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.

(The New York Times)   Let's see what Nate Silver has to say as "most of the polls that we've seen over the past several days are the last ones that polling firms will be releasing into the field"   (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 254
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

6135 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 4:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-03 08:01:07 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?

Wombat still can't comprehend the new Democratic lean to Ohio.

[images2.dailykos.com image 275x259]

Its not too hard to figure out. Unless you're Wombat.


Modern Ohio is pretty easy to figure out. If Ohio thinks it's going well, or as well as could be, they stick with the same party they voted for last time. Otherwise, they switch their vote (the pre-1912 votes are largely Civil War related):

img24.imageshack.us

It's very likely Obama is going to win Ohio. Even though the economy has been shiat, it's on the upswing, and the only times Ohio has flipped since 1952 during single terms has been:

64-68 - Johnson to Nixon
76-80 - Carter to Reagan
88-92 - Bush 1 to Clinton

Johnson to Nixon happened during the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, and all the ugliness that entailed. Carter to Reagan and Bush 1 to Clinton were both during horrendous economic downturns that were on the way down during the elections. Since we're on a very slow upswing, it's unlikely Ohio is going to switch their vote from last time, which means the Democrats have a good advantage.

Modern Ohio tends to stick with incumbents at least through the second term and then switch. Historically, Obama has an advantage. 

Whether or not there's a new "Democratic lean" to Ohio has yet to be determined. The state itself tends to vote opposite party governors compared to the President.
 
2012-11-03 08:01:59 PM
It was always his election to lose. Great job by Romney for giving him a close race.
 
2012-11-03 08:03:55 PM

WombatControl:
Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...


Your best argument is unscrewed polls guy, 'because I think so'. That doesn't beat actual data.

You know, data.
 
2012-11-03 08:11:53 PM

thornhill: Uchiha_Cycliste: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

You know what, I thought the same way until Sandy hit. The electoral college prevents those states who were hardest hit from suffering a reduced influence on the final outcome because of conditions. I think Sandy is the best argument I've ever seen heard for keeping the electoral college. And I hate that fact.

I'm sorry, but that's pretty stupid.

1) It is currently within a state's power to delaying election day -- they just have to do it before the electoral college meets (Congress can also intervene, but that's a lot harder to pull off). If NJ was a swing state like Ohio, they'd be delaying the election or giving everyone an absentee ballot.

2) If every state had mail in voting with a one month window, there would be much less of an issue with natural disasters or simply just bad weather affecting the vote. And again, in the instance of a diaster, you could hand deliver everyone in the affected areas a ballot, tell them they have a few hours to fill them out, and then collect them. If people already voted and tried voting again, a simple database that tracks collected allots would catch this.

Given how much of a disaster voting currently is in every state, Obama should propose in his second term that any state which adopts mail in voting and follows certain guidelines (such as length that voting is open, online system where voters can confirm that their ballot was received and properly recorded), will receive federal money to help pay for it. He'll also have the post office waive postage fees for sending out the ballots and returning them.



I don't agree with your view on the uselessness of the electoral college for several very specific reasons, but before I get into them I want to say that I agree with most of what you wrote.

You mostly spoke of things that could be done immediately to decrease voting complexity the potential for issues. Mail-in early voting is a fantastic way to simplify the system and increase turnout, I would love if we shifted over to such a system as soon as possible.

With respect to extending the voting hours the states appear to have broad powers to open the polls for longer, extend voting into a second or third day or in theory hold it on a different day altogether and such decisions are made on a state by state basis, internally. Nationwide it appears an act of congress could change the polling day from the legally prescribed first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
The things are possible, but I sincerely doubt anything beyond some polls remaining open longer will happen.
Because neither the state not the Congress will act to I feel the electoral college helps to mitigate the effects of many fewer voters having voted by Tuesday than would otherwise have.Even if there are 5 million fewer voters, the results of the election will not be significantly effected because it's equally difficult or impossible for both Obama and Romney supporters.

