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.

(Examiner)   Unskewed Pollman: "Nate Silver can't be trusted because he's thin and might be gay, too"   (examiner.com) divider line 381
    More: Dumbass, Baseball Prospectus, career development, Fantasyland, swing vote, Dick Morris, swing states  
•       •       •

4751 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



381 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-27 11:43:50 AM  

miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.


Can't tell if joking or just stupid.
 
2012-10-27 11:44:14 AM  

Mr. Stitcha: To paraphrase Dick Cheney, I believe the GOP is in their last throes.


Good! I hope after Obama plants his shoe deep up the collective ass of every rightwinger out there on Nov. 6th, we drag the gop to a hospice and Kevorkian that b*tch.
 
2012-10-27 11:45:03 AM  

Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 400x300]


I can trust that guy because he's obese and probably a virgin, too
 
2012-10-27 11:45:04 AM  

MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.


No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.
 
2012-10-27 11:45:15 AM  
cdn2-b.examiner.com

Yeah, this lardass gets to criticize someone elses appearance.
 
2012-10-27 11:45:40 AM  

Guntram Shatterhand: theinsultabot9000: I know, I dont think he can beat Hillary again in a primary though.

Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.

her approval rating is said to be like, low 60s and from what I hear from redneck derpers who still love her I actually think that may be under representing her actual score.

"Hey guys, if Obama had to face off against Hilary again, he would LOSE!"

"What does that matter? Obama is already the farking president and is on his way to a second term. Are you just fading back into madness because Santorum got paid off and Romney bought his way into the candidacy, only to fark it up again and again?"

"Hilary would SOOOO WASTE HIM."


I want to get on your case about this, but its probably my fault for not quoting the guy to keep the premise of that particular conversation going.

eh, what the hell, its the fark politics tab.


shut up, you cock.
 
2012-10-27 11:47:32 AM  
I want to see a map like this. Early call in Ohio and Fox claim it's a lock for Romney, celebration starts early.... then they cry themselves to sleep.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-27 11:50:39 AM  
Nate Silver is the one guy I trust to be statistically rigorous on the matter of electoral prediction. Everyone else just sort of dances around the questions of MOE and underlying assumptions, and the fact that he assigns probabilities to the outcomes shows that he understands the mathematics of uncertainty.

Who should we not trust? For starters, a festering pustule who judges Silver based on his appearance. And secondly, any moran who confuses predicting a lead with creating a lead. Having smoke blown up your arse appears to be tea party thing, most thinking people would rather have an accurate picture of the election even if it isn't so favorable for their chosen candidate.
 
2012-10-27 11:53:38 AM  
we need all gay government
 
2012-10-27 11:54:29 AM  
This clown apparently misses at least three things.

1) Nate's weighing mechanism isn't ultimately based on how much the polls disagree with "his own average", but on how their predictions differed from the election outcome in 2008. As happens, the polls on average were biased below the measurement threshold, but some pollsters consistently gave results further from the final outcome than others, and/or consistently gave results consistently biased D or biased R. Nate normalizes to cancel out this, based on past measurement from electoral outcome.

2) The odds he assigns are different from the polling percentages, because the odds are derived from the polls combined with their uncertainty measure. A poll running 60%R 40%D with the usual ±3 or so does not mean the Democratic candidate has a 40% chance of winning, it means he has a chance of winning less than a Powerball ticket.The ± is the 95% confidence interval, which is around two standard deviations either side of the mean; winning with a 20 point difference requires results results 13 sigma above the mean, which means "Ain't Happening" (without impact from new news not considered by those polled). However, if it was instead a R 50.7% D 49.2% race with the same uncertainty, a D win would only require a result about one sigma above the mean, yielding a circa 15% chance (vs 85% for the R), despite a race "inside the margin of error".

3) While Romney's chances have improved considerably from their nadir, they haven't improved to a clear win -- and Silver's odds reports reflected considerably improved chances. Furthermore, the poll results had pretty much stopped improving for Romney as of October 12. Though that may change some more...
 
2012-10-27 11:55:38 AM  

eraser8: MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.

No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.


I wonder. If Rmoney had been the big underdog, his strategy would have been very different and there's no telling what would have happened. Voters are weird. At least the momentum is in the right direction right now, near the end.
 
