting for their  side and letting that enthusiasm color their analysis. What was so  unusual was there was no polling data to support the idea of a Romney  Landslide. None. Zero. It did not exist. Instead, this was a school of  conservative pundits _incapable _of imaging the president being re-elected, and _incapable_ of imaging Obama not losing in a humiliating electoral rout.


----------



## Political Junky

Gotta love Nate Silver.


----------



## Chris

Nate Silver does one thing Republicans don't understand.....arithmetic.


----------



## Synthaholic

Chris said:


> Nate Silver does one thing Republicans don't understand.....arithmetic.


...and logic.


----------



## Dot Com

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi House Gimp.
Click to expand...


House drop-by yet


----------



## MarcATL

Synthaholic said:


> The Romney "Landslide" That Wasn't | Blog | Media Matters for America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"
>  Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college."
>  Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls -- Points to a Romney Landslide"
>  Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"
>  George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217
>  Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"
>  Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide."
> 
> 
> It didn't work out that way.
> 
> And again, this wasn't simply a case of partisans rooting for their  side and letting that enthusiasm color their analysis. What was so  unusual was there was no polling data to support the idea of a Romney  Landslide. None. Zero. It did not exist. Instead, this was a school of  conservative pundits _incapable _of imaging the president being re-elected, and _incapable_ of imaging Obama not losing in a humiliating electoral rout.


POWERFUL!!!


----------



## HUGGY

Dot Com said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi House Gimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> House drop-by yet
Click to expand...


He took his frustration out on his Barak Obama blow-up doll last night.  The doll won the fight.  I believe there was an injury.  He might be out for a while...on the mend..


----------



## EriktheRed

Dr.House said:


> Please, PLEASE...  Keep hanging your liberal hats on Nate Silver....
> 
> It will make you look that much more stupid on election day...









​


----------



## EriktheRed

Dot Com said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi House Gimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah. Where is he?
Click to expand...


He may have already stopped by. He's always invisible. Ever notice how the square next to his name is always gray?


----------



## expatriate

when IS House gonna find the balls to come back on here and try to carry on a conversation whilst spitting out mouthfuls of crow feathers?


----------



## EriktheRed

MarcATL said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Romney "Landslide" That Wasn't | Blog | Media Matters for America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"
>  Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college."
>  Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls -- Points to a Romney Landslide"
>  Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"
>  George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217
>  Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"
>  Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide."
> 
> 
> It didn't work out that way.
> 
> And again, this wasn't simply a case of partisans rooting for their  side and letting that enthusiasm color their analysis. What was so  unusual was there was no polling data to support the idea of a Romney  Landslide. None. Zero. It did not exist. Instead, this was a school of  conservative pundits _incapable _of imaging the president being re-elected, and _incapable_ of imaging Obama not losing in a humiliating electoral rout.
> 
> 
> 
> POWERFUL!!!
Click to expand...




*How dare you post Media Matters, you Commie Lib bastard!*





Who cares if they're right.


----------



## Dot Com

bet there's going to be an office party for Nate


----------



## EriktheRed

> Dean Chambers, the man who garnered praise from the right and notoriety on the left for his "Unskewed Polling" site, admitted today that his method was flawed.
> *"Nate Silver was right, and I was wrong," *Chambers said in a phone interview.
> Chambers' method of "unskewing" polls involved re-weighting the sample to match what he believed the electorate would look like, in terms of party identification. He thought the electorate would lean more Republican when mainstream pollsters routinely found samples that leaned Democratic.
> But as it turned out, the pollsters were right  self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 6% in election exit polls.






'Unskewed' Pollster Dean Chambers: 'Nate Silver Was Right' - Business Insider


----------



## Dick Tuck

EriktheRed said:


> Dean Chambers, the man who garnered praise from the right and notoriety on the left for his "Unskewed Polling" site, admitted today that his method was flawed.
> *"Nate Silver was right, and I was wrong," *Chambers said in a phone interview.
> Chambers' method of "unskewing" polls involved re-weighting the sample to match what he believed the electorate would look like, in terms of party identification. He thought the electorate would lean more Republican when mainstream pollsters routinely found samples that leaned Democratic.
> But as it turned out, the pollsters were right &#8212; self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 6% in election exit polls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Unskewed' Pollster Dean Chambers: 'Nate Silver Was Right' - Business Insider
Click to expand...


Good for him for manning up.  I found this to be interesting coming from him:




> But he said he probably won't go back to "unskewing" polls next time. He actually thinks conservative-leaning pollsters like Scott Rasmussen have a lot more explaining to do.
> 
> "He has lost a lot of credibility, as far as I'm concerned," Chambers said. "He did a lot of surveys. A lot of those surveys were wrong."



The following article was pretty good too.

The Four Absurd Assumptions About The Polls That People Got Completely Wrong

Read more: Obama Vs. Romney Exit Polls: What Everyone Got Wrong - Business Insider


----------



## Cowman

EriktheRed said:


> Dean Chambers, the man who garnered praise from the right and notoriety on the left for his "Unskewed Polling" site, admitted today that his method was flawed.
> *"Nate Silver was right, and I was wrong," *Chambers said in a phone interview.
> Chambers' method of "unskewing" polls involved re-weighting the sample to match what he believed the electorate would look like, in terms of party identification. He thought the electorate would lean more Republican when mainstream pollsters routinely found samples that leaned Democratic.
> But as it turned out, the pollsters were right &#8212; self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 6% in election exit polls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Unskewed' Pollster Dean Chambers: 'Nate Silver Was Right' - Business Insider
Click to expand...


In other words, he pulled a long stringy mess of lies out of his ass.

"Hey no. That doesn't sound right. That doesn't sound fair. I'm gonna change these numbers based on what I think they should be."


----------



## Dick Tuck

Cowman said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dean Chambers, the man who garnered praise from the right and notoriety on the left for his "Unskewed Polling" site, admitted today that his method was flawed.
> *"Nate Silver was right, and I was wrong," *Chambers said in a phone interview.
> Chambers' method of "unskewing" polls involved re-weighting the sample to match what he believed the electorate would look like, in terms of party identification. He thought the electorate would lean more Republican when mainstream pollsters routinely found samples that leaned Democratic.
> But as it turned out, the pollsters were right  self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 6% in election exit polls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Unskewed' Pollster Dean Chambers: 'Nate Silver Was Right' - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, he pulled a long stringy mess of lies out of his ass.
> 
> "Hey no. That doesn't sound right. That doesn't sound fair. I'm gonna change these numbers based on what I think they should be."
Click to expand...


I think he just bought into the lies being sold by the right that the polls were all wrong, because they over sampled Democrats.  What was Stephen Colbert's word?  Truthiness?  It sounded true, and even though it had no basis in reality, he bought it.  He did provide some good entertainment when the raft full of wingnuts on this forum pushed it.

Too bad Liability made the sissy bet and ran away after Obama won.  He was a true believer in unskewedpolls.com.


----------



## EriktheRed

Dick Tuck said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Unskewed' Pollster Dean Chambers: 'Nate Silver Was Right' - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, he pulled a long stringy mess of lies out of his ass.
> 
> "Hey no. That doesn't sound right. That doesn't sound fair. I'm gonna change these numbers based on what I think they should be."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he just bought into the lies being sold by the right that the polls were all wrong, because they over sampled Democrats.  What was Stephen Colbert's word?  Truthiness?  It sounded true, and even though it had no basis in reality, he bought it.  He did provide some good entertainment when the raft full of wingnuts on this forum pushed it.
> 
> Too bad Liability made the sissy bet and ran away after Obama won.  He was a true believer in unskewedpolls.com.
Click to expand...



Back in '08 he was telling us to "dread the Fred", too.


----------



## Political Junky

Nate got 50 states right.


----------



## Article 15

HUGGY said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi House Gimp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House drop-by yet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He took his frustration out on his Barak Obama blow-up doll last night.  The doll won the fight.  I believe there was an injury.  He might be out for a while...on the mend..
Click to expand...


The kid's got it rough, give him some time.

I mean, think about it - he actually believed his own bullshit.  

Can you imagine getting slapped by reality that hard and then upon regaining consciousness remembering that your dumbass made a ludacris, no wait, *LUDACRIS* bet with arguably the last person on the board you want to lose to?

He's prolly rewatching the entire House series while crushing a giant tub of cake frosting just to cope right now.


----------



## expatriate

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
Click to expand...

We were... Where were you?


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natey Boy is starting to walk back his prediction now...
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Obama as ~80% likely to win Electoral College if popular vote is a tie. 98% if it's O+1. *30% if it's R+1.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> FYI, Barry won't win the popular vote....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I predicted, Nate is refining his prediction to try and save face...
> 
> Too late...  The libs are gonna be pissed at him anyway...
Click to expand...


^Priceless

I love how poorly you misread what Silver's post meant.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natey Boy is starting to walk back his prediction now...
> 
> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> So, if the popular vote isn't tied or on the plus side for 0bama, Natey says Barry has a 30% or less chance of winning the EC...
> 
> FYI, Barry won't win the popular vote....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, Nate is refining his prediction to try and save face...
> 
> Too late...  The libs are gonna be pissed at him anyway...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^Priceless
> 
> I love how poorly you misread what Silver's post meant.
Click to expand...


i think it is a quite accomplished misread. must have a lot of practice.


----------



## Dot Com

Article 15 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> House drop-by yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He took his frustration out on his Barak Obama blow-up doll last night.  The doll won the fight.  I believe there was an injury.  He might be out for a while...on the mend..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kid's got it rough, give him some time.
> 
> I mean, think about it - he actually believed his own bullshit.
> 
> Can you imagine getting slapped by reality that hard and then upon regaining consciousness remembering that your dumbass made a ludacris, no wait, *LUDACRIS* bet with arguably the last person on the board you want to lose to?
> 
> He's prolly rewatching the entire House series while crushing a giant tub of cake frosting just to cope right now.
Click to expand...


wasn't one of his parting posts something like "see you Wednesday loser"? Wednesday has come and gone.


