Every picture tells a story...

[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?

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.

Wrong. I most certainly DID ask about the methodology.

You're welcome for the immediate correction to your error, by the way.

 

[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.

Onus is on you to prove your claim.

As the proponent of the "chart" in the OP, you would be the one with the onus, ya dimwit. I am permitted to issue the challenges to it.

No burden shifting, you typical lib hack.

 

[nat4900]

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

Go wash your brain out with lye.

Ah, yet another attempt at a Shakespearean love sonnet.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

BZZZT Wrong!

The OP merely contained this question;

"What story does this picture tell you?"

NYCarbineer posted that he didn't understand the chart so I explained the basis that it was based on as stated in the original link.

That doesn't make it my premise.

My premise was just a question.

My responses to other posters identified which of the GOP posters had the best chances in 2016. Why are not claim that was "my premise" instead since I gave that response earlier?

Flailing at the OP is not a good strategy.

 

[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

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.

You just explained it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

Go wash your brain out with lye.

Ah, yet another attempt at a Shakespearean love sonnet.

Ah yet another bitchy bleating tear filled complaint from a liberal whining pussy.

How expected.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

BZZZT Wrong!

The OP merely contained this question;

"What story does this picture tell you?"

NYCarbineer posted that he didn't understand the chart so I explained the basis that it was based on as stated in the original link.

That doesn't make it my premise.

My premise was just a question.

My responses to other posters identified which of the GOP posters had the best chances in 2016. Why are not claim that was "my premise" instead since I gave that response earlier?

Flailing at the OP is not a good strategy.

And later on, despite your obvious transparent pretense, you actually set forth your "premise" -- which is conveniently also your conclusion.

Your rhetorical "question" was simply you being typically disingenuous. Ho hum, Dizzy.

 

[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.

Wrong. I most certainly DID ask about the methodology.

You're welcome for the immediate correction to your error, by the way.

You are welcome to your own delusions but kindly refrain from imposing them on others. You asked WHICH POLLS were used. Not which methodology was used by the polls concerned.

 

[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.

As the proponent of the "chart" in the OP, you would be the one with the onus, ya dimwit. I am permitted to issue the challenges to it.

No burden shifting, you typical lib hack.

You alleged that the polls were conducted by "liberal propaganda outlets".

Onus remains on you to substantiate your claim.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

BZZZT Wrong!

The OP merely contained this question;

"What story does this picture tell you?"

NYCarbineer posted that he didn't understand the chart so I explained the basis that it was based on as stated in the original link.

That doesn't make it my premise.

My premise was just a question.

My responses to other posters identified which of the GOP posters had the best chances in 2016. Why are not claim that was "my premise" instead since I gave that response earlier?

Flailing at the OP is not a good strategy.

And later on, despite your obvious transparent pretense, you actually set forth your "premise" -- which is conveniently also your conclusion.

Your rhetorical "question" was simply you being typically disingenuous. Ho hum, Dizzy.

You are welcome to contribute your opinion and it will be given the due that it deserves.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

As the proponent of the "chart" in the OP, you would be the one with the onus, ya dimwit. I am permitted to issue the challenges to it.

No burden shifting, you typical lib hack.

You alleged that the polls were conducted by "liberal propaganda outlets".

Onus remains on you to substantiate your claim.

Really?

And here I thought I suggested it.

But your burden shifting attempt remains a fail.

Now, get back to the methodology that might support your preconceived conclusion (which had been posed, falsely, as a "question"): i.e., your actual original premise.

Go.

 

[Kosh]

Far left propaganda alert!

Obviously, you need firm guidance....here goes:

Are there 20plus seats currently held by republicans that are up for reelection next year?..............Yes or No

Is the approval rating of the current senate comparable to used-car salesmen?.................Yes or No

Yet you still vote far left no matter what as your rich white far left masters command you to do..

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

BZZZT Wrong!

The OP merely contained this question;

"What story does this picture tell you?"

NYCarbineer posted that he didn't understand the chart so I explained the basis that it was based on as stated in the original link.

That doesn't make it my premise.

My premise was just a question.

My responses to other posters identified which of the GOP posters had the best chances in 2016. Why are not claim that was "my premise" instead since I gave that response earlier?

Flailing at the OP is not a good strategy.

And later on, despite your obvious transparent pretense, you actually set forth your "premise" -- which is conveniently also your conclusion.

Your rhetorical "question" was simply you being typically disingenuous. Ho hum, Dizzy.

You are welcome to contribute your opinion and it will be give the due that it deserves.

I don't need your invite to share an opinion, Dizzy. True story!

And what it "will be give" is not my concern when you are the "judge," you typical dishonest liberal hack.

 

[Kosh]

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.

BZZZT Wrong!

The OP merely contained this question;

"What story does this picture tell you?"

NYCarbineer posted that he didn't understand the chart so I explained the basis that it was based on as stated in the original link.

That doesn't make it my premise.

My premise was just a question.

My responses to other posters identified which of the GOP posters had the best chances in 2016. Why are not claim that was "my premise" instead since I gave that response earlier?

Flailing at the OP is not a good strategy.

And later on, despite your obvious transparent pretense, you actually set forth your "premise" -- which is conveniently also your conclusion.

Your rhetorical "question" was simply you being typically disingenuous. Ho hum, Dizzy.

You are welcome to contribute your opinion and it will be give the due that it deserves.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

 

[nat4900]

Ah yet another bitchy bleating tear filled complaint from a liberal whining pussy.

You know, I'm kind of a sensitive guy but intuitive, and I gather that you suffer from chronic constipation......
BTW, is that avatar a picture of you on one of "those days" when you have an intestinal flair-up?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ah yet another bitchy bleating tear filled complaint from a liberal whining pussy.

You know, I'm kind of a sensitive guy but intuitive, and I gather that you suffer from chronic constipation......
BTW, is that avatar a picture of you on one of "those days" when you have an intestinal flair-up?

You are surely sensitive. Overly sensitive. And a pussy. A whiner. A hack. A bitch.

Stop worrying about my colon, anus or any of my related bodily functions. Seriously. Application denied.

Go fuck a dead dog, you bitch.

I say that, of course, with all due respect. Which is to say: none whatsoever.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again Ilar exposes why he cannot ever be taken seriously.

There is no point wasting time on someone who believes that civil discourse consists of specious ad homs.

 

[nat4900]

Once again Ilar exposes why he cannot ever be taken seriously.

There is no point wasting time on someone who believes that civil discourse consists of specious ad homs.

To be "fair", my friend, did you really expect ANY civil discourse from such a moron as Ilar?

 

[Kosh]

Once again Ilar exposes why he cannot ever be taken seriously.

There is no point wasting time on someone who believes that civil discourse consists of specious ad homs.

To be "fair", my friend, did you really expect ANY civil discourse from such a moron as Ilar?

Oh those wacky irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again Ilar exposes why he cannot ever be taken seriously.

There is no point wasting time on someone who believes that civil discourse consists of specious ad homs.

To be "fair", my friend, did you really expect ANY civil discourse from such a moron as Ilar?

To be fair to Ilar he has had occasional moments of sanity when he has engaged in civil discourse. Few and far between but they have occurred in the past.