How Carter beat Reagan...

Carter beat Reagan?

Was Dean Chambers reweighting polls in retropspect?
 
\\((|))// said:
Carter beat Reagan?

Was Dean Chambers reweighting polls in retropspect?
Click to expand...

Only you believe these polls are accurate and that with all of OWEbamas failings that he can win. Here is the thing, I am prepared to wake up on November 7th with OWEbama still in the White House. My preparations for our pending economic collapse are all in place. But, the question is are you and your ilk prepared for an OWEbama loss? I don't think you are.

Only a monumental idiot could believe that a true sampling of the electorate has 11% more democrats than Republicans which is what one CNN poll had as its sample.

What should scare the shit out of you (but won't because you don't possess the brains) is that even with these overweighted sampling of polls toward OWEbama, the polls are still tied. That means that OWEbama is losing support of democrats. Anecdotally, I know many democrats that will not vote for OWEbama now and feel they were duped by the Hopey Changey bullshit. I know that won't register with a true partisan hack like you. In the same vain, I know many republicans who don't like Romney but will hold their noses and vote for him, not because they like him but because they want OWEbama out of office. Is that a valid reason? Maybe, maybe not. But, it all adds up to a very long day on November 6th for OWEbama's sycophants.

May I suggest calling your physician now for a prescription of xanax to take the edge off
 
Superfreak said:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/25/how-carter-beat-reagan

interesting read on the polling from 1980 and 1984.

To the parrots/lemmings/Obama worshipers... no, I am not saying the polling is this biased this time around...
Click to expand...

I dont know that the polls are accurate or that they are not going to change between now and NOvember, but I DO love how desperate the Republicans have become over the polls and how the screams about the "liberal corporate media" is fighting for President Obama.

I smell defeat for the Republicans in the air.
 
I like looking at polling data that is averaged from a large variety of polls, that makes the chance of big errors less likely.

I also generally review electionprojection.com who has his own weighting procedure and has been VERY accurate in the past. BTW, the guy who produces that cite is a hard core Republican, but his polling data and predictions are generally dead on!
 
Jarod said:
I like looking at polling data that is averaged from a large variety of polls, that makes the chance of big errors less likely.

I also generally review electionprojection.com who has his own weighting procedure and has been VERY accurate in the past. BTW, the guy who produces that cite is a hard core Republican, but his polling data and predictions are generally dead on!
Click to expand...

Try applying some common sense. If all of the polls are using essentially the same methodology and oversampling democrats, then even if you "average" them together you don't come up with a more accurate picture you just come up with a more inaccurate "average". Good God, tell me you aren't this stupid.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Try applying some common sense. If all of the polls are using essentially the same methodology and oversampling democrats, then even if you "average" them together you don't come up with a more accurate picture you just come up with a more inaccurate "average". Good God, tell me you aren't this stupid.
Click to expand...

Common sense and Jarod do not get along with each other. Rarely will you find them in the same room together.
 
Haiku said:
It's the same mind set that thinks the bible is literally the truth...facts aren't allowed to intrude.
Click to expand...

Tell us... which of us wasn't letting facts intrude? Oh yeah, that would be Dung. Which is why he attacked the author rather than address the CONTENT of the article.

Do you want to talk about the FACTS in the article? Or are you going to go into some tirade about those who believe the Bible is literal instead?
 
Superfreak said:
Hilarious... still attacking the author... Polly gets a cracker
Click to expand...


When the author is Dick Morris, yeah I'll attack him. The guy's a fucking moron. Like, drool cup stupid. He is not someone to be taken seriously on anything anywhere at any time ever.

Here's what he had to say when Romney was winning by 5 in the Rasmussen poll:

The published polls reflect a close race for two reasons:

1. They poll only registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen is the only pollster who tests likely voters, and his latest tracking poll has Romney ahead by 48-43.

2. As discussed in previous columns, a study of the undecided voters in the past eight elections in which incumbents sought a second term as president reveals that only Bush-43 gained any of the undecided vote. Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96 all failed to pick up a single undecided vote.

So when polls show President Obama at 45 percent of the vote, they are really reflecting a likely 55-45 Romney victory, at the very least.
Click to expand...


According to Dick Morris, no matter what the polls say Romney is really winning. Why should anything he says be taken seriously?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
When the author is Dick Morris, yeah I'll attack him. The guy's a fucking moron. Like, drool cup stupid. He is not someone to be taken seriously on anything anywhere at any time ever.
Click to expand...

Hilarious.

Here's what he had to say when Romney was winning by 5 in the Rasmussen poll:

According to Dick Morris, no matter what the polls say Romney is really winning. Why should anything he says be taken seriously?
Click to expand...

Tell us Dung... which way do the undecideds tend to choose? Incumbent or challenger?

While he certainly exaggerated the point by saying 'failed to pick up a single undecided vote'... his point is valid. Undecideds trend heavily towards the challenger (regardless of which party has the incumbent).

I can't help but notice you once again attacked Morris and failed yet again to address the actual points in the article. If you don't want to talk about this article, perhaps you should refrain from coming on to a thread that is intended to do just that?

Or do you just like derailing threads with your nonsense?

Do you want others on this board to dismiss every article you post in the same manner? Just proclaim the author as crazy and dismiss the content? Not going to lead to very many actual discussions if we adopt your stupidity.
 
Guess we'll have to table this.

If the election passes, and the polling proves to be way off, it will be an interesting conversation to pick back up. :cof1:
 
Meanwhile, let's discuss this:

9780060859848_0_Cover.jpg
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
There's nothing to discuss. I'm just pointing a laughing.
Click to expand...

Except for the content of the article. you know, the one where the media polls showed Carter in 'close' races, yet he got crushed in all but one of them.

But thank you again for confirming you are a no talent hack. Seriously, if you don't want to discuss content.. why do you even bother with your petty little attacks on the author?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top