----------



## EriktheRed

Dot Com said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> He took his frustration out on his Barak Obama blow-up doll last night.  The doll won the fight.  I believe there was an injury.  He might be out for a while...on the mend..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kid's got it rough, give him some time.
> 
> I mean, think about it - he actually believed his own bullshit.
> 
> Can you imagine getting slapped by reality that hard and then upon regaining consciousness remembering that your dumbass made a ludacris, no wait, *LUDACRIS* bet with arguably the last person on the board you want to lose to?
> 
> He's prolly rewatching the entire House series while crushing a giant tub of cake frosting just to cope right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wasn't one of his parting posts something like "see you Wednesday loser"? Wednesday has come and gone.
Click to expand...


He's probably invisibly lurking as you're reading this.


----------



## deaddogseye

will someonme explain something to me -- what is the basis for saying silver got 50 states right?

On the morning of election day he had florida at 52 / 48 for Obama (earlier he had it for romney i believe) BUT by noon before the polls closed he had it 50/50 and labled it "Tossup" (and that is still on the site now).  So he didnt make a call on it as of the end and really punted it. So he wasnt wrong but he also wanst right as far as I could tell.

So if you count DC he did get 50 elctoral jurisdictions right (or even more counting the seprate distircts in Maine in Nebraska) but he did not get all of them right as far as I can  as far as I can tell.

Am i missing something and if i am where is his call on Florida on the site because what I see doesnt indicate obama. Thanks


----------



## HUGGY

deaddogseye said:


> will someonme explain something to me -- what is the basis for saying silver got 50 states right?
> 
> On the morning of election day he had florida at 52 / 48 for Obama (earlier he had it for romney i believe) BUT by noon before the polls closed he had it 50/50 and labled it "Tossup" (and that is still on the site now).  So he didnt make a call on it as of the end and really punted it. So he wasnt wrong but he also wanst right as far as I could tell.
> 
> So if you count DC he did get 50 elctoral jurisdictions right (or even more counting the seprate distircts in Maine in Nebraska) but he did not get all of them right as far as I can  as far as I can tell.
> 
> *Am i missing something *and if i am where is his call on Florida on the site because what I see doesnt indicate obama. Thanks



Yes. You are missing the fact that EVERY other pollster got it grossly wrong and this guy was almost perfect.

Rassmusen and it's ilk should go out of business.  They are either liars or stupid.  Anyone who trusts them in the future is a damned fool.


----------



## deaddogseye

HUGGY said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> will someonme explain something to me -- what is the basis for saying silver got 50 states right?
> 
> On the morning of election day he had florida at 52 / 48 for Obama (earlier he had it for romney i believe) BUT by noon before the polls closed he had it 50/50 and labled it "Tossup" (and that is still on the site now).  So he didnt make a call on it as of the end and really punted it. So he wasnt wrong but he also wanst right as far as I could tell.
> 
> So if you count DC he did get 50 elctoral jurisdictions right (or even more counting the seprate distircts in Maine in Nebraska) but he did not get all of them right as far as I can  as far as I can tell.
> 
> *Am i missing something *and if i am where is his call on Florida on the site because what I see doesnt indicate obama. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. You are missing the fact that EVERY other pollster got it grossly wrong and this guy was almost perfect.
> 
> Rassmusen and it's ilk should go out of business.  They are either liars or stupid.  Anyone who trusts them in the future is a damned fool.
Click to expand...


Thanks and fair enough but that is my question -- did he get it perfect as several have said here and several in the media have said or - as you say and I agree -- almost perfect (which i did too - i made  apick on florida but for romney so that almost surely will prove wrong). THAT is the question.  And there is a big difference between perfect and almost perfect (which is just another way for saying imperfect).

Although the copmarison to the pollsters is apples to oranges and silver would be the first one to tell you he is not a pollster. My guess is that he probably would even say that a pollster who said it was +1 romney (as I think rassmussen did) with a 3.5 MOE didnt get it wrong (assuming obama ended up winnig within the MOE as i think he did for most polls)


----------



## Dick Tuck

deaddogseye said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> will someonme explain something to me -- what is the basis for saying silver got 50 states right?
> 
> On the morning of election day he had florida at 52 / 48 for Obama (earlier he had it for romney i believe) BUT by noon before the polls closed he had it 50/50 and labled it "Tossup" (and that is still on the site now).  So he didnt make a call on it as of the end and really punted it. So he wasnt wrong but he also wanst right as far as I could tell.
> 
> So if you count DC he did get 50 elctoral jurisdictions right (or even more counting the seprate distircts in Maine in Nebraska) but he did not get all of them right as far as I can  as far as I can tell.
> 
> *Am i missing something *and if i am where is his call on Florida on the site because what I see doesnt indicate obama. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. You are missing the fact that EVERY other pollster got it grossly wrong and this guy was almost perfect.
> 
> Rassmusen and it's ilk should go out of business.  They are either liars or stupid.  Anyone who trusts them in the future is a damned fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks and fair enough but that is my question -- did he get it perfect as several have said here and several in the media have said or - as you say and I agree -- almost perfect (which i did too - i made  apick on florida but for romney so that almost surely will prove wrong). THAT is the question.  And there is a big difference between perfect and almost perfect (which is just another way for saying imperfect).
> 
> Although the copmarison to the pollsters is apples to oranges and silver would be the first one to tell you he is not a pollster. My guess is that he probably would even say that a pollster who said it was +1 romney (as I think rassmussen did) with a 3.5 MOE didnt get it wrong (assuming obama ended up winnig within the MOE as i think he did for most polls)
Click to expand...


Lets just get a few terms down Nate Silver, Pollster, and Real Clear aren't pollsters.  They construct prediction models using many polls as data.  Both Nate and Pollster, and a handful of lesser known analysts correctly predicted 51 out of 51 results.  Than you had the analysts like Real Clear Politics who miscalled Florida.  On the other extreme, you had unskewedpolls and analysts like Dick Morris and Karl Rove becoming a complete joke in their predictions.

Yes, Rassmussen and Gallup were among the worst poll organizations this go around.  I can't say why Rassmussen was so terrible, but Gallup totally screwed up their LV algorithm, predicting that white turnout would be 78%, when it turned out to be 72%.  Gallup also predicted that Republican turnout would exceed Democrats.  Both of these organizations came in near the bottom of the list for accuracy.


----------



## jillian

Dick Tuck said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. You are missing the fact that EVERY other pollster got it grossly wrong and this guy was almost perfect.
> 
> Rassmusen and it's ilk should go out of business.  They are either liars or stupid.  Anyone who trusts them in the future is a damned fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks and fair enough but that is my question -- did he get it perfect as several have said here and several in the media have said or - as you say and I agree -- almost perfect (which i did too - i made  apick on florida but for romney so that almost surely will prove wrong). THAT is the question.  And there is a big difference between perfect and almost perfect (which is just another way for saying imperfect).
> 
> Although the copmarison to the pollsters is apples to oranges and silver would be the first one to tell you he is not a pollster. My guess is that he probably would even say that a pollster who said it was +1 romney (as I think rassmussen did) with a 3.5 MOE didnt get it wrong (assuming obama ended up winnig within the MOE as i think he did for most polls)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets just get a few terms down Nate Silver, Pollster, and Real Clear aren't pollsters.  They construct prediction models using many polls as data.  Both Nate and Pollster, and a handful of lesser known analysts correctly predicted 51 out of 51 results.  Than you had the analysts like Real Clear Politics who miscalled Florida.  On the other extreme, you had unskewedpolls and analysts like Dick Morris and Karl Rove becoming a complete joke in their predictions.
> 
> Yes, Rassmussen and Gallup were among the worst poll organizations this go around.  I can't say why Rassmussen was so terrible, but Gallup totally screwed up their LV algorithm, predicting that white turnout would be 78%, when it turned out to be 72%.  Gallup also predicted that Republican turnout would exceed Democrats.  Both of these organizations came in near the bottom of the list for accuracy.
Click to expand...


rasmussen was horrible because they didn't survey cell phones (where a lot of people, especially younger people, now have their only phone contact; and he also decided that democrats were being oversampled even though that obviously wasn't the case.


----------



## Dick Tuck

jillian said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks and fair enough but that is my question -- did he get it perfect as several have said here and several in the media have said or - as you say and I agree -- almost perfect (which i did too - i made  apick on florida but for romney so that almost surely will prove wrong). THAT is the question.  And there is a big difference between perfect and almost perfect (which is just another way for saying imperfect).
> 
> Although the copmarison to the pollsters is apples to oranges and silver would be the first one to tell you he is not a pollster. My guess is that he probably would even say that a pollster who said it was +1 romney (as I think rassmussen did) with a 3.5 MOE didnt get it wrong (assuming obama ended up winnig within the MOE as i think he did for most polls)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just get a few terms down Nate Silver, Pollster, and Real Clear aren't pollsters.  They construct prediction models using many polls as data.  Both Nate and Pollster, and a handful of lesser known analysts correctly predicted 51 out of 51 results.  Than you had the analysts like Real Clear Politics who miscalled Florida.  On the other extreme, you had unskewedpolls and analysts like Dick Morris and Karl Rove becoming a complete joke in their predictions.
> 
> Yes, Rassmussen and Gallup were among the worst poll organizations this go around.  I can't say why Rassmussen was so terrible, but Gallup totally screwed up their LV algorithm, predicting that white turnout would be 78%, when it turned out to be 72%.  Gallup also predicted that Republican turnout would exceed Democrats.  Both of these organizations came in near the bottom of the list for accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rasmussen was horrible because they didn't survey cell phones (where a lot of people, especially younger people, now have their only phone contact; and he also decided that democrats were being oversampled even though that obviously wasn't the case.
Click to expand...


