Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Those new GOP/Fox News talking points about "skewed polling numbers" are "a false narrative that encourages the Republican Party to take the wrong lessons from this election, no matter the outcome"   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, GOP, talking points, Mitt Romney, President Obama, more equal, Postpartisan, representative samples, election days  
•       •       •

4001 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2012 at 5:04 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-28 01:49:21 PM  
the Republican Party to take the wrong lessons from this election

I'm pretty sure they were going to do this even before the skewed polls thing came up.
 
2012-09-28 01:55:33 PM  
the whole derper echo chamber has them taking away the wrong lesson from pretty much every issue and it makes them further and futher out of touch.
 
2012-09-28 01:56:57 PM  
There are no false narratives. There are only narratives that have not yet realized their underlying truth.
 
2012-09-28 01:59:29 PM  
Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.
 
2012-09-28 02:04:09 PM  

Serious Black: Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.


I fear that you are correct.

I suspect they're ridin' this puppy straight into the ground.
 
2012-09-28 02:05:12 PM  
As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.
 
2012-09-28 02:08:26 PM  
I'm kinda glad that the GOP isn't learning from its mistakes.
 
2012-09-28 02:12:27 PM  
The GOP will take away the lesson that the chicken didn't get farked enough.
 
2012-09-28 02:13:21 PM  
"We lost because we ran a pantywaisted moderate"

Get ready to hear that for a few years. They're going to tack even harder right if they lose.
 
2012-09-28 02:14:20 PM  

DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.


Or the result of widespread voter fraud that needs "fixing".
 
2012-09-28 02:15:19 PM  

Quasar: "We lost because we ran a pantywaisted moderate"

Get ready to hear that for a few years. They're going to tack even harder right if they lose.


Yes, yes they will.

And if they manage to get even derpier people in Congress in 2012 and 2014, they can expect to lose the White House in 2016.
 
2012-09-28 02:17:10 PM  
Unskewedpolls.com has an update today - a new Fox News poll.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%.

Unskewedpolls re-weights the polls based off of Rasmussen data, so one can assume straight Rasmussen numbers should be included in unskewedpoll's graphs.

So unskewed should really look like this:
growlersoftware.com

That's right. The only polls that "really" show Obama leading are Fox News and Rasmussen.
 
2012-09-28 02:22:00 PM  
Well, actually lighting their pants on fire would probably not be legal.
 
2012-09-28 02:24:52 PM  
I hope they keep purging themselves in order to be more pure.
 
2012-09-28 02:26:07 PM  

vudukungfu: Well, actually lighting their pants on fire would probably not be legal.


Even if they ask nicely?
 
2012-09-28 02:27:17 PM  

impaler: Unskewedpolls.com has an update today - a new Fox News poll.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%.

Unskewedpolls re-weights the polls based off of Rasmussen data, so one can assume straight Rasmussen numbers should be included in unskewedpoll's graphs.

So unskewed should really look like this:
[growlersoftware.com image 533x375]

That's right. The only polls that "really" show Obama leading are Fox News and Rasmussen.


Until next week, Rasmussen is reweighting their polls, so expect a big swing for Romney next week (real or imagined).
 
2012-09-28 02:30:49 PM  
I just went to Unskewed Polls. Each one of the poll result leads to an examiner.com page (presumably, written by the guy who runs Unskewed polls).

At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.
 
2012-09-28 02:31:19 PM  
Who will be the next ACORN? Or, will the GOP voice its heart's true desire finally, and say it's all the fault of those shiftless, lazy, idle, uppity...socialists?
 
2012-09-28 02:32:13 PM  

RexTalionis: At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.


Having been on the Fark politics tab for some time, I've never heard of such a scheme.
 
2012-09-28 02:36:08 PM  
I think 2008-10 was the death blow to rationality in the GOP.
 
2012-09-28 02:37:44 PM  
This is just setting up for a whole bunch ignorant half-wits being completely convinced that the election was stolen, with all the implications that that carries.
 
2012-09-28 02:39:34 PM  

EyeballKid: RexTalionis: At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.

Having been on the Fark politics tab for some time, I've never heard of such a scheme.


Okay, Examiner.com is a news site that functions by having people sign up as contributors. The contributors write stories reporting the news, which is published to the Examiner website (actually, the regional site for the Examiner - for instance, a New York based writer would write for the New York website on Examiner.com).

There is no editorial control over what is published on Examiner.com, the way it works is that whenever there's a click to an examiner.com page, the contributor who writes the page gets paid a certain amount (a few pennies, generally). If you generate tens of thousands of clicks, you can get paid quite a bit if you publish multiple articles on examiner.com every day.

That's why a lot of writers for Examiner.com tend to write hyperbolic hyperpartisan articles - they tend attract the most page views and the most clicks. And, because there is no "editor" making decisions on what gets published and what doesn't, there is almost nothing to stop someone from writing hoax stories or outright lies on that website, which has happened many times already.

Seriously, look it up.
 
j4x
2012-09-28 02:41:08 PM  

RexTalionis: I just went to Unskewed Polls. Each one of the poll result leads to an examiner.com page (presumably, written by the guy who runs Unskewed polls).

At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.


I don't believe anything I read on Examiner or any sites associated with Examiner.
 
2012-09-28 02:42:24 PM  

Big Red Al: Until next week, Rasmussen is reweighting their polls, so expect a big swing for Romney next week (real or imagined).


Historically, Rasmussen's polling trends closer to average as it gets closer to the election. It's going to be funny when they reweight, causing a cascade of Obama leading on unskewed polls. At which point we will need true_and_honest_unskewed polls to come in an find another nonsensical data transformation that will favor Romney.
 
2012-09-28 02:42:41 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Serious Black: Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.

I fear that you are correct.

I suspect they're ridin' this puppy straight into the ground.


YEEEE-HAWWW
www.hobbyistblogs.com
 
2012-09-28 02:44:30 PM  

RexTalionis: EyeballKid: RexTalionis: At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.

Having been on the Fark politics tab for some time, I've never heard of such a scheme.

Okay, Examiner.com is a news site that functions by having people sign up as contributors. The contributors write stories reporting the news, which is published to the Examiner website (actually, the regional site for the Examiner - for instance, a New York based writer would write for the New York website on Examiner.com).

There is no editorial control over what is published on Examiner.com, the way it works is that whenever there's a click to an examiner.com page, the contributor who writes the page gets paid a certain amount (a few pennies, generally). If you generate tens of thousands of clicks, you can get paid quite a bit if you publish multiple articles on examiner.com every day.

That's why a lot of writers for Examiner.com tend to write hyperbolic hyperpartisan articles - they tend attract the most page views and the most clicks. And, because there is no "editor" making decisions on what gets published and what doesn't, there is almost nothing to stop someone from writing hoax stories or outright lies on that website, which has happened many times already.

Seriously, look it up.


Didn't FARK have an issue a while back with some guy who got his own Examiner articles greenlit like five times a day or something?
 
2012-09-28 02:47:23 PM  

Quasar: "We lost because we ran a pantywaisted moderate"

Get ready to hear that for a few years. They're going to tack even harder right if they lose.


Exactly and.

"We lost because what he was mumbling in that fundraiser behind closed doors, he should have been shouting from the podium all along"
 
2012-09-28 02:49:10 PM  

RexTalionis: EyeballKid: RexTalionis: At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.

Having been on the Fark politics tab for some time, I've never heard of such a scheme.

Okay, Examiner.com is a news site that functions by having people sign up as contributors. The contributors write stories reporting the news, which is published to the Examiner website (actually, the regional site for the Examiner - for instance, a New York based writer would write for the New York website on Examiner.com).

There is no editorial control over what is published on Examiner.com, the way it works is that whenever there's a click to an examiner.com page, the contributor who writes the page gets paid a certain amount (a few pennies, generally). If you generate tens of thousands of clicks, you can get paid quite a bit if you publish multiple articles on examiner.com every day.

That's why a lot of writers for Examiner.com tend to write hyperbolic hyperpartisan articles - they tend attract the most page views and the most clicks. And, because there is no "editor" making decisions on what gets published and what doesn't, there is almost nothing to stop someone from writing hoax stories or outright lies on that website, which has happened many times already.

Seriously, look it up.


Yup. There was a guy who used to do it with his movie reviews, here.
 
2012-09-28 02:53:40 PM  

impaler: Unskewedpolls.com has an update today - a new Fox News poll.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%.

Unskewedpolls re-weights the polls based off of Rasmussen data, so one can assume straight Rasmussen numbers should be included in unskewedpoll's graphs.

So unskewed should really look like this:
[growlersoftware.com image 533x375]

That's right. The only polls that "really" show Obama leading are Fox News and Rasmussen.



Ooh. That's some legendary-level denial going on there.
 
2012-09-28 02:56:08 PM  

vygramul: DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.

Or the result of widespread voter fraud that needs "fixing".


I don't know if that's true if Romney were to win. I think that the Democratic voters across the country would lament the idiocy of those who would elect such a simpering fool, but not really go as far as to say "stolen" or illegitimate or whatever.

However if Obama wins it's almost certain to result in an awful lot of derp.
 
2012-09-28 03:06:55 PM  

Elandriel: I think that the Democratic voters across the country would lament the idiocy of those who would elect such a simpering fool, but not really go as far as to say "stolen" or illegitimate or whatever.


Unless Florida screws the election again.
 
2012-09-28 03:16:07 PM  

Elandriel: vygramul: DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.

Or the result of widespread voter fraud that needs "fixing".

I don't know if that's true if Romney were to win. I think that the Democratic voters across the country would lament the idiocy of those who would elect such a simpering fool, but not really go as far as to say "stolen" or illegitimate or whatever.

However if Obama wins it's almost certain to result in an awful lot of derp.


If Obama wins the conversion of America to an African-style Socialist Kleptocracy will be complete and the Soviet USSA will begin its path through 1,000 years of darkness.

That will be the opening derp and then it will get weird.
 
