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 Raw Story)   Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume is 'puzzled' by these strange polls from battleground states showing a persistent lead for Obama. How could this have happened?   (rawstory.com) divider line 348
    More: Obvious, Brit Hume, Fox News, obama, swing states, political analyst  
•       •       •

5732 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2012 at 6:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-04 08:43:51 PM

Gyrfalcon: Mrtraveler01: DamnYankees: Mrtraveler01: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I can't shake the feeling that america is about to pull a Bush II.

maybe that the fault of the media. all the signs point to an Obama win, but I can't stick a fork in it.

What were the polls like at this point in 2004?

A pretty clear Bush win. Narrow but clear.

That's what I recalled too but wanted to make sure (and too lazy to Google).

It's not the 04 election that you need to consider here. It's the 1992 election--the last time a sitting president got ousted. George HW Bush's loss was more of a shocker than W's win, because W had his war to keep him in place, he was riding the 9/11 patriotism wave, and the business scandals hadn't hit yet.

People should have been examining what was going on between Bush Sr. and Clinton to see what happened there, to know what might go down this time.


Lucky for the Dems, Romney doesn't have Clinton's charisma.
 
2012-11-04 08:44:00 PM
PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Our final Virginia poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47 4 minutes ago


Their last poll had Obama up 3.
 
2012-11-04 08:44:09 PM

Lorelle: Notabunny: Stock up on ammunition, water, canned food and batteries. Board your windows and doors. When Obama wins on Tuesday, the neocons are going be entirely blindsided and are going to contemplate an alcohol-fueled 2nd Amendment solution.

Given the number of Teabagging nutjobs out there, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them completely go off the deep end after the election. It's more than a little scary.


And each time, there will be freepers claiming knowledge that the guy who just gunned down seven people he imagined to be liberals was in fact himself a liberal trying to bring discredit on gun-toting Real Muricans. When it becomes clear that he shot people because he thought they were liberals, and thinks liberals should die, the response will be, "How DARE you try to bring politics into this, the man was clearly mentally ill."
 
2012-11-04 08:45:01 PM

Gyrfalcon: People should have been examining what was going on between Bush Sr. and Clinton to see what happened there, to know what might go down this time.


How is that a better comparison? That comparison is terrible - the circumstances were wildly different, the incumbent's approval ratings don't match, the economy was very different and there was a third party candidate with huge support (relatively).

2004 is a much better comparison.
 
2012-11-04 08:46:58 PM

DamnYankees: PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Our final Virginia poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47 4 minutes ago

Their last poll had Obama up 3.


Yep, the president is up 1-2 points there. Good to know.

I still don't know how VA became Democratic the last two years. I guess maybe it is a state more like fellow Mid-Atlantic state Maryland than it is like the Carolinas, Georgia, etc.?
 
2012-11-04 08:49:12 PM

Lligeret: It would be extremely ironic if Romney had more in the popular vote, yet Obama won the electoral college, because a black president would then be (re)elected as a result of an institution that was put in place because the slave owners felt they would not be fairly represented in elections.


I'm in a very blue state, and just thought it would be fun to give Rmoney my vote, just to nudge this possibility along. The epic butthurt when the r's lose while 'winning' would be, well, epic.

Too bad I already voted.
 
2012-11-04 08:50:01 PM

eddiesocket: Altitude5280: Death Eats a Cracker: I may have to unblock FNC on election night. It's going to be awesome watching a bubble being popped on live TV.

I advise EVERYONE that just before the Prez gets to 270, to switch over to Fox, and have the great pleasure of watching them have to announce Barack Obama as the winner. 😝

Yeah, that was fun four years ago. I also listened to Rush Limbaugh for the first time the next morning. Gonna have to do that again.


Hmm, I'm going to have to try this.

I did this after the Biden debate. Unfortunately that didn't have an "announced" winner, so they just did the standard "our guy won because derp" thing. I'd actually like to see how Thy spin that with an actual verified winner.

/assuming Obama wins
//already voted for him, but chickens and eggs and all that stuff
 
2012-11-04 08:50:14 PM
The bottom line is that people don't get that an election can be close with one of the candidates still highly likely to win. The two are not mutually exclusive. And because its winner take all, it really doesn't matter how close it is.

