Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[buckshot24]

I bet you won't and will wimp out of showing it.

I already did and to be honest I don't care. Go back and read if you're interested.

You said: "The Electoral map has changed once that "stale" data has been replaced with "fresh" data. It's moving towards a Romney victory, not away from it. If that is not the case then please present your data."

And it has.

I then linked you InTrade, 538, Vegas bookies here, here and here.

And if you look at 538 Romney's odds have net increased since I made that statement. Vegas odds aren't really at dispute and I don't see how that addresses my claim that the electoral map has improved for Romney over the last week and a half.

Again, you're not a very intelligent or consistent poster, and I'm saying this in a nice way, believe it or not.

I think my prediction of a Romney victory has caused a lot of confusion because I'm talking about polls at the same time. For the benefit of this thread please disregard my prediction and lets talk about the fucking polls. Ok?

You're citing a polling firm that ceases polling in Virginia and Florida to prove your argument that a particular scenario has a chance of occurring. But you're not using that polling firm, Suffolk, as evidence of anything.

Do you understand the difference between a "proof" and evidence to justify an assumption? I made assumptions and provided a bit of evidence to support those assumptions.

I know they have nothing to do with Wisconsin. Thanks for the news flash, lol.

Then why did you write this?

lol, boy you're fucking confused. You literally just used RCP.com (a polling aggregation web site) and a polling firm that stopped polling a few swing states to make an argument for Romney having a chance at winning Wisconsin, Virginia and Florida.

 

[buckshot24]

lulz. As has been baby-fed to you before, you openly admit you don't know shit about statistics or probabilities, so you shouldn't be commenting on polling methodology when you don't understand shit about it.

I did not admit any such thing ass wipe.

If there is a 9% advantage for Democrats come election day then Romney will lose. There ain't no way in hell that happens though. 2008 type of turnout is not going to happen this year, let alone a wider gap for Dems. Republican enthusiasm is at least 20 points higher.

 

[randomrogue]

I did not admit any such thing ass wipe.

If there is a 9% advantage for Democrats come election day then Romney will lose. There ain't no way in hell that happens though. 2008 type of turnout is not going to happen this year, let alone a wider gap for Dems. Republican enthusiasm is at least 20 points higher.

Links?

You just keep making shit up.

 

[monovillage]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tates-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/

8:26PM EDT October 15. 2012 - WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney leads President Obama by four percentage points among likely voters in the nation's top battlegrounds, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and he has growing enthusiasm among women to thank.

 

[buckshot24]

Links?

You just keep making shit up.

What am I making up? The gap in the poll? The gap in the exit polls in 2008?

CNN exit polls

Dem 39%
Rep 32%

ABC poll

Dem 35%
Rep 26%

What shit am I making up?

Enthusiasm is at least 20 points higher this time around and yet they have 6% less Republicans in their poll.

 

[First]

I already did and to be honest I don't care. Go back and read if you're interested.

Bitched out, as predicted.

And it has.

And if you look at 538 Romney's odds have net increased since I made that statement.

Reread your own garbage, you're confused again; you said "It's moving towards a Romney victory, not away from it." You're trying to argue two different things based on the same logic, but you can't; you can't say Romney's going to win but that that belief isn't based on polls while giving weight to polls when you say "It's moving towards a Romney victory, not away from it" to make an argument about the election moving towards Romney, especially when claiming polls have no veracity...

Frankly your points are contradictory and shitty.

And Vegas odds aren't really at dispute and I don't see how that addresses my claim that the electoral map has improved for Romney over the last week and a half.

I don't know what you're trying to argue with your Vegas point; Vegas odds refers to people putting money where their mouth is, a very accurate indicator of who's a favorite and who isn't based on probabilities. It tracks with reality, with actual outcomes. I can explain this further if you're still confused.

I think my prediction of a Romney victory has caused a lot of confusion because I'm talking about polls at the same time. For the benefit of this thread please disregard my prediction and lets talk about the fucking polls. Ok?

It's hard to take a person seriously who literally tells you to pretend he didn't say things he said. Again, you can't make arguments that polls matter in one statement but that they don't matter in another statement regarding Romney winning 300+ (lol) electoral votes.

Do you understand the difference between a "proof" and evidence to justify an assumption? I made assumptions and provided a bit of evidence to support those assumptions.

I'll say it again; you're citing a polling firm that ceases polling in Virginia and Florida as evidence for your argument that a particular scenario has a chance of occurring, but you're not using that polling firm, Suffolk, as evidence of anything. This literally makes no sense.

Then why did you write this?

Read the first part: "You literally just used RCP.com (a polling aggregation web site) and a polling firm...." RCP.com referring to Wisconsin, Suffolk referring to Virginia/Florida. I guess I should have wrote respectively for you.

 

[buckshot24]

Bitched out, as predicted.

I'm done with this issue. You said it I rebutted it and I'll leave it up to you to figure it out, mr smart guy.