2012-09-28 03:17:32 PM  
alltheragefaces.com
 
2012-09-28 03:27:05 PM  

DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.


blogs.e-rockford.com
 
2012-09-28 03:35:53 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Serious Black: Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.

I fear that you are correct.

I suspect they're ridin' this puppy straight into the ground.


Four more years of their core demographic dying off. Should work out well, Of course, the smart people have all left flyover country, leaving behind only tards, so they'll still have 40+ senate votes.
 
2012-09-28 03:41:35 PM  
I'm still not willing to totally begin to write Romney's obituary yet, but we're getting close, and crazier things have happened, but I'm not so sure if the problem was with GOP's message or ideas, so much as Romney just isn't a likable sort of guy. If the exact same campaign had been run by Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee, I think the outcome would probably be different.

Clearly the lessons of 2004 went unheeded. This was the GOP's election to lose, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and a sitting president with a dismal approval rating meant that this election by all rights should have been an easy knockout. Unfortunately all the best contenders decided to sit this one out and try their luck against what will likely be a much weaker lineup of competitors that the Democrats will field in 2016, for better or for worse. Oh well, what are ya gonna do?
 
2012-09-28 03:45:54 PM  

spman: I'm still not willing to totally begin to write Romney's obituary yet, but we're getting close, and crazier things have happened, but I'm not so sure if the problem was with GOP's message or ideas, so much as Romney just isn't a likable sort of guy. If the exact same campaign had been run by Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee, I think the outcome would probably be different.

Clearly the lessons of 2004 went unheeded. This was the GOP's election to lose, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and a sitting president with a dismal approval rating meant that this election by all rights should have been an easy knockout. Unfortunately all the best contenders decided to sit this one out and try their luck against what will likely be a much weaker lineup of competitors that the Democrats will field in 2016, for better or for worse. Oh well, what are ya gonna do?


have you looked at the polling data?

electoral-vote.com

347 Obama, 191 Romney - WITH RASMUSSEN INCLUDED
 
2012-09-28 03:50:45 PM  

spman: If the exact same campaign had been run by Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee, I think the outcome would probably be different.


The thing is though, you couldn't run the exact same campaign with Chris Christie. He would be yelling at reporters instead of making odd comments about trees being the right height. Huckabee would at least come off as a genuine individual and give concrete (albeit insane) policy ideas. Romney's a one-of-a-kind guy whose personal oddities make his campaign something special and it can't be reproduced.
 
2012-09-28 03:51:50 PM  
FTFA: If pollsters look at a demographically representative sample of registered or likely voters and find fewer Republicans than might be expected, it could be that voters who once might have called themselves Republicans no longer feel comfortable with the label.

Because I would rather not be viewed as a tea partier.
 
2012-09-28 03:52:35 PM  

Kazan: spman: I'm still not willing to totally begin to write Romney's obituary yet, but we're getting close, and crazier things have happened, but I'm not so sure if the problem was with GOP's message or ideas, so much as Romney just isn't a likable sort of guy. If the exact same campaign had been run by Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee, I think the outcome would probably be different.

Clearly the lessons of 2004 went unheeded. This was the GOP's election to lose, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and a sitting president with a dismal approval rating meant that this election by all rights should have been an easy knockout. Unfortunately all the best contenders decided to sit this one out and try their luck against what will likely be a much weaker lineup of competitors that the Democrats will field in 2016, for better or for worse. Oh well, what are ya gonna do?

have you looked at the polling data?

[electoral-vote.com image 580x359]

347 Obama, 191 Romney - WITH RASMUSSEN INCLUDED


I'm not in denial, I'm just saying that 4 weeks is enough time for Israel to blown up Iran and spark World War 3, American Embassies to burn to the ground in numerous Middle Eastern countries, Obama to inexplicably turn into a blubbering idiot during a debate, an insane stock market crash, or any number of plausible catastrophic events to occur, which would change the whole game overnight. Is Romney going to win? Almost certainly not. Are there still reasonably plausible scenarios in which such an outcome could take place? Absolutely.
 
2012-09-28 03:55:37 PM  
Republicans deluded by 'skewed' polls

FTFY, Headline Writer.
 
2012-09-28 03:56:31 PM  

Kazan: spman: I'm still not willing to totally begin to write Romney's obituary yet, but we're getting close, and crazier things have happened, but I'm not so sure if the problem was with GOP's message or ideas, so much as Romney just isn't a likable sort of guy. If the exact same campaign had been run by Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee, I think the outcome would probably be different.

Clearly the lessons of 2004 went unheeded. This was the GOP's election to lose, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and a sitting president with a dismal approval rating meant that this election by all rights should have been an easy knockout. Unfortunately all the best contenders decided to sit this one out and try their luck against what will likely be a much weaker lineup of competitors that the Democrats will field in 2016, for better or for worse. Oh well, what are ya gonna do?

have you looked at the polling data?

[electoral-vote.com image 580x359]

347 Obama, 191 Romney - WITH RASMUSSEN INCLUDED


What about the new and improved Rasmussen polling announce today?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-28 03:58:42 PM  

Serious Black: Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.


They will certainly change course. The red-necks aren't in control of the party, the wealthy are.
 
2012-09-28 04:03:19 PM  

spman: I'm not in denial, I'm just saying that 4 weeks is enough time for Israel to blown up Iran and spark World War 3, American Embassies to burn to the ground in numerous Middle Eastern countries, Obama to inexplicably turn into a blubbering idiot during a debate, an insane stock market crash, or any number of plausible catastrophic events to occur, which would change the whole game overnight. Is Romney going to win? Almost certainly not. Are there still reasonably plausible scenarios in which such an outcome could take place? Absolutely.


I'm not worried about any foreign policy issue that might arise. Romney's smirk killed the belief he could do anything on that front. But the rest? Yeah. I know. I want to be optimistic, but am very cautious.
 
2012-09-28 04:04:23 PM  

ghare: the smart people have all left flyover country


Hey man, some of us are stuck here. Yeah my state got pretty stupid in 2010 but things are feeling better for the next cycle. We will just have to see.
 
2012-09-28 04:04:47 PM  

vpb: Serious Black: Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.

They will certainly change course. The red-necks aren't in control of the party, the wealthy are.


I dunno, some of those retards seem to be voting differently than the wealthy.
 
2012-09-28 04:26:32 PM  
My 90YO grandpa is going to be voting for Obama...

Life long republican.

WWII vet.

Even he thinks the Republican party has jumped the shark.

I really don't think it will be as close at the polls say.
 
2012-09-28 04:34:06 PM  
Obama winning is trading at 78% on Intrade. I'd like to see someone unskew that tidbit.
 
2012-09-28 04:50:02 PM  

mrshowrules: Obama winning is trading at 78% on Intrade. I'd like to see someone unskew that tidbit.


In the Iowa election markets, he's trading at $0.82 and Romney at $0.18. Economic conservatives are supposed to believe that money talks, bullshiat walks. Except when they don't like it, of course.
 
2012-09-28 05:05:38 PM  
 
2012-09-28 05:06:56 PM  
Fox News dishing out nonsense? I'm shocked.

i50.tinypic.com

/GEDOFFIT!
 
2012-09-28 05:07:11 PM  
The Republican death spiral has been in effect for over half a decade of it. The only question is what will be birthed from the ashes after President Castro gets elected in 2024
 
2012-09-28 05:07:51 PM  
All this chatter about biased polling is just a desperate attempt to keep turnout high for the sake of the house and senate. Romney is so demotivating right now he could sour Republican turn out across the country and possibly jeopardize some safe house and senate seats. Gotta keep the hope alive.
 
2012-09-28 05:07:56 PM  
I've been wondering for a while now that if the polls are such bullshiat, then why even make your own poll? The conclusion is discredited by the premise.
 
2012-09-28 05:08:13 PM  
Meh...some guy shot himself in the head during a police chase on Fox News today.

That's more exciting.
 
2012-09-28 05:10:08 PM  
The GOP, by design almost, takes the wrong lessons from ANY election, no matter the outcome. Every election is a validation of their current belief set from the American people, regardless of vote count.
 
2012-09-28 05:11:34 PM  
I will cover all bets on a 50/50 payout against Obama.

Any cowardly hypocrites up for the challenge? (by hypocrites I mean Republicans of course)
 
2012-09-28 05:12:03 PM  
I think that they're trying to extend the "liberal media" narrative to polls, and bully the "mainstream media" into changing the ways the polls are conducted so that they are more favorable to Republicans.

It's worked with about everything else with the media.
 
2012-09-28 05:12:07 PM  

impaler: Unskewedpolls.com has an update today - a new Fox News poll.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%.

Unskewedpolls re-weights the polls based off of Rasmussen data, so one can assume straight Rasmussen numbers should be included in unskewedpoll's graphs.

So unskewed should really look like this:
[growlersoftware.com image 533x375]

That's right. The only polls that "really" show Obama leading are Fox News and Rasmussen.


Hahahaha. So in reaction to "liberal bias!", they make Fox News and Rasmussen the ones with the liberal bias while the MSM likes Romney.
 
2012-09-28 05:17:19 PM  
Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen? Some pretty popular band for people who don't appreciate good music even had a CD titled "Hail to the Thief". They put themselves into such an echo chamber for the next four years that they were shocked - SHOCKED - that they could possibly lose in 2004.

I see the same thing happening to conservatards this time around. "Waaaah how could XX,XXX,XXX people be so STUPID" the NRO will cry.
 
2012-09-28 05:22:29 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: the Republican Party to take the wrong lessons from this election

I'm pretty sure they were going to do this even before the skewed polls thing came up.


Which wrong lesson?

"Win at all costs" or "Be more conservative"?
 
2012-09-28 05:23:56 PM  

Shaggy_C: Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen? Some pretty popular band for people who don't appreciate good music even had a CD titled "Hail to the Thief". They put themselves into such an echo chamber for the next four years that they were shocked - SHOCKED - that they could possibly lose in 2004.