I guess the sports analogy is the point spread. The spread can be close with one of the teams still strongly favored to win, which is the whole reason we bet on a point spread rather than who wins (it handicaps the underdog).
 
2012-11-04 08:51:57 PM

bulldg4life: I forgot to add: Meet the Press was casually talking about how the election is a toss-up and Obama has really failed to win independents over the past month.

Obama failed to win the independents.

Obama.


As Nate Silver said, no one ever lost their job claiming that an election was a horse race.
 
2012-11-04 08:53:14 PM

Smelly McUgly: DamnYankees: PUBLICPOLICYPOLLING
Our final Virginia poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47 4 minutes ago

Their last poll had Obama up 3.

Yep, the president is up 1-2 points there. Good to know.

I still don't know how VA became Democratic the last two years. I guess maybe it is a state more like fellow Mid-Atlantic state Maryland than it is like the Carolinas, Georgia, etc.?


My liberal friend who lives there says that in the last half a decade or so, the northern part of Virginia has become overrun by former DC residents, turning the state blue. It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.
 
2012-11-04 08:56:20 PM

DeltaPunch: Maybe you libs should look a little more closely at the 3 options listed in TFA:

1) The polls are all wrong
2) Romney's ground game will turn out enough votes to make up the difference
3) Obama will win

As you can clearly see, 2 of these 3 options result in a Romney victory, which naturally means Romney has 66% chance of winning. Therefore, even if the polls were skewed 16% towards Obama -- unlikely, despite the lamestream media bias -- Romney can still safely win above 50%. It's just basic subtraction here, folks. AND, if the polls aren't biased at all, then it won't just be a Romney victory but a land-slide man-date for conservatives. You libs are gonna be sooo pissed.


9/10 bravo!
 
2012-11-04 08:57:01 PM

DamnYankees: Lligeret: It would be extremely ironic if Romney had more in the popular vote, yet Obama won the electoral college, because a black president would then be (re)elected as a result of an institution that was put in place because the slave owners felt they would not be fairly represented in elections.

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Romney's now losing the Electoral College about 1/3 of the time he wins the popular vote in our simulations.




Yep. It doesn't matter if you have an energized voting base if it is in the wrong location. I am hopeful it happens, and not by a Bush/Gore margin, I hope it is at least a full 1% of the national population that it is different. Come on Alabama/Mississippi/Arkansas/Louisiana/etc... Democrats do your part vote Republican!!
 
2012-11-04 08:59:04 PM

Jgok: eddiesocket: Altitude5280: Death Eats a Cracker: I may have to unblock FNC on election night. It's going to be awesome watching a bubble being popped on live TV.

I advise EVERYONE that just before the Prez gets to 270, to switch over to Fox, and have the great pleasure of watching them have to announce Barack Obama as the winner. 😝

Yeah, that was fun four years ago. I also listened to Rush Limbaugh for the first time the next morning. Gonna have to do that again.

Hmm, I'm going to have to try this.

I did this after the Biden debate. Unfortunately that didn't have an "announced" winner, so they just did the standard "our guy won because derp" thing. I'd actually like to see how Thy spin that with an actual verified winner.


He started out by saying "hey at least we kept Hillary out of the White House!" (Remember when the Clintons were totally evil and out to destroy the country? Funny how quickly Obama took over that role). Then he played Obama's acceptance speech and gave it the MST3K treatment, pausing every five seconds to harp on whatever Obama said and make some snide remark. Then callers called in to talk about how Obama had fooled everyone and we were all doomed. It was a fun morning, though I confess I only made it about an hour.
 
2012-11-04 08:59:50 PM

eddiesocket: It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.


Florida is the only exception to this rule.
 
2012-11-04 09:02:28 PM

thornhill: As Nate Silver said, no one ever lost their job claiming that an election was a horse race.


Part of the problem is that some (most?) of these media types simply don't know how to understand the data. They'll see a 52/48 split in the polls in some state and believe the race is really close there. But poll watchers who've kept an eye on the trend lines and margins of error will see the race isn't close at all. But pushing this inaccurate assessment of the situation does a disservice to their viewers.
 
2012-11-04 09:02:47 PM

themadtupper: DeltaPunch: wotthefark: DeltaPunch: thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.

