When Mitt loses this elction the right will hate him again

PostmodernProphet said:
pardon me, are you the same BAC who claimed he didn't bring up race?....
Click to expand...

:0) What a moron you are. Your head must hurt with all that stupid floating around in there.

Here is your evidence of me saying that I don't talk about race ..

"WE talk about race." Those are my words. :0) Exactly how dumb are you?

Here is what you don't get sir .. HELL YES I TALK ABOUT RACE. I capped it and boldened it so you wouldn't miss it.

You think talking about race is something that shouldn't be done .. and I say fuck that. I'm going to talk about it when I think it's appropriate and I don't give a fuck what you or any of your right-wing comrades think about it.

Clear enough for ya'?
 
Ah, I had it backwards... Dukakis led Bush by 17 right after his convention, Bush won by 8:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/us/dukakis-lead-widens-according-to-new-poll.html

And Gallup had Carter up by 4 after his Convention.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...4-points-over-ronald-reagan-in-september-1980

Both were definitely ahead after the convention; as I remembered. I just had it backwards as to who had the larger lead... and mixed the numbers a bit. Carter was up by 8 in October according to Gallup... Even one month can make a HUGE difference.

Polling at this point in time is a waste. Each side gets excited by the simplest of changes and none of it reflects the reality in the end.
 
Damocles said:
Ah, I had it backwards... Dukakis led Bush by 17 right after his convention, Bush won by 8:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/us/dukakis-lead-widens-according-to-new-poll.html
Click to expand...

The Democratic convention was in July and was before RNC. I don't see how a month and a half prior and before the other party's convention can reasonably be understood to be "at this point" in this election. By this point in the Bush-Dukakis election, as in after both conventions were held, Bush was leading.


Damocles said:
And Gallup had Carter up by 4 after his Convention.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...4-points-over-ronald-reagan-in-september-1980

Both were definitely ahead after the convention; as I remembered. I just had it backwards as to who had the larger lead... and mixed the numbers a bit. Carter was up by 8 in October according to Gallup... Even one month can make a HUGE difference.

Polling at this point in time is a waste. Each side gets excited by the simplest of changes and none of it reflects the reality in the end.
Click to expand...


Damo, you don't remember a fucking thing other than what you heard or were told after this year's DNC and you can't even remember that.

Also, too, after the DNC (the second of the two conventions) Carter led by only 1, not 4 and not 17. You still can't seem to get it right.



Edit: By the way, the very idea that you "remember" the exact number 17 as the margin between Dukakis and Bush is just plain transparent bullshit. I know you like to pretend you don't just parrot the bullshit fed to you by right-wing news sources, but let get fucking real here, man. It's OK. You're a Republican. No need to be dishonest about it.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Edit: By the way, the very idea that you "remember" the exact number 17 as the margin between Dukakis and Bush is just plain transparent bullshit. I know you like to pretend you don't just parrot the bullshit fed to you by right-wing news sources, but let get fucking real here, man. It's OK. You're a Republican. No need to be dishonest about it.
Click to expand...

Simple projection, that some people don't remember things like that doesn't mean that I don't.

Anyway, my point is held up by the numbers I gave. The polls are constantly in flux and the only one that matters is the one in November. The reality is polls at this time do not reflect the outcome, and haven't in the past and have been highly inaccurate. Especially post convention polling.

I misremembered, which is actually rare for me. Almost every time you've called me out on stuff like this I have been borne out. This time I had the numbers backwards a bit and was off, but in both cases I was correct. Post convention Carter led, and Dukakis led the polling, but the result of the election was different than the post convention polling, which was what my point actually was.

In other words, I am unprepared to declare a loser at this point, polling almost never reflects the outcome at this point. Even closer to the actual election the polling is pretty crappy. Gallup really did have Carter up by 8 in October...
 
Damocles said:
Simple projection, that some people don't remember things like that doesn't mean that I don't.

Anyway, my point is held up by the numbers I gave. The polls are constantly in flux and the only one that matters is the one in November. The reality is polls at this time do not reflect the outcome, and haven't in the past and have been highly inaccurate. Especially post convention polling.

I misremembered, which is actually rare for me. Almost every time you've called me out on stuff like this I have been borne out. This time I had the numbers backwards a bit and was off, but in both cases I was correct. Post convention Carter led, and Dukakis led the polling, but the result of the election was different than the post convention polling, which was what my point actually was.