So, while you suggest a number of ways to reduce the need for the electoral college, they can't be relied upon for the election that ends on Tuesday. I still think the electoral college is for once helping more than hurting for an election.
 
2012-11-03 08:12:12 PM

MithrandirBooga: I have to wonder, how many people Obama is going to kill just by being re-elected.

Think about it. I have never seen such vehement angst about an election before. It's even worse than 2008 for Thor's sake. It's not out of the realm of possibility to think that there will be a few people so pissed off about this that they'll have heart attacks.


It is also not out of the realm of possibility that there will be a few people so pissed off about this that they'll start shooting.
 
2012-11-03 08:14:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures


I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.
 
2012-11-03 08:20:15 PM

aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.


and because you have no penis.

/or maybe because Osama Hussein isn't even on the ballot
 
2012-11-03 08:21:32 PM

propasaurus: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

and because you have no penis.

/or maybe because Osama Hussein isn't even on the ballot


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-03 08:22:00 PM

aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.


Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.
 
2012-11-03 08:25:53 PM

jjmartin: WombatControl:
Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...

Your best argument is unscrewed polls guy, 'because I think so'. That doesn't beat actual data.

You know, data.


His shtick for awhile was "There's 6 months to go", "There's 5 months to go" but when he started running out of time he shifted to the polls being wrong. If you accept that Romney should win and will win, obviously the polls are very wrong indeed.
 
2012-11-03 08:28:30 PM
What I think the wingers are denying is the Republican stay at home factor due to their putting up such a god awful candidate.
 
2012-11-03 08:30:34 PM

mrshowrules: jjmartin: WombatControl:
Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...

Your best argument is unscrewed polls guy, 'because I think so'. That doesn't beat actual data.

You know, data.

His shtick for awhile was "There's 6 months to go", "There's 5 months to go" but when he started running out of time he shifted to the polls being wrong. If you accept that Romney should win and will win, obviously the polls are very wrong indeed.


What I love is that everything he's been saying for a week or two, all his bullshiat is remarked upon in TFA. According to Nate silver "the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking" ad no matter how much mr wombat tries to scream nuh uh! I know better, it's all still just wishful thinking (at best) otherwise he's just herping the derp.
 
2012-11-03 08:33:30 PM

WombatControl: cameroncrazy1984: WombatControl: they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama

Prove it.

Take the last Marist poll of Ohio. They have a partisan makeup of 38D/29R/32I (D+9). That's bigger than the D+5 advantage in 2008. If the Democrats are doing close to twice as well as they were in 2008, we should see early voting in strongly Democratic counties doubling. We should see a huge partisan advantage in early voting in Ohio. (And yes, I know how the early voting totals are calculated, but that should at least give us SOME idea of a Democratic wave forming). We should see Obama attracting huge crowds of motivated voters.

But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less. So those numbers don't match the reality of what we're seeing on the ground. The problem with someone like Nate Silver is that he's looking at the numbers only and not asking critical questions about how the numbers fit with the bigger picture.

That's the downside of statistical analysis - most of the time it works just fine, but sometimes it breaks horribly. The models that predicted that the housing market would never go down were highly advanced and done by people whose jobs depended on getting it right - and they were still horribly and tragically wrong.


Do you know how I can tell you have never read Silver's methodology page. Polls in his predictive models are weighted; in fact, Marist is recognized as having a significant (D) house effect and his model is designed to account for that, just like it accounts for Gallup's (R) lean and all the other polls.

I will say that the media's "enthusiasm gap" is non-existent. Perhaps another candidate may have helped, but Romney hasn't; nobody likes him.

The reason you saw polls close the day after the first debate was (and note that the polls were closing before) because Romney simply didn't shiat his pants. I would argue that the raw partisans that broke for Romney after that debate were those people that were going to vote for him no matter what; they were simply encouraged by his performance in the debate enough to admit publicly that they were voting for him.

Also, to your earlier statement, there is zero evidence that Romney's internal polls look any better than the public polls in the field. His campaign has continued odd behavior and shown the same clownshoes planning they've been showing all summer. The only improvement they've made is by keeping Romney from taking questions or interviews so he doesn't say something stupid yet again.
 