Um, Nate Silver has Obama ahead in the popular vote 50.6% to 48.3%. Considering the margin of error is typically 2-3 points, there's plenty of room for lots of polls to show Romney ahead. But it's just not true that he leads in all or most of them, otherwise Nate Silver wouldn't be showing Obama ahead.


"MARGIN OF ERROR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY"

[t0.gstatic.com image 256x197]

Can you explain it to me, then? Not being snarky... I study physics, so I deal with errors and statistical significance all the time... I'm curious how one interprets the MoE from a poll.

538 (and other poll aggregators) are looking at several hundred polls. the margin of error on any given one of those might be 2-3 points, but the assumption is that if all of them show an advantage to one candidate of a few points, then it is fairly unlikely that all of them are statistical outliers.


Sure, and the average of all polls is currently 50.6% to 48.3%. Let's say that's the "true" number for the sake of example. Since the difference is 2.3%, some polls with a MoE of 3-4% (say) *could* show Romney leading, right? That's what I was originally getting at...
 
2012-11-04 09:03:10 PM

quatchi: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

Cool beans.

For what it's worth, I just heard David Frum call it for Obama on the Patrick Duffy show onna CBC radio.


Wait a minute here..........

Patrick Duffy has a show?!
 
2012-11-04 09:04:39 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Hell, the available statistics regarding early voting in Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada alone basically remove any suspense.


yeah, I understand all that. but then I think...

0.tqn.com 

and I have second thoughts
 
2012-11-04 09:05:43 PM

Mrtraveler01: eddiesocket: It's weird how the north is almost always more liberal than the south, pretty much everywhere.

Florida is the only exception to this rule.



Not really heavy population centers traditionally lean liberal. The northeast you have a lot of large cities, then further northeast you have all the city people that wanted to get away from the city. The midwest (northern portion) you have large cities surrounded by rural areas so you end up with blue islands in a red sea (Wisconsin for example typically looks all red, except for Madison, Milwaukee, and the college towns, then the rest is red). It is similar in the south however not quite to that extent due to history. Florida is farked up because old people all retire there whether they lean left or right. The west coast you have all the hippies so they go blue, although again once you hit rural sections for it it is pretty red.
 
2012-11-04 09:07:58 PM

lemurs: But pushing this inaccurate assessment of the situation does a disservice to their viewers.


They have no obligation to their viewers. They are performing a service for their advertisers, and a horse-race keeps people glued to the TV through the car commercial to hear the latest on how Romney is making a comeback in key states.
 
2012-11-04 09:08:36 PM
Actually, that was a lot more reasonable and honest in its delivery than i ever expected from Fox
 
2012-11-04 09:09:03 PM
After Obama wins it this time around, I think we're going to see open calls from Fox for Electors from Obama states to vote for Romney anyway, regardless of what applicable state law has to say about it.
 
2012-11-04 09:09:25 PM

wotthefark: themadtupper: DeltaPunch: wotthefark: DeltaPunch: thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.

Um, Nate Silver has Obama ahead in the popular vote 50.6% to 48.3%. Considering the margin of error is typically 2-3 points, there's plenty of room for lots of polls to show Romney ahead. But it's just not true that he leads in all or most of them, otherwise Nate Silver wouldn't be showing Obama ahead.


"MARGIN OF ERROR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY"

[t0.gstatic.com image 256x197]

Can you explain it to me, then? Not being snarky... I study physics, so I deal with errors and statistical significance all the time... I'm curious how one interprets the MoE from a poll.

538 (and other poll aggregators) are looking at several hundred polls. the margin of error on any given one of those might be 2-3 points, but the assumption is that if all of them show an advantage to one candidate of a few points, then it is fairly unlikely that all of them are statistical outliers.

DamnYankees: DeltaPunch: Can you explain it to me, then? Not being snarky... I study physics, so I deal with errors and statistical significance all the time... I'm curious how one interprets the MoE from a poll.

DeltaPunch: wotthefark: DeltaPunch: thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

it's puzzling to me that romney can be ahead in all of the national polls, which are done by more seasoned polling firms, but is behind in the simple average of national polls.

Um, Nate Silver has Obama ...


OK, thanks for that. But I was referring to an individual poll with a MoE of 3-4% being capable of showing Romney ahead, because the aggregate shows only about a 2-point difference between them. I didn't mean to suggest that their difference is within the aggregate MoE -- in fact, if it's anything like in my field, the final MoE for the aggregate is much smaller than the MoE from any individual poll.
 