I see the same thing happening to conservatards this time around. "Waaaah how could XX,XXX,XXX people be so STUPID" the NRO will cry.


Wow, now that is dumbass comparison. Good job.
 
2012-09-28 05:26:17 PM  
The polling experts at Free Republic have been "unskewing" the polls for a while. Basically, whatever percentage Obama is leading by is the amount by which the pollsters overssampled Democrats. Rasmussen was a good and reliable poll until it had Obama ahead. Now it's also wrong.

The pollsters and the media are under orders to report Obama is leading to lay the foundation to scream "fraud" when Romney wins in a landslide. And he will because he's actually up by 18-25%.

Also, Obama campaign appearances in swing states are because he knows he's losing in those states and proof that Romney is ahead.

Freeper logic, you can't explain it.
 
2012-09-28 05:26:20 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: The Onion is prophetic: the Republican Party to take the wrong lessons from this election

I'm pretty sure they were going to do this even before the skewed polls thing came up.

Which wrong lesson?

"Win at all costs" or "Be more conservative"?


Well standard operating procedure for the GOP for the last few decades has been to blame the media whenever they lose, because there's no way it can be their policies since they are the party of Jesus. Expect even more (didn't know it was possible) liberal media derp, continued voter suppression tactics, and probably the derpiest candidate ever imagined in 2016.
 
2012-09-28 05:27:18 PM  

Shaggy_C: Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen? Some pretty popular band for people who don't appreciate good music even had a CD titled "Hail to the Thief". They put themselves into such an echo chamber for the next four years that they were shocked - SHOCKED - that they could possibly lose in 2004.

I see the same thing happening to conservatards this time around. "Waaaah how could XX,XXX,XXX people be so STUPID" the NRO will cry.


Except that it seems pretty clear that there were shenanigans in 2000 and possibly again in 2004. They are exactly the same, except oneside may very well have stolen an election and the other not so much. Other than that, exactly the same, yes.
 
2012-09-28 05:27:28 PM  
Obvious Tag assplodes.
 
2012-09-28 05:27:30 PM  

Shaggy_C: Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen? Some pretty popular band for people who don't appreciate good music even had a CD titled "Hail to the Thief". They put themselves into such an echo chamber for the next four years that they were shocked - SHOCKED - that they could possibly lose in 2004.

I see the same thing happening to conservatards this time around. "Waaaah how could XX,XXX,XXX people be so STUPID" the NRO will cry.


I have to wonder how people would have reacted if Nate Silver existed in 2000 or 2004 and was able to accurately predict 49 of the 50 states beforehand. I think it would have made a difference. If Silver accurately predicts this election with such precision as he did in 2008, it should be a game changing paradigm shift in how we talk about presidential elections.
 
2012-09-28 05:27:49 PM  
shock and denial.

only 6 more stages of grief left for the republicans.
 
2012-09-28 05:27:53 PM  

justtray: I will cover all bets on a 50/50 payout against Obama.

Any cowardly hypocrites up for the challenge? (by hypocrites I mean Republicans of course)


Gimme 10 grand on Romney and another 5 grand on the Washington Generals. I got a feeling they're due.
 
2012-09-28 05:27:56 PM  

birchman: the derpiest candidate ever imagined in 2016.


It'll be like Bachmann Palin overdrive
 
2012-09-28 05:28:45 PM  

Shaggy_C: Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen?


It wasn't?
 
2012-09-28 05:28:50 PM  

RyogaM: Shaggy_C: Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen? Some pretty popular band for people who don't appreciate good music even had a CD titled "Hail to the Thief". They put themselves into such an echo chamber for the next four years that they were shocked - SHOCKED - that they could possibly lose in 2004.

I see the same thing happening to conservatards this time around. "Waaaah how could XX,XXX,XXX people be so STUPID" the NRO will cry.

I have to wonder how people would have reacted if Nate Silver existed in 2000 or 2004 and was able to accurately predict 49 of the 50 states beforehand. I think it would have made a difference. If Silver accurately predicts this election with such precision as he did in 2008, it should be a game changing paradigm shift in how we talk about presidential elections.


Fact and politics don't mix.
 
2012-09-28 05:29:59 PM  
November 6 at Fox News HQ

old.bfi.org.uk

/Hot like Ailes ginning up legitimacy issues
 
2012-09-28 05:31:26 PM  

vygramul: mrshowrules: Obama winning is trading at 78% on Intrade. I'd like to see someone unskew that tidbit.

In the Iowa election markets, he's trading at $0.82 and Romney at $0.18. Economic conservatives are supposed to believe that money talks, bullshiat walks. Except when they don't like it, of course.


Not only that, but Obama getting 320 EV, which I would consider a considerable trouncing given the rhetoric the GOP has been throwing for the past 4 years, is trading at ~60 percent.

All of this is heavily influenced by people who think that Ron Paul/Gary Johnson would have a shot if only the sheeple would wake up.
 
2012-09-28 05:31:49 PM  

EyeballKid: RexTalionis: At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.

Having been on the Fark politics tab for some time, I've never heard of such a scheme.


It's already been explained up above, but if you got to unskewedpolls and click on any of the articles on the left-hand side, you'll find that EVERY single one of them goes to an Examiner article written by Dean Chambers.

This idea is brilliant, BTW, I'm seriously thinking that I could get rich fleecing the right-wing rubes. The fact that you JUST FABRICATE a polling website that shows Romney winning is pure genius. Everyone's clicking, there's ads on the website, and plus links to your Examiner articles. BRILLIANT.

I've got web skills... if anyone has a similarly brilliant idea, for the love of god let's make some money! ;)
 
2012-09-28 05:33:52 PM  
2/3 of this great nation is Republican and only when 2/3 of those polled are republicans will the result be fair and balanced. We're going by land area, right?
 
2012-09-28 05:34:00 PM  
Who would have guessed that Flounder was behing all this?

">


Link
 
2012-09-28 05:34:45 PM  
talkingpointsmemo.com

Gah. Flounder
 
2012-09-28 05:36:20 PM  

vygramul: mrshowrules: Obama winning is trading at 78% on Intrade. I'd like to see someone unskew that tidbit.

In the Iowa election markets, he's trading at $0.82 and Romney at $0.18. Economic conservatives are supposed to believe that money talks, bullshiat walks. Except when they don't like it, of course.


So what's the legality of betting on US elections, anyway? Betting on Obama seems like free money at this point.
 
2012-09-28 05:37:25 PM  
dilbert.com

This is basically what Mitt's campaign team is probably telling him right now as far as how he can still win
 
2012-09-28 05:39:48 PM  

Kazan: have you looked at the polling data?

[electoral-vote.com image 580x359]

347 Obama, 191 Romney - WITH RASMUSSEN INCLUDED


Geez, 12 of the top 14 states by population are going for Obama. That would be 252 electoral votes for the Democrats right there.
 
2012-09-28 05:41:23 PM  

DeltaPunch: This idea is brilliant, BTW, I'm seriously thinking that I could get rich fleecing the right-wing rubes. The fact that you JUST FABRICATE a polling website that shows Romney winning is pure genius. Everyone's clicking, there's ads on the website, and plus links to your Examiner articles. BRILLIANT.


It's not really fleecing Republicans. It's more like gaming the Examiner.com's revenue model. And, to be honest, nobody really loses here (except for the deluded people who buys into the notion), since the guy writing the page gets paid, the Examiner.com's ad revenue gets paid, and the Examiner.com's advertisers get more views.
 
2012-09-28 05:41:55 PM  
America saw what happened in 2010 and said, "fark THAT"
 
2012-09-28 05:42:40 PM  

vygramul: DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.

Or the result of widespread voter fraud that needs "fixing".


Fixing needed to save the country, the culture, and Christianity from a global conspiracy of Islamists, communists and heathens that will stop at nothing to crush their common enemy: real AmericansTM.


/trying very hard not to godwin this thread
 
2012-09-28 05:43:00 PM  

impaler: Historically, Rasmussen's polling trends closer to average as it gets closer to the election. It's going to be funny when they reweight, causing a cascade of Obama leading on unskewed polls. At which point we will need true_and_honest_unskewed polls to come in an find another nonsensical data transformation that will favor Romney.


UPDATE!

Dean Chambers has fixed the problem.

Thursday night, Chambers began using party identification numbers from his own web-based poll.
 
2012-09-28 05:44:45 PM  

DeltaPunch: EyeballKid: RexTalionis: At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.

Having been on the Fark politics tab for some time, I've never heard of such a scheme.

It's already been explained up above, but if you got to unskewedpolls and click on any of the articles on the left-hand side, you'll find that EVERY single one of them goes to an Examiner article written by Dean Chambers.

This idea is brilliant, BTW, I'm seriously thinking that I could get rich fleecing the right-wing rubes. The fact that you JUST FABRICATE a polling website that shows Romney winning is pure genius. Everyone's clicking, there's ads on the website, and plus links to your Examiner articles. BRILLIANT.

I've got web skills... if anyone has a similarly brilliant idea, for the love of god let's make some money! ;)


I think we just need to make the same thing with slightly different numbers so they can consider it independent confirmation of their own statisticals.
 
2012-09-28 05:45:16 PM  

mrshowrules: Obama winning is trading at 78% on Intrade. I'd like to see someone unskew that tidbit.


s8.postimage.org

You just never know... granted, predicting the outcome of a case which hinges on one person's opinion is much more difficult than nationwide presidential polling.

/gotta remember to bet on the next SCOTUS decision
 
2012-09-28 05:46:51 PM  

vernonFL: The GOP will take away the lesson that the chicken didn't get farked enough.


I was having a bad day, then this. This is farking funny, thank you.
 
2012-09-28 05:52:19 PM  
The escape-into-fantasy tactic the right-wing is taking in this election is frightening. At least they were aware they were losing with McCain/Palin. I fear bagger-retribution when Romney fails to win with >500 electoral votes.
 