2012-11-03 08:38:06 PM
I got filterpwned on the name of Gov. Perry's ranch. =/
 
2012-11-03 08:40:53 PM

whistleridge: FeedTheCollapse: that bosnian sniper: LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: the right won't try to get rid of the electoral college. They have too much of an advantage in the form of disproportional representation among low-population red states to give up. I'd fully expect them to try to amend the electoral college thus:

- 102 electoral votes go to the states and District of Columbia, to be pledged as winner-take-all.
- 436 electoral votes are pledged proportionally on a state-by-state basis.

That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states. For example, under this system in 2008 Obama would have only won 34 electoral votes in California, McCain would have won 20, and Nader would have won 1.

if they don't remove the Electoral College entirely, I at least expect them to drop their defense of it from their official party platform if Obama wins the EV but not the popular vote.

Sam Wang at the Princeton Electoral Consortium presents the best argument for the Electoral College that I've heard to date:./a>

Basically, he argues that with the EC, any count or recount issues are compartmentalized. Without it, any close calls or errors in the popular vote mean Bush v Gore type lawsuits everywhere, and long-running-heavily-argued recounts like Minnesota's Senatorial race in 08 could be the norm rather than the exception.

There's a certain amount of logic there. If you get rid of the EC, what do you replace it with? A single vote for each state, weighted to population? That just duplicates the EC. A truly national Popular vote? How do you deal with discrepancies? 300,000,000 people producing 120,000,000 votes is ...


Those people are voting anyhow.

Since you'd need an amendment to make it happen, you would also require a minimum federal standard for voting standards.

I would also use the opportunity to force the House to have a 250,000:1 constituent:rep ratio. Having 120mm people vote isn't a big deal; I would still require states to manage it and provide block grants to assist. I would recommend that, in the voting standards, that equal access (like voting machine:voter) ratios are equal and that inner city people would have the same expectation for the amount of time to get through a line that a suburban or exurban person would. I would also require federal standards for training and actions of poll monitors and poll workers. One could also make vote fraud a federal felony and have the crime of stuffing ballot boxes to be a 10-year sentence (most common fraud).
 
2012-11-03 08:45:25 PM

wademh: Thrag: Irregardless: PonceAlyosha: Irregardless: President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy.

How anyone can say that after the Bush administration is goddamn beyond me.

Do you really think that Bush single handedly caused the recession? A couple of bubbles burst that were a long time in the making. Do you think he planned it that way? He's not smart enough for that. Hell, he obviously didn't even see it coming. Presidents should receive neither credit or blame for how the economy does while they sit in the white house. If anything they may have one longer term effects that they can be held responsible for but most of those don't have a huge immediate effect. Think Obamacare - there are some good ideas but the devil will be in the details and in the execution. We will know if it's truly successful in about 15-20 years and the vast majority of the execution is completely out of president Obama's control.

Bush prevented the states from enacting their own regulations on predatory lending. His actions directly contribute to the housing bubble.

That is just one reason he bears direct responsibilty for the crash. Making regulatory agencies like the SEC useless also contributed.

You give Bush far too much credit. Moreover, the driver of the US economy through most of Bush's term was housing. It was not just predatory lending. It was a great many Americans using the the equity on their homes like an ATM machine. And speculators and cheap interest rates driving up the cost of housing. New housing was being built at a silly pace. Home renovations were major business. It all amounted to people spending their wealth faster than real wealth was being accumulated. When the bubble burst, as it had to, "bubble wealth" disappeared and the great hang-over began. Bush didn't make that happen. The American people made that happen by believing the party could go on and on. The American people refused to "do the math".

Zealots of the GOP want to blame ...


Yep, there is plenty of blame to spread among all presidential administrations and congresses since Reagan was elected and some other people (such as Mr Greenspan). The systematic dismantling of banking regulation occurred over decades.
 
2012-11-03 08:46:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.


The "science" is all based on polls which over sample DemocRats.
 