2012-11-04 09:11:28 PM
Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.
 
2012-11-04 09:11:43 PM

I_Am_Weasel: I think that, perhaps, maybe, it just because that it's possible that Brit Hume just might, in fact, be a frickin' moron.
That's only speculative.


It's further only speculative that Brit Hume might also be puzzled by shoelaces.
 
2012-11-04 09:12:08 PM
Calling Cindy Sheehan. Please pick up the white phone in the lobby.
 
2012-11-04 09:12:39 PM
November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.
 
2012-11-04 09:12:58 PM

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


No thanks.
 
2012-11-04 09:14:39 PM

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


The Lamestream media is absolutely sucking Obama's cock. Just look at how much they ignored the Romney supporting Gallup poll and emphasized all the others.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-11-04 09:16:45 PM
It is almost like most people would like to take their chances with Obama again despite the slow economic recovery because they aren't buying the Romney sales pitch.
 
2012-11-04 09:20:07 PM

Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.


Yeah, like in 2008 when right-wingers were sure McCain was going to win despite the fact that Obama was the clear favorite in the polls.
 
2012-11-04 09:21:30 PM

Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.


themonkeycage.org
 
2012-11-04 09:21:43 PM

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


Awright, who brought this silly alt out of deep freeze for the occasion?
 
2012-11-04 09:22:27 PM

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


Oh, you are one of those "only fox tells it straight" tards.

Can't wait to read your tears of impotent rage Tuesday. God damn, I seriously have a giant erection thinking off all the butthurt, I'm finally really excited, really really excited. It's like when I heard they were making a lord of the rings movie. I feel a similar sense of giddy excitement.

The tears and impotent rage of people like you.. Oh man, I feel so alive. I'm going to cum so hard listening to limbaugh the next morning.
 
2012-11-04 09:23:49 PM
Regardless of election results, going off the grid Wednesday sounds amazing. Whether it be petulant whining or incessant gloating that I'll have to tolerate, I don't think I will want to be around anyone.
 
2012-11-04 09:25:19 PM

randomjsa: I'm not puzzled at all.

As stated, if the media and the entertainment industry hadn't been covering for this president for the last four years, he wouldn't even be running for office and the Democrats would be trying to figure out a way to tell you they have some great ideas if you'll just elect this other guy.

I do have another question however.

I would like a liberal to explain how Bush during his first term went from barely winning to getting more support while Obama did such a bang up job as president that he's losing multiple states outright and dropping 5-10% in other states that he is winning. I'd also like to hear about how if this trend continues, and it will, what you think is going to happen in 2014 and 2016.


This graph explains the problem and why Romney will lose:

Fillibusters

Now fark off you ignorant troll.
 
2012-11-04 09:25:30 PM

mainstreet62: quatchi: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

Simple average of national polls released Thursday: Obama +0.9. Friday: Obama +1.2. Saturday: Obama +1.3. Today (so far): Obama +1.4

Cool beans.

For what it's worth, I just heard David Frum call it for Obama on the Patrick Duffy show onna CBC radio.

Wait a minute here..........

Patrick Duffy has a show?!


Oh, FFS. I didn't say Patrick did I?

No, this guy. Mike Duffy.

www.mikeduffy.ca

You can see how one can easily mix the two up though. Right?
 
2012-11-04 09:25:34 PM

theorellior: Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.

Awright, who brought this silly alt out of deep freeze for the occasion?


I don't know. I thought slipping "TNT" into that list was a hint that he's not being serious. Unless he thinks that reruns of Law and Order are sucking Obama's d*ck.

/there might be an SVU episode about that
//I never really watched that spinoff version of the show
///kinda creeped me out
 
2012-11-04 09:26:47 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I don't know. I thought slipping "TNT" into that list was a hint that he's not being serious. Unless he thinks that reruns of Law and Order are sucking Obama's d*ck.


All the blah people in the NBA are in the tank for n0bama
 
2012-11-04 09:27:13 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Florida: Romney 49%, Obama 47% (Zogby)

Florida: Romney 48%, Obama 47% (YouGov)

Florida: Obama 46%, Romney 46% (Reuters/Ipsos)


Most Liberals are capable of looking at these numbers and thinking "Wow, Obama will likely lose Florida". Why can't Conservatives concede the same when the margins are so much bigger for Obama in Ohio?
 