2012-09-28 05:53:29 PM  
There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.
 
2012-09-28 05:54:33 PM  

theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.


Good. Give us an excuse to lock them up.
 
2012-09-28 05:54:55 PM  

Quasar: "We lost because we ran a pantywaisted moderate"

Get ready to hear that for a few years. They're going to tack even harder right if they lose.


Yes but with this it's also going to be:

"We lost because of clear election fraud perpetrated by the Obama campaign. Why, the unskewed data showed Romney winning in a landslide!"
 
2012-09-28 05:55:08 PM  

DeltaPunch: EyeballKid: RexTalionis: At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.

Having been on the Fark politics tab for some time, I've never heard of such a scheme.

It's already been explained up above, but if you got to unskewedpolls and click on any of the articles on the left-hand side, you'll find that EVERY single one of them goes to an Examiner article written by Dean Chambers.

This idea is brilliant, BTW, I'm seriously thinking that I could get rich fleecing the right-wing rubes. The fact that you JUST FABRICATE a polling website that shows Romney winning is pure genius. Everyone's clicking, there's ads on the website, and plus links to your Examiner articles. BRILLIANT.

I've got web skills... if anyone has a similarly brilliant idea, for the love of god let's make some money! ;)


It takes no brillant idea to make a fortune suckering right wing rubes. Just buy some cheap ad space on Glenn Beck and sell colloidal silver snakeoil or dehydrated food for the upcoming Obama auhtorizied UN invasion in America to take away guns. It just takes a lack of a human soil to exploit borderline retards.
 
2012-09-28 05:56:45 PM  

Serious Black: Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.


I can't see anything to suggest they will moderate themselves until they get the "perfect ticket" - something like a Santorum/Bachmann type monstrosity. Even after that loses they might just go No True Scotsman and want a mulligan, but that sort of failure is the only real thing I can see triggering the final implosion and split between the GOP machine and the extreme right wing sections (especially if it is as one sided as it should be, it might not if say the Democrats put out a candidate the media takes a dislike too, something like what happened with Kerry or Gore, and ended up with close race). 

/just think - if I am right, it means just like how everyone thought it couldn't get worse than Bush, and then it couldn't get worse than McCain/Palin, I think it will get worse than Romney/Ryan
 
2012-09-28 05:56:59 PM  
The same pollsters that accurately predicted Obama winning in 2008 are all completely wrong now. Sounds legit.
 
2012-09-28 05:57:20 PM  

baka-san: My 90YO grandpa is going to be voting for Obama...

Life long republican.

WWII vet.

Even he thinks the Republican party has jumped the shark.

I really don't think it will be as close at the polls say.


My dad's the same way. He was a lifelong Republican. My brothers and I grew up with him extolling the virtues of Ronald Reagan regularly. He voted for George W in 2000, but couldn't in 2004. He was a big John McCain fan, but thanks to some of McCain's questionable decisions (Sarah Palin) he voted for Obama.

Now he's become a friggin lefty lib. He listens to progressive talk radio (which even I can't stomach most of the time) and he shows no indication of coming back around to the GOP anytime soon. The party left him.

Mitt Romney has absolutely nothing to offer him or his family.
 
2012-09-28 05:57:48 PM  

theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.


If the rioters tear Brian Kilmeade limb from limb live on Fox and Friends, I can handle windows smashed at suburban Pottery Barns nationwide.
 
2012-09-28 05:57:51 PM  

theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.


No. Facebook and a bunch of other sites will be unusable for weeks, but the TV effect will do to them what it has done to everyone else in this country- keep us from rising up.
 
2012-09-28 05:57:54 PM  

DeltaPunch: EyeballKid: RexTalionis: At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.

Having been on the Fark politics tab for some time, I've never heard of such a scheme.

It's already been explained up above, but if you got to unskewedpolls and click on any of the articles on the left-hand side, you'll find that EVERY single one of them goes to an Examiner article written by Dean Chambers.

This idea is brilliant, BTW, I'm seriously thinking that I could get rich fleecing the right-wing rubes. The fact that you JUST FABRICATE a polling website that shows Romney winning is pure genius. Everyone's clicking, there's ads on the website, and plus links to your Examiner articles. BRILLIANT.

I've got web skills... if anyone has a similarly brilliant idea, for the love of god let's make some money! ;)


Something about how Unskewed Polls is really a liberal plant site to GOTV for the Democrats by scaring them about the possibility of a Romney victory.

Then unskew the polls further to show the truth, that Romney is +25 in most states and the Dems can't win no matter what.
 
2012-09-28 06:03:03 PM  

theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.


Old people don't riot.

They will all cry on their keyboards as they post pictures of crying eagles on message boards.

If they do riot, we just have to wait for their hoveround batteries to go dead, and then just tow them to jail.
 
2012-09-28 06:07:48 PM  
Begin, the new derp wars will.
but seriously, domestic terrorism is going to be a big issue for this country in the next four years.
i hope they have the balls to try some armed revolution so these batshiat crazy motherfarkers can get locked up where they belong, instead of suicide bombing federal buildings and shiat like that.
then they can experience some true reasons to be racist assholes.
i just realized the double entendre in my last post.
 
2012-09-28 06:08:32 PM  

Serious Black: Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.


Sadly, you sure have that right!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/newt-gingrich-obama-2016_n_ 19 22690.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

And Obama thinks he can reason with these jaggoffs in his second term?

Charlie Brown. Lucy. Football.
 
2012-09-28 06:10:30 PM  
ROMNEY'S WINNING NO MATTER WHAT LALALALALALLALALALALA SUCK IT LIBS LALALALALALLALALALALALLA
 
2012-09-28 06:12:42 PM  

CorporatePerson: My dad's the same way. He was a lifelong Republican. My brothers and I grew up with him extolling the virtues of Ronald Reagan regularly. He voted for George W in 2000, but couldn't in 2004. He was a big John McCain fan, but thanks to some of McCain's questionable decisions (Sarah Palin) he voted for Obama.

Now he's become a friggin lefty lib. He listens to progressive talk radio (which even I can't stomach most of the time) and he shows no indication of coming back around to the GOP anytime soon. The party left him.

Mitt Romney has absolutely nothing to offer him or his family


We must come from the same family. My dad worked for the defense industry and is a total old school American in the type of way that only someone who grew up in the cold war could be. He voted just as your dad did.
 
2012-09-28 06:15:25 PM  

impaler: impaler: Historically, Rasmussen's polling trends closer to average as it gets closer to the election. It's going to be funny when they reweight, causing a cascade of Obama leading on unskewed polls. At which point we will need true_and_honest_unskewed polls to come in an find another nonsensical data transformation that will favor Romney.

UPDATE!

Dean Chambers has fixed the problem.

Thursday night, Chambers began using party identification numbers from his own web-based poll.


Using web based poll to correct results from random sampling methodologies is best statistics.
all other statistics two or lower.
 
2012-09-28 06:15:40 PM  
FTFA That's why the conspiracy theory is so dangerous for the GOP. If pollsters look at a demographically representative sample of registered or likely voters and find fewer Republicans than might be expected, it could be that voters who once might have called themselves Republicans no longer feel comfortable with the label.

No shiat - I can name at least a half dozen close family/friends in this boat (including me) - we measured our socially moderate/liberal positions and financial conservatism against the current crop of crazy and have withdrawn our "solid" support. Wouldnt surprise me if every single one of them vote for someone other than Romney.
 
2012-09-28 06:15:48 PM  

iaazathot: Shaggy_C: Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen? Some pretty popular band for people who don't appreciate good music even had a CD titled "Hail to the Thief". They put themselves into such an echo chamber for the next four years that they were shocked - SHOCKED - that they could possibly lose in 2004.

I see the same thing happening to conservatards this time around. "Waaaah how could XX,XXX,XXX people be so STUPID" the NRO will cry.

Except that it seems pretty clear that there were shenanigans in 2000 and possibly again in 2004. They are exactly the same, except oneside may very well have stolen an election and the other not so much. Other than that, exactly the same, yes.


2004 was stolen in Ohio.
 
2012-09-28 06:16:11 PM  

baka-san: My 90YO grandpa is going to be voting for Obama...

Life long republican.

WWII vet.

Even he thinks the Republican party has jumped the shark.

I really don't think it will be as close at the polls say.


Anecdotal data is not compelling evidence of an election outcome. Many Freerepublic members, who existed within a virtual "echo chamber", believed that Senator John McCain would be elected President in 2008 based upon their anecdotal experiences.

Additionally, I have not observed recent polling to be "close", when considering state-by-state data.
 
2012-09-28 06:22:28 PM  

Shaggy_C: Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen? Some pretty popular band for people who don't appreciate good music even had a CD titled "Hail to the Thief". They put themselves into such an echo chamber for the next four years that they were shocked - SHOCKED - that they could possibly lose in 2004.

I see the same thing happening to conservatards this time around. "Waaaah how could XX,XXX,XXX people be so STUPID" the NRO will cry.


You seem like an ok guy Shaggy_C, but I will come find you if you say another bad thing about Radiohead. Also, HTTT released in 2003.
 
2012-09-28 06:23:41 PM  

codergirl42: I think we just need to make the same thing with slightly different numbers so they can consider it independent confirmation of their own statisticals.


That's not a bad idea. I do statistical analyses for a living, and follow all of Nate Silver's work religiously (when he says "regression analysis", I know what he's doing). I bet I could make the numbers favor Romney but also have it sound SUPER scientifically officious and real, like a right-wing answer to 538.

Hmmmmm.... of course, you'd be done after 1 election cycle. BUT... actually, you could minimize the number of states that you had to fudge to give Romney the win, so that later you could say "well, my model only missed 3 states", and yet you had Romney leading the whole time... hmmmm...
 
2012-09-28 06:26:16 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The escape-into-fantasy tactic the right-wing is taking in this election is frightening. At least they were aware they were losing with McCain/Palin. I fear bagger-retribution when Romney fails to win with >500 electoral votes.