2012-11-03 08:48:49 PM

aselene: cameroncrazy1984: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.

The "science" is all based on polls which over sample DemocRats.


Why do you think the democrats are over sampled?
Did you even read the article?
 
2012-11-03 08:49:07 PM

aselene: cameroncrazy1984: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.

The "science" is all based on polls which over sample DemocRats.


So...if Obama wins, you will send pictures, right?
 
2012-11-03 08:56:10 PM

joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?


The polling isn't for the electorate; it's for the polititians' campaign staffs.
 
2012-11-03 08:58:31 PM

Angry Buddha: The polling isn't for the electorate; it's for the polititians' campaign staffs.


^^^THAT

/campaign staffer/statistician
 
2012-11-03 09:01:37 PM

GWSuperfan: Angry Buddha: The polling isn't for the electorate; it's for the polititians' campaign staffs.

^^^THAT

/campaign staffer/statistician


Heh heh... polls, staff...

/penis
 
2012-11-03 09:03:55 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: anfrind: There may be hope for your coworker yet.

I dunno. A bus driver can save the lives of a hundred children, and he's still a bus driver. A hero, for sure, but still just a bus driver. But ork just one cow, and he's a coworker forever.


I've read the entire thread and this will be the only post I remember tomorrow.
 
2012-11-03 09:06:15 PM

aselene: cameroncrazy1984: aselene: Lionel Mandrake: aselene: If Osama Hussein wins this election, I will cut off my own penis and give it to my father for Christmas.

Be sure to post pictures

I feel fully confident making that statement because it's so obvious he will lose.

Obvious to whom? Certainly not those who are using data. Maybe in your heart you really believe he will lose, but the science doesn't bear that out.

The "science" is all based on polls which over sample DemocRats.


Yep, even Rasmussen "over samples" Democrats.
 
2012-11-03 09:13:37 PM

Richard Roma: But if and when he does lose... oh sweet FSM I'm going to enjoy rubbing it in the face of every indignant piece of Teabagger scum I can.


Consider: The particular species you refer to occupies an ecological niche that thrives on negative emotions, like some strange creature from Star Trek. If you stoke those fires, they will predictably respond with comments about the sorry state of voter's intelligence, the 47%, welfare queens or voter fraud by hordes of illegal aliens. Don't do it. Kill 'em with kindness. It will emasculate them. Speak of hoping that we can find ways to respect the whole country and find common ground. Sure, it's a cruel way to twist the knife, so smile. It will leave them with nothing to target their hate upon except their own kind.
 
2012-11-03 09:32:24 PM
I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.
 
2012-11-03 09:44:42 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.


Won't happen until the following week. Monday will still have them campaigning for him and slamming Obama. The few days after the election will be filled with shouting how the elections were fixed.

Tgeevisionarihe they'll throw him under the bus.
 
2012-11-03 09:54:54 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.


They seem so certain of a victory this time around that they're going to blame:

1) Liberal bias in media, specifically for not bringing more attention to Bengazi and "Fast and Furious."

2) Polling conspiracy, especially Nate Silver.

3) Sandy

4) Chris Christie

5) Chicago politics

All of these factors conspired to steal the election from Romney.
 
2012-11-03 10:02:37 PM
No more polls? Thank the Goddess!
 
2012-11-03 10:04:29 PM

thornhill: shower_in_my_socks: I wonder if Republicans will begin throwing Romney under the bus on Monday, or if they'll wait until Tuesday night. In their mind, it's always their candidate who's bad when they lose, not their ridiculous, 50-years-outdated party platform.

They seem so certain of a victory this time around that they're going to blame:

1) Liberal bias in media, specifically for not bringing more attention to Bengazi and "Fast and Furious."

2) Polling conspiracy, especially Nate Silver.

3) Sandy

4) Chris Christie

5) Chicago politics

All of these factors conspired to steal the election from Romney.


Add in

6) Illegal immigrants

7) Activist judges (Pennsylvania voter ID ruling)

8) Using welfare to buy votes

9) Romney is a secret liberal who cheated to stop "real Americans" from winning the primaries and intentionally threw the election.