2012-10-27 11:56:31 AM  

Osomatic: You may have something there, but... what about people who get no religious indoctrination? We've been raising our child as, basically, "nothing." We're not religious, but we don't say religious people are bad. We tell him that it's up to him what to believe without telling him what we (his mom and I) believe, which is, well, nothing. When he came back from his pre-school filled with ideas about God, we said "well, that's what some people believe." I like to think we're raising him to create his own beliefs, but... sometimes I wonder. We've also tried to show him and talk to him about what science says, without being dogmatic about it. I fear we may have been a bit dogmatic about stuff like psychics and astrology, though. But I feel okay about that, really. That stuff is just stupid - I don't think anybody would consider us to be "indoctrinating" him if we warned him off of false advertising, for instance. Still, we've done our very best to be hands-off with religion.

And I guess I wonder... this is a *really* smart kid, but one who has been actually diagnosed with at least mild ADD or ADHD... what is he going to end up believing? I wish I knew. We tried so hard to just leave it open but I'm not sure we succeeded.


I'm pretty ADD, and I'm currently a physics grad student.

While my parents did raise me with some degree of religion, it was in the UCC (which, I've joked, is "About as close to Unitarian Universalism as you can get while still only focusing on Jesus), and this a fairly open, affirming, civil-rights-for-all sort of church. And I think they did a good job. They never *pressured* me to join, either.

I think your kid will turn out fine.
 
2012-10-27 11:56:33 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.


You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-27 11:57:19 AM  
ronewsblog.files.wordpress.com 

www.northerntool.com 

do it yourself right wing "news"
 
2012-10-27 11:57:21 AM  

theinsultabot9000: Guntram Shatterhand: theinsultabot9000: I know, I dont think he can beat Hillary again in a primary though.

Hell, I live in texas and I shiat you not, even some of my teabagging Obama is a Muslim Limbaugh snorting friends and relatives that have flat out stated they would vote for Hillary if she was on the ticket even if it was democratic.

her approval rating is said to be like, low 60s and from what I hear from redneck derpers who still love her I actually think that may be under representing her actual score.

"Hey guys, if Obama had to face off against Hilary again, he would LOSE!"

"What does that matter? Obama is already the farking president and is on his way to a second term. Are you just fading back into madness because Santorum got paid off and Romney bought his way into the candidacy, only to fark it up again and again?"

"Hilary would SOOOO WASTE HIM."

I want to get on your case about this, but its probably my fault for not quoting the guy to keep the premise of that particular conversation going.

eh, what the hell, its the fark politics tab.


shut up, you cock.


The premise was that even if Obama loses, he could pull a Grover Cleveland and win in 2016. As far as Hillary, I can't recall any Secretary of State lasting more that four years or considering a Presidential run.
 
2012-10-27 11:57:43 AM  

eraser8: miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.

Can't tell if joking or just stupid.


Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet unfortunately... and I should know better than to make jokes pre-coffee.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:09 AM  
You know who else was skinny and kinda gay?

michaelmurray.ca


//Girrrrrrlllllllllll
 
2012-10-27 11:59:14 AM  
To give some idea of what offends this guy as grossly innacurate: Nate Silver projects Obama is up less than 2% in the popular vote, which he projects means Obama has a 75% chance of winning. Dean Chambers says that Romney is actually up over 4% in the popular vote, which will guarantee a landslide in the electoral college. Nate Silver has been made a living off doing sports and political statistical modeling for nearly a decade. Dean Chambers has no background in mathematics that I can fund, he just knows the numbers "don't feel right" so he's found ways to correct them. Clearly the guy with a long history in the field who says this will be close but one candidate has an advantage is a fool and the guy with no experience saying it will be a total shutout is the more reasonable party.

Oh, and if anyone hadn't noticed, he now says no pollster has accurate numbers: he originally was adjusting other polling firms to match the likely model of Rasmussen, but now he even believes Rasmussen's likely voter model is all wrong and gives Obama a 3 point advantage over what will happen on election day.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:25 AM  

whatsupchuck: Nate Silver is the one guy I trust to be statistically rigorous on the matter of electoral prediction. Everyone else just sort of dances around the questions of MOE and underlying assumptions, and the fact that he assigns probabilities to the outcomes shows that he understands the mathematics of uncertainty.

Who should we not trust? For starters, a festering pustule who judges Silver based on his appearance. And secondly, any moran who confuses predicting a lead with creating a lead. Having smoke blown up your arse appears to be tea party thing, most thinking people would rather have an accurate picture of the election even if it isn't so favorable for their chosen candidate.