In other words, I am unprepared to declare a loser at this point, polling almost never reflects the outcome at this point. Even closer to the actual election the polling is pretty crappy. Gallup really did have Carter up by 8 in October...
Click to expand...


You're so totally full of it. It's hilarious. The idea that you remember Dukakis being up by 17 at the end of the DNC is just plain laughable.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You're so totally full of it. It's hilarious. The idea that you remember Dukakis being up by 17 at the end of the DNC is just plain laughable.
Click to expand...

What is laughable is you think that pretend sardonic laughter changes reality.

That my numbers were as close as they were (attributed backwards) shows my memory isn't eidetic, but it is clearly very good based on articles from a long time ago...

I remember the last time you were "laughing" at my memory, which was correct then, much more correct than this time. That you can't believe that somebody can remember something isn't a point of argument, and isn't even factual, it is only another awkward attempt to misdirect from the facts and that I was correct, polling numbers at this point in an election are often incorrect and claiming a "loss" for somebody at this point is worthless.

Anyway, I'll let you get on with pretending to laugh. It may even make you feel better.
 
Damocles said:
What is laughable is you think that pretend sardonic laughter changes reality.

That my numbers were as close as they were (attributed backwards) shows my memory isn't eidetic, but it is clearly very good based on articles from a long time ago...
Click to expand...

That you pretend that it was your memory and not the talking points du jour following the DNC is really funny.


Damocles said:
I remember the last time you were "laughing" at my memory, which was correct then, much more correct than this time. That you can't believe that somebody can remember something isn't a point of argument, and isn't even factual, it is only another awkward attempt to misdirect from the facts and that I was correct, polling numbers at this point in an election are often incorrect and claiming a "loss" for somebody at this point is worthless.

Anyway, I'll let you get on with pretending to laugh. It may even make you feel better.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. I laugh at your "memory" all the time because it's almost never right. And in saying that polls this far out are "often" incorrect, you mean once in the past 8 elections? I mean, 1980 is really all you have. In 1988 by this time Bush was up and never looked back. All you have is 1980, and at this point in 1980 the two candidates were pretty much tied.

That's not to say that things can't change. But if history is any guide, Mitt has a lot of work to do between now and election day.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
That you pretend that it was your memory and not the talking points du jour following the DNC is really funny.




Hilarious. I laugh at your "memory" all the time because it's almost never right. And in saying that polls this far out are "often" incorrect, you mean once in the past 8 elections? I mean, 1980 is really all you have. In 1988 by this time Bush was up and never looked back. All you have is 1980, and at this point in 1980 the two candidates were pretty much tied.

That's not to say that things can't change. But if history is any guide, Mitt has a lot of work to do between now and election day.
Click to expand...

Again, in this case where I was wrong was actually in my memory, which again is rare but real. In the past I've been nearly perfect, and you still pretend to "laugh" and claim that I get it from something else. I'm good with that.

If history is a guide, even an 8 point lead can be overcome in less than a month. Reality: Carter really was up by 8 in October and Reagan really did win that election.

In 1988 at the end of the Convention what were the numbers? I actually gave a link to the story from that time in the newspaper... It shouldn't be hard for you to actually understand that I was correct.

And saying "pretty much tied" when again I provided the numbers that backed up what I stated, that Carter was ahead at the end of the convention... and then even provided more (the 8 points in October fact)...

Reality: The polling numbers aren't backing up your conviction that we should just call the election now. It won't even change if you pretend to laugh again.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Again, in this case where I was wrong was actually in my memory, which again is rare but real. In the past I've been nearly perfect, and you still pretend to "laugh" and claim that I get it from something else. I'm good with that.
Click to expand...

Your memory of how good your memory is seems to be fucked as well.


Damocles said:
If history is a guide, even an 8 point lead can be overcome in less than a month. Reality: Carter really was up by 8 in October and Reagan really did win that election.
Click to expand...

How often in recent history, other than 1980, has that ever happened.


Damocles said:
In 1988 at the end of the Convention what were the numbers? I actually gave a link to the story from that time in the newspaper... It shouldn't be hard for you to actually understand that I was correct.
Click to expand...