Just found this.  Dean Chambers, who developed the model at unskewedpolls did use Rasmussen's party id numbers.  PPP, who topped the list for accuracy, had an interesting comeback:

Meet Dean Chambers, The Virginia Republican Who Is &#8216;Unskewing&#8217; The Polls | TPM2012



> Chambers&#8217; project started in July after he noticed an ABC News/Washington Post poll that &#8220;just didn&#8217;t look right.&#8221; An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted this month showed Obama up over Romney 49 percent to 48 percent. &#8220;Unskewed,&#8221; however, after applying Rasmussen&#8217;s numbers on party ID, Romney leads Obama 52-45 in the poll. It&#8217;s like magic. But Chambers insists he isn&#8217;t &#8220;changing&#8221; or &#8220;making up&#8221; data. &#8220;The only thing I&#8217;m doing is weighting.&#8221;
> 
> But that&#8217;s exactly what most pollsters don&#8217;t do. &#8220;We don&#8217;t have any preconceived notions about the party breakdown of a poll before we conduct it. The only things we make any adjustments for are gender, race, and age,&#8221; Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling&#8217;s Tom Jensen told TPM in an email. &#8220;It makes sense that as support for Obama increases, more people also identify themselves as Democrats. I know conservatives want to think it&#8217;s more Democrats in the poll causing Obama to do better, but it&#8217;s actually Obama doing better causing more Democrats in the poll.&#8221;



Jensen's point seems correct.  This article isn't Monday morning quarterbacking, btw.  It was published in September.


----------



## deaddogseye

Last time I'll ask but can someone point me to where he picks Florida right? All i see on the site is he calls it a tossup and punts with no prediction.


----------



## Dick Tuck

deaddogseye said:


> Last time I'll ask but can someone point me to where he picks Florida right? All i see on the site is he calls it a tossup and punts with no prediction.



He didn't have it as a toss-up.  He had it as a lean Obama.  His prediction was there was a 50.2% chance Obama would win the state.  Better than even odds.


----------



## AceRothstein

deaddogseye said:


> Last time I'll ask but can someone point me to where he picks Florida right? All i see on the site is he calls it a tossup and punts with no prediction.



He shaded Florida light blue on his State-By-State Probabilities map late Tuesday morning.


----------



## deaddogseye

Dick Tuck said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I'll ask but can someone point me to where he picks Florida right? All i see on the site is he calls it a tossup and punts with no prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have it as a toss-up.  He had it as a lean Obama.  His prediction was there was a 50.2% chance Obama would win the state.  Better than even odds.
Click to expand...


well -- yes he had it as you say tuesday morning but then later that morning before the polls closed he pulled it back and put it 50/50 and called it a tossup -- and thats how it still is now - check it out so i think he didnt call it right.  I think im right on this.


----------



## Dick Tuck

deaddogseye said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I'll ask but can someone point me to where he picks Florida right? All i see on the site is he calls it a tossup and punts with no prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have it as a toss-up.  He had it as a lean Obama.  His prediction was there was a 50.2% chance Obama would win the state.  Better than even odds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well -- yes he had it as you say tuesday morning but then later that morning before the polls closed he pulled it back and put it 50/50 and called it a tossup -- and thats how it still is now - check it out so i think he didnt call it right.  I think im right on this.
Click to expand...


Provide a link.  I'm looking at his predictions here, and he currently has Obama with a 50.3% chance of winning Florida.  He doesn't do things like 50/50 that I recall.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/


----------



## AceRothstein

deaddogseye said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I'll ask but can someone point me to where he picks Florida right? All i see on the site is he calls it a tossup and punts with no prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have it as a toss-up.  He had it as a lean Obama.  His prediction was there was a 50.2% chance Obama would win the state.  Better than even odds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well -- yes he had it as you say tuesday morning but then later that morning before the polls closed he pulled it back and put it 50/50 and called it a tossup -- and thats how it still is now - check it out so i think he didnt call it right.  I think im right on this.
Click to expand...


Scroll over Florida on the State-By-State Probabilities map.


----------



## deaddogseye

AceRothstein said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I'll ask but can someone point me to where he picks Florida right? All i see on the site is he calls it a tossup and punts with no prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He shaded Florida light blue on his State-By-State Probabilities map late Tuesday morning.
Click to expand...


i see what you say about the map - it does seem like a hedge between the two references. Im just guessing if whether when on Tuesday morning he revised the florida table to a toss up he just didnt make the conforming change on the map -- but i guess we will never know. Seems a little slippery to me but whatever.

Thanks for the answers


----------



## Dick Tuck

Nate Silver isn't quite perfect.  He miscalled the Tester/Rehberg race in Montana.  He gave Rehberg a 65.5% chance of winning, but Tester won by almost 4 points.  To cut him some slack, there wasn't a whole lot of polling done there.


----------



## deaddogseye

Dick Tuck said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have it as a toss-up.  He had it as a lean Obama.  His prediction was there was a 50.2% chance Obama would win the state.  Better than even odds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well -- yes he had it as you say tuesday morning but then later that morning before the polls closed he pulled it back and put it 50/50 and called it a tossup -- and thats how it still is now - check it out so i think he didnt call it right.  I think im right on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide a link.  I'm looking at his predictions here, and he currently has Obama with a 50.3% chance of winning Florida.  He doesn't do things like 50/50 that I recall.
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...


ok -- this is weird. I was going to send you a link but i clicked on your link and it shows (me at least) exactly what i said. Scroll down the left side to the tables of state and look at florida? doesnt it say exactly what I say?


----------



## Dick Tuck

deaddogseye said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I'll ask but can someone point me to where he picks Florida right? All i see on the site is he calls it a tossup and punts with no prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He shaded Florida light blue on his State-By-State Probabilities map late Tuesday morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see what you say about the map - it does seem like a hedge between the two references. Im just guessing if whether when on Tuesday morning he revised the florida table to a toss up he just didnt make the conforming change on the map -- but i guess we will never know. Seems a little slippery to me but whatever.
> 
> Thanks for the answers
Click to expand...


A hedge or rounding.   Florida was the tightest race in the country, and giving Obama a 50.3% chance of winning seems totally reasonable to call it a toss-up.  Hell, we won't have the final numbers for at least a week, after the mandatory recount.


----------



## deaddogseye

Dick Tuck said:


> Nate Silver isn't quite perfect.  He miscalled the Tester/Rehberg race in Montana.  He gave Rehberg a 65.5% chance of winning, but Tester won by almost 4 points.  To cut him some slack, there wasn't a whole lot of polling done there.



he aslo blew berg in ND. That one shows an unavoidable weakness in his methodology. All the recent polls showed him ahead so there was no way (i think n)n for the methodology to show anyone winning but him -- there was no data indicating anything else and of course he lost.

on tester -- you are right and there wasnt a lot of polling but the last pre election poll showed tester winnig (see RCP) so there was data out there to show a Tester win. I has Tester winning (although I was wrong on ND)


----------



## deaddogseye

deaddogseye said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> well -- yes he had it as you say tuesday morning but then later that morning before the polls closed he pulled it back and put it 50/50 and called it a tossup -- and thats how it still is now - check it out so i think he didnt call it right.  I think im right on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link.  I'm looking at his predictions here, and he currently has Obama with a 50.3% chance of winning Florida.  He doesn't do things like 50/50 that I recall.
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok -- this is weird. I was going to send you a link but i clicked on your link and it shows (me at least) exactly what i said. Scroll down the left side to the tables of state and look at florida? doesnt it say exactly what I say?
Click to expand...


Im sorry - i mean scroll down the RIGHT side of the page


----------



## Dick Tuck

deaddogseye said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> well -- yes he had it as you say tuesday morning but then later that morning before the polls closed he pulled it back and put it 50/50 and called it a tossup -- and thats how it still is now - check it out so i think he didnt call it right.  I think im right on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link.  I'm looking at his predictions here, and he currently has Obama with a 50.3% chance of winning Florida.  He doesn't do things like 50/50 that I recall.
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok -- this is weird. I was going to send you a link but i clicked on your link and it shows (me at least) exactly what i said. Scroll down the left side to the tables of state and look at florida? doesnt it say exactly what I say?
Click to expand...


I see what you're saying, and looking there, he's rounding all those final state predictions.  But if you look at his data points, he still has a .2% advantage to Obama, in the Adjusted polling average, and that tiny advantage is reflected in his map.


----------



## deaddogseye

Dick Tuck said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link.  I'm looking at his predictions here, and he currently has Obama with a 50.3% chance of winning Florida.  He doesn't do things like 50/50 that I recall.
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok -- this is weird. I was going to send you a link but i clicked on your link and it shows (me at least) exactly what i said. Scroll down the left side to the tables of state and look at florida? doesnt it say exactly what I say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you're saying, and looking there, he's rounding all those final state predictions.  But if you look at his data points, he still has a .2% advantage to Obama, in the Adjusted polling average, and that tiny advantage is reflected in his map.
Click to expand...


Thanks


----------



## Dick Tuck

deaddogseye said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver isn't quite perfect.  He miscalled the Tester/Rehberg race in Montana.  He gave Rehberg a 65.5% chance of winning, but Tester won by almost 4 points.  To cut him some slack, there wasn't a whole lot of polling done there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he aslo blew berg in ND. That one shows an unavoidable weakness in his methodology. All the recent polls showed him ahead so there was no way (i think n)n for the methodology to show anyone winning but him -- there was no data indicating anything else and of course he lost.
> 
> on tester -- you are right and there wasnt a lot of polling but the last pre election poll showed tester winnig (see RCP) so there was data out there to show a Tester win. I has Tester winning (although I was wrong on ND)
Click to expand...


