Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Bowfinger]

Meh, take it easy on the kid. He at least had the cojones to show up. It puts him a notch above many of our right-wing blowhards.

 

[buckshot24]

You're not manning up at all. You were obviously stuck on Rasmussen from the get-go, and refused to acknowledge the validity of the numbers coming from other sources.

This is simply false. I never once argued that Rasmussen was right and the others were wrong. That party ID poll had simply never been wrong before in predicting the party ID shares of the electorate.

So rather than telling us, "I should have followed the consensus rather then letting my ideology dictate my beliefs," your sole conclusion is that "Rasmussen was way off on their numbers."

What is the difference? I always said stuff like "if these Rasmussen party ID polls are correct" then....

Good God, man, do you even recognize you own willful ignorance? And can you not even allow yourself to entertain the concept that maybe - just maybe - your broader right-wing beliefs are just as wrong as your poll preferences?

The problem is I never believed one poll over any other poll. Sure, I wanted them to be true and I brought up polls that turned out to be wrong because they conflicted with what the majority of polls was saying. Things aren't as binary as you're making them out to be.

 

[First]

This is simply false. I never once argued that Rasmussen was right and the others were wrong. That party ID poll had simply never been wrong before in predicting the party ID shares of the electorate.

What is the difference? I always said stuff like "if these Rasmussen party ID polls are correct" then....

The problem is I never believed one poll over any other poll. Sure, I wanted them to be true and I brought up polls that turned out to be wrong because they conflicted with what the majority of polls was saying. Things aren't as binary as you're making them out to be.

So one polling firm wasn't "wrong" (in your reality), therefore it required you to ignore the overwhelming polling samples from literally 95%+ of all other firms (many of whom were also not wrong)?

Whatever helps you sleep better at night. lol

 

[shira]

This is simply false. I never once argued that Rasmussen was right and the others were wrong. That party ID poll had simply never been wrong before in predicting the party ID shares of the electorate.

What is the difference? I always said stuff like "if these Rasmussen party ID polls are correct" then....

The problem is I never believed one poll over any other poll. Sure, I wanted them to be true and I brought up polls that turned out to be wrong because they conflicted with what the majority of polls was saying. Things aren't as binary as you're making them out to be.

Okay, I hear what you're saying. You do sound sincere.

 

[cirrrocco]

Meh, take it easy on the kid. He at least had the cojones to show up. It puts him a notch above many of our right-wing blowhards.

I agree

Buck I apologize if there were mean things said.

You at least are at the forefront trying to discuss.

 

[dbk]

Yep, I just said that in another thread, that Hispanic voters are a big problem for the GOP, and some empty-headed moron tried to comment. I came back with a bunch of facts and he just disappeared.

If the GOP doesn't fix their problem attracting hispanic voters, their party is actually dead. There were a lot more hispanic voters this time compared to '08, and in '16 there will only be more, and more old white reliable GOP people will have died off by then.

The GOP, to a larger degree, will need to address minorities as a whole. Romney only won the white men vote.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

America lost.

Fuck yourself.

This place is filled with a bunch of fucking retarded children. I'm here manning up and after that you guys can go fuck yourselves. I don't need the aggravation.

You have behaved in an ungracious way yourself, including posting personal pics of a member of this forum and his son in an apparent effort to intimidate him. You deserve to have your face rubbed in it in my opinion.

 

[blankslate]

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is simply false. I never once argued that Rasmussen was right and the others were wrong. That party ID poll had simply never been wrong before in predicting the party ID shares of the electorate.

You need to change your password and scan your computer for malware. Someone's been using your account over the last two to three weeks to constantly claim that Rasmussen was really accurate, and criticizing or challenging all the other pollsters who consistently showed a party ID split nearly identical to the one that showed up to vote, and those who agreed with them.

 

[Abraxas]

You have behaved in an ungracious way yourself, including posting personal pics of a member of this forum and his son in an apparent effort to intimidate him. You deserve to have your face rubbed in it in my opinion.

Pretty much this. Buckshot, one of the lessons I was taught early and often was the first step to filling a hole is to stop digging. You made a number of very public mistakes due to your hostility and belligerence. Hopefully you at least recognize the mistakes and will take something away from that for the future. Look at the reaction you are getting and decide if this is who you want to be here.

You really have two choices. You can accept you fucked up, learn something, and move on; let the past errors fade, or you can continue to drag out your role as forum laughing stock by lashing out at the people who were right. Take it from someone who has learned some of this the hard way in the past, don't double down on the stupid.