1.bp.blogspot.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

It happened WAY before this election.
 
2012-09-28 06:29:25 PM  

Shaggy_C: Remember when liberals were running around after 2000 claiming that the election was stolen? Some pretty popular band for people who don't appreciate good music even had a CD titled "Hail to the Thief". They put themselves into such an echo chamber for the next four years that they were shocked - SHOCKED - that they could possibly lose in 2004.

I see the same thing happening to conservatards this time around. "Waaaah how could XX,XXX,XXX people be so STUPID" the NRO will cry.


*facepalm*
 
2012-09-28 06:31:35 PM  

DeltaPunch: codergirl42: I think we just need to make the same thing with slightly different numbers so they can consider it independent confirmation of their own statisticals.

That's not a bad idea. I do statistical analyses for a living, and follow all of Nate Silver's work religiously (when he says "regression analysis", I know what he's doing). I bet I could make the numbers favor Romney but also have it sound SUPER scientifically officious and real, like a right-wing answer to 538.

Hmmmmm.... of course, you'd be done after 1 election cycle. BUT... actually, you could minimize the number of states that you had to fudge to give Romney the win, so that later you could say "well, my model only missed 3 states", and yet you had Romney leading the whole time... hmmmm...


Hmmmmm indeed. I've been toying with the same idea. But stats are only a hobby of mine.
 
2012-09-28 06:32:33 PM  

spman: Kazan: spman: I'm still not willing to totally begin to write Romney's obituary yet, but we're getting close, and crazier things have happened, but I'm not so sure if the problem was with GOP's message or ideas, so much as Romney just isn't a likable sort of guy. If the exact same campaign had been run by Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee, I think the outcome would probably be different.

Clearly the lessons of 2004 went unheeded. This was the GOP's election to lose, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and a sitting president with a dismal approval rating meant that this election by all rights should have been an easy knockout. Unfortunately all the best contenders decided to sit this one out and try their luck against what will likely be a much weaker lineup of competitors that the Democrats will field in 2016, for better or for worse. Oh well, what are ya gonna do?

have you looked at the polling data?

[electoral-vote.com image 580x359]

347 Obama, 191 Romney - WITH RASMUSSEN INCLUDED

I'm not in denial, I'm just saying that 4 weeks is enough time for Israel to blown up Iran and spark World War 3, American Embassies to burn to the ground in numerous Middle Eastern countries, Obama to inexplicably turn into a blubbering idiot during a debate, an insane stock market crash, or any number of plausible catastrophic events to occur, which would change the whole game overnight. Is Romney going to win? Almost certainly not. Are there still reasonably plausible scenarios in which such an outcome could take place? Absolutely.


Hope springs eternal, doesn't it?
 
2012-09-28 06:33:31 PM  

DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.


We are already at that stage. At this point, both sides thinks the other side stole the election whenever they lose. (And, yes, lots of Democrats thought and continue to the think that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen by the Republicans.)
 
2012-09-28 06:34:31 PM  

DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.


Indeed. I'm really not trying to be melodramatic or trolly when I say that we need to be prepared for when Republican voters react to this election. For the past three years I've heard hundreds of them, mostly as callers on Republican talk radio shows, say things like, "If Obama is reelected, the United States is no more," "this election is our last chance to save the country," "if Romney doesn't win, we're going to be put in concentration camps," etc., etc., etc.

So, it looks like all of that is actually going to happen, as far as they're concerned. If these people actually believe what they said, then they must be panicking right now and wondering if there's anything that can be done to save the Republic.

God forbid anything should actually happen, but it probably won't be a bad idea to avoid federal buildings for a year or so after the election.
 
2012-09-28 06:36:56 PM  

The Name: DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.

Indeed. I'm really not trying to be melodramatic or trolly when I say that we need to be prepared for when Republican voters react to this election. For the past three years I've heard hundreds of them, mostly as callers on Republican talk radio shows, say things like, "If Obama is reelected, the United States is no more," "this election is our last chance to save the country," "if Romney doesn't win, we're going to be put in concentration camps," etc., etc., etc.

So, it looks like all of that is actually going to happen, as far as they're concerned. If these people actually believe what they said, then they must be panicking right now and wondering if there's anything that can be done to save the Republic.

God forbid anything should actually happen, but it probably won't be a bad idea to avoid federal buildings for a year or so after the election.


Hyperbole and vitriol. Liberals and Democrats were saying all of those exact same things in 2004.
 
2012-09-28 06:43:20 PM  

Geotpf: DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.

We are already at that stage. At this point, both sides thinks the other side stole the election whenever they lose. (And, yes, lots of Democrats thought and continue to the think that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen by the Republicans.)


But they did steal the election in 2000. I didn't realize that was still a debate. I mean, the supreme court decided that Bush was the winner...

"In one of the closest contests in U.S. history, the 2000 presidential election between Democratic Vice-President Al Gore and Republican governor of Texas George W. Bush (hereafter referred to as Bush Jr. to distinguish him from his father who was also a president), the final outcome hinged on how the vote went in Florida. Independent investigations in that state revealed serious irregularities directed mostly against ethnic minorities and low-income residents who usually voted heavily Democratic. Some 36,000 newly registered voters were turned away because their names had never been added to the voter rolls by Florida's secretary of state Kathleen Harris. By virtue of the office she held, Harris presided over the state's election process while herself being an active member of the Bush Jr. state-wide campaign committee. Other voters were turned away because they were declared--almost always incorrectly--"convicted felons." In several Democratic precincts, state officials closed the polls early, leaving lines of would-be voters stranded"

http://www.michaelparenti.org/stolenelections.html

I'm sure I can find infinitely more sources if you want to move the goalposts or attack the messager.
 
2012-09-28 06:45:16 PM  

Rapmaster2000: justtray: I will cover all bets on a 50/50 payout against Obama.

Any cowardly hypocrites up for the challenge? (by hypocrites I mean Republicans of course)

Gimme 10 grand on Romney and another 5 grand on the Washington Generals. I got a feeling they're due.


Where would you like your ruby encrusted nose delivered?
 
2012-09-28 06:46:59 PM  

Geotpf: DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.

We are already at that stage. At this point, both sides thinks the other side stole the election whenever they lose. (And, yes, lots of Democrats thought and continue to the think that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen by the Republicans.)


Here's the difference between the two "sides." Democrats generally don't make accusations of stolen elections unless there actually appear to have been irregularities in the election process; Republicans make that accusation any time a Democrat wins by less than seven or eight points.

Also, here's what Democrats do when they get disgruntled about the political process:

ashevilletodo.files.wordpress.com

Here's what Republicans do when they get disgruntled about the political process:

www.kevinalfredstrom.com
 
2012-09-28 06:47:38 PM  

BSABSVR: Quasar: "We lost because we ran a pantywaisted moderate"

Get ready to hear that for a few years. They're going to tack even harder right if they lose.

Yes but with this it's also going to be:

"We lost because of clear election fraud perpetrated by the Obama campaign. Why, the unskewed data showed Romney winning in a landslide!"


The ballots were skewed.
 
2012-09-28 06:48:00 PM  

spman: Hyperbole and vitriol. Liberals and Democrats were saying all of those exact same things in 2004.


Um, no. They were talking about leaving the country.
 
2012-09-28 06:48:32 PM  

justtray: theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.

Good. Give us an excuse to lock them up.


I was gonna say, Good, we get to watch the cops beating up their own. I guess they could lock them up after the beatings..
 
2012-09-28 06:49:02 PM  

birchman: The All-Powerful Atheismo: The Onion is prophetic: the Republican Party to take the wrong lessons from this election

I'm pretty sure they were going to do this even before the skewed polls thing came up.

Which wrong lesson?

"Win at all costs" or "Be more conservative"?

Well standard operating procedure for the GOP for the last few decades has been to blame the media whenever they lose, because there's no way it can be their policies since they are the party of Jesus. Expect even more (didn't know it was possible) liberal media derp, continued voter suppression tactics, and probably the derpiest candidate ever imagined in 2016.


DERPY 2016

i6.photobucket.com

WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WENT WRONG.... BUT IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT.

 
2012-09-28 06:51:27 PM  

spman: The Name: DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.

Indeed. I'm really not trying to be melodramatic or trolly when I say that we need to be prepared for when Republican voters react to this election. For the past three years I've heard hundreds of them, mostly as callers on Republican talk radio shows, say things like, "If Obama is reelected, the United States is no more," "this election is our last chance to save the country," "if Romney doesn't win, we're going to be put in concentration camps," etc., etc., etc.

So, it looks like all of that is actually going to happen, as far as they're concerned. If these people actually believe what they said, then they must be panicking right now and wondering if there's anything that can be done to save the Republic.

God forbid anything should actually happen, but it probably won't be a bad idea to avoid federal buildings for a year or so after the election.

Hyperbole and vitriol. Liberals and Democrats were saying all of those exact same things in 2004.


Well, see, Democrats don't usually own guns, and carry signs about how they came unarmed... this time, and believe that their real reward is in some mythical afterlife so fark what happens here and now, Jesus is on the horizon so let's all grab out guns!
 
2012-09-28 06:52:52 PM  
And this is why republican voters are the dumbest bunch of inbred farkers ever to live in a civilized nation.

They KNOW Romney is a horrible candidate. They know his campaign is a disaster and most of them don't even like the farking guy. And they STILL believe the only reason Romney is behind is because of "skewed" polling.
 
2012-09-28 06:56:58 PM  
The answer to why Romney is losing is simple and explained here: Link
Unfortunately those who really need to see it will not watch it.
 
2012-09-28 07:04:54 PM  

impaler: Old people don't riot.

They will all cry on their keyboards as they make their grandkids post pictures of crying eagles on message boards for them.

If they do riot, we just have to wait for their hoveround batteries to go dead, and then just tow them to jail.

 

FTFY.
 