2012-11-04 09:27:35 PM

Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.


Except that's more made-up bullshiat from the Romney campaign. Carter was not ahead of Reagan the weekend before the election, except in an outlier poll. Additionally, Carter's popularity was much lower than Obama's and his popularity was further diminished by a dismal debate performance only a week before the election..
Link
 
2012-11-04 09:27:37 PM

DamnYankees: Smeggy Smurf: November 3, 1980 the polls had Carter winning. Reagan won with 489. 2012 is imitating 1980 in economy, gas prices, shortages and a middle east in turmoil. History repeats itself with regularity when people don't learn from it.

[themonkeycage.org image 850x617]


If you say so, see ya Wednesday morning.
 
2012-11-04 09:28:42 PM
I tend to take polls with a grain of salt. The one that predicts swing state A spot on is off its rocker on swing state B or C.
 
2012-11-04 09:31:40 PM

Oldiron_79: I tend to take polls with a grain of salt. The one that predicts swing state A spot on is off its rocker on swing state B or C.


There's enough polling from different firms in the swing states that all the non-crazy ones have to be wrong for Obama to lose the electoral college.
 
2012-11-04 09:35:32 PM

DeltaPunch: wotthefark: themadtupper: DeltaPunch: wotthefark: DeltaPunch: thomps: DamnYankees: Also, the national polls don't really show a tie. Per Nate Silver:

OK, thanks for that. But I was referring to an individual poll with a MoE of 3-4% being capable of showing Romney ahead, because the aggregate shows only about a 2-point difference between them. I didn't mean to suggest that their difference is within the aggregate MoE -- in fact, if it's anything like in my field, the final MoE for the aggregate is much smaller than the MoE from any individual poll


Yes the aggregate is a much smaller MOE. However on the individual poll level if you have an MOE of lets say 4% and the race is 45-49 that doesn't make it a tie nor does it make in favor for the one behind. Most individual polls have an n
With an MOE of ± 4% would be 40 however that 40 is not all going to one individual candidate. Is it possible? yes; is it probable? no. b is going to pick up some of those as it is binary so a 45-49 is not even close. Then you state well maybe the polling is off by 40 if this is the case then all 40 would have to be taken away from one candidate and given to another again, that's possible but extremely unlikely. With national polls you also have house effects (see Rasmussen) but even those with favorable house effects towards Romney have Obama within 2 points. If this is the case and that poll is favorable towards Republicans, Romney is screwed.

With the aggregate polls where they are I don't see Romney getting the popular vote.
 
2012-11-04 09:35:47 PM
I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.
 
2012-11-04 09:35:51 PM

Oldiron_79: I tend to take polls with a grain of salt. The one that predicts swing state A spot on is off its rocker on swing state B or C.


There is a lot of weird stuff with the polls this time.  The likely voter determination is different from national to state in some polls in ways it makes no sense.  And poll to poll are widely varied.  But I have to think that since the majority of polls point one way, that the makeup of the likely voters is going to be D+7 against all odds.  Though, to be fair, many of the polls today and yesterday dropped back to D+4 or close.  That's still pretty high in a year like this.  Plus, only 9% or so of people respond to polls.  So, if the polls are right, then they are right.  If they are wrong, then I won't be too surprised either. 
 
But I won't believe a Romney win until the counting is finished.  I don't see Obama losing this.
 
2012-11-04 09:36:05 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I don't know. I thought slipping "TNT" into that list was a hint that he's not being serious.


I thought perhaps so, but the subsequent Cindy Sheehan comment made me think that someone was just playing the Crazy Game and I got bored.
 
2012-11-04 09:37:10 PM

Mean Daddy: Maybe because he isn't sucking Obama's d*ck, like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, TNT, CNN... shall I go on.


Man, you "conservatives" are just obsessed with Obama's cock, aren't you?

i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-04 09:37:37 PM

robsul82: I'm liking how the polls have looked this week, In Nate I Trust, but don't get me wrong. The butthole isn't coming unclenched until I see Brit Hume dejectedly call Ohio for Obama.


This. 2000 made me distrust thinking anything is a lock until the magic number 270 comes up.
 
Displayed 50 of 348 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report