The thing is, he's not a pollster or a pundit.  He puts the data he gets in, weighs it for the past accuracy of the specific pollster, and what comes out comes out.  When working with a small number of polls, he'll be less accurate, and with more data, his accuracy improves.

The bottom line remains, his method is very accurate, and his objective predictions are better than anyone else out there doing similar things.  It's certainly better than those who tried to weigh their results on a 50-50 split in voter party id, like unskewedpolls and Rassmussen, or Gallup who used 2010 numbers to weigh their race demographics for their likely voter algorithm.


----------



## deaddogseye

Dick Tuck said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver isn't quite perfect.  He miscalled the Tester/Rehberg race in Montana.  He gave Rehberg a 65.5% chance of winning, but Tester won by almost 4 points.  To cut him some slack, there wasn't a whole lot of polling done there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he aslo blew berg in ND. That one shows an unavoidable weakness in his methodology. All the recent polls showed him ahead so there was no way (i think n)n for the methodology to show anyone winning but him -- there was no data indicating anything else and of course he lost.
> 
> on tester -- you are right and there wasnt a lot of polling but the last pre election poll showed tester winnig (see RCP) so there was data out there to show a Tester win. I has Tester winning (although I was wrong on ND)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, he's not a pollster or a pundit.  He puts the data he gets in, weighs it for the past accuracy of the specific pollster, and what comes out comes out.  When working with a small number of polls, he'll be less accurate, and with more data, his accuracy improves.
> 
> The bottom line remains, his method is very accurate, and his objective predictions are better than anyone else out there doing similar things.  It's certainly better than those who tried to weigh their results on a 50-50 split in voter party id, like unskewedpolls and Rassmussen, or Gallup who used 2010 numbers to weigh their race demographics for their likely voter algorithm.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on this -- althogh i do maintain that what he does isnt that hard to do and most people who just eyeballed the state poll tables on RCP on a fairly regular basis would come up with the same conclusions on their own. 

He deserves credit for making a little career out of this but it isnt hard to do -picking the winners of the states anyway -- at least IMO.


----------



## JimH52

Republicans at a real disadvantage with the Electoral College system

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com


*OOOOUUUUCCHHHHH*  That's got to hurt!


----------



## JoeB131

deaddogseye said:


> will someonme explain something to me -- what is the basis for saying silver got 50 states right?
> 
> On the morning of election day he had florida at 52 / 48 for Obama (earlier he had it for romney i believe) BUT by noon before the polls closed he had it 50/50 and labled it "Tossup" (and that is still on the site now).  So he didnt make a call on it as of the end and really punted it. So he wasnt wrong but he also wanst right as far as I could tell.
> 
> So if you count DC he did get 50 elctoral jurisdictions right (or even more counting the seprate distircts in Maine in Nebraska) but he did not get all of them right as far as I can  as far as I can tell.
> 
> Am i missing something and if i am where is his call on Florida on the site because what I see doesnt indicate obama. Thanks



I must have missed where he had it 52/48, and he called it a tossup.


----------



## Dot Com

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
Click to expand...


Its almost Friday now


----------



## Synthaholic

candycorn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> I call bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you! Silver was on a TV show explaining what he does a while back. It was interesting.   He's a really nice guy that likes to gamble.   I don't care if your believe me or not.
> 
> Here is what he says about how he weights polls at his NY Times blog:
> 
> "a combination of freshness, sample size, past accuracy, and methodological standards".
> 
> I see plenty of room for human factors in that explanation.
> 
> Bottom line- He's a gambler. If he's right- he'll make a bloody FORTUNE.  If he's wrong, he'll make a tiny little less. He can't walk away from the pot odds...he wins either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're awfully quiet tonight?  What happened?
Click to expand...



He's been busy converting all his money into gold, and buying ammo.


----------



## Synthaholic

Old Rocks said:


> Whoa. Ohio just turned red. Won't change the election, but does change the numbers.


Nope:

Ohio Election Results


----------



## Zander

Nate made a good bet....


----------



## EriktheRed

Zander said:


> Nate made a good bet....



Good on you, sir.


Now where's the other shit-talker whose bet featured prominently in this thread...


----------



## elvis

Synthaholic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa. Ohio just turned red. Won't change the election, but does change the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope:
> 
> Ohio Election Results
Click to expand...


No one has a crystal ball, synth.


----------



## Dante

We all know polls are skewed Democratic. The liberal media again helped elected Obama.  Life is unfair 

boo hoo hoo


----------



## konradv

#drunknatesilver has taken over the Twitterverse.  Funny article.  Here's a sample.

_Drunk Nate Silver knows what you did *next* summer. #DrunkNateSilver_

Twitter commandeered by 'Drunk Nate Silver' - CNN.com


----------



## candycorn

Amazed said:


> It is going to be hilarious watching you morons howl in pain.



he he he


----------



## JoeB131

Zander said:


> Nate made a good bet....



No, Nate conducted solid analysis based on data.


----------



## Political Junky

JoeB131 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate made a good bet....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Nate conducted solid analysis based on data.
Click to expand...

Yes, as did the Obama campaign. Romney's campaign should have done that too, and Willard wouldn't have been shell-shocked.


----------



## Cowman

I wonder, will conservatives mock Nate Silver next election? Or will they actually trust his data?


----------



## Old Rocks

Zander said:


> Nate made a good bet....



Wonderful sig line


----------



## JoeB131

Political Junky said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate made a good bet....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Nate conducted solid analysis based on data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, as did the Obama campaign. Romney's campaign should have done that too, and Willard wouldn't have been shell-shocked.
Click to expand...


I think the problem there is one of a culture problem... 

Romney is a product of the Corporate World. And the thing in the Corporate World is that the Boss is Always Right.  

So the campaign made one mistake after another, and frankly, no one around Romney objected.  Especially not the Mormon Cultists in his inner circle.  

Everyone noticed how fast the Republicans threw Romney under the bus yesterday when his "gifts" comments came out?


----------



## Toro

Political Junky said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate made a good bet....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Nate conducted solid analysis based on data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, as did the Obama campaign. Romney's campaign should have done that too, and Willard wouldn't have been shell-shocked.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing that they knew, though maybe they thought it would be closer.

Don't be fooled by what gets tossed out for public consumption.


----------



## Toro

Cowman said:


> I wonder, will conservatives mock Nate Silver next election? Or will they actually trust his data?



I'm betting that next time, liberals will deify Silver, and proclaim that because he was right this time, he will certainly be right next time.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder, will conservatives mock Nate Silver next election? Or will they actually trust his data?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm betting that next time, liberals will deify Silver, and proclaim that because he was right this time, he will certainly be right next time.
Click to expand...


Unless he shows the Republican leading...  then they'll turn on him.


----------



## Toro

I think people - liberals and conservatives alike - misunderstand what Silver does.  I was searching for his analysis on the 2010 election and came upon this.



> Nate's real strength isn't his forecasting system as much as it's his gift for explaining what the data is, and isn't, telling us. All his analysis derives from publicly available data.



Daily Kos: LOL ... now they're going after Nate Silver

Silver does a statistical analysis of the polls and assigns probabilities to outcomes.


----------



## Toro

And on the 2010 election, I found this



> Silver was 92% correct on Senate races (missed AK, NV, & CO) and 95% on Governor races (missed IL & FL). But his record is even more impressive than this
> 
> In 56 of 73 races for Senate/Governor, Silver assigned a 90% probability or higher that he was correct. He got all of them right. This included some tricky races including the Feingold upset, the crowded Senate race in Florida, and the close race in PA.
> 
> But even on the races that he had less confidence in, Silver delivered. He was 71% in races he assigned an 80% probability to, and 70% in toss ups (50-80%).



Pacific Northwest-Coast Bias » Blog Archive » Grading Nate Silver&#8217;s Election Predictions


----------



## Article 15

Silver wasn't vilified when he was predicting a GOP avalanche two years ago.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> And on the 2010 election, I found this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver was 92% correct on Senate races (missed AK, NV, & CO) and 95% on Governor races (missed IL & FL). But his record is even more impressive than this
> 
> In 56 of 73 races for Senate/Governor, Silver assigned a 90% probability or higher that he was correct. He got all of them right. This included some tricky races including the Feingold upset, the crowded Senate race in Florida, and the close race in PA.
> 
> But even on the races that he had less confidence in, Silver delivered. He was 71% in races he assigned an 80% probability to, and 70% in toss ups (50-80%).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pacific Northwest-Coast Bias » Blog Archive » Grading Nate Silvers Election Predictions
Click to expand...


To be fair, IL was a big shock.  Everyone thought Quinn was going down. Unfortunately, he didn't, and we got socked with a 66% tax increase.


----------



## Dot Com

Article 15 said:


> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> *You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.*
> 
> You're effed now.



Yep. Gimpy made the mistake of thinking the first debate was a bellwether


----------



## EriktheRed

Pointing out how totally fuckin' *WRONG*  certain wingnuts on here were hasn't gotten old yet.


----------



## jillian

EriktheRed said:


> Pointing out how totally fuckin' *WRONG*  certain wingnuts on here were hasn't gotten old yet.



Because it's a reminder that fact-based reality trumps truthiness.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Clearly, Silver is doing something right. I don't know how you can argue against that


----------



## jillian

CrusaderFrank said:


> Clearly, Silver is doing something right. I don't know how you can argue against that



Silver just analyzes data. Basically, he said that if the state polls were wrong, then he was wrong. And if the state polls were right, he was right.

It isn't rocket science. Though he's very good at what he does.

What I can't understand is the desperate need of some to denigrate him, call him "boi" in the most  derisive fashion, as if acknowledging the guy is smart and good at what he does is somehow a violation of some rightwingnut code.