Reread your own garbage, you're confused again; you said "It's moving towards a Romney victory, not away from it."

My statement is correct. When I said what I said the EC map showed one thing where Obama had 330-340 EC votes based upon projections and guess what it has moved toward a Romney victory. When you walk upstairs to your mother's kitchen you are walking towards the kitchen. You aren't further away from it when you take 5 steps. The movement in the EC map based upon projections has gotten closer to a Romney victory over the last two weeks and not further away from it. Again the current projections are not what I am saying supports my prediction of a Romney victory. Like I said for the sake of discussion forget I made that prediction because it is not based upon any current polls.

Frankly your points are contradictory and shitty.

Yeah when you misconstrue them so horribly.

I don't know what you're trying to argue with your Vegas point; Vegas odds refers to people putting money where their mouth is, a very accurate indicator of who's a favorite and who isn't based on probabilities. It tracks with reality, with actual outcomes. I can explain this further if you're still confused.

I wouldn't give two shits what betters are doing. It means nothing as to who is going to win the election so stick those bets where it stinks.

It's hard to take a person seriously who literally tells you to pretend he didn't say things he said. Again, you can't make arguments that polls matter in one statement but that they don't matter in another statement regarding Romney winning 300+ (lol) electoral votes.

I want to discuss the polls, thats why. Working inside the framework of the polling data is what I'm trying to do now. My prediction is not based upon those polls for the most part.

I'll say it again; you're citing a polling firm that ceases polling in Virginia and Florida as evidence for your argument that a particular scenario has a chance of occurring, but you're not using that polling firm, Suffolk, as evidence of anything. This literally makes no sense.

Holy shit. You have got to be kidding me. Perhaps if you take your head out of your liberal ass you'd get it? I merely was supporting an assumption I was making, thats it. The assumption (limited to that very narrow scenario) was that Virginia has been "painted red" by a polling firm, namely Suffolk University. You then use language such as "proof" and "prove" when the evidence was never presented to "prove" anything. It lent credence to the tiny and limited assumption I was making of a very specific scenario. Thats all it did.

Take Suffolk pulling out of those three states for what it's worth or you can stick it up your rectum, your choice.

Read the first part: "You literally just used RCP.com (a polling aggregation web site) and a polling firm...." RCP.com referring to Wisconsin, Suffolk referring to Virginia/Florida. I guess I should have wrote respectively for you.

Who gives a shit? I'd like to talk about polls now, would you mind? I don't think the size of your penis makes for an interesting thread topic.

 

[First]

My statement is correct. When I said what I said the EC map showed one thing where Obama had 330-340 EC votes based upon projections and guess what it has moved toward a Romney victory. When you walk upstairs to your mother's kitchen you are walking towards the kitchen. You aren't further away from it when you take 5 steps. The movement in the EC map based upon projections has gotten closer to a Romney victory over the last two weeks and not further away from it. Again the current projections are not what I am saying supports my prediction of a Romney victory. Like I said for the sake of discussion forget I made that prediction because it is not based upon any current polls.

You're using semantics but it's still a terrible point whether I buy your reasoning or not, since to win you need at least 270 electoral votes. Romney isn't sniffing that based on current projections.

I wouldn't give two shits what betters are doing. It means nothing as to who is going to win the election so stick those bets where it stinks.

Betting sites like InTrade have fantastic track records. Where people have to put up or shut up, they tend to make more informed decisions. It's simple market economics. The fact that you don't see or understand this surprises no one based on your shitty posts.

I want to discuss the polls, thats why. Working inside the framework of the polling data is what I'm trying to do now. My prediction is not based upon those polls for the most part.

lol, get over it dude, you're just full of contradictions. Like I said, stop using polls when it's convenient while railing against them when it's inconvenient and they don't say what you want. You look small and desperate.

Holy shit. You have got to be kidding me. Perhaps if you take your head out of your liberal ass you'd get it? I merely was supporting an assumption I was making, thats it. The assumption (limited to that very narrow scenario) was that Virginia has been "painted red" by a polling firm, namely Suffolk University. You then use language such as "proof" and "prove" when the evidence was never presented to "prove" anything. It lent credence to the tiny and limited assumption I was making of a very specific scenario. Thats all it did.

Again making a semantics argument where none exists. Whether you use the term "prove" or not, your argument is shit. You can't use a polling firm to make an argument (however narrow it is) to support your position that Romney could win Virginia/Florida while simultaneously railing against polls. It transparently contradictory, and it's sad to watch you squirm to avoid the inescapable reality of your inconsistency.

Take Suffolk pulling out of those three states for what it's worth or you can stick it up your rectum, your choice.

I'd never put something up my rectum that was already extracted from deep within someone else's anus, especially yours.

Who gives a shit? I'd like to talk about polls now, would you mind? I don't think the size of your penis makes for an interesting thread topic.

Sorry you can't see my large penis, that's for my wife's eyes only.

 

[Doppel]

66% chance of obama win now on 538. With each passing day more people get their votes in and time is not on Romney's side.

