Every picture tells a story...

[nat4900]

You pussy dishonest hack uber liberals never complain about the decided left wing propaganda from the main stream media.
But you bitch endlessly about any conservative slant or bias in the few non liberal outlets.

The real complaint you simpleton twerps therefore clearly have is any kind of competition.

Unlike you, shit for brain asshole motherfucker, I am not the one who is brainwashed. My mind is open. Yours is very much shut to something as basic as the truth.

Have you ever contemplated writing Shakespearean sonnets? You seem to have a flair for the imagery....nt much on brains....but a flair, nonetheless.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You pussy dishonest hack uber liberals never complain about the decided left wing propaganda from the main stream media.
But you bitch endlessly about any conservative slant or bias in the few non liberal outlets.

The real complaint you simpleton twerps therefore clearly have is any kind of competition.

Unlike you, shit for brain asshole motherfucker, I am not the one who is brainwashed. My mind is open. Yours is very much shut to something as basic as the truth.

Have you ever contemplated writing Shakespearean sonnets? You seem to have a flair for the imagery....nt much on brains....but a flair, nonetheless.

Man are you dull. Whine about the use of some unflattering invective. Presume that your miniscule intellectual prowess is even marginally on the same plane as mine.

Meanwhile, my point remains valid and truthful. You fucking hack bitch motherfucker liberals complain that there is now ANY competition to the main stream media's steady diet of bogus liberal propaganda.

Ho hum. You bore me you witless twit.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

In december 2006 half of americans didn't know enough of O to even give him a rating while mccain had a 67% rating. We all know what happened.

Um, excuse me. You should be comparing 2007 to 2015, dumbass.

Now here's the thing: McCain s 67 Favorable Rating His Highest in Eight Years

That isn't 2007, but you can see in that link that McCain did not have a commanding favorability rating over Obama, nor vice versa. Both their favorability and unfavorability ratings were virtually tied with each other. You cannot show how at any time McCain had a commanding lead over Obama's favorability rating.

So you are comparing apples to oranges, numbnuts.

No, no moron. The point sailed right between your two brain cells also. In derisions chart, "well known" was a variable. O was not well known in 2006. Enough so that no one could even rate him.

 

[nat4900]

Meanwhile, my point remains valid and truthful. You fucking hack bitch motherfucker liberals complain that there is now ANY competition to the main stream media's steady diet of bogus liberal propaganda.

Ho hum. You bore me you witless twit

Now that you got that out of you system......flush and wash your hands thoroughly. LOL

 

[whitehall]

It indicates wishful thinking.

 

[deltex1]

That

Stand by for seriously heavy mud slinging by the GOP.

Thats all there is.........isn't it. No record of achievement and a candidate whose thighs scrape as she waddles...

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Real Problem With That Chart

Every picture tells a story and so does the one above.

What story does this picture tell you?

Disclaimer: I omitted cutting and pasting any text from the link on purpose. Feel free to read the analysis if you want but the image all by itself is revealing enough for anyone who can read a chart.

Statistikhengst

In december 2006 half of americans didn't know enough of O to even give him a rating while mccain had a 67% rating. We all know what happened.

In December 2006 no one outside of Alaska had even heard of Sarah Palin and we all know what happened.

She wasn't running for pres. O was. I'm sorry that sailed right over you.

McCain was and Palin is "what happened" to make him lose. Sorry you lack the ability to make the glaringly obvious connection.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conflicting polls on Hillary Clinton What gives - CNNPolitics.com

Different poll number results on the alleged favorable vs unfavorability of Her Thighness. Kind of a dead heat either way. But markedly different figures.

So, which one is used in the chart? How was it selected? What ones were used for the various factors and figures on the other names there?

Links to the sources for those polls can all be found in the original link in the OP.

 

[Darkwind]

Can anyone imagine more conservative judges, more corporate power, lower taxes for the wealthy, corporate based legislation, reduction of the safety net in a global corporate money operated world, more outsourced work, and for profit education. Welcome to a GOP run America. Many won't care but many, can you say most, will again lost sight of the American dream.

Nice straw man. Take you long to build it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Real Problem With That Chart

Every picture tells a story and so does the one above.

What story does this picture tell you?

Disclaimer: I omitted cutting and pasting any text from the link on purpose. Feel free to read the analysis if you want but the image all by itself is revealing enough for anyone who can read a chart.

Statistikhengst

I don't get it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That

Stand by for seriously heavy mud slinging by the GOP.

Thats all there is.........isn't it. No record of achievement and a candidate whose thighs scrape as she waddles...

Which candidate on the GOP has a 'record of achievement' exceeding Hillary?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Real Problem With That Chart

Every picture tells a story and so does the one above.

What story does this picture tell you?

Disclaimer: I omitted cutting and pasting any text from the link on purpose. Feel free to read the analysis if you want but the image all by itself is revealing enough for anyone who can read a chart.

Statistikhengst

In december 2006 half of americans didn't know enough of O to even give him a rating while mccain had a 67% rating. We all know what happened.

In December 2006 no one outside of Alaska had even heard of Sarah Palin and we all know what happened.

She wasn't running for pres. O was. I'm sorry that sailed right over you.

McCain was and Palin is "what happened" to make him lose. Sorry you lack the ability to make the glaringly obvious connection.