----------



## EriktheRed

jillian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, Silver is doing something right. I don't know how you can argue against that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver just analyzes data. Basically, he said that if the state polls were wrong, then he was wrong. And if the state polls were right, he was right.
> 
> It isn't rocket science. Though he's very good at what he does.
> 
> What I can't understand is the desperate need of some to denigrate him, call him "boi" in the most  derisive fashion, as if acknowledging the guy is smart and good at what he does is somehow a violation of some rightwingnut code.
Click to expand...


They just hate that he was right, that's all.


----------



## Synthaholic

If Republicans were smart....

should I stop there?

OK, I'll finish...

If Republicans were smart, they would have used Silver's predictions as a motivator to get their troops rallied.

I think FOX/Rush/Sean fucked themselves by predicting a #BishopRomney landslide.  It doesn't take much to get old, fat, lazy White people to stay on the couch, what with Ol' Mitt having sewn this thing up!


----------



## Dick Tuck

Just read an interesting piece on how RV polls were actually more exact than LV polls.


----------



## AceRothstein

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
Click to expand...


We've all been here.  Where are you?


----------



## Dot Com

AceRothstein said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've all been here.  Where are you?
Click to expand...


3 Wednesdays have gone by now


----------



## EriktheRed

Dot Com said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've all been here.  Where are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 Wednesdays have gone by now
Click to expand...


He's been lurking invisibly. 

Hell, he may even be one of our new sock puppets.


----------



## Synthaholic

EriktheRed said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all been here.  Where are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 Wednesdays have gone by now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's been lurking invisibly.
> 
> Hell, he may even be one of our new sock puppets.
Click to expand...

Dr. House is a pussy.  He is a pussy here at USMB as Dr. House, and he was a pussy at Hannity as Night Train.  He has no balls at all.


----------



## Dot Com

Synthaholic said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 Wednesdays have gone by now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's been lurking invisibly.
> 
> Hell, he may even be one of our new sock puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dr. House is a pussy.  He is a pussy here at USMB as Dr. House, and he was a pussy at Hannity as Night Train.  He has no balls at all.
Click to expand...


maybe he went back to hannity to get the echo chamber opinions he craves  .


----------



## JoeB131

Dot Com said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's been lurking invisibly.
> 
> Hell, he may even be one of our new sock puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. House is a pussy.  He is a pussy here at USMB as Dr. House, and he was a pussy at Hannity as Night Train.  He has no balls at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe he went back to hannity to get the echo chamber opinions he craves  .
Click to expand...


Looks like a lot of them have vanished.  Listening, Conservative, Amazed all stopped posting after the election, although a couple of them said they would if Romney lost.  So there's that.


----------



## Article 15

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that House Gimp thinks Nate "changed" is prediction.  All he did was cite something that is on his page every day ... the chances Romney wins the popular vote but losed the EC.
> 
> Romney having a 30% to lose the EC even when he wins the popular vote is TERRIBLE news for him and his supporters.
> 
> House Gimp is proving that a drowning man (and I use this term very loosely here) will clutch at a straw.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....
> 
> I've already shown why your boi hero is off...
> 
> "How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night....
> 
> It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
Click to expand...


Haha

Remember kids, never let your friends mainline koolaid. Take what happened to Dr. House as a lesson to you all.


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....
> 
> I've already shown why your boi hero is off...
> 
> "How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night....
> 
> It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha
> 
> Remember kids, never let your friends mainline koolaid. Take what happened to Dr. House as a lesson to you all.
Click to expand...

Nothing happened to him.  He just has no integrity


----------



## Toro

Article 15 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clutching to the good ship Nate Silver, the last hope of the desperate lib....
> 
> I've already shown why your boi hero is off...
> 
> "How could the polls be so wrong!", the libs collectively groaned on election night....
> 
> It's all over except for your crying tomorrow night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha
> 
> Remember kids, never let your friends mainline koolaid. Take what happened to Dr. House as a lesson to you all.
Click to expand...


What happened to House wasn't unique.  It ran up and down right through the Republican party, from the base to the top of the party.  That's what is so stunning.  I understand the base believing this stuff but the leaders should have seen what was coming.  They drank the Kool-Aid too.

FTR, I liked House.  It's too bad he's gone.


----------



## Article 15

elvis said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha
> 
> Remember kids, never let your friends mainline koolaid. Take what happened to Dr. House as a lesson to you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing happened to him.  He just has no integrity
Click to expand...


True dat.

But his lack of integrity can't be blamed for letting himself get played like a fiddle by me. Well, not unless you link the lies he told himself to that.


----------



## Article 15

Toro said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCP has Obama at +68 and intrade has Obama at a 2-1 favorite.
> 
> You really stepped in it after the first debate, House Gimp, and it's all coming back to haunt you.
> 
> You're effed now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha
> 
> Remember kids, never let your friends mainline koolaid. Take what happened to Dr. House as a lesson to you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to House wasn't unique.  It ran up and down right through the Republican party, from the base to the top of the party.  That's what is so stunning.  I understand the base believing this stuff but the leaders should have seen what was coming.  They drank the Kool-Aid too.
> 
> FTR, I liked House.  It's too bad he's gone.
Click to expand...


I think a lot of Republicans knew they were going to lose and were just putting up a front but yeah it's amazing how many people were legit shocked. 

That Karl Rove/Megyn Kelly exchange and her subsequent visit to the back room will live on forever. 

The bubble was popped....at least for one night.


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha
> 
> Remember kids, never let your friends mainline koolaid. Take what happened to Dr. House as a lesson to you all.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happened to him.  He just has no integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True dat.
> 
> But his lack of integrity can't be blamed for letting himself get played like a fiddle by me. Well, not unless you link the lies he told himself to that.
Click to expand...


No.  They can't be.  He made bold predictions and ran his mouth.  Nothing wrong with that as long as you pay the piper when it doesn't pan out. 

People make bold predictions all the time.   I don't necessarily think it was cause house drank the kool aid.


----------



## Dante

Zander said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd really like to read some informative reply about WHY we should expect the undecideds at this late stage to side with the incumbent given the incumbent's remarkable record of fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that photo of Obama and Christie working as a compassionate team in consoling the Sandy victims... pictures are worth a thousand words.  bipartisanship displayed for everyone to see.
> 
> and you are right... it is my opinion... and the opinion of RealClearPolitics who show the poll of polls moving in Obama's direction and him holding firm or gaining in all the swing state polls he had led in last week... his firewall looks like it will hold, and Mitt will come up JUST SHORT.  damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> expat is so spectacularly stupid and silly that he thinks a photo op of two guys doing what should be done in a crisis is THE THING that will "turn" the undecideds into Obama voters.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In expats tiny mind Obama's record of failure suddenly "doesn't matter" he's acting "bi-partisan" in a crisis!!!   "Oh Lookie !! Obama's singing Kum-by-a with Chris Christie!!! Aw shucks. let's give the incompetent another chance!!!"
> 
> nah, I don't see that scenario happening....
Click to expand...




The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Obama won in 2008.
> 
> The economy sucks.  Foreign policy sucks.  If the press covered the deaths of US troops in Afghanistan under Obama like they did in Iraq under Bush people would be screaming.
> Nate Silver?  Who the fuck is he?  WHo gives a shit?  Other sources put OBama's chance at nil.
> As the economy deteriorates Obama's chances deteriorate with it.
Click to expand...



thank you Article 15


----------



## AceRothstein

Zander said:


> Nate Silver Boy Genius!! now has Obama at 75% chance of winning!!!  He can't lose!! He's a LOCK!!!
> Woohoo!! FORWARD!! OBEY!!!
> 
> 
> Reality? - Nate Silver's career is over. I hope he was amply compensated....


LOL, dummy.


----------



## AceRothstein

The Rabbi said:


> Nate Silver might just win this year's award for Chief Dim Bulb.


You should know, you are the three time reigning champ.


----------



## Dante

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
Click to expand...

legendary post


----------



## Dante

Zander said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS decision =/= National election with extensive polling data
> 
> Talk about grasping at straws!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your face, reality, and the ground will be meeting soon........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want to bet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you'll still be a mindless moron,  regardless of how short Obama comes up in his failed bid at a second term....like this poor schlub....that's you and Obama
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

paulitician said:


> Romney wins big. It won't be that close. You heard it here first.


yeah, okay


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> It must suck even more than usual to be a right wing nut about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The date stamp on the op is 09-10-2012, 07:01 AM but the date of the article is today.
> 
> A glitch with the board?
> 
> In any event, I sure as hell hope Nate is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not.  He is entirely derivative.
> 
> What the state polls say, he merely regurgitates.
> 
> Since they are wrong, so is Nate.
Click to expand...

it's the thinking that had me watching so close. Liability's thinking


----------



## Dante

Synthaholic said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all been here.  Where are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 Wednesdays have gone by now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's been lurking invisibly.
> 
> Hell, he may even be one of our new sock puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dr. House is a pussy.  He is a pussy here at USMB as Dr. House, and he was a pussy at Hannity as Night Train.  He has no balls at all.
Click to expand...

info alert!


----------



## Dante

blackhawk said:


> A Gallup poll shows Romney up by five it's dismissed by the left this poll shows Obama up by five and Romney is doomed interesting how that worked ain't it? If you look at this race honestly you know it is a toss up along with every swing state out there.


one of the few sane and honest cons during the run up to election day.

and with that, the Archies retires for the night.  but seriously, Dr. House as NighTrain?


----------



## candycorn

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Obama won in 2008.
> 
> The economy sucks.  Foreign policy sucks.  If the press covered the deaths of US troops in Afghanistan under Obama like they did in Iraq under Bush people would be screaming.
> Nate Silver?  Who the fuck is he?  WHo gives a shit?  Other sources put OBama's chance at nil.
> As the economy deteriorates Obama's chances deteriorate with it.
Click to expand...


What happened?

Oh yeah...voter fraud....

I own you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Liability said:


> Is Nate Silver's value at risk? | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> 
> Nate is a joke.
> 
> The SHOCK on the faces, the despair, the agony of the Obama Fluffers the morning AFTER his defeat will be  a wonder and a joy to behold.




