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.

(Hot Air)   The DNC's official polling agency puts Obama up by five in Ohio. If only they realized that unlike like their sample group, 45% of people there are not democrats, and assuming they all went out to vote   (hotair.com) divider line 101
    More: Fail, DNC, obama, Ohio, PPP, exit polls  
•       •       •

545 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Oct 2012 at 2:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-31 02:29:51 PM

babygoat: Drakin020: Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for Obama big time, but I fear the Derpers might be right on this whole Dem turnout thing.

How can you claim that turnouts will be higher than the last election when we have already seen evidence of a lower turnout. (Early voting)

What numbers are you going by? And why are you comparing sample sizes to turnout?


The argument I've heard is...

"Oh they are sampling +10 Dem when the turnout will likely be +5" or something.
 
2012-10-31 02:30:19 PM

Bill Frist: ltdanman44: Fact 1) Romney can't win without Ohio.

Fact 2) Obama has kept a lead of about 4 points +/- 2 the last 6 months in that state.

Fact 3) Laugh at Ohio all you want, we control the direction of the nation.

Fact 1 and 2 are true, but fact 3 is not. Obama has several other paths to victory. Ohio is not NECESSARILY the tipping state.

Romney needs it, Obama doesn't necessarily.


Your telling me if Ohio is called for Romney, Obama isn't in big trouble?

There is a string of states and he would have to win them all including Colorado which is tipping towards the G.O.P. and Florida which is a toss up.
 
2012-10-31 02:30:25 PM

Tigger: If Nate's wrong and Romney loses he deletes his account and goes the fark away.


For the record, a Romney victory would not prove Nate Silver wrong. He gives Romney something like a 25-30% chance of winning, which is non-trivial.
 
2012-10-31 02:32:35 PM

Propain_az: Romney has this election locked up. It's over. He won. Time to get on with our lives.


Also, don't forget to vote for Obama on Nov 8.


Give the wrong polling day! Hilarious!

Fark Cons want to give you a high five through the computer right now!

Republicans love their voter suppression.
 
2012-10-31 02:32:56 PM

WinoRhino: AdolfOliverPanties: 10/10. Bravo.

Oh please. People around here throw praise around too easily.


Well, ya got trouble, my libs - right here in Ohio - big out of town jaspers like Obama trying to turn his turd polishin contest into a horserace - oh yes you got lots and lots of trouble...

/ Mittmentum with a Capital M, Paul Ryan with a Capital P that stands for Prosperity!
 
2012-10-31 02:32:57 PM
Derp. Librul maths something something. Huuuuuurp.

/Can't wait for Wednesday.
 
2012-10-31 02:33:43 PM

Elzar: Oh, my dear little libbies. You pile up enough tomorrows, and you'll find you are left with nothing but a lot of empty yesterdays. I don't know about you, but I'd like to make America worth remembering. Ladies and gentlemen, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the real numbers of your poll samplings! Thank God for unskewed polls - that 538 pish-posh is slipperier then a Mississippi sturgeon...


He has a point - 538 tries to use science when really, polling is a form of divination, which like other forms of magic, are the forte of Republicans.
 
2012-10-31 02:34:14 PM

Drakin020: babygoat: Drakin020: Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for Obama big time, but I fear the Derpers might be right on this whole Dem turnout thing.

How can you claim that turnouts will be higher than the last election when we have already seen evidence of a lower turnout. (Early voting)

What numbers are you going by? And why are you comparing sample sizes to turnout?

The argument I've heard is...

"Oh they are sampling +10 Dem when the turnout will likely be +5" or something.


They don't choose how many Dems are in the sample, they self-identify when they're polled. Which early voting numbers are you comparing to which polls?
 
2012-10-31 02:34:35 PM

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Derp. Librul maths something something. Huuuuuurp.

/Can't wait for Wednesday.


Good news- Wednesday is today.
 
2012-10-31 02:38:33 PM

Leeds: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Derp. Librul maths something something. Huuuuuurp.

/Can't wait for Wednesday.

Good news- Wednesday is today.


Touche.
 
2012-10-31 02:38:42 PM

Tigger: physt: beta_plus: In Nate Silver We Trust

and yet again you drop you little nugget of contempt...

How about if you disagree with Nate's conclusions, you present a logical, emotion free argument refuting them?