2012-09-28 07:05:20 PM  

impaler: DeltaPunch: codergirl42: I think we just need to make the same thing with slightly different numbers so they can consider it independent confirmation of their own statisticals.

That's not a bad idea. I do statistical analyses for a living, and follow all of Nate Silver's work religiously (when he says "regression analysis", I know what he's doing). I bet I could make the numbers favor Romney but also have it sound SUPER scientifically officious and real, like a right-wing answer to 538.

Hmmmmm.... of course, you'd be done after 1 election cycle. BUT... actually, you could minimize the number of states that you had to fudge to give Romney the win, so that later you could say "well, my model only missed 3 states", and yet you had Romney leading the whole time... hmmmm...

Hmmmmm indeed. I've been toying with the same idea. But stats are only a hobby of mine.


Meh, there really wouldn't be any work invoved. That's the point! I think we should couple this with private email accounts that are encrypted and "untrackable", since google and hotmail and others all donate to liberal Democrats. I know that Reagan guy has a similar idea, but it kind of sucks since the domain is someone's name (reagan.com)... we need something like usafreedom.com or treadnotonme.com or god knows what...
 
2012-09-28 07:11:38 PM  
Every time I watch Fox they have some poll showing the race is neck and neck. Same with sites my wishfully thinking conservative friends look at.

Better to go with this and see ALL the polls.
 
2012-09-28 07:12:27 PM  

Tusz: vygramul: mrshowrules: Obama winning is trading at 78% on Intrade. I'd like to see someone unskew that tidbit.

In the Iowa election markets, he's trading at $0.82 and Romney at $0.18. Economic conservatives are supposed to believe that money talks, bullshiat walks. Except when they don't like it, of course.

So what's the legality of betting on US elections, anyway? Betting on Obama seems like free money at this point.


The University of Iowa got an exemption from the laws banning gambling on the election. Anyone can open an account for $5-$500.
 
2012-09-28 07:22:11 PM  

spman: Clearly the lessons of 2004 went unheeded. This was the GOP's election to lose, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and a sitting president with a dismal approval rating meant that this election by all rights should have been an easy knockout. Unfortunately all the best contenders decided to sit this one out and try their luck against what will likely be a much weaker lineup of competitors that the Democrats will field in 2016, for better or for worse. Oh well, what are ya gonna do?


I think the lesson of 2004 was "vote FOR your candidate, not just AGAINST your opponent." People are supporting Romney monetarily... but that's about it.


Otherwise, I take umbrage with the rest of your post:

* Obama's approval ratings, while not as high as they have been, are relatively consistent and not consistently low.

* the "Sluggish economy" talking point would have a bit more weight if the economy tanked during Obama's tenure rather than a few months before it started. That this talking point has any weight has more to do with Republican spin relying solely on hoping their base is comprised of idiots with short-term memory loss.


so I don't think this would've been a knock out opportunity for either side.
 
2012-09-28 07:35:45 PM  

spman: I'm not in denial, I'm just saying that 4 weeks is enough time for Israel to blown up Iran and spark World War 3, American Embassies to burn to the ground in numerous Middle Eastern countries, Obama to inexplicably turn into a blubbering idiot during a debate, an insane stock market crash, or any number of plausible catastrophic events to occur, which would change the whole game overnight. Is Romney going to win? Almost certainly not. Are there still reasonably plausible scenarios in which such an outcome could take place? Absolutely.


A goodly number of those things would need to happen AND Obama would have to react to it badly AND Romney would have to react to it well.

So...no, it's not really possible.
 
2012-09-28 07:38:13 PM  

Serious Black: Anybody who actually thinks the GOP would moderate themselves should Obama win reelection hasn't been paying attention the last four years.


People may start abandoning them though. See I know a LOT of long-running Republicans who prefer pretty much every democratic platform plank but vote Republican because that's what they've always done, because they don't pay that close attention, and because they listen to propaganda about welfare queens and democrat welfare state and hippies and handouts and taxes are teh highest evar.

And I know quite a few who have abandoned the party with the line, "I didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left me."
 
2012-09-28 07:55:54 PM  

Lando Lincoln: A goodly number of those things would need to happen AND Obama would have to react to it badly AND Romney would have to react to it well.

So...no, it's not really possible.


Wouldn't that be a hoot? Romney gets multiple October Surprises to break his way, and he still loses. Because he's Mitt Farking Romney.
 
2012-09-28 07:56:35 PM  

justtray: theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.

Good. Give us an excuse to lock them up.



Yes, it's hard to believe such rage, no matter how incoherent, will simply dissipate. These degenerates' commitment to being on the wrong side of history seems pretty genuine and it only takes one Jethro in the grip of some weapons-grade end-times fervor to set off a chain of events.
 
2012-09-28 08:00:55 PM  

doctor wu: justtray: theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.

Good. Give us an excuse to lock them up.


Yes, it's hard to believe such rage, no matter how incoherent, will simply dissipate. These degenerates' commitment to being on the wrong side of history seems pretty genuine and it only takes one Jethro in the grip of some weapons-grade end-times fervor to set off a chain of events.


The chain of events has already started. The number of right wing domestic terrorist incidents at least appears to be going through the roof. We had someone kill the abortion doctor Tiller, we had the guy who went and shot a bunch of brown people at their place of worship, etc etc, I'm sure there's dozens more incidents.

The next step is really coordinated terrorism between more than just one or two people. Not sure it will happen, but I certainly don't rule it out. Especially when the Teabaggers are rocking signs like "we came unarmed, this time." I really do hope they come armed the next time, so that there won't be a time after that.
 
2012-09-28 08:04:25 PM  
"Learning from mistakes" isn't something the GOP is known for. Stay the course, double down and blame the media, yes. Admit a mistake? Not so much.
 
2012-09-28 08:07:52 PM  
I hope what's left of the libertarian wing gets fed up after the Ron Paul shut-out enough to just leave en masse, reducing the GOP to fat cats and religious zealots. There are a lot more independents than there used to be....a lot of votes up for grabs by people looking for a third-way (or a three way with your mom). Let the GOP fall into Whiggery and something else, something hopefully intelligent, rise out of the ashes.

Just leave the know-nothings out this time, mmmmkay?
 
2012-09-28 08:08:13 PM  
I see a lot of speculation about violence from the derp brigade today. I fear it's pretty well founded, but I take great comfort in knowing that the ones that wouldn't actually shiat themselves are really too stupid to do any great harm to anyone but themselves.
 
2012-09-28 08:13:57 PM  

Mentat: I think 2008-10 was the death blow to rationality in the GOP.


How do you kill the undead?
 
2012-09-28 08:15:32 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: America saw what happened in 2010 and said, "fark THAT"


This bears repeating. 2 years of obsessing about abortion and blatantly going after perceived DhimmyCrap power bases fooled no one.
 
2012-09-28 08:25:33 PM  

Kazan: spman: I'm still not willing to totally begin to write Romney's obituary yet, but we're getting close, and crazier things have happened, but I'm not so sure if the problem was with GOP's message or ideas, so much as Romney just isn't a likable sort of guy. If the exact same campaign had been run by Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee, I think the outcome would probably be different.

Clearly the lessons of 2004 went unheeded. This was the GOP's election to lose, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and a sitting president with a dismal approval rating meant that this election by all rights should have been an easy knockout. Unfortunately all the best contenders decided to sit this one out and try their luck against what will likely be a much weaker lineup of competitors that the Democrats will field in 2016, for better or for worse. Oh well, what are ya gonna do?

have you looked at the polling data?

[electoral-vote.com image 580x359]

347 Obama, 191 Romney - WITH RASMUSSEN INCLUDED


Let's see if I can do this.
So your result above has Obama with 347 EC votes but Nate Silver has Obama with 319 votes but we know Nate is biased so if we correct out the difference between the two 347 - 319 is 28 EC votes so 319 - 28 is 291 but we know that Nate uses statistics and statistics, as it widely known, only tells half the story so we have to subtract out the bias again as it was only 1/2 the story so 291 - 28 is 263 which means Romney gets 275 and wins.
 
2012-09-28 08:36:55 PM  

vygramul: mrshowrules: Obama winning is trading at 78% on Intrade. I'd like to see someone unskew that tidbit.

In the Iowa election markets, he's trading at $0.82 and Romney at $0.18. Economic conservatives are supposed to believe that money talks, bullshiat walks. Except when they don't like it, of course.


Well that's because of the skewed polls, of course.
 
2012-09-28 08:42:56 PM  

Tusz: vygramul: mrshowrules: Obama winning is trading at 78% on Intrade. I'd like to see someone unskew that tidbit.

In the Iowa election markets, he's trading at $0.82 and Romney at $0.18. Economic conservatives are supposed to believe that money talks, bullshiat walks. Except when they don't like it, of course.

So what's the legality of betting on US elections, anyway? Betting on Obama seems like free money at this point.


I could kick myself for not buying at 50% and just over. Some Farkers have some money on it. I didn't want to combine two vices/passions namely gambling and politics.
 
2012-09-28 08:42:57 PM  

Quasar: "We lost because we ran a pantywaisted moderate"

Get ready to hear that for a few years. They're going to tack even harder right if they lose.


Which is fine by me. Their base is dying every day and new, blue voters are coming of age every day. They'll continue to marginalize every little group of American culture until there's no one left to vote for them.

It will make blue elections progressively easier until they come back to the center or cease to exist as a political party.
 
2012-09-28 08:43:27 PM  
Numbers are temporary, and we all know the stupid shiat that romney said could be forgotten, campaign energy ebbs and flows. Maybe Obama could do some horrible thing and Romney would be the only choice.

Here is what pisses me off, when Romney might have been slightly leading, it is throw in everybody's face that Obama was going to loose.

Now that Romney has said stupid things and is losing the numbers, the numbers are no longer real. Lalala, we can't hear you.
 
2012-09-28 08:45:48 PM  

Introitus: DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.