This necro is really fun for me....

It appears that Willard had many liabilities with his campaign....


----------



## Statistikhengst

AceRothstein said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Silver Boy Genius!! now has Obama at 75% chance of winning!!!  He can't lose!! He's a LOCK!!!
> Woohoo!! FORWARD!! OBEY!!!
> 
> 
> Reality? - Nate Silver's career is over. I hope he was amply compensated....
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, dummy.
Click to expand...



And you know, Zander is now saying that about Clinton...... that she's a lock!  

Looks like Zander may be on to something!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Why did I never visit this thread before? This is gonna be fun!!!


----------



## candycorn

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why they are acting a little nuttier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you nominate a horrible candidate and base your entire campaign on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Obama won in 2008.
> 
> The economy sucks.  Foreign policy sucks.  If the press covered the deaths of US troops in Afghanistan under Obama like they did in Iraq under Bush people would be screaming.
> Nate Silver?  Who the fuck is he?  WHo gives a shit?  Other sources put OBama's chance at nil.
> As the economy deteriorates Obama's chances deteriorate with it.
Click to expand...


Well, pee wee...what happened?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Rocko said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait till Nate Sivler's career is over. Fortunately, I don't have to wait long.
Click to expand...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Katzndogz said:


> Bob Dylan sobered up enough to predict obama in a landslide.
> 
> Bob Dylan predicts Obama 'in a landslide' - Yahoo! News




332-206 is indeed a landslide!!!

Good job, Bob Dylan!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Liability said:


> Liberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oversampling Dems is a polite way of counting the non-living, the most dependable Dem voting bloc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> This is not a poll, it is a confidence interval (PROBABILITY) based off of all of the state polls..
> 
> Which are conducted by various right/left/un biased groups, NOT Nate Silver himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the polls (mostly left wing) all seem to have a problem with the over-sampling of Dims.
> 
> Assessing their conclusions as a valid predictor of the eventual outcome of actual voting in any poll-sampled state REQUIRES that one also make the assumption that the voter turnout is going to mirror the sample in the polling.
> 
> Yeah.  That's laughable.
> 
> *And it follows that all Nate is doing is basing some theoretical conclusion (an alleged statistical probability) on dubious data.  GiGo.  Nate seems not to grasp that.*  Evidently, neither do you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Zander said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nate's numbers seem to match the realclearpolitics average.
> 
> can both nate and rcp's poll of poll's be wrong?
> 
> and only the outliers at rasmussen and gallup be correct?
> 
> that is the question of the day.
> 
> if you're a stats' geek.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nate is a perfect, living example of "confirmation bias"......I have a feeling we won't be hearing about him after today!
> 
> Best of luck!
Click to expand...


Oh, yes!!!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Zander said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> On his blog, Silver has 10-15 polls taken on Monday showing that almost all of them have moved towards Obama over the past few days based on the difference between each poll and their last poll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 reason Nate is full of shit
> 
> 1) Independents will decide this election.  In the final CNN poll of the campaign, Romney crushes Obama by 22 points among Independents. In every poll leading  up to this election Mitt is WAY ahead with Independents. But this time it's different?
> 
> 2) The Economy. It sucks. But this time is different?
> 
> 3) Voter enthusiasm.  Think 2010 midterms.  Does anyone really think the GOP is going to stay home today?  The Tea Party is dead? This time it's different?
Click to expand...


Yeah!!  Yeah!!!  YEAHHHHH!!!

Oh, wait...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Zander said:


> I believe today is going to be a bloodbath for Obama. *He will lose Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Romney might pick off Michigan and Minnesota to boot! *
> 
> The Lame-stream media and pollsters already have their spin sheets ready to explain why they were so wrong.........yet still right!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Cowman said:


> So can we figure out after this is all over just how precise Nate Silver predicted this election?
> 
> Because it'll be a total cockslap to the right.




"cockslap"?

OY!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Synthaholic said:


> The Romney "Landslide" That Wasn't | Blog | Media Matters for America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8226; Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"
> &#8226; Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college."
> &#8226; Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls -- Points to a Romney Landslide"
> &#8226; Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"
> &#8226; George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217
> &#8226; Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"
> &#8226; Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide."
> 
> 
> It didn't work out that way.
> 
> And again, this wasn't simply a case of partisans rooting for their  side and letting that enthusiasm color their analysis. What was so  unusual was there was no polling data to support the idea of a Romney  Landslide. None. Zero. It did not exist. Instead, this was a school of  conservative pundits _incapable _of imaging the president being re-elected, and _incapable_ of imaging Obama not losing in a humiliating electoral rout.


----------



## Statistikhengst

jillian said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. You are missing the fact that EVERY other pollster got it grossly wrong and this guy was almost perfect.
> 
> Rassmusen and it's ilk should go out of business.  They are either liars or stupid.  Anyone who trusts them in the future is a damned fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks and fair enough but that is my question -- did he get it perfect as several have said here and several in the media have said or - as you say and I agree -- almost perfect (which i did too - i made  apick on florida but for romney so that almost surely will prove wrong). THAT is the question.  And there is a big difference between perfect and almost perfect (which is just another way for saying imperfect).
> 
> Although the copmarison to the pollsters is apples to oranges and silver would be the first one to tell you he is not a pollster. My guess is that he probably would even say that a pollster who said it was +1 romney (as I think rassmussen did) with a 3.5 MOE didnt get it wrong (assuming obama ended up winnig within the MOE as i think he did for most polls)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets just get a few terms down Nate Silver, Pollster, and Real Clear aren't pollsters.  They construct prediction models using many polls as data.  Both Nate and Pollster, and a handful of lesser known analysts correctly predicted 51 out of 51 results.  Than you had the analysts like Real Clear Politics who miscalled Florida.  On the other extreme, you had unskewedpolls and analysts like Dick Morris and Karl Rove becoming a complete joke in their predictions.
> 
> Yes, Rassmussen and Gallup were among the worst poll organizations this go around.  I can't say why Rassmussen was so terrible, but Gallup totally screwed up their LV algorithm, predicting that white turnout would be 78%, when it turned out to be 72%.  Gallup also predicted that Republican turnout would exceed Democrats.  Both of these organizations came in near the bottom of the list for accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rasmussen was horrible because they didn't survey cell phones (where a lot of people, especially younger people, now have their only phone contact; and he also decided that democrats were being oversampled even though that obviously wasn't the case.
Click to expand...



Rasmussen miscalled SIX of TWELVE battleground states. A tie is automatically a miscall:

Ohio
Virginia
Florida
Iowa
Wisconsin
Colorado

But, Rasmussen nailed the margin in Pennsylvania, for Obama.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun watching a dying snake writhe on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is...
> 
> Please be here wednesday...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've all been here.  Where are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 Wednesdays have gone by now
Click to expand...


You can be sooo cruel.... 

I love it.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Well, that was fun!!!

Who is this liability idiot, anyway???


----------



## AceRothstein

Statistikhengst said:


> Why did I never visit this thread before? This is gonna be fun!!!


I believe this thread owns the record for most amount of stupid per post.  And there are a lot of posts.


----------



## AceRothstein

Statistikhengst said:


> Well, that was fun!!!
> 
> Who is this liability idiot, anyway???


liability is now IlarMeilyr.  He drank the unskewed polls kool-aid, a whole lot of it.


----------



## NLT

What happened to the Author of this thread? Oh yea he ran off after the last mid term elections.


----------



## AceRothstein

NLT said:


> What happened to the Author of this thread? Oh yea he ran off after the last mid term elections.


He stopped posting well before then.  He had one post in April after no posts before that since last January.


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan sobered up enough to predict obama in a landslide.
> 
> Bob Dylan predicts Obama 'in a landslide' - Yahoo! News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 332-206 is indeed a landslide!!!
> 
> Good job, Bob Dylan!
Click to expand...


the rw cat lady  you quoted is now Tipsycatlover I believe.  Just as hateful & averse to using sources as are 96% of eXtreme Righties here it seems.


----------



## jillian

Zander said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nate's numbers seem to match the realclearpolitics average.
> 
> can both nate and rcp's poll of poll's be wrong?
> 
> and only the outliers at rasmussen and gallup be correct?
> 
> that is the question of the day.
> 
> if you're a stats' geek.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nate is a perfect, living example of "confirmation bias"......I have a feeling we won't be hearing about him after today!
> 
> Best of luck!
Click to expand...


yeah, it's that whole fact-based reality thing.


----------



## jillian

Statistikhengst said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. You are missing the fact that EVERY other pollster got it grossly wrong and this guy was almost perfect.
> 
> Rassmusen and it's ilk should go out of business.  They are either liars or stupid.  Anyone who trusts them in the future is a damned fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks and fair enough but that is my question -- did he get it perfect as several have said here and several in the media have said or - as you say and I agree -- almost perfect (which i did too - i made  apick on florida but for romney so that almost surely will prove wrong). THAT is the question.  And there is a big difference between perfect and almost perfect (which is just another way for saying imperfect).
> 
> Although the copmarison to the pollsters is apples to oranges and silver would be the first one to tell you he is not a pollster. My guess is that he probably would even say that a pollster who said it was +1 romney (as I think rassmussen did) with a 3.5 MOE didnt get it wrong (assuming obama ended up winnig within the MOE as i think he did for most polls)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets just get a few terms down Nate Silver, Pollster, and Real Clear aren't pollsters.  They construct prediction models using many polls as data.  Both Nate and Pollster, and a handful of lesser known analysts correctly predicted 51 out of 51 results.  Than you had the analysts like Real Clear Politics who miscalled Florida.  On the other extreme, you had unskewedpolls and analysts like Dick Morris and Karl Rove becoming a complete joke in their predictions.
> 
> Yes, Rassmussen and Gallup were among the worst poll organizations this go around.  I can't say why Rassmussen was so terrible, but Gallup totally screwed up their LV algorithm, predicting that white turnout would be 78%, when it turned out to be 72%.  Gallup also predicted that Republican turnout would exceed Democrats.  Both of these organizations came in near the bottom of the list for accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rasmussen was horrible because they didn't survey cell phones (where a lot of people, especially younger people, now have their only phone contact; and he also decided that democrats were being oversampled even though that obviously wasn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rasmussen miscalled SIX of TWELVE battleground states. A tie is automatically a miscall:
> 
> Ohio
> Virginia
> Florida
> Iowa
> Wisconsin
> Colorado
> 
> But, Rasmussen nailed the margin in Pennsylvania, for Obama.
Click to expand...


yep


----------



## Statistikhengst

AceRothstein said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was fun!!!
> 
> Who is this liability idiot, anyway???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liability is now IlarMeilyr.  He drank the unskewed polls kool-aid, a whole lot of it.
Click to expand...