Very well stated. I couldn't agree more. Incidentally, he has POTUS up at a 74.4% chance of winning. Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?
 
2012-10-27 11:59:40 AM  

miscreant: eraser8: miscreant: When I compare Nate Silver's analysis with that article, let me tell you, it's definitely Nate Silver that comes off as partisan.

Can't tell if joking or just stupid.

Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet unfortunately... and I should know better than to make jokes pre-coffee.


Point taken.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:43 AM  
FTFA: "[Nate Silver is] a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. ~Dean Chambers"

i.imgur.com

Sounds to me like somebody really, REALLY needs to come out of the closet.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:58 AM  

blastoh: unskewedpolls.com?
Is this like Fox: "Fair and Balanced"

Or all the right wing posters I see online with names including the words "Truth" "Reality" "Objective"

Being "honest", "fair", and "balanced" is kinda like being in charge. If you have to constantly remind people of who you are, then you aren't who you think you are.


Republicans are like skinemax films. Because those movies are all the same, they've found they may as well just switch the same 10 words around in their titles, no need to overthink it. Because every Republican argument is the same, why not just plug the same 10 words in as well?

For Skinemax, those words are Passion, Obsession, Sexual, Sensual, Forbidden, Games, Temptation, Secret, Island, Pleasure.

For Repubs: Freedom, Honor, Truth, Fair, Patriot, Liberty, America...yeah nevermind, they don't even have 10 words. But those 7 words combined with "We hate liberals" is everything they've ever written.

msnbcmedia.msn.com

Ever ever ever ever
 
2012-10-27 12:00:41 PM  

d-fens99: Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.

You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 430x640]


You're forgetting to hook up the doll.
 
2012-10-27 12:02:41 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?


It peaked out at 86.1% on the forecast and 98.1% on the Nowcast.
 
2012-10-27 12:02:47 PM  

abb3w: This clown apparently misses at least three things.




Dude, break that down for some conservatives and report your findings.
 
2012-10-27 12:04:12 PM  
not that I

MrBallou: eraser8: MrBallou: On a slight tangent, it looks like Team Obama may have played it right in terms of letting Rmoney peak early.

[i49.tinypic.com image 433x302] 

The reservoir tip broke and probably won't close up again.

No.

If Team Obama had played it right, they wouldn't have crashed and burned in the first presidential debate and the election would be OVER now.

I wonder. If Rmoney had been the big underdog, his strategy would have been very different and there's no telling what would have happened. Voters are weird. At least the momentum is in the right direction right now, near the end.



Let me preface the following with saying that I have no belief that Obama sleeping through the debate was some kind of long game, it was a disaster that caused severe damage to his presidential race, and even if he wins, will still have been the thing that damn near cost him the white house.

now, having said that, lets say Obama makes his odds and wins, if that happens, that craptastic debate may have been the single best thing to happen to team Obama this cycle. Romney's cash reserves are huge right now, he is on track for an October worth almost 220 million and that has a LOT to do with the debate showing he had a shot. if he spends all that money and still looses, that's a fortune that might have propped up republicans in the house and senate they didn't get. I mean, they might get some up ticket, but still, I bet they probably would have preferred having those millions themselves. And that ignores all the superpacs that might have otherwise gone balls deep into the house and senate that started putting their money back into the presidential election.

Think about the difference hundreds of millions going into the republican house and senate coffers for a moment, the house and senate landscape could look a lot different then dems picking up in the house and keeping the senate
 
2012-10-27 12:06:18 PM  

Farker Soze: d-fens99: Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 401x271]

UnSkewed Polls guy can't be trusted because he's a blob of pus and serves greasy pork sandwiches in dirty ashtrays.

You know, I checked the computing power circa 1985, and it turns out my iphone 4 is way more powerful than the computers used to make the girl in that movie. So, where's my make a babe app?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 430x640]

You're forgetting to hook up the doll.


What kind of bra are you wearing on your head? It's important.
 
2012-10-27 12:07:31 PM  
So, Mr. Fatty Arbuckle Unskewed Polls attacks Nate Silver, not on his methodology but on his looks and mannerisms? Are there enough facepalms in the world for this?

i6.photobucket.com 

We're through the looking glass, people!
 
2012-10-27 12:07:54 PM  
I love how the only actual comment on Nate Silver's ACTUAL results are "He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was"

haha, that's all you give us? "PERHAPS he was"? Aren't you supposed to be analyzing polls and stats? can't you tell us how accurate he was yourself?