Perhaps, but that wasn't your original premise. Again, you have missed it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Meanwhile, my point remains valid and truthful. You fucking hack bitch motherfucker liberals complain that there is now ANY competition to the main stream media's steady diet of bogus liberal propaganda.

Ho hum. You bore me you witless twit

Now that you got that out of you system......flush and wash your hands thoroughly. LOL

Suck a bag of cocks you pussy bitch liberal hack loser.

Go wash your brain out with lye.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Conflicting polls on Hillary Clinton What gives - CNNPolitics.com

Different poll number results on the alleged favorable vs unfavorability of Her Thighness. Kind of a dead heat either way. But markedly different figures.

So, which one is used in the chart? How was it selected? What ones were used for the various factors and figures on the other names there?

Links to the sources for those polls can all be found in the original link in the OP.

That is not the same as addressing the methodology in case you actually missed the point there, Dizzy.

I already showed TWO conflicting polls on Shrillary. Who says the polls are right or wrong or worthy of use as a basis of comparison?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Real Problem With That Chart

Every picture tells a story and so does the one above.

What story does this picture tell you?

Disclaimer: I omitted cutting and pasting any text from the link on purpose. Feel free to read the analysis if you want but the image all by itself is revealing enough for anyone who can read a chart.

Statistikhengst

I don't get it.

The better known a politician becomes the more they ratings increase. Carson is virtually unknown so his ratings reflect that. Christie and Biden are much better known so they have higher ratings.

The red line reflects that the better known GOP candidates become the lower their favorability ratings. That could be problem for some of their better known candidates.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Real Problem With That Chart

Every picture tells a story and so does the one above.

What story does this picture tell you?

Disclaimer: I omitted cutting and pasting any text from the link on purpose. Feel free to read the analysis if you want but the image all by itself is revealing enough for anyone who can read a chart.

Statistikhengst

In december 2006 half of americans didn't know enough of O to even give him a rating while mccain had a 67% rating. We all know what happened.

In December 2006 no one outside of Alaska had even heard of Sarah Palin and we all know what happened.

She wasn't running for pres. O was. I'm sorry that sailed right over you.

McCain was and Palin is "what happened" to make him lose. Sorry you lack the ability to make the glaringly obvious connection.

Perhaps, but that wasn't your original premise. Again, you have missed it.

I never had an original premise. I just asked a question.

Your premise is the one that failed since it was based upon a fallacy.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Real Problem With That Chart

Every picture tells a story and so does the one above.

What story does this picture tell you?

Disclaimer: I omitted cutting and pasting any text from the link on purpose. Feel free to read the analysis if you want but the image all by itself is revealing enough for anyone who can read a chart.

Statistikhengst

I don't get it.

The better known a politician becomes the more they ratings increase. Carson is virtually unknown so his ratings reflect that. Christie and Biden are much better known so they have higher ratings.

The red line reflects that the better known GOP candidates become the lower their favorability ratings. That could be problem for some of their better known candidates.

As gauged by the polls conducted (fairly, squarely, accurately, honestly and scientifically, no doubt) by liberal propaganda outlets.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

In december 2006 half of americans didn't know enough of O to even give him a rating while mccain had a 67% rating. We all know what happened.

In December 2006 no one outside of Alaska had even heard of Sarah Palin and we all know what happened.

She wasn't running for pres. O was. I'm sorry that sailed right over you.

McCain was and Palin is "what happened" to make him lose. Sorry you lack the ability to make the glaringly obvious connection.

Perhaps, but that wasn't your original premise. Again, you have missed it.

I never had an original premise. I just asked a question.

Your premise is the one that failed since it was based upon a fallacy.

No no. Be honest. You DID have an original premise.

You just don't care to admit it.

And your OP premise was just "explained" by you in fact. The more a GOP candidate becomes "known" the less favorably he or she is perceived.

That is was and will continue to be your premise -- and conclusion. Speaking of fallacies and all.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conflicting polls on Hillary Clinton What gives - CNNPolitics.com

Different poll number results on the alleged favorable vs unfavorability of Her Thighness. Kind of a dead heat either way. But markedly different figures.

So, which one is used in the chart? How was it selected? What ones were used for the various factors and figures on the other names there?

Links to the sources for those polls can all be found in the original link in the OP.

That is not the same as addressing the methodology in case you actually missed the point there, Dizzy.

I already showed TWO conflicting polls on Shrillary. Who says the polls are right or wrong or worthy of use as a basis of comparison?

You asked what polls were used as the basis for the chart and you were told they were in the original link in the OP.

You never asked about the methodology. If you want to move the goalposts then that is on you. Your original question was answered.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Real Problem With That Chart

Every picture tells a story and so does the one above.

What story does this picture tell you?

Disclaimer: I omitted cutting and pasting any text from the link on purpose. Feel free to read the analysis if you want but the image all by itself is revealing enough for anyone who can read a chart.

Statistikhengst

I don't get it.

The better known a politician becomes the more they ratings increase. Carson is virtually unknown so his ratings reflect that. Christie and Biden are much better known so they have higher ratings.

The red line reflects that the better known GOP candidates become the lower their favorability ratings. That could be problem for some of their better known candidates.

As gauged by the polls conducted (fairly, squarely, accurately, honestly and scientifically, no doubt) by liberal propaganda outlets.

Onus is on you to prove your claim.