 

[buckshot24]

66% chance of obama win now on 538. With each passing day more people get their votes in and time is not on Romney's side.

You act like 538's projection is binding as if it means anything to real voters.

 

[jackstar7]

You act like 538's projection is binding as if it means anything to real voters.

You imply it isn't founded in solid statistical analysis.

 

[halik]

You act like 538's projection is binding as if it means anything to real voters.

They mirror the intrade/vegas people putting money on the line (vs people answering telephone calls), historically and logically the former is far more accurate than the latter.

 

[buckshot24]

You imply it isn't founded in solid statistical analysis.

I don't have a problem with the math, the numbers (data) it is using may or may not represent reality however.

Less and less people are willing to respond to pollsters now. With less people responding the pollsters have to figure out why people aren't responding and who these people are. Are they people who would favor Romney more or Obama? Gallup changed their techniques in the middle of the election cycle.

Polls do not account for enthusiasm either. The polls indicate Republican voters are much more enthusiastic than they were in 2008 while Dem enthusiasm is down.

Also in Ohio Republican Absentee requests are way up over 2008.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ohio-...-boosting-romney/article/2509838#.UH1t8cXA_h4

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Polls do not account for enthusiasm either. The polls indicate Republican voters are much more enthusiastic than they were in 2008 while Dem enthusiasm is down.

You keep saying this, but I've seen a lot of mixed evidence on the enthusiasm issue.

 

[jackstar7]

I don't have a problem with the math, the numbers (data) it is using may or may not represent reality however.

Less and less people are willing to respond to pollsters now. With less people responding the pollsters have to figure out why people aren't responding and who these people are. Are they people who would favor Romney more or Obama? Gallup changed their techniques in the middle of the election cycle.

Polls do not account for enthusiasm either. The polls indicate Republican voters are much more enthusiastic than they were in 2008 while Dem enthusiasm is down.

Also in Ohio Republican Absentee requests are way up over 2008.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ohio-...-boosting-romney/article/2509838#.UH1t8cXA_h4

So polling as a whole is not a useful tool? Is that what you're saying now?

 

[randomrogue]

Also in Ohio Republican Absentee requests are way up over 2008.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ohio-...-boosting-romney/article/2509838#.UH1t8cXA_h4

Politico described the paper as "a megaphone for [Anschutz's] right-wing views on taxes, national security and President Barack Obama."[4] The Examiner's parent company, Clarity Media Group, also owns the conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard.[5] The Examiner co-sponsored the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa on August 11, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

Get out of here with your right wing crap. Pick something that is at least REMOTELY objective.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't have a problem with the math, the numbers (data) it is using may or may not represent reality however.

Less and less people are willing to respond to pollsters now. With less people responding the pollsters have to figure out why people aren't responding and who these people are. Are they people who would favor Romney more or Obama? Gallup changed their techniques in the middle of the election cycle.

Polls do not account for enthusiasm either. The polls indicate Republican voters are much more enthusiastic than they were in 2008 while Dem enthusiasm is down.

Also in Ohio Republican Absentee requests are way up over 2008.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ohio-...-boosting-romney/article/2509838#.UH1t8cXA_h4

Suck the GOP elephant cock a little harder, why dontcha.

 

[sportage]

Scholastic Student Vote, kids voting have picked the winner in every election but 2 since 1940.
And every election since Nixon.
This vote?
Obama the winner 51%
Romney 45%
Other 4%

And a child shall lead them.

 

[buckshot24]

So polling as a whole is not a useful tool? Is that what you're saying now?

I'm not making any absolute statements one way or the other about the polling. I'm saying that the way polling companies are getting in touch with voters has changed. Does this change introduce a bias one way or another? Perhaps.

 

[buckshot24]

Suck the GOP elephant cock a little harder, why dontcha.

How about you blow me?

Dispute what I say or shut the fuck up.

 

[zsdersw]

How about you blow me?

Depends how clean your cock is... then I might.

Dispute what I say or shut the fuck up.

No! I'll say what the fuck I want, and I don't give a shit if you have a problem with it.

 

[randomrogue]

Yeah I'm going to simply stop reading your posts since you contribute nothing of interest. You don't even understand what's going on.

 

[buckshot24]

Politico described the paper as "a megaphone for [Anschutz's] right-wing views on taxes, national security and President Barack Obama."[4] The Examiner's parent company, Clarity Media Group, also owns the conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard.[5] The Examiner co-sponsored the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa on August 11, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

Get out of here with your right wing crap. Pick something that is at least REMOTELY objective.

Has the data they presented been disputed?

 

[buckshot24]

Depends how clean your cock is... then I might.



No! I'll say what the fuck I want, and I don't give a shit if you have a problem with it.

You're free to be an asshole I guess.

 

[zsdersw]

You're free to be an asshole I guess.

And you're free to be a GOP cheerleader, but I'm gonna call you out on it whenever the hell I want to.