And the final conclusion will be that they need a more right wing candidate. Just hope someone comes to their senses over the next 3 years.
 
2012-11-03 10:09:41 PM

mrshowrules: I love how Silver shows how Obama's significant lead in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and Wisconsin are not sampling errors whereas Romney's thin lead in Florida could very well represent a sampling error. Sure could see how this would piss off Conservatives. KILL THE MESSENGER!

/to they crazies out there, it is an expression - please don't kill anyone


If the GOP is as sensitive as they act, he was doing them a favor by dumbing things down for their use.
 
2012-11-03 10:23:23 PM

dywed88: And the final conclusion will be that they need a more right wing candidate. Just hope someone comes to their senses over the next 3 years.


Why? If this is the best the Republicans can do, maybe they deserve to be shunted off into the dustbin of history.
 
2012-11-03 10:31:02 PM

Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters


You counted the same people three times. And you badly misspelled 'racists'.
 
2012-11-03 10:33:25 PM
Nate Silver has saved this country.

If he hadn't been here to throw water on the "Mitt-monetum" horseshiat... and the GOP had been allowed to make that case to logical americans, then the GOP would have been free to rig the votes in Ohio, Florida and Virginia to give Romney the win.

But they can only rig the votes if it wouldn't be totally obvious. But Silver has made it so that a GOP win would be such a blatantly statistical anomaly that they'll have to save it for next time.
 
2012-11-03 10:35:33 PM

WombatControl: In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.


PPP twitter feed earlier today had some comments that their blue state polls are WAY down (but still ahead) for Obama, like 10 points down from 2008. PPP thinks this might explain why the national polls show a very tight race but the electoral college shows an Obama lead.

Example: Obama ahead 8 points in blue state (connecticut?) this year, up 18 points in 2008

best explanation I've read yet.
 
2012-11-03 10:46:00 PM

James F. Campbell: dywed88: And the final conclusion will be that they need a more right wing candidate. Just hope someone comes to their senses over the next 3 years.

Why? If this is the best the Republicans can do, maybe they deserve to be shunted off into the dustbin of history.


Parts of the right wing have been making that argument since the primaries began. They will argue that his previous socially liberal positions cost them the election. Then they will bring up how Romney threw Ryan under the bus trying to distance himself from his VP candidate. In the end most of the far right will go "we tried a moderate and he failed, now we get our candidate".

And if the Democrats pick a moderate right leaning candidate again in 2016 they will have further justification of picking someone to differentiate himself.

The question is can the far right retain their stranglehold on the party for three more years and dominate the party. The 2014 elections could be critical to this question (their wins in 2010 gave the far right a lot of momentum within the party, a moderate win or far right failure in 2016 could help shift things back).
 
2012-11-03 11:02:40 PM

phillyguy1547: Nate Silver has saved this country.

If he hadn't been here to throw water on the "Mitt-monetum" horseshiat... and the GOP had been allowed to make that case to logical americans, then the GOP would have been free to rig the votes in Ohio, Florida and Virginia to give Romney the win.

But they can only rig the votes if it wouldn't be totally obvious. But Silver has made it so that a GOP win would be such a blatantly statistical anomaly that they'll have to save it for next time.


On the contrary--if Romney wins (by hook or more likely by crook), the derpers will use this as "proof" that Silver, statisticians in general, and the science of statistics itself are full of shiat; it'll be a new plank in their anti-science platform.
 
2012-11-03 11:31:33 PM
Three statisticals:
1) election of 2000
2) Ohio has Republican government
3) math is hard

The way I see it, the 3 add up to a Romney victory.
 
2012-11-03 11:42:48 PM
Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.

Current participants:

Barack Obama
John Maynard Keynes
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Markos Moulitsas
Michael Moore
Paul Krugman
Noam Chomsky
George Soros
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins

newsthatsfittoprint.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-04 12:04:31 AM

SouthParkCon: Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.


Wow...dissing libs for liking Nate Silver. Aren't you just on the cutting edge of Derp.

