Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
dude, you are the one looking like a fucking idiot in this threadMy Gawd Meister go back to page 21-22 and see just how BIASED a poll can be and how easily the #s can be manipulated to say what you WANT them to say. I absolutely EVICERATED the OP with his OWN poll data.
sure you did.
Look at the posts Del. I took his OWN poll and PROVED it didn't say what he CLAIMED it did. I aslo showed MANY items that DIRECTELY CONTRADICTED his views. It was actually pretty funny if you ask me, but of course you didn't. Look for yourself and tell me HOW EXACTELY I didn't do what I just claimed.
so, you agree that 1000 is too small of a sample size for a poll to be valid?Election 2010: Massachusetts Special Senate Election
Massachusetts Senate Election: Coakley (D) 49%, Brown (R) 47%
Tuesday, January 12, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
The Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election has gotten tighter, but the general dynamics remain the same.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley attracting 49% of the vote while her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, picks up 47%.
Oooooooooooooooooops !!!!!!
How many poll Skook? 1,000? Not a very good poll. Now I could look over that poll and point out ALL the flaws but since I have ALREADY spent a LOT of time doing so with the other poll I am not inclined to do so again. Unless you want me to if so I will point out all the flaws with this particular poll and I could point out many flaws with polling in general.
By the way did you answer my question about your prediction of the 08 elections? You and I BOTH know what you predicted on the MSNBC board so if you want to I can tell everyone here what you predicted but I think it would mean more coming from you.
Guys like skooper don't own up.
how long ago did he do it?That's what we need. A nude model for a Senator.
Damn, I can't post the pic. Just google Cosmopolitan Scott Brown posed nude.
i agree with thatI think any poll that says Brown is up by 15% should not be trusted at all.
I remember Martha being up by 31% supposedly a couple weeks ago. Now she's down by 15%? A 46% turn is highly unlikely.
Maybe the color and underlining and size will help with your comprehension? Nah...From your link:No it is not a lie. In 2005 he proposed an Amendment to a Bill that would allow healthcare workers the right to deny emergency contraceptive to rape victims. That is advocating denying medication to rape victims on the grounds of religion. Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims. You can read the text of his amendment here:
Bay State Battle | FactCheck.org
Still, the ad is basically on track, factually, until we come to a claim that "Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims." Its true that in 2005, when the Massachusetts state Legislature was considering a bill to require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, Brown introduced an amendment that would have let doctors and nurses opt out based on "a sincerely held religious belief" and refer patients elsewhere. It was similar to "conscience" provisions in state and federal legislation that would avoid forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion or contraception against the teachings of the church. Heres the language:
Brown amendment, April 2005: Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.The amendment failed. But what the ad doesnt mention is that Brown voted for the underlying bill anyway, even after the Republican governor vetoed it.
If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.
The most misleading part of the ad, though, is not what the narrator says, but what appears on screen. As the contraception amendment is mentioned, viewers see the words, "Deny rape victims care." Emergency contraception is certainly a type of care. But the language on screen implies that Brown would support denial of even, say, treatment of injuries sustained in a rape.
Thats far from the truth. The bill, which became part of the Massachusetts state codes section on public health, required that rape victims be provided with accurate information about emergency contraception and that they be offered it. Brown voted for the bill after unsuccessfully trying to carve out a religion exception. And there is nothing in the record that we are aware of to suggest that Brown ever supported denying any other type of care to victims of sexual assault.
Voters go to the polls on Tuesday.
by Viveca Novak
I already addressed the misleading ad and you quoted my post that pointed out:
"Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims."
Then you act as if I didn't already state the ad was misleading? Why?
Also, I just posted, it doesn't matter the Amendment failed. It doesn't matter he voted for the Bill. What matters is he supports placing religion over rape victims.
i agree with that
that is WAY outside the rest of the polls
And the Democrats wouldn't be making excuses blaming Coakley ahead of the election, IF she had a chance:sure you did.
Look at the posts Del. I took his OWN poll and PROVED it didn't say what he CLAIMED it did. I aslo showed MANY items that DIRECTELY CONTRADICTED his views. It was actually pretty funny if you ask me, but of course you didn't. Look for yourself and tell me HOW EXACTELY I didn't do what I just claimed.
i read it when you posted it; it was bullshit then, it's bullshit now. brown is in a statistical dead heat with coakley- 4 points ahead and the margin of error is 4%. i'm sorry you don't like it, but stomping your feet and shouting "no,no,no" doesn't change the facts.
do you think obama would be coming up here to campaign for her if she wasn't in serious danger of losing?
really?
wanna buy a bridge?
Massachusetts: 'Bottom has fallen out' of Coakley's polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/15/10 7:10 AM EST
Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."
Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.
Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.
The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."
...
i agree with that
that is WAY outside the rest of the polls
I think some people are getting a wee bit excited at the possibility of Brown winning. So you'll see polls like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB3j9fpTKkk&feature=player_embedded
Sort of sums up what Scott Brown is up against and just one of the reasons why I'm waiting to see on the outcome.
Maybe the color and underlining and size will help with your comprehension? Nah...From your link:
I already addressed the misleading ad and you quoted my post that pointed out:
"Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims."
Then you act as if I didn't already state the ad was misleading? Why?
Also, I just posted, it doesn't matter the Amendment failed. It doesn't matter he voted for the Bill. What matters is he supports placing religion over rape victims.
she called curt schilling a yankees fan
she's toast.
no kiddingshe called curt schilling a yankees fan
she's toast.
yeah, its not smart for Obama to come in and even try to save this oneIf Coakley fails, it will be because Coakley ran a horrible campaign. If you truly think this is about Obama, then you have no idea about the race going on up there.
yeah, its not smart for Obama to come in and even try to save this one
it could make it worse
yeah, its not smart for Obama to come in and even try to save this oneIf Coakley fails, it will be because Coakley ran a horrible campaign. If you truly think this is about Obama, then you have no idea about the race going on up there.
it could make it worse