Better idea.

If Nate's wrong and Romney loses he deletes his account and goes the fark away.

(We also should be doing this with Bill Kristol)


I can't until Romney deletes his account and goes the fark away.
 
2012-10-31 02:38:51 PM

Non-evil Monkey: Bill Frist: ltdanman44: Fact 1) Romney can't win without Ohio.

Fact 2) Obama has kept a lead of about 4 points +/- 2 the last 6 months in that state.

Fact 3) Laugh at Ohio all you want, we control the direction of the nation.

Fact 1 and 2 are true, but fact 3 is not. Obama has several other paths to victory. Ohio is not NECESSARILY the tipping state.

Romney needs it, Obama doesn't necessarily.

While Ohio might not technically be necessary for Obama, I find it difficult to conceive of a situation where he loses Ohio, but wins say, Virginia. Ohio is just a really good predictor for Presidential elections thanks to it's demographic mix even if it's not technically mandatory for victory.


I agree with you, but that doesn't mean that Ohio is what the entire election hinges on necessarily.

personally, I predict Obama winning 294 electoral votes, meaning he doesn't need Ohio. We'll see though. Obviously hopefully he gets it.
 
2012-10-31 02:39:39 PM

physt: If Nate's wrong and Romney loses he deletes his account and goes the fark away.

(We also should be doing this with Bill Kristol)

You mean if Nate's right and Rmoney loses, beta_plus slinks away into the night, right?


You know what would be kinda cool, if there was a betting function of Fark.com where when someone posts something ridiculous like that, we could suggest they bet their account on it. Then when clearly wrong, they either admit the mistake and apologize, or their account gets deleted. That'd be frickin awesome.
 
2012-10-31 02:48:01 PM

timujin: mrshowrules: Why would you compare turnout to 2010 in which nearly have of the electorate shows up to 2008 when nearly twice as many show up.

I was with you right up until this sentence. Now, I'm taking cold medicine, so it might just be me, but it seems like you wrote it, then ran it through a couple of other languages in Google translate before re-translating it back to English.


I agree that if that sentence was a horse it should have been shot and put out of its misery.

My point is that nearly twice as many people voted in 2008 than 2010, so it is a better comparison to 2012 as a high-turnout election.
 
2012-10-31 02:48:06 PM

ltdanman44: There is a string of states and he would have to win them all including Colorado which is tipping towards the G.O.P. and Florida which is a toss up.


No. If Romney doesn't win Florida, he can't win. If Romney doesn't win Ohio, then he pretty much has to win all other swing states.

If Obama doesn't win Florida or Ohio, there are still quite a few scenarios in which he can win.
 
2012-10-31 02:48:57 PM

lennavan: physt: If Nate's wrong and Romney loses he deletes his account and goes the fark away.

(We also should be doing this with Bill Kristol)

You mean if Nate's right and Rmoney loses, beta_plus slinks away into the night, right?

You know what would be kinda cool, if there was a betting function of Fark.com where when someone posts something ridiculous like that, we could suggest they bet their account on it. Then when clearly wrong, they either admit the mistake and apologize, or their account gets deleted. That'd be frickin awesome.


It would also be frickin' quiet around here...
 
2012-10-31 02:50:40 PM

ltdanman44: There is a string of states and he would have to win them all including Colorado which is tipping towards the G.O.P. and Florida which is a toss up.


??

No, they don't all include colorado. If you give Obama PA, NV, and the midwest states sans Iowa, he is at 253 electoral votes.

So he can win with:

1) Ohio

2) Florida

3) Virginia plus NH

4) Virginia plus Iowa

all without Colorado
 
2012-10-31 02:51:03 PM

Elzar: Oh, my dear little libbies. You pile up enough tomorrows, and you'll find you are left with nothing but a lot of empty yesterdays. I don't know about you, but I'd like to make America worth remembering. Ladies and gentlemen, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the real numbers of your poll samplings! Thank God for unskewed polls - that 538 pish-posh is slipperier then a Mississippi sturgeon...


10/10 would bang.
 
2012-10-31 02:52:22 PM

Drakin020: Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for Obama big time, but I fear the Derpers might be right on this whole Dem turnout thing.