[2000 Supreme Court image 400x267]


media.comicvine.com
So, this was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time?

 
2012-09-28 08:45:50 PM  

mrshowrules: I could kick myself for not buying at 50% and just over. Some Farkers have some money on it. I didn't want to combine two vices/passions namely gambling and politics.


I almost bought too, but didn't for the same reasons.

But there's still free headroom in the equation, if you like the now-cast. $7.90/share when the now-cast is at 97.8%... easy money, if you believe everything I say.

/don't.
 
2012-09-28 08:54:03 PM  

RexTalionis: I just went to Unskewed Polls. Each one of the poll result leads to an examiner.com page (presumably, written by the guy who runs Unskewed polls).

At the moment, I have my suspicion that Unskewed Polls is just a scam by which the guy gets Examiner.com pageviews, which gets him paid.


found out about the examiner.com link earlier today and became convinced unskewed polls was completely whacked out.
 
2012-09-28 08:55:10 PM  

brianbankerus: mrshowrules: I could kick myself for not buying at 50% and just over. Some Farkers have some money on it. I didn't want to combine two vices/passions namely gambling and politics.

I almost bought too, but didn't for the same reasons.

But there's still free headroom in the equation, if you like the now-cast. $7.90/share when the now-cast is at 97.8%... easy money, if you believe everything I say.

/don't.


I have a conspiracy theory whereby Romney bought a $100M shares when it was $0.50.

/no crazier than a birfer theory
 
2012-09-28 08:59:11 PM  
It's almost a shame the repubs didn't go full retard and pick Santorum or Perry as their candidate this year. In that case the conclusion of this election would be truly foregone (I still have my doubts about Obama's victory--we haven't yet seen the results of a billion dollar ad buy in the week running up to the election). There would be no doubt as to utter failure of the Tea Party platform purely as a political approach at the national level. However, since Romney actually is not a true conservative as currently defined--someone who is rabidly reactionary, paranoid, callous and smug--we will have to wait until 2016 for the repubs to field such a candidate, as they undoubtedly will.

Ironically, Romney is a true conservative in the classical sense of the word: someone deeply suspicious of change, in his case especially with regards to the capital gains tax rate. He is a "moderate" masquerading as a "conservative," a reasonable man pretending to be unhinged to appeal to the unhinged wing of his party. Romney may be an unethical chameleon willing to shamelessly pander to any viewpoint in order to reach his goal, but he's no Bachmann, who at least has the courage of her insane convictions. The point is we must put up with another four years of this bullshiat until the repubs can field a candidate truly dear to their black little hearts and the American people as a whole can irrefutably demonstrate that appealing purely to their worst instincts is not the way to win elections in this country--not when a genuine alternative exists.
 
2012-09-28 09:08:18 PM  
The guy who runs UnScewed polls looks exactly like you would expect him to look. Link
 
2012-09-28 09:16:32 PM  

doctor wu: justtray: theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.

Good. Give us an excuse to lock them up.


Yes, it's hard to believe such rage, no matter how incoherent, will simply dissipate. These degenerates' commitment to being on the wrong side of history seems pretty genuine and it only takes one Jethro in the grip of some weapons-grade end-times fervor to set off a chain of events.


You're talking abt Bibi here, aren't you?
 
2012-09-28 09:21:55 PM  

DamnYankees: As I said in the other thread, this is bordering on dangerous territory, where our elections become systematically untrustworthy as every win is seen as illegitimate by the half of the country that loses.


I've been saying this for weeks! Do I really have to screw that damn sun god for anyone to take me seriously?
 
2012-09-28 09:23:19 PM  

justtray: theorellior: There's gonna be blood in the streets in certain places if Romney loses. I'm expecting at least one riot, maybe more. And white people doing it, no less.

Good. Give us an excuse to lock them up.


Follow the hoveround tracks
 
2012-09-28 09:30:02 PM  

Altitude5280: The guy who runs UnScewed polls looks exactly like you would expect him to look. Link


talkingpointsmemo.comi1126.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-28 09:53:07 PM  
Earlier this week, I submitted a link to an article about this where the takeaway was that we'd find out who was right and who was wrong on Election Day.

Good on the modmins for greening this instead. This heads-I-win-tails-you-lose view of `unskewed' polling is very likely to be the exact thing these people actually mean.
 
2012-09-28 10:01:54 PM  

Arachnophobe: Altitude5280: The guy who runs UnScewed polls looks exactly like you would expect him to look. Link

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 300x300][i1126.photobucket.com image 336x333]


When you are desperate you have to got to desperate lengths. There is a drunk hooker downtown that will tell you Romney is leading by 30 points if you give her a bag of ham and $10 in quarters.
 
2012-09-28 10:09:39 PM  

mrshowrules: Arachnophobe: Altitude5280: The guy who runs UnScewed polls looks exactly like you would expect him to look. Link

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 300x300][i1126.photobucket.com image 336x333]

When you are desperate you have to got to desperate lengths. There is a drunk hooker downtown that will tell you Romney is leading by 30 points if you give her a bag of ham and $10 in quarters.


but..but...that was MY ham. redistributionsocialist!
 
2012-09-28 10:11:46 PM  

justtray: Good. Give us an excuse to lock them up.


Those FEMA camps aren't going to fill themselves. They were built for a reason.
 
2012-09-28 10:14:52 PM  

Baryogenesis: 2/3 of this great nation is Republican and only when 2/3 of those polled are republicans will the result be fair and balanced. We're going by land area, right?


No, weight.

Same results.
 
2012-09-28 10:17:51 PM  

Arachnophobe: Altitude5280: The guy who runs UnScewed polls looks exactly like you would expect him to look. Link

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 300x300][i1126.photobucket.com image 336x333]


Limbaugh screwed what is on the right to produce what is on the left.
 
2012-09-28 10:37:30 PM  

i49.tinypic.com

 
2012-09-28 11:01:43 PM  
Good.
 
2012-09-28 11:08:34 PM  

impaler: Thursday night, Chambers began using party identification numbers from his own web-based poll.


Most interesting quote from that:

"If one were to believe all these polls, you would think (the election is) over. It's not over."

That right there shows he has zero confidence in his model. After all, it shows Romney up by a landslide, and has since he started "unskewing" the data. If he honestly believed the shiat he was slinging, he'd be fully confident in a Romney victory, not merely saying, "It's not over."
 
2012-09-28 11:09:01 PM  
some people just have a hard time dealing with reality. it's why Fox news and the right wing media is so popular. It's why they want to re-write textbooks. it's why they have their own wikipedia. It's why they want to rewrite the Bible to eliminate the liberal passages like helping the poor and sick.
 
2012-09-28 11:28:36 PM  

Hobodeluxe: some people just have a hard time dealing with reality. it's why Fox news and the right wing media is so popular. It's why they want to re-write textbooks. it's why they have their own wikipedia. It's why they want to rewrite the Bible to eliminate the liberal passages like helping the poor and sick.


It's just not real unless it reflects what I believe!
 
2012-09-28 11:31:04 PM  
I suppose it's better than admitting that they're a dying breed and well on their way to being replaced.
 
2012-09-28 11:43:03 PM  
Eugene Robinson, still kicking. Not perhaps a great pundit but certainly a good one. Weathering far better than Ann Coulter, though that's not exactly a high standard.
 
2012-09-28 11:46:40 PM  

Altitude5280: The guy who runs UnScewed polls looks exactly like you would expect him to look. Link


Han, mah bukee, keel-ee caleya ku kah. Wanta dah moole-rah? Wonkee chee sa crispa con Greedo?
 
2012-09-28 11:51:43 PM  
Can we get a legit 3rd party yet?
 
2012-09-28 11:53:46 PM  
I reformulated the way penises are measured and, ladies, you'll be pleased to know that I went from an embarrassing 5 inches to very respectable 13. I also used a new formula to calculate my net worth, and I went from "broke as shiat" to "Romney wants to lower my taxes". EIP.
 
2012-09-29 12:06:18 AM  
FOX News is just angry that they're the ones getting skewed.
 
2012-09-29 02:06:40 AM  

impaler: That's right. The only polls that "really" show Obama leading are Fox News and Rasmussen.


My head is full of fark.
 
2012-09-29 02:09:50 AM  
I'm getting really sick & tired of rightards accusing everything that doesn't conform to their rigid, unworkable cult as being a left-wing conspiracy.
 
2012-09-29 02:11:56 AM  

Quasar: "We lost because we ran a pantywaisted moderate"

Get ready to hear that for a few years. They're going to tack even harder right if they lose.


Louie Gohmert 2012! Woohoo!
 
2012-09-29 02:14:24 AM  

TV's Vinnie: I'm getting really sick & tired of rightards accusing everything that doesn't conform to their rigid, unworkable cult as being a left-wing conspiracy.


That... that kinda sounds like a left-wing conspiracy to me!
 
2012-09-29 02:15:43 AM  
Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?
 
2012-09-29 02:18:51 AM  

deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?


Can you provide some background?
 
2012-09-29 02:23:52 AM  

deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?


Never mind, I know the story. theaetetus was defending Sproul? I may be confused and my memory might be faulty but that doesn't seem like him.
 
2012-09-29 02:38:35 AM  

deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?


So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?
 
2012-09-29 02:42:38 AM  

Summoner101: deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?

So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?


Ohhh, I see, now. Things seemed turned around but life now makes sense. Deadcrickets is a lying ass and Theaetus was calling him out for being a lying ass. I am STILL not sure how his clip makes the right look good.
 
2012-09-29 03:01:36 AM  

vernonFL: The GOP will take away the lesson that the chicken didn't get farked enough.


www.jamesjoyce.co.uk

They're already bracing for it. They already have the narrative carefully composed--that they could have won if only they pandered even harder to the Talibangelicals, the racists, the most vicious Ayn Rand disciples and the batfark-insane conspiracy theorists. And after November, they're going to double down hunting for RINOs and the politically moderate to eject from the party and they're going to move even farther to the right, into places even the John Birchers fear to tread.