Correct about what, exactly. That Dukakis was up big in July? That's not comparable to the state of the 2012 election today. What were the numbers after both parties had their conventions?

Also, too, it isn't hard to get the figure right when you're reading from the Republicans talking points du jour. What's weird is that you pretend to have this precise memory from 24 years ago of the exact number that Dukakis was up by in mid-July at the end of the convention and it just so happens that the same information is all the rage in Republican circles in the wake of the DNC. I don't get why you pretend to "remember" it instead of just saying that you heard about it or looked it up. Really odd stuff, Damo.
 
Damo is correct that polls that are far out in time can be easily overcome. I generally start paying attention to polls after the conventions because thats the first time I belive they become relevant. Every day they become more and more relevant. The debates are the next single event that will move the numbers.

More than just the polls, the inept nature of Romneys campaign and poor judgement displayed is what is giving me hope for the Presidents reelection chances. I belive that Romney's political tone defness has resulted in his current position in the polls. Romney's failure to release his tax returns, his refusal to offer any specifics and his same day flip flops on issues such as the ACA and Ryans preceved dishonesty are issues that must be corrected should they have a chance to turn these polls around.
 
Jarod said:
Looks like they are losing, but that can change on a dime. If they lose it will be due to Mitt's pandering to the extreem right on social issues. He fired up the Left to vote for Obama. It will also be because Mitt underestimated the American people and thought he could run on dislike of President Obama instead of putting forth any specifics.

Not releasing his tax returns was the start of underestimating the American People.
Click to expand...

I never underestimate the stupidity if the American People.
 
Damocles said:
Again, in this case where I was wrong was actually in my memory, which again is rare but real. In the past I've been nearly perfect, and you still pretend to "laugh" and claim that I get it from something else. I'm good with that.

If history is a guide, even an 8 point lead can be overcome in less than a month. Reality: Carter really was up by 8 in October and Reagan really did win that election.

In 1988 at the end of the Convention what were the numbers? I actually gave a link to the story from that time in the newspaper... It shouldn't be hard for you to actually understand that I was correct.

And saying "pretty much tied" when again I provided the numbers that backed up what I stated, that Carter was ahead at the end of the convention... and then even provided more (the 8 points in October fact)...

Reality: The polling numbers aren't backing up your conviction that we should just call the election now. It won't even change if you pretend to laugh again.
Click to expand...
PWN
 
Jarod said:
Damo is correct that polls that are far out in time can be easily overcome. I generally start paying attention to polls after the conventions because thats the first time I belive they become relevant. Every day they become more and more relevant. The debates are the next single event that will move the numbers.

More than just the polls, the inept nature of Romneys campaign and poor judgement displayed is what is giving me hope for the Presidents reelection chances. I belive that Romney's political tone defness has resulted in his current position in the polls. Romney's failure to release his tax returns, his refusal to offer any specifics and his same day flip flops on issues such as the ACA and Ryans preceved dishonesty are issues that must be corrected should they have a chance to turn these polls around.
Click to expand...

That too ebbs and flows. Just before the convention, Obama's campaign, IMO, seemed to lack direction, this too can easily change and is probably one of the reasons that polls this early are constantly changing. In the past there have been huge swings, and it is usually due to how the campaigns go, or even the debates. Now I don't think Mitt can overcome a large difference in just the debates, he isn't Reagan. But this can change very quickly, even before the debates. Currently the RCP average has Obama up by a couple points, in the average his bounce was about 4 points, and it is coming back the other direction already. This is a very close race. Romney's bounce in the RCP average was about 2.5 points. While smaller, it was there.
 
Damocles said:
That too ebbs and flows. Just before the convention, Obama's campaign, IMO, seemed to lack direction, this too can easily change and is probably one of the reasons that polls this early are constantly changing. In the past there have been huge swings, and it is usually due to how the campaigns go, or even the debates. Now I don't think Mitt can overcome a large difference in just the debates, he isn't Reagan. But this can change very quickly, even before the debates. Currently the RCP average has Obama up by a couple points, in the average his bounce was about 4 points, and it is coming back the other direction already. This is a very close race. Romney's bounce in the RCP average was about 2.5 points. While smaller, it was there.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree that it is close and that it can change quickly. Romney seems however to continue to make some real mistakes, yesterdays attack on the president over the Lybia deal is a perfect example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top