Oy, Gewalt!!

Ilar, my sweet, innocent IlarMeilyr  - say it isn't so, say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan sobered up enough to predict obama in a landslide.
> 
> Bob Dylan predicts Obama 'in a landslide' - Yahoo! News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 332-206 is indeed a landslide!!!
> 
> Good job, Bob Dylan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the rw cat lady  you quoted is now Tipsycatlover I believe.  Just as hateful & averse to using sources as are 96% of eXtreme Righties here it seems.
Click to expand...



Ahhhh, Tipsykatzenfotze, got it!!!

I have really enjoyed going through this thread, it was a blast!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Synthaholic - please never change your avi.







Thank you. Many milions of times over.


----------



## Zander

Nate who? Isn't that the guy who blew the World Cup? 

FiveThirtyEight 8217 s World Cup Predictions FiveThirtyEight


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.

As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane. 

Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?


----------



## Sarah G

Zander said:


> Nate who? Isn't that the guy who blew the World Cup?
> 
> FiveThirtyEight 8217 s World Cup Predictions FiveThirtyEight


He's the guy who got everything right in 2012.  Take a look a the list of pollsters who failed and how miserably:






http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0


----------



## Statistikhengst

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?


I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Dante




----------



## Zander

Sarah G said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate who? Isn't that the guy who blew the World Cup?
> 
> FiveThirtyEight 8217 s World Cup Predictions FiveThirtyEight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the guy who got everything right in 2012.  Take a look a the list of pollsters who failed and how miserably:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0
Click to expand...


Good for him. I think he's one smart sumbitch! 

But what has he done lately? in 2014 he was pretty much average.  His record at the world cup was simply awful. 

that being said, prognostication is a tough way to make a living.....


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...



You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.

Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."

But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.


----------



## Dante

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
Click to expand...

Ahh, what a world. what a world.


----------



## Statistikhengst

The Rabbi said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
Click to expand...




Ahhhh, the swing states.

2012, election night:

Florida: Obama +0.88%
Ohio: Obama +2.97%
Virginia: Obama +3.87%
Colorado: Obama +5.36%
New Hampshire: Obama +5.58%
Iowa: Obama +5.81%
Nevada: Obama +6.68%



Oh, yeah, Romney got this one:

North Carolina: Romney +2.04%


Since PA, WI, MI and MN are not swing states, but I assume you are too stupid to realize this, they were considered battleground states ( ) by some useful idiots, but were never really battlegrounds.

Pennsylvania: Obama +5.38%
Wisconsin: Obama +6.94%
Minnesota: Obama +7.69%
Michigan: Obama 9.54%

12 big battlegrounds, Obama won 11 of them.

Yes, your predication was just totally gold. Just ask President Romney!!!!


----------



## Synthaholic

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, the swing states.
> 
> 2012, election night:
> 
> Florida: Obama +0.88%
> Ohio: Obama +2.97%
> Virginia: Obama +3.87%
> Colorado: Obama +5.36%
> New Hampshire: Obama +5.58%
> Iowa: Obama +5.81%
> Nevada: Obama +6.68%
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Romney got this one:
> 
> North Carolina: Romney +2.04%
> 
> 
> Since PA, WI, MI and MN are not swing states, but I assume you are too stupid to realize this, they were considered battleground states ( ) by some useful idiots, but were never really battlegrounds.
> 
> Pennsylvania: Obama +5.38%
> Wisconsin: Obama +6.94%
> Minnesota: Obama +7.69%
> Michigan: Obama 9.54%
> 
> 12 big battlegrounds, Obama won 11 of them.
> 
> Yes, your predication was just totally gold. Just ask President Romney!!!!
Click to expand...

Why do I get the feeling that The Rabbi has run away like a little bitch once more, never to be seen in this thread again?


----------



## bripat9643

Synthaholic said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, the swing states.
> 
> 2012, election night:
> 
> Florida: Obama +0.88%
> Ohio: Obama +2.97%
> Virginia: Obama +3.87%
> Colorado: Obama +5.36%
> New Hampshire: Obama +5.58%
> Iowa: Obama +5.81%
> Nevada: Obama +6.68%
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Romney got this one:
> 
> North Carolina: Romney +2.04%
> 
> 
> Since PA, WI, MI and MN are not swing states, but I assume you are too stupid to realize this, they were considered battleground states ( ) by some useful idiots, but were never really battlegrounds.
> 
> Pennsylvania: Obama +5.38%
> Wisconsin: Obama +6.94%
> Minnesota: Obama +7.69%
> Michigan: Obama 9.54%
> 
> 12 big battlegrounds, Obama won 11 of them.
> 
> Yes, your predication was just totally gold. Just ask President Romney!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that The Rabbi has run away like a little bitch once more, never to be seen in this thread again?
Click to expand...


That's your modus operandi, not his. You even put people on ignore when they kick your ass one time to many.


----------



## bripat9643

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, the swing states.
> 
> 2012, election night:
> 
> Florida: Obama +0.88%
> Ohio: Obama +2.97%
> Virginia: Obama +3.87%
> Colorado: Obama +5.36%
> New Hampshire: Obama +5.58%
> Iowa: Obama +5.81%
> Nevada: Obama +6.68%
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Romney got this one:
> 
> North Carolina: Romney +2.04%
> 
> 
> Since PA, WI, MI and MN are not swing states, but I assume you are too stupid to realize this, they were considered battleground states ( ) by some useful idiots, but were never really battlegrounds.
> 
> Pennsylvania: Obama +5.38%
> Wisconsin: Obama +6.94%
> Minnesota: Obama +7.69%
> Michigan: Obama 9.54%
> 
> 12 big battlegrounds, Obama won 11 of them.
> 
> Yes, your predication was just totally gold. Just ask President Romney!!!!
Click to expand...


Hilary isn't black and nobody likes her.


----------



## Statistikhengst

bripat9643 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, the swing states.
> 
> 2012, election night:
> 
> Florida: Obama +0.88%
> Ohio: Obama +2.97%
> Virginia: Obama +3.87%
> Colorado: Obama +5.36%
> New Hampshire: Obama +5.58%
> Iowa: Obama +5.81%
> Nevada: Obama +6.68%
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Romney got this one:
> 
> North Carolina: Romney +2.04%
> 
> 
> Since PA, WI, MI and MN are not swing states, but I assume you are too stupid to realize this, they were considered battleground states ( [emoji38]) by some useful idiots, but were never really battlegrounds.
> 
> Pennsylvania: Obama +5.38%
> Wisconsin: Obama +6.94%
> Minnesota: Obama +7.69%
> Michigan: Obama 9.54%
> 
> 12 big battlegrounds, Obama won 11 of them.
> 
> Yes, your predication was just totally gold. Just ask President Romney!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilary isn't black and nobody likes her.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that one!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the economy is getting better albeit slowly.  Having a Republican leading the charge wouldn't change anything.  The economy will get better no matter who wins, although it's not going to be a strong recovery.  If Romney is elected and gets exactly what he wants, then it is possible we could head back into a deep recession and tax revenues could fall off even more creating an even larger deficit.
> 
> One of the funniest things Romney has to tell us is that he is going to create 12 million jobs, as if government is going to create those jobs just because he is President.  Apparently all of you who worship this man have not been paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're too fucking stupid to understand him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say, Rabbi... are you starting to get that sinking feeling that this dream of a Romney victory was just a bridge too far?  Are you starting to imagine election night in your mind when the swing states all start falling for Obama and, along about nine or ten at night, you realize that it just ain't gonna happen for ya?  The only good news for you in all of that is the knowledge that lots of democrats remember feeling exactly that same way.  Suck it up.  Life will go on in an Obama second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The opposite.  I am choosing the champaigne for the victory party.  I believe the swing states will all go for Romney.  Obama is finished.  The suit has been declared empty.
> What are you going to do when it's called for Romney?  Blame billionaire donors?  Blame Diebold?  Blame the racism of the American public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, the swing states.
> 
> 2012, election night:
> 
> Florida: Obama +0.88%
> Ohio: Obama +2.97%
> Virginia: Obama +3.87%
> Colorado: Obama +5.36%
> New Hampshire: Obama +5.58%
> Iowa: Obama +5.81%
> Nevada: Obama +6.68%
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Romney got this one:
> 
> North Carolina: Romney +2.04%
> 
> 
> Since PA, WI, MI and MN are not swing states, but I assume you are too stupid to realize this, they were considered battleground states ( ) by some useful idiots, but were never really battlegrounds.
> 
> Pennsylvania: Obama +5.38%
> Wisconsin: Obama +6.94%
> Minnesota: Obama +7.69%
> Michigan: Obama 9.54%
> 
> 12 big battlegrounds, Obama won 11 of them.
> 
> Yes, your predication was just totally gold. Just ask President Romney!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilary isn't black and nobody likes her.
Click to expand...