I think that we're seeing the creation of the political party of Nehemiah Scudder right before our eyes, folks.
 
2012-09-29 03:04:26 AM  

Sabyen91: Summoner101: deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?

So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?

Ohhh, I see, now. Things seemed turned around but life now makes sense. Deadcrickets is a lying ass and Theaetus was calling him out for being a lying ass. I am STILL not sure how his clip makes the right look good.


Uh... sure? To be honest, I don't really have a horse in this race. I've just been seeing this issue pop up more and more lately, and people keep calling it voter fraud when it's still, as near as I can tell, voter registration fraud. So even though one side complained when the tactic was used against ACORN, they're going to use the same tactic against these folk.

/Though, all things considered, the ACORN issue had to do with certain canvassers falsifying registration forms for a quick paycheck which ACORN didn't have any choice but to submit to the local government. This one ostensibly worse as they're actively disenfranchising one voting demographic seemingly from the top-down of the organization.
 
2012-09-29 03:07:20 AM  

Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?

So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?

Ohhh, I see, now. Things seemed turned around but life now makes sense. Deadcrickets is a lying ass and Theaetus was calling him out for being a lying ass. I am STILL not sure how his clip makes the right look good.

Uh... sure? To be honest, I don't really have a horse in this race. I've just been seeing this issue pop up more and more lately, and people keep calling it voter fraud when it's still, as near as I can tell, voter registration fraud. So even though one side complained when the tactic was used against ACORN, they're going to use the same tactic against these folk.

/Though, all things considered, the ACORN issue had to do with certain canvassers falsifying registration forms for a quick paycheck which ACORN didn't have any choice but to submit to the local government. This one ostensibly worse as they're actively disenfranchising one voting demographic seemingly from the top-down of the organization.


The difference appears to be ACORN flagged those false registrations themselves. By law they had to keep them but they flagged them as questionable.
 
2012-09-29 03:09:40 AM  

Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?

So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?

Ohhh, I see, now. Things seemed turned around but life now makes sense. Deadcrickets is a lying ass and Theaetus was calling him out for being a lying ass. I am STILL not sure how his clip makes the right look good.

Uh... sure? To be honest, I don't really have a horse in this race. I've just been seeing this issue pop up more and more lately, and people keep calling it voter fraud when it's still, as near as I can tell, voter registration fraud. So even though one side complained when the tactic was used against ACORN, they're going to use the same tactic against these folk.

/Though, all things considered, the ACORN issue had to do with certain canvassers falsifying registration forms for a quick paycheck which ACORN didn't have any choice but to submit to the local government. This one ostensibly worse as they're actively disenfranchising one voting demographic seemingly from the top-down of the organization.

The difference appears to be ACORN flagged those false registrations themselves. By law they had to keep them but they flagged them as questionable.


And you are correct. I should have mentioned that in the rundown.
 
2012-09-29 05:10:44 AM  

Sabyen91: Summoner101: deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?

So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?

Ohhh, I see, now. Things seemed turned around but life now makes sense. Deadcrickets is a lying ass and Theaetus was calling him out for being a lying ass. I am STILL not sure how his clip makes the right look good.


Dude, Jesus returning in a shaft of pure white light wouldn't make the right look good.
 
2012-09-29 05:31:51 AM  

Sabyen91: Summoner101: deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?

So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?

Ohhh, I see, now. Things seemed turned around but life now makes sense. Deadcrickets is a lying ass and Theaetus was calling him out for being a lying ass. I am STILL not sure how his clip makes the right look good.


And how was I a lying ass? Secondly, when did I defend the right on this? You seem awfully confused. Must have been that turd sandwich that replaced your brain.
 
2012-09-29 05:36:44 AM  

Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?

So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?

Ohhh, I see, now. Things seemed turned around but life now makes sense. Deadcrickets is a lying ass and Theaetus was calling him out for being a lying ass. I am STILL not sure how his clip makes the right look good.

Uh... sure? To be honest, I don't really have a horse in this race. I've just been seeing this issue pop up more and more lately, and people keep calling it voter fraud when it's still, as near as I can tell, voter registration fraud. So even though one side complained when the tactic was used against ACORN, they're going to use the same tactic against these folk.

/Though, all things considered, the ACORN issue had to do with certain canvassers falsifying registration forms for a quick paycheck which ACORN didn't have any choice but to submit to the local government. This one ostensibly worse as they're actively disenfranchising one voting demographic seemingly from the top-down of the organization.

The difference appears to be ACORN flagged those false registrations themselves. By law they had to keep them but they flagged them as questionable.

And you are correct. I should have mentioned that in the rundown.


Sabyen is extremely confused. In the original thread I explained how she had technically broken the law but not the spirit and would not be arrested. I also explained how more than likely she was hired by the Republican who worked at the County Clerk "unofficially" and her testimony and the video would help to expose the fraud. Fast forward to what was just revealed and how it begins to tie in. I was proven right. Sabyen is most likely extremely butthurt that I ran circles around them all in regards to criminal law and political intrigue.
 
2012-09-29 08:57:00 AM  

deadcrickets: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: deadcrickets: Hey Theaetetus, remember how you said there was no proof the girl was hired by them and all your other BS to protect that one guy?

Link

Life sucks doesn't it?

So are we still conflating voter registration fraud and voter fraud? Is that still a thing?

Ohhh, I see, now. Things seemed turned around but life now makes sense. Deadcrickets is a lying ass and Theaetus was calling him out for being a lying ass. I am STILL not sure how his clip makes the right look good.

Uh... sure? To be honest, I don't really have a horse in this race. I've just been seeing this issue pop up more and more lately, and people keep calling it voter fraud when it's still, as near as I can tell, voter registration fraud. So even though one side complained when the tactic was used against ACORN, they're going to use the same tactic against these folk.

/Though, all things considered, the ACORN issue had to do with certain canvassers falsifying registration forms for a quick paycheck which ACORN didn't have any choice but to submit to the local government. This one ostensibly worse as they're actively disenfranchising one voting demographic seemingly from the top-down of the organization.

The difference appears to be ACORN flagged those false registrations themselves. By law they had to keep them but they flagged them as questionable.

And you are correct. I should have mentioned that in the rundown.

Sabyen is extremely confused. In the original thread I explained how she had technically broken the law but not the spirit and would not be arrested. I also explained how more than likely she was hired by the Republican who worked at the County Clerk "unofficially" and her testimony and the video would help to expose the fraud. Fast forward to what was just revealed and how it begins to tie in. I was proven right. Sabyen is most likely extremely butthurt that I ran circles around them all in regards to crim ...


i18.photobucket.com
The Internets. Serious business.
 
2012-09-29 08:57:32 AM  

Arachnophobe: Altitude5280: The guy who runs UnScewed polls looks exactly like you would expect him to look. Link

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 300x300][i1126.photobucket.com image 336x333]


talkingpointsmemo.com imageshack.us
 
2012-09-29 09:46:40 AM  

TheJoe03: Can we get a legit 3rd party yet?


If you want a legit third party, vote for the Democrats. The more the GOP is marginalized, the closer they'll get to a death spiral, and the more likely third parties will come out of the woodwork looking to replace them.
 
2012-09-29 10:07:24 AM  
talkingpointsmemo.comi780.photobucket.com

Separated at Birth?
 
2012-09-29 12:40:49 PM  
Here's a great comment by Barking Pumpkin on Nate Silver's blog:

It's instructive to note that after having cast out fact-checkers earlier this summer as having a nakedly liberal agenda, conservatives have now moved on to claim that almost the entire industry of political pollsters is also bearing false witness against Romney and the Republicans. Indeed, I feel comfortable saying that, right now, "2008 turnout model" and"skewed polls" are rapidly becoming a mindless bromide as popular in right-wing circles as "apologizing for America," "leading from behind," and "you didn't build that." One such right-winger has even gone so far as to redress all this liberal bias by creating a new poll-tracking site, called somewhat unfortunately, "unskewed polls," that performs a kind of conservative exegesis on every survey released by the mainstream media.

Here, in this alternate reality, you'd see that Romney is enjoying a healthy, eight-percentage point lead over Obama nationally, rather than suffering a four-point deficit. Of course, these claims of biased, or skewed polling are both ridiculous and wrong, but foreswearing sagacity and veracity with ferocity and velocity is by now old hat for conservatives. But with this new polling-is-pseudo-science meme, we can add another constellation in the parallel universe that conservatives increasingly inhabit, one populated with other elaborately constructed myths about everything fromclimate change to evolutionary theory to tax cuts and economic growth to the female reproductive system.
 
2012-09-29 01:36:58 PM  
Wait.

Eugene Robinson is lecturing about a false narrative?

He stopped talking about the Romney Gaffe of the Day long enough to do this. That had to hurt.
 
2012-09-29 02:12:11 PM  

spman: a sluggish economy


Link

...high unemployment...

From above link:

i2.cdn.turner.com

...and a sitting president with a dismal approval rating

Link

49.8% approval is "dismal" now?

spman: Liberals and Democrats were saying all of those exact same things in 2004.


They also were saying those kinds of things in the early 90s, then this happened.

Overall, you sound concerned.
 
2012-09-29 05:55:22 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I'm getting really sick & tired of rightards accusing everything that doesn't conform to their rigid, unworkable cult as being a left-wing conspiracy.


Really. Do they have any idea how hard conspiring is? We're liberals fer crissakes. We have trouble agreeing on what side of the road to drive on.
 
2012-09-29 06:09:17 PM  
I'm starting to see this conspiracy theory pop up all over the web.

Besides wanting the samples to be gamed, they also prefer pollsters like Rasmussen that do not include voters who do not have landlines but only cell phones in their sample. Not only does that excludes like 1/3 of the population, but this group tends to lean more Democratic than the other 2/3.

It's just amazing how delusional the GOP is.
 
Displayed 199 of 199 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report