Also, the article attacks Silver for weighing polls (based on their historical bias) and touts RCP, but RCP still shows Obama with a lead in electoral college and would project him the winner. (Obama leads in every swing state in RCP except FL, VA and NC. He wins comfortably if those are the only ones he loses)
 
2012-10-27 12:08:06 PM  

you are a puppet: Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 400x300]

I can trust that guy because he's obese and probably a virgin, too


Like water is probably wet.
 
2012-10-27 12:08:58 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?


It peaked at 87.1% on Oct 4. There's a bit of a lag between the prediction and any underlying events. You can cursor over the graph and pick out the prediction for any given day.

Link
 
2012-10-27 12:09:03 PM  

Osomatic: Not only is the Right flailing, so is the regular media - if they just reported "Yeah, Obama is pretty much going to win a second term" nobody would bother watching any more. I'm sure stuff like this will get as much currency as possible until after November 6th. They're not so much in favor of liberals as they are in favor of as many people watching/reading as possible. A close race is more interesting and more newsworthy. They've practically been falling through their own a-holes waiting for an October Surprise so that they could spend 24 hours a day analyzing it.


OMG THIS... Having a conversation with my normally sensible stepfather about the media after he went on a DERPfit over matt Lauer. Rattled off several examples of things the media was reporting about Obama, and more importantly what they weren't reporting about Romney.

I challenged him to refute that the media are run by giant (wealthy) corporations who probably skew Republican at the tops levels of management. I said is it a liberal media or is it just an attempt to get people to watch? He thought about it for a moment and finally agreed that I was probably right.

This race has been over for two weeks but they are going to try as hard as possible to keep it close in the minds of voters... er I mean, viewers.
 
2012-10-27 12:10:09 PM  
Pudding the Hutt is my favorite new idiot of this election cycle.
 
2012-10-27 12:10:50 PM  
i.imgur.comimages3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-27 12:11:53 PM  

randomjsa: I do think its funny that people seem to put so much stock in Nate Silver because he... Predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008.


It is true that there are a lot of people who only learned about 538 during the general election or after, and these are the people who tend to cite this as their main justification for liking Silver.


Silver himself, however, would say that that is not the reason people should put stock in his site and his model. Silver's model *killed it* during the 2008 primaries; my favorite example was when consensus polls had Clinton winning NC, Silver's model had Obama winning by 17, and Obama won by 15 (or thereabouts). His model also drew the "Obama has basically clinched this" conclusion pretty early on, when other models were trying to still say the race was competitive (and this only a week or two after McCain had pulled ahead in Silver's model).

There's also a bit of non-politics awe from 2008 related to the fact that his proprietary baseball model predicted the Tampa Bay Rays would be a 90-win team in 2008 even though they'd sucked for their entire history to that point.
 
2012-10-27 12:12:13 PM  
I just realized that my image macro is unwarranted. This guy is even fatter than a Pakled!
 
2012-10-27 12:13:15 PM  

Bill Frist: I love how the only actual comment on Nate Silver's ACTUAL results are "He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was"

haha, that's all you give us? "PERHAPS he was"? Aren't you supposed to be analyzing polls and stats? can't you tell us how accurate he was yourself?

Also, the article attacks Silver for weighing polls (based on their historical bias) and touts RCP, but RCP still shows Obama with a lead in electoral college and would project him the winner. (Obama leads in every swing state in RCP except FL, VA and NC. He wins comfortably if those are the only ones he loses)


Accurately predicting the outcome of 49 of 50 states in 2008 is claiming to be highly accurate? OK, got it.
 
2012-10-27 12:13:52 PM  

whatsupchuck: Waxing_Chewbacca: Does anyone recall what is was just before the first debate?

It peaked at 87.1% on Oct 4. There's a bit of a lag between the prediction and any underlying events. You can cursor over the graph and pick out the prediction for any given day.

Link


What a fall since the first debate. But he's climbing back. And as Slim said a few days ago, even a one point shift this late in the season would greatly improve a candidates chances. I take it to mean that Obama still has a chance to reach the mid 80s if he maintains the gains he's made since the last debate.

This means Colorado needs to stop being cute and figure it out as well as NOVA starting to show up in the polls.
 
