GOP Chair: we will lose seats at every level

[Rusty Syringes 478]

Gallup, Rasmussen and WSJ are commie sites?

 

 

Regardless of what they were, they, like you, were wrong.

 

[MDC 5,876]

I was predicting a Kerry victory months earlier IF THINGS CONTINUED APACE.

It was only the final week that I predicted a Kerry victory based on the numbers at hand.

 

And I haven't predicted any huge Dem win in '06, so I don't know what you're referring to.

 

I don't remember you ever attaching that disclaimer to your many predictions of a Kerry victory. Any fool can tell you that if a candidate is up by some margin in the polls and things "continue apace" through election day he'll win. What you did was put your faith in those polling numbers and predict the wrong outcome.

 

That's true, you haven't predicted a huge Dem win but you seem awfully smug about their chances this fall. I'm more or less on your side, just warning you to temper your optimism. Yes it looks like they have a shot right now but you just know the Republicans are going to fall back on bigotry and gay baiting - nothing gets the Christianist wing of their party fired up like hate.

[torridjoe 0]

Regardless of what they were, they, like you, were wrong.

 

 

No they weren't. Rasmussen at least was right on. So was Pew.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

No they weren't. Rasmussen at least was right on. So was Pew.

 

But you were the wrongest of them all!

 

[GettnHuge 1]

I was predicting a Kerry victory months earlier IF THINGS CONTINUED APACE.

It was only the final week that I predicted a Kerry victory based on the numbers at hand.

 

And I haven't predicted any huge Dem win in '06, so I don't know what you're referring to.

 

 

and right before the election I posted a topic: Kerry is winning.

inside it I included the poll numbers for weeks leading up to the

election. The results added up to Bush having consistent higher

numbers while Kerry was up and down. Bush was getting solid numbers

near 50% while Kerry never did. He'd come close or a tie in many polls,

even a point ahead in one or another. but in others Bush would be at

50 and Kerry 45. Meathead's explanation for these numbers was always:

on election day the undecideds will swing to Kerry

The average of those pointed to a Bush victory of 2 to 4 points. You attacked it of course.

final score: Bush 51 Kerry 48

[torridjoe 0]

I don't remember you ever attaching that disclaimer to your many predictions of a Kerry victory. Any fool can tell you that if a candidate is up by some margin in the polls and things "continue apace" through election day he'll win. What you did was put your faith in those polling numbers and predict the wrong outcome.

 

That's true, you haven't predicted a huge Dem win but you seem awfully smug about their chances this fall. I'm more or less on your side, just warning you to temper your optimism. Yes it looks like they have a shot right now but you just know the Republicans are going to fall back on bigotry and gay baiting - nothing gets the Christianist wing of their party fired up like hate.

 

You have a crappy memory, then. EVERY single time I posted a poll, I got the same BS answer back: "polls mean nothing 6 months out." Which I aceded to, EVERY time--in the sense that they were predictive of what would happen in November. I didn't put faith in those polling numbers to do anything but illuminate the state of the race at that point in time, and what trends had occurred up until that point.

 

If I'd put the faith in the polling numbers, I'd have been right. What I did was use the polling numbers PLUS historical precedent regarding turnout and the undecided vote to make a prediction. The historical precedents were upset that day.

 

As for the Christianist wing of the party (or Reps in general), they'd better get in gear. They are MUCH less interested in the election than the Democrats. Even when things were close in '04, it was because the GOP was getting near 90% support for Bush. Now he gets under 70%. Big difference.

 

doesn't meathead still claim the CBS documents are real? real as in

the fake cbs documents are basically copies of actual ones?

 

That would be the person who TYPED them, who said they were real.

[GettnHuge 1]

You have a crappy memory, then. EVERY single time I posted a poll, I got the same BS answer back: "polls mean nothing 6 months out." Which I aceded to, EVERY time--

 

 

even when you made that bet?

[torridjoe 0]

and right before the election I posted a topic: Kerry is winning.

inside it I included the poll numbers for weeks leading up to the

election. The results added up to Bush having consistent higher

numbers while Kerry was up and down. Bush was getting solid numbers

near 50% while Kerry never did. He'd come close or a tie in many polls,

even a point ahead in one or another. but in others Bush would be at

50 and Kerry 45. Meathead's explanation for these numbers was always:

on election day the undecideds will swing to Kerry

The average of those pointed to a Bush victory of 2 to 4 points. You attacked it of course.

final score: Bush 51 Kerry 48

 

Tell that to Rusty; he doesn't seem to believe it.