How can you claim that turnouts will be higher than the last election when we have already seen evidence of a lower turnout. (Early voting)


Got it. I've been trying to figure you out for a while now. I've had my finger on the Ignore button several times but pulled back because while your posts were content-free and/or stupid, they weren't frothingly stupid or personal attacks or full of derp. I just couldn't figure out what your schtick was.

And then you go and out yourself as a vanilla Fark Concern Troll. I have to concede that the build-up was good, but the payoff was a disappointment.
 
2012-10-31 02:54:08 PM

czetie: Drakin020: Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for Obama big time, but I fear the Derpers might be right on this whole Dem turnout thing.

How can you claim that turnouts will be higher than the last election when we have already seen evidence of a lower turnout. (Early voting)

Got it. I've been trying to figure you out for a while now. I've had my finger on the Ignore button several times but pulled back because while your posts were content-free and/or stupid, they weren't frothingly stupid or personal attacks or full of derp. I just couldn't figure out what your schtick was.

And then you go and out yourself as a vanilla Fark Concern Troll. I have to concede that the build-up was good, but the payoff was a disappointment.


Sorry, I'm slowly getting better at this.
 
2012-10-31 02:54:13 PM
This is only making my 2013 bottle of BCT become more refined, sharp and acidic. Just the way it should be.
 
2012-10-31 02:55:45 PM
This election I have learned that the polls are not important so we should talk about them endlessly.
 
2012-10-31 02:58:58 PM

mrshowrules: timujin: mrshowrules: Why would you compare turnout to 2010 in which nearly have of the electorate shows up to 2008 when nearly twice as many show up.

I was with you right up until this sentence. Now, I'm taking cold medicine, so it might just be me, but it seems like you wrote it, then ran it through a couple of other languages in Google translate before re-translating it back to English.

I agree that if that sentence was a horse it should have been shot and put out of its misery.

My point is that nearly twice as many people voted in 2008 than 2010, so it is a better comparison to 2012 as a high-turnout election.


Ah, right, that makes much more sense and is a good point as well.
 
2012-10-31 03:00:57 PM
confessionsvelvetropes.typepad.com
 
2012-10-31 03:02:28 PM

Elzar: Oh, my dear little libbies. You pile up enough tomorrows, and you'll find you are left with nothing but a lot of empty yesterdays. I don't know about you, but I'd like to make America worth remembering. Ladies and gentlemen, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the real numbers of your poll samplings! Thank God for unskewed polls - that 538 pish-posh is slipperier then a Mississippi sturgeon...


I served with PocketNinja. I knew PocketNinja. PocketNinja was a friend of mine. Elzar, you're no PocketNinja.
 
2012-10-31 03:04:46 PM

physt: Tigger: physt: beta_plus: In Nate Silver We Trust

and yet again you drop you little nugget of contempt...

How about if you disagree with Nate's conclusions, you present a logical, emotion free argument refuting them?

Better idea.

If Nate's wrong and Romney loses he deletes his account and goes the fark away.

(We also should be doing this with Bill Kristol)

You mean if Nate's right and Rmoney loses, beta_plus slinks away into the night, right?


Sorry yes - I got that backwards. Either way I would like to discuss a situation in which he farks off permanently
 
2012-10-31 03:05:05 PM

ltdanman44: Fact 1) Romney can't win without Ohio.

Fact 2) Obama has kept a lead of about 4 points +/- 2 the last 6 months in that state.

Fact 3) Laugh at Ohio all you want, we control the direction of the nation.


You Fark Independents are gonna be sooo pissed..
 
2012-10-31 03:07:21 PM
Basically what we have here is a bunch of pollsters who are doing their best to skew polls in favor of Obama. This is for two purposes. First, it's an attempt to get Republican voters to stay home because they think ousting Obama is impossible. Second, it gives Democrats an out if Romney does win. They can simply cry about the election being stolen or some other such nonsense. They will convince themselves that it was racist voter suppression and not the fact that their guy hasn't done anything to earn a second term.

At this point even some of the bluest states are in play. Believe Nate Silver if you wish but don't be surprised if you wake up the morning after the election to a Romney presidency.

/Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots
 
2012-10-31 03:09:56 PM

Brubold: Basically what we have here is a bunch of pollsters who are doing their best to skew polls in favor of Obama. This is for two purposes. First, it's an attempt to get Republican voters to stay home because they think ousting Obama is impossible. Second, it gives Democrats an out if Romney does win. They can simply cry about the election being stolen or some other such nonsense. They will convince themselves that it was racist voter suppression and not the fact that their guy hasn't done anything to earn a second term.

At this point even some of the bluest states are in play. Believe Nate Silver if you wish but don't be surprised if you wake up the morning after the election to a Romney presidency.

/Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots


Look at how stupid you are.
 
2012-10-31 03:11:40 PM

Brubold: Basically what we have here is a bunch of pollsters who are doing their best to skew polls in favor of Obama. This is for two purposes. First, it's an attempt to get Republican voters to stay home because they think ousting Obama is impossible. Second, it gives Democrats an out if Romney does win. They can simply cry about the election being stolen or some other such nonsense. They will convince themselves that it was racist voter suppression and not the fact that their guy hasn't done anything to earn a second term.

At this point even some of the bluest states are in play. Believe Nate Silver if you wish but don't be surprised if you wake up the morning after the election to a Romney presidency.

/Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots


I have an offer for you.

If you're right I'll give you fifty bucks. But in exchange if you're wrong you go away?
 
2012-10-31 03:11:47 PM

Brubold: Basically what we have here is a bunch of pollsters who are doing their best to skew polls in favor of Obama. This is for two purposes. First, it's an attempt to get Republican voters to stay home because they think ousting Obama is impossible. Second, it gives Democrats an out if Romney does win. They can simply cry about the election being stolen or some other such nonsense. They will convince themselves that it was racist voter suppression and not the fact that their guy hasn't done anything to earn a second term.

At this point even some of the bluest states are in play. Believe Nate Silver if you wish but don't be surprised if you wake up the morning after the election to a Romney presidency.

/Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots


Nice solid grasp on reality you have there. It would be a shame if nothing happened to it.
 
2012-10-31 03:12:16 PM

Brubold: Basically what we have here is a bunch of pollsters who are doing their best to skew polls in favor of Obama. This is for two purposes. First, it's an attempt to get Republican voters to stay home because they think ousting Obama is impossible. Second, it gives Democrats an out if Romney does win. They can simply cry about the election being stolen or some other such nonsense. They will convince themselves that it was racist voter suppression and not the fact that their guy hasn't done anything to earn a second term.

At this point even some of the bluest states are in play. Believe Nate Silver if you wish but don't be surprised if you wake up the morning after the election to a Romney presidency.

/Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots


*LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU ITS A LIB MATH CONSPIRACY!*

"But really, I don't have a dog in this fight."

Come on. I know it's FARK, but we're not THAT stupid.
 
2012-10-31 03:17:10 PM

Drakin020: Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for Obama big time, but I fear the Derpers might be right on this whole Dem turnout thing.

How can you claim that turnouts will be higher than the last election when we have already seen evidence of a lower turnout. (Early voting)


Systemic analysis of polling in regards to the party identification issue by Votamatic

Analysis by Nate Silver of turnout and party identification in 2004 and 2010. It appears that this would cause an even larger lead for Obama.
 
2012-10-31 03:25:39 PM

Brubold: Basically what we have here is a bunch of pollsters who are doing their best to skew polls in favor of Obama. This is for two purposes. First, it's an attempt to get Republican voters to stay home because they think ousting Obama is impossible. Second, it gives Democrats an out if Romney does win. They can simply cry about the election being stolen or some other such nonsense. They will convince themselves that it was racist voter suppression and not the fact that their guy hasn't done anything to earn a second term.

At this point even some of the bluest states are in play. Believe Nate Silver if you wish but don't be surprised if you wake up the morning after the election to a Romney presidency.

/Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots


Pretty sure you have been one of the Fark Cons touting Romney and putting down Obama,

How convenient you are now an Independent. Thats unique.
 
2012-10-31 03:35:38 PM

NateGrey: Brubold: Basically what we have here is a bunch of pollsters who are doing their best to skew polls in favor of Obama. This is for two purposes. First, it's an attempt to get Republican voters to stay home because they think ousting Obama is impossible. Second, it gives Democrats an out if Romney does win. They can simply cry about the election being stolen or some other such nonsense. They will convince themselves that it was racist voter suppression and not the fact that their guy hasn't done anything to earn a second term.