2012-10-27 12:15:59 PM  

TV's Vinnie: [i.imgur.com image 400x300][images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 650x328]


We look for things. Things to make us GOP.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:19 PM  
Dean Chambers is a heavy man of wheezy stature and yellow fingers. He has never been right and will never be right, and so has a pathetic need to attract the love of particularly severe men and women.

His underwear doesn't fit, and he dresses like an old man with bad taste. His breath stinks.

His mind is addled by hate and self-denial.

His blog is bad and he should feel bad.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:42 PM  
Headline: The far left turns to Nate Silver for wisdom on the polls

Jesus. Say what you want about the election, but anyone who thinks mainstream Democrats are "far left" by any standard must be choking on their own saliva.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:55 PM  
I know its looking good for Obama and hopefully he wins.

but I still can't shack that nagging feeling that the america voter was dumb enough to reelect Bush and could be dumb enough to elect Rmoney.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:57 PM  
i.imgur.comi1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-27 12:18:46 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: shack


or shake it even
 
2012-10-27 12:19:20 PM  

randomjsa: I do think its funny that people seem to put so much stock in Nate Silver because he... Predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008.

Anyone who was reasonably paying attention to the 2008 election could have told you 45 out of 50 and they also could have told you that the last 5 didn't matter because the first 45 would decide the election. It's also been sort of funny to watch liberals on this site who have repeatedly said "Rasmussen is unreliable. He changes his results to match everyone else when it gets close to the election which is why his results are so much more accurate close to the election!"

So liberals are saying Obama is going to lose in 2012? Because if Rasmussen is correct... Obama is finished.


Nate Silver's predictions were better than almost anyone else s in both 2008 and 2010. Remember, there are more races than just the presidency. Nate was projecting house ans senate races too.

I'm not really sure what the Rasmussen comment means. Rasmussen has a Republican bias in their results. Their historical results have leaned to the GOP over what actually occured in the polls.

Anyway, Rasmussen doesn't have Obama down that much in the national polls and has him leading in a lot of swing state polls. So... not sure what you are getting at. THe Rasmussen national average will probably come down and its the swing states that matter anyway.
 
2012-10-27 12:19:23 PM  

simplicimus: DamnYankees: simplicimus: Anyone know if Nate has ever responded to the numerous attacks against him?

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
This is pretty awesome. Per http://unskwedpolls.com , I am "a thin and effeminate man" & therefore not to be trusted. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide! http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for- wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles ...

Thanks. Seems he has a good sense of humor.


He started as a writer for Baseball Prospectus. He's used to being mocked by anti-intellectuals for relying on data rather than "what you know to be true".
 
2012-10-27 12:19:55 PM  

unexplained bacon: actually conservatives are saying Nate Silver isn't reliable because he's thin and not as manly as them.


So one person reflects the thoughts and feelings of all conservatives? Or just most? I'm just wondering how far we're going to go with "because one person of a particular political persuasion said something it is reflective of the entire group", because if we're taking that all the way then I have a laundry list of things liberals need to answer for here.

I think if I were a conservative shill, and I saw that kind of pathetic BS I'd talk about something else.

how about you?


The subject was Nate Silver, a pollster that liberals are currently having a slobbering love affair with because he's telling them what they want to hear. I point out, and accurately, that his major claim to fame was his ability to predict one of the most easily predicted presidential races in history in 49 out of 50 examples. That's nothing to sneeze of course but because this Fark and this is one of the "Rasmussen sucks... changes his predictions close to election..." places I have to point out if that's true, then Obama is finished.
 
2012-10-27 12:22:40 PM  

randomjsa: e most easily predicted presidential races in history


[citation needed]

No, I don't expect to get one.
 
2012-10-27 12:23:30 PM  

Endrick: "He claims to have been highly accurate in predicting the 2008 election results, and perhaps he was. But it's highly unlikely his current methods and projections will have the level of accuracy unless he changes then quite a lot between now and election day. The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney while Nate Sillver is still projecting an Obama win. Unless he changes that, the credibility he earned in 2008 will be greatly diminished after this years election."

Until the gay guy alters reality to show us what we want to hear, he's wrong.


HAHAHA
i235.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-27 12:23:31 PM  

randomjsa: That's nothing to sneeze of course but because this Fark and this is one of the "Rasmussen sucks... changes his predictions close to election..." places I have to point out if that's true, then Obama is finished.


Oh and also, why would that follow?
 
Displayed 50 of 381 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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