 

[Phokus]

This is simply false. I never once argued that Rasmussen was right and the others were wrong. That party ID poll had simply never been wrong before in predicting the party ID shares of the electorate.

What is the difference? I always said stuff like "if these Rasmussen party ID polls are correct" then....

The problem is I never believed one poll over any other poll. Sure, I wanted them to be true and I brought up polls that turned out to be wrong because they conflicted with what the majority of polls was saying. Things aren't as binary as you're making them out to be.

And that's why Nate Silver's methodology is superior, you bitch idiot.

 

[buckshot24]

And that's why Nate Silver's methodology is superior, you bitch idiot.

Yeah, the polls were basically right.

 

[jonks]

So one polling firm wasn't "wrong" (in your reality), therefore it required you to ignore the overwhelming polling samples from literally 95%+ of all other firms (many of whom were also not wrong)?

That's essentially the argument from conservatives against climate change. But but but this study says there isn't any! Never mind the 99% that say it's happening and is caused by man. I'll only accept the one that confirms my bias.

Epistemic closure.

 

[buckshot24]

So one polling firm wasn't "wrong" (in your reality), therefore it required you to ignore the overwhelming polling samples from literally 95%+ of all other firms (many of whom were also not wrong)?

Whatever helps you sleep better at night. lol

Please find a post where I said all of the other polls were wrong, thanks.

 

[buckshot24]

You need to change your password and scan your computer for malware. Someone's been using your account over the last two to three weeks to constantly claim that Rasmussen was really accurate, and criticizing or challenging all the other pollsters who consistently showed a party ID split nearly identical to the one that showed up to vote, and those who agreed with them.

They were fairly accurate in predicting turnout with that poll up until tonight.

 

[First]

Yeah, the polls were basically right.

lulz troll.

 

[NFS4]

And that's why Nate Silver's methodology is superior, you bitch idiot.

Buahahaha

 

[First]

Please find a post where I said all of the other polls were wrong, thanks.

Sure, here you go: "Mitt Romney will win well over 300 electoral votes".

Let me know if you have any further questions, troll.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm pleased at the outcome, obviously. Not interested in going off on Buckshot, but there is a larger point to be made here. When we as amateurs decide to disregard expert conventional wisdom, we're probably going to be wrong. That includes polling, climate science, biology, economics, whatever.

This may not get through to a lot of people, but it bears mentioning that our emotional predilections do not actually alter the reality of the world we live in.

Wishing something to be a certain way just doesn't make it so.

 

[emperus]

Wait, Rasmussen's poll wasn't accurate? Who would have thunk?

 

[zinfamous]

Holy shit was Rasmussen wrong!

Split of

D 38
R 32
I 30

According to CNN exit polling.

Like I said, if those splits were accurate then Romney would lose and he lost. Romney only won the independents by 4 points and it wasn't enough. I'd like to know who those cocksucking conservatives were (17% of them) who voted for Obama.

The polls turned out to be accurate in their top line numbers but were off on so many of their internals. The largest example was independent support for Obama wasn't nearly as lopsided as the majority of polls were showing. I look at the exit polls and I see a very divided population. White men voted against Obama by 27 points. Latino men voted almost two to one against Romney. Of course blacks voted 9 to 1 for Obama.

I don't see a very productive 4 years in our future with the make up of the government and of division among the races.

the problem is you.


you call them "cocksuckers", simply for thinking.

you are what is wrong with this country.
you are what is wrong with humanity.

grow the fuck up.
move out of mommy's basement.
live in the real world.
stop being a dickscarf.

your new life starts today.
congratulations to you

 

[randomrogue]

Buckshot that was some of the most epic fail I've ever seen on the internet. You look like a complete idiot.

 

[Screech]

Hey, in Buckshot's defense, he actually is here accepting he was wrong (mostly). That is a lot more than can be said for most of the "romney will win with 320 EV" crowd

 

[randomrogue]

Apparently you didn't read his posts.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Gee, buckshot was right all along, Romney won right? LOL OOPS!

Hannity says 2-4 point win for Romney, sorry libs. It's over.

Wow, surprisingly bullish on CO, VA, and FL. I had thought the three to be coin flips, with FL possibly leaning Romney.

Those will all go Romney. He's wrong.

So once again, real math and statistics won out over random thoughts and wishful thinking.

Special mention to the GOP shill here:

When Romney wins Ohio, I'm calling it victory. Not voter fraud, victory.

So much for op-eds as facts....well, in another 3 years, he'll be back to flood the forum with more op-eds posing as facts I guess.