At this point even some of the bluest states are in play. Believe Nate Silver if you wish but don't be surprised if you wake up the morning after the election to a Romney presidency.

/Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots

Pretty sure you have been one of the Fark Cons touting Romney and putting down Obama,

How convenient you are now an Independent. Thats unique.


I've consistently been pushing my third party agenda here for years. I'm a conservative so I agree with the GOP on more issues than the Democrats so I'm going to be biased in that direction in my posts. It's not enough that I vote for any Republicans though.
 
2012-10-31 04:06:38 PM

Brubold: I've consistently been pushing my third party agenda here for years. I'm a conservative so I agree with the GOP on more issues than the Democrats so I'm going to be biased in that direction in my posts. It's not enough that I vote for any Republicans though.


Oh so an independent that supports the GOP. I've never seen anyone post something like that here.

Well congrats on entertaining a third party.
 
2012-10-31 04:10:56 PM
The probability that a state provides the decisive electoral vote:

Ohio 48.6%
Iowa 5.8%
Minn. 0.3%
Va. 13.5%
N.H. 3.4%
Ore. 0.3%
Wis. 8.2%
Pa. 3.0%
Mich. 0.3%
Nev. 7.1%
Fla. 2.1%
N.M. 0.2%
Colo. 6.4%
N.C. 0.4%
Me. 0.1%
 
2012-10-31 04:14:22 PM

Brubold: /Independent conservative who isn't voting for either of these idiots


lol. riiiiight.
 
2012-10-31 04:16:35 PM

ltdanman44: The probability that a state provides the decisive electoral vote:

Ohio 48.6%



Let's check in with Ohio, from this morning:

img24.imageshack.us 

Possibly the strongest numbers for Obama's handling of the economy over his ENTIRE presidency. And that's how they feel in Ohio. Right now.
 
2012-10-31 04:24:20 PM
Holy fark, Silver and Votamatic's Comments have been plagued by Derpers and C- Remedial Math students (and that's being gracious) in the last 24 hours. Sam Wang's site has been down all day, but I'm fearing the worst when it comes back up. So much for intelligent and enlightening discourse. It was nice while it lasted.
 
2012-10-31 04:57:53 PM

NateGrey: Brubold: I've consistently been pushing my third party agenda here for years. I'm a conservative so I agree with the GOP on more issues than the Democrats so I'm going to be biased in that direction in my posts. It's not enough that I vote for any Republicans though.

Oh so an independent that supports the GOP. I've never seen anyone post something like that here.

Well congrats on entertaining a third party.


I told you I'm going to agree with the GOP on more issue. Perhaps you could have done a search like this one to get a better idea of where I stand?
 
2012-10-31 05:16:32 PM

Brubold: I told you I'm going to agree with the GOP on more issue


Such as endless wars and tax breaks for the wealthy? Those issues? Or is it rape and abortion that you agree with them on?
 
2012-10-31 05:24:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: I told you I'm going to agree with the GOP on more issue

Such as endless wars and tax breaks for the wealthy? Those issues? Or is it rape and abortion that you agree with them on?


Actually I don't agree with them on any of those things.

I believe we should get out of Afghanistan immediately. The mission there has failed and our troops are being killed by "friendly" soldiers they are supposed to be training on a regular basis.

I believe raising taxes on the "wealthy" is okay as long as we move the bracket up to say $500k a year instead of $250k a year. I think the $250k number catches too many small business owners in its net that can't afford a tax hike.

I think it's a morally indefensible position to say that you'd force a woman who got pregnant due to a rape to have the child. I think it's an extreme act of love for a woman to choose to carry such a child to full term but I'd never presume to make that decision for her.

I'm a Libertarian and have been so for many many years. I have never and will never cast a vote for a Democrat or a Republican. It's a waste of time.
 
2012-10-31 05:51:11 PM

Drakin020: Dem Turnout is already going to be lower this year than 2008, yet these pollsters are showing a higher Dem turnout,

I've yet to see a good argument rejecting that claim. Nov 6th could be a very bad day....