 

even when you made that bet?

 

I didn't make the bet months out, dingus.

 

Honestly dude, how pathetic is your party if you have to rely on a prison sentence to gain a seat?

 

Honestly dude, how pathetic is your party if your Congresspeople keep getting prison sentences?

[GettnHuge 1]

Tell that to Rusty; he doesn't seem to believe it.

I didn't make the bet months out, dingus.

 

believe what? hey rusty, what was that word Meathead used to attack every

poll that didn't go his way? he is the master of cherry-picking polls, even better

than recliner. but wtf was it he said to declare whatever poll that had Bush up

as out of date, or biased

[torridjoe 0]

believe what? hey rusty, what was that word Meathead used to attack every

poll that didn't go his way? he is the master of cherry-picking polls, even better

than recliner. but wtf was it he said to declare whatever poll that had Bush up

as out of date, or biased

 

he doesn't believe that many of the polls were correct. One notable exception would be Gallup, which consistently oversampled Republicans.

[Birdseed 1]

believe what? hey rusty, what was that word Meathead used to attack every

poll that didn't go his way? he is the master of cherry-picking polls, even better

than recliner. but wtf was it he said to declare whatever poll that had Bush up

as out of date, or biased

 

outlier

 

YW

 

[torridjoe 0]

outlier

 

YW

 

 

Correct--Gallup was one of the outliers.

[GettnHuge 1]

outlier

 

YW

 

 

TY, that was the one, he did have another that accompanied it sometimes.

[Birdseed 1]

TY, that was the one, he did have another that accompanied it sometimes.

 

cherry picking outlier?

 

dadblamn outlier?

 

###### outlier?

 

[GettnHuge 1]

cherry picking outlier?

 

dadblamn outlier?

 

###### outlkier?

 

 

 

more along the lines of: outliers and __________

[Recliner Pilot 61]

believe what? hey rusty, what was that word Meathead used to attack every

poll that didn't go his way? he is the master of cherry-picking polls, even better

than recliner. but wtf was it he said to declare whatever poll that had Bush up

as out of date, or biased

 

Hey, every time I posted a poll it was to jab my finger in Turbin's eye for getting a hard-on anytime he was able to cherry-pick a poll to bolster his Kerry "lock" theory.

 

It's the same thing as me posting a poll on Bush's approval numbers now. I didn't give a rat's ass about the polls then, and I don't now.

 

If you recall I said Bush was a lock for re-election the minute Kerry got the nomination.

[MDC 5,876]

You have a crappy memory, then. EVERY single time I posted a poll, I got the same BS answer back: "polls mean nothing 6 months out." Which I aceded to, EVERY time--in the sense that they were predictive of what would happen in November. I didn't put faith in those polling numbers to do anything but illuminate the state of the race at that point in time, and what trends had occurred up until that point.

 

If I'd put the faith in the polling numbers, I'd have been right. What I did was use the polling numbers PLUS historical precedent regarding turnout and the undecided vote to make a prediction. The historical precedents were upset that day.

 

You repeatedly posted polls indicating a Kerry lead, expressed extreme confidence that he'd win the election, and predicted that he'd win right up until election day. Know what? You were wrong.

 

Again, I'd like to share your apparent confidence about the Democrats' chances this fall, but given their recent history of shooting themselves in the foot, I'm going to keep a leash on my optimism. I'm giving you a little friendly advice to do the same.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Correct--Gallup was one of the outliers.

 

And yet dead-on, unlike you.

 

[Franknbeans 46]

Graph

[Voltaire 4,554]

Why the ###### doesn't a third party step up? It seems the USA is the only country in the world with two parties holding 90%+ of the vote, which makes absolutely no sense given the size of the country.

 

No, it makes perfect sense given the way that we make up our elections as winner takes all. Third parties just splinter votes off of the party closest to their position, helping the one that's further from them.

 

The result of voting for Nader in 2000 was the election of Bush.

[cmh6476 748]

Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were in the 30's at this point in his presidency, and look at how he is idolized.

[Franknbeans 46]

Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were in the 30's at this point in his presidency, and look at how he is idolized.

you're right. It's sad.

[GettnHuge 1]

gipper