Have you heard about this new "MSNBC" thing?
 
2012-11-04 12:09:03 AM

Lionel Mandrake: SouthParkCon: Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.

Wow...dissing libs for liking Nate Silver. Aren't you just on the cutting edge of Derp.

Have you heard about this new "MSNBC" thing?


Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Current participants:

Barack Obama
John Maynard Keynes
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Markos Moulitsas
Michael Moore
Paul Krugman
Noam Chomsky
George Soros
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins
Nate Silver
NPR
 
2012-11-04 12:48:58 AM

SouthParkCon: Lionel Mandrake: SouthParkCon: Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.

Wow...dissing libs for liking Nate Silver. Aren't you just on the cutting edge of Derp.

Have you heard about this new "MSNBC" thing?

Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Current participants:

Barack Obama
John Maynard Keynes
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Markos Moulitsas
Michael Moore
Paul Krugman
Noam Chomsky
George Soros
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins
Nate Silver
NPR


Now I just feel sorry for you.

And for some reason, I suddenly remembered how much the 1/2 Hour News Hour sucked.

/*other* than pretty much stealing their name from This Hour Has 22 Minutes
 
2012-11-04 01:08:18 AM
Silver's credibility will either be raised to an even higher level or be completely destroyed Tuesday. He did very well, once.
 
2012-11-04 01:56:21 AM

3_Butt_Cheeks: No, he's not going to sleep with you.


On 10-18 you said you'd rather go in to this election with Romney's numbers than Obama's.

Still feel that way?
 
2012-11-04 02:21:38 AM

SouthParkCon: Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...


Interesting that when you think of the best thing possible, it involves taking a load of sperm to the face.

You should come out of the closet. No one cares these days.
 
2012-11-04 03:14:21 AM

mediablitz: SouthParkCon: Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Interesting that when you think of the best thing possible, it involves taking a load of sperm to the face.

You should come out of the closet. No one cares these days.


Grrr, angry Liberal is angry.
 
2012-11-04 03:18:19 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: SouthParkCon: Lionel Mandrake: SouthParkCon: Well it's official, add Nate Silver to the Fark Progressive Brigade Bukkake session.

Wow...dissing libs for liking Nate Silver. Aren't you just on the cutting edge of Derp.

Have you heard about this new "MSNBC" thing?

Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Current participants:

Barack Obama
John Maynard Keynes
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Markos Moulitsas
Michael Moore
Paul Krugman
Noam Chomsky
George Soros
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins
Nate Silver
NPR

Now I just feel sorry for you.

And for some reason, I suddenly remembered how much the 1/2 Hour News Hour sucked.

/*other* than pretty much stealing their name from This Hour Has 22 Minutes


I'll be the first one to agree that the 1/2 Hour News Hour was an abomination.

/Flame On!
 
2012-11-04 03:36:13 AM

SouthParkCon: mediablitz: SouthParkCon: Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Interesting that when you think of the best thing possible, it involves taking a load of sperm to the face.

You should come out of the closet. No one cares these days.

Grrr, angry Liberal is angry.


Really. It's ok. You like taking loads of cum in the face. It's your "thing". No need to get all defensive.
 
2012-11-04 04:38:10 AM

SouthParkCon: mediablitz: SouthParkCon: Just adding him to the list of those the Fark Progressives would let drop a load on their faces and ask for more. You did remind me of one more I forgot to add to the list...

Interesting that when you think of the best thing possible, it involves taking a load of sperm to the face.

You should come out of the closet. No one cares these days.

Grrr, angry Liberal is angry.


I always find it funny that a dumbass teabagger calls himself southparkcon. Unfortunately that is possibly the only funny thing about you.
 
2012-11-04 07:02:52 AM

Thrag: Bush prevented the states from enacting their own regulations on predatory lending. His actions directly contribute to the housing bubble.

That is just one reason he bears direct responsibilty for the crash. Making regulatory agencies like the SEC useless also contributed.


Also the fark damn wars and how monstrously bungled they were.
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report