LOL. Continue to say that for the eight years of her Presidency.


----------



## Old Rocks

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
Click to expand...

You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.


----------



## Sarah G

Old Rocks said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
Click to expand...

Nate did a perfect job in 2012.  He'll be back in 2016 don't you worry.


----------



## Synthaholic

Old Rocks said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
Click to expand...

Zona kicked Liability's ass.  We all know it.  That's why Liability changed his username.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Old Rocks said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
Click to expand...


A stupid asshole such as you has no power to declare what has made "assess" of anybody else.

No matter how vainglorious you tend to be, you remain a dullard, Moldy Socks.


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. Still butthurt there, old boy? LOL


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> anyone else notice what a HUGE collection of Dante images House has in his account?
> 
> makes one wonder, no?


tried to find some of them


Oh well


----------



## candycorn

IlarMeilyr said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stupid asshole such as you has no power to declare what has made "assess" of anybody else.
> 
> No matter how vainglorious you tend to be, you remain a dullard, Moldy Socks.
Click to expand...

 
332-206.


----------



## Dante

candycorn said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stupid asshole such as you has no power to declare what has made "assess" of anybody else.
> 
> No matter how vainglorious you tend to be, you remain a dullard, Moldy Socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206.
Click to expand...

paging Liability


----------



## Dante

Synthaholic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zona kicked Liability's ass.  We all know it.  That's why Liability changed his username.
Click to expand...

Zona? Nooooooooooooooooooooooo hahahahahahaha  LOL


----------



## Dante

Zander said:


> Nate who? Isn't that the guy who blew the World Cup?
> 
> FiveThirtyEight 8217 s World Cup Predictions FiveThirtyEight


Idiot alert


----------



## IlarMeilyr

candycorn said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statist:  Liability, your superior in every way, used to be me.  That is, I used to be Liability.
> 
> As for your necrothreadmancy, I am glad you enjoyed a trip down memory lane.
> 
> Do you recall when Dewey defeated Truman, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stupid asshole such as you has no power to declare what has made "assess" of anybody else.
> 
> No matter how vainglorious you tend to be, you remain a dullard, Moldy Socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206.
Click to expand...


This just in:

Corny seems to have figured out that Obumbler won the election.

In about 30 years, Corny might figure out how shitty Obumbler has been AS President.


----------



## Dante

IlarMeilyr said:


> This just in:
> 
> Corny seems to have figured out that Obumbler won the election.
> 
> In about 30 years, Corny might figure out how shitty Obumbler has been AS President.



BABY Talk translator needed in the pampers aisle


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Still butthurt there, old boy? LOL



Still?

That would imply that I ever was.

And of course, that's untrue.

Hey moldy, you got that dishonesty thing down cold.

Tell us some more about how HUMANS caused the ice ages!


----------



## Synthaholic

Whenever there is news about AriZONA Liability shits his pants.


----------



## Dante

thank you


----------



## JimH52

IlarMeilyr said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying your butthurt! Please continue!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stupid asshole such as you has no power to declare what has made "assess" of anybody else.
> 
> No matter how vainglorious you tend to be, you remain a dullard, Moldy Socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in:
> 
> Corny seems to have figured out that Obumbler won the election.
> 
> In about 30 years, Corny might figure out how shitty Obumbler has been AS President.
Click to expand...


If you look at one of the biggest victories of his administration, then he cannot be denied a top five standing in the ranking of Presidents.  Every President in recent memory has tried to develop some program that would make health care available to everyone.  Obama actually did it!

History will remember the historic nature of such an accomplishment.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

JimH52 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would enjoy anything involving butt.  If I were actually butthurt, you'd lap it up.
> 
> Still, your false claims have no power, child.  I am not even remotely" butthurt."
> 
> But your powers with necrothreadmancy are impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stupid asshole such as you has no power to declare what has made "assess" of anybody else.
> 
> No matter how vainglorious you tend to be, you remain a dullard, Moldy Socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in:
> 
> Corny seems to have figured out that Obumbler won the election.
> 
> In about 30 years, Corny might figure out how shitty Obumbler has been AS President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look at one of the biggest victories of his administration, then he cannot be denied a top five standing in the ranking of Presidents.  Every President in recent memory has tried to develop some program that would make health care available to everyone.  Obama actually did it!
> 
> History will remember the historic nature of such an accomplishment.
Click to expand...

LOL!

He "succeeded" in getting an absolute retard like the former Speaker Pelousy -- and the other Democrat Parody brainless sheep pretending to be legitimate legislators --  to support his undeveloped hodgepodge of socialist wish list fantasies.  We all remember the drill: the crap would have to get PASSED in order to SEE what was IN it.  

Pelousy actually SAID that last one.  And of course, keep in mind it got passed via a legislative gimmick (and despite the cowardice of the SCOTUS, it was and is clearly unconstitutional).

And then, yeah.  It got passed.  Very much to our national regret.  

If you point to getting a horrific piece of idiotic crap like ObumblerCare "passed" as a success, I'd worry a shit load more at what YOU consider a failure.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Synthaholic said:


> Whenever there is news about AriZONA Liability shits his pants.



^ Trammy is old, stale, repetitive, boring and derivative, but at least he has an active fantasy life.

Nobody gives a shit about a nothing like ol' Zona.


----------



## JimH52

IlarMeilyr said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You silly asses made complete asses of yourselves prior to 6Nov12. You continue to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A stupid asshole such as you has no power to declare what has made "assess" of anybody else.
> 
> No matter how vainglorious you tend to be, you remain a dullard, Moldy Socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 332-206.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in:
> 
> Corny seems to have figured out that Obumbler won the election.
> 
> In about 30 years, Corny might figure out how shitty Obumbler has been AS President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look at one of the biggest victories of his administration, then he cannot be denied a top five standing in the ranking of Presidents.  Every President in recent memory has tried to develop some program that would make health care available to everyone.  Obama actually did it!
> 
> History will remember the historic nature of such an accomplishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL!
> 
> He "succeeded" in getting an absolute retard like the former Speaker Pelousy -- and the other Democrat Parody brainless sheep pretending to be legitimate legislators --  to support his undeveloped hodgepodge of socialist wish list fantasies.  We all remember the drill: the crap would have to get PASSED in order to SEE what was IN it.
> 
> Pelousy actually SAID that last one.  And of course, keep in mind it got passed via a legislative gimmick (and despite the cowardice of the SCOTUS, it was and is clearly unconstitutional).
> 
> And then, yeah.  It got passed.  Very much to our national regret.
> 
> If you point to getting a horrific piece of idiotic crap like ObumblerCare "passed" as a success, I'd worry a shit load more at what YOU consider a failure.
Click to expand...


Simple...you want to see the definition of failure.  Look at the GOP Clown Car....


----------



## IlarMeilyr

JimH52 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> A stupid asshole such as you has no power to declare what has made "assess" of anybody else.
> 
> No matter how vainglorious you tend to be, you remain a dullard, Moldy Socks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 332-206.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in:
> 
> Corny seems to have figured out that Obumbler won the election.
> 
> In about 30 years, Corny might figure out how shitty Obumbler has been AS President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look at one of the biggest victories of his administration, then he cannot be denied a top five standing in the ranking of Presidents.  Every President in recent memory has tried to develop some program that would make health care available to everyone.  Obama actually did it!
> 
> History will remember the historic nature of such an accomplishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL!
> 
> He "succeeded" in getting an absolute retard like the former Speaker Pelousy -- and the other Democrat Parody brainless sheep pretending to be legitimate legislators --  to support his undeveloped hodgepodge of socialist wish list fantasies.  We all remember the drill: the crap would have to get PASSED in order to SEE what was IN it.
> 
> Pelousy actually SAID that last one.  And of course, keep in mind it got passed via a legislative gimmick (and despite the cowardice of the SCOTUS, it was and is clearly unconstitutional).
> 
> And then, yeah.  It got passed.  Very much to our national regret.
> 
> If you point to getting a horrific piece of idiotic crap like ObumblerCare "passed" as a success, I'd worry a shit load more at what YOU consider a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple...you want to see the definition of failure.  Look at the GOP Clown Car....
Click to expand...


You prefer the Obamination of putrid shitholes like Obumbler and Shrillary and fuckin' Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Dante

IlarMeilyr said:


> You prefer the Obamination of putrid shitholes like Obumbler and Shrillary and fuckin' Bernie Sanders.


_"Ba, ba, ga, ga, goo, goo, goo pee, pee?"_

BABY Talk translator needed in the pampers aisle


----------



## JimH52

Dante said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer the Obamination of putrid shitholes like Obumbler and Shrillary and fuckin' Bernie Sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Ba, ba, ga, ga, goo, goo, goo pee, pee?"_
> 
> BABY Talk translator needed in the pampers aisle
Click to expand...


Which goes well with the softball questions that the clowns want in the debate.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

JimH52 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer the Obamination of putrid shitholes like Obumbler and Shrillary and fuckin' Bernie Sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Ba, ba, ga, ga, goo, goo, goo pee, pee?"_
> 
> BABY Talk translator needed in the pampers aisle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which goes well with the softball questions that the clowns want in the debate.
Click to expand...


The absolute mundane and mindless nature of jimmy's contribution is evident if one clicks "reply" and gets to see what that stupid laughable loser liberal prick tried to communicate.


----------



## JimH52

IlarMeilyr said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer the Obamination of putrid shitholes like Obumbler and Shrillary and fuckin' Bernie Sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Ba, ba, ga, ga, goo, goo, goo pee, pee?"_
> 
> BABY Talk translator needed in the pampers aisle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which goes well with the softball questions that the clowns want in the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The absolute mundane and mindless nature of jimmy's contribution is evident if one clicks "reply" and gets to see what that stupid laughable loser liberal prick tried to communicate.
Click to expand...


Your kindness and civility are incredibly.......lacking.....


----------