*sigh* Dem turnout is probably going to be depressed relative to Dem turnout in 2008 - however, there's good reason to think that Republican turnout will be lower as well, given that: a) negative campaigns suppress turnout, and this has been the most negative presidential race we've ever seen; b) no one is really sure whether Romney is Pat Buchanan or Dennis farking Kucinich; and c) Obama did not, as claimed and expected, turn over control of the government to a consortium of communists made up of ACORN, the ACLU, the United Nations and Michael Moore.

The difference between Hot Air and PPP is that one is staffed by partisans, the other by statisticians.
 
2012-10-31 06:23:04 PM

Brubold: I have never and will never cast a vote for a Democrat or a Republican. It's a waste of time.


because casting a vote for a third party isn't?
 
2012-10-31 07:09:44 PM

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: I told you I'm going to agree with the GOP on more issue

Such as endless wars and tax breaks for the wealthy? Those issues? Or is it rape and abortion that you agree with them on?

Actually I don't agree with them on any of those things.

I believe we should get out of Afghanistan immediately. The mission there has failed and our troops are being killed by "friendly" soldiers they are supposed to be training on a regular basis.

I believe raising taxes on the "wealthy" is okay as long as we move the bracket up to say $500k a year instead of $250k a year. I think the $250k number catches too many small business owners in its net that can't afford a tax hike.

I think it's a morally indefensible position to say that you'd force a woman who got pregnant due to a rape to have the child. I think it's an extreme act of love for a woman to choose to carry such a child to full term but I'd never presume to make that decision for her.

I'm a Libertarian and have been so for many many years. I have never and will never cast a vote for a Democrat or a Republican. It's a waste of time.


well, apparently you have no idea how taxes work, so I'm not surprised you are a Libertarian
 
2012-10-31 07:25:51 PM

Brubold: I believe we should get out of Afghanistan immediately. The mission there has failed and our troops are being killed by "friendly" soldiers they are supposed to be training on a regular basis


That is not a GOP position

Brubold: I believe raising taxes on the "wealthy" is okay as long as we move the bracket up to say $500k a year instead of $250k a year. I think the $250k number catches too many small business owners in its net that can't afford a tax hike


That is not a GOP position, additionally less than 1% of small businesses make profit over $250k per year.

Brubold: I think it's a morally indefensible position to say that you'd force a woman who got pregnant due to a rape to have the child. I think it's an extreme act of love for a woman to choose to carry such a child to full term but I'd never presume to make that decision for her


That is not a GOP position

Do you have ANY positions that you and the GOP agree on?
 
2012-10-31 07:48:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: I believe we should get out of Afghanistan immediately. The mission there has failed and our troops are being killed by "friendly" soldiers they are supposed to be training on a regular basis

That is not a GOP position

Brubold: I believe raising taxes on the "wealthy" is okay as long as we move the bracket up to say $500k a year instead of $250k a year. I think the $250k number catches too many small business owners in its net that can't afford a tax hike

That is not a GOP position, additionally less than 1% of small businesses make profit over $250k per year.

Brubold: I think it's a morally indefensible position to say that you'd force a woman who got pregnant due to a rape to have the child. I think it's an extreme act of love for a woman to choose to carry such a child to full term but I'd never presume to make that decision for her

That is not a GOP position

Do you have ANY positions that you and the GOP agree on?


Heh, I was responding to a post. Yes, I agree with the GOP on some things. I even agree with the Democrats on some things. The problem is agreeing with either of these parties is agreeing with their stated position and not their actual position. For instance, I'm for civil liberties and those have been taken away by both parties even though they talk up how important they are. Remember back in 2008 when Obama was going to stop all those evil Bush policies that expanded the power of the federal government over us (indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, etc)? Yeah, me too. Remember when the use of executive privilege to cover up a scandal was bad? Yeah, me too. Did you hear either candidate bring these things up during the debates? Did you hear anyone else bring up the question? Yeah, me neither.
 
2012-10-31 09:50:35 PM
It's going to be a fun night. Not only is Obama winning re-election, but the Democrats are going to maintain the same majority in the Senate but swapping out conservative "blue dogs' like Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson with unapologetic hardcore progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin in the caucus. Joe Lieberman finally moping out the door is the cherry on top.
 
2012-11-01 01:16:03 AM
According to the headline, Subby doesn't understand polling.

RANDOM sample, not PROPORTIONAL sample.
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report