·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Pre-Debate Election Roundup
Pre-Debate Election RoundupFollow
Ahh never got into them at all, guess thats why I was oblivious.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
I had no idea why you asked the question, I just copy/paste into Google and that was the sponsored floating thing on the right hand side.
Then Colbert Report started up and it said he won't be voting for Obama this time around. Then I figured "Oh, that's why it was brought up".
Then Colbert Report started up and it said he won't be voting for Obama this time around. Then I figured "Oh, that's why it was brought up".
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Almalieque wrote:
To be fair, I think everyone thought Clinton was going to take it. If I'm not mistaken, she won the popular vote. It was the change in electoral votes that had Obama to win.
Not really. Obama won the Iowa caucus, then Hillary won New Hampshire, but Obama held a slight lead pretty much the entire primary from then on. At best, you could say that 50% of people though Clinton would take it, not "everyone."
trickybeck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
To be fair, I think everyone thought Clinton was going to take it. If I'm not mistaken, she won the popular vote. It was the change in electoral votes that had Obama to win.
Not really. Obama won the Iowa caucus, then Hillary won New Hampshire, but Obama held a slight lead pretty much the entire primary from then on. At best, you could say that 50% of people though Clinton would take it, not "everyone."
I don't know enough to intellectually counter your arguments; however, I will say that I only saw "Hilary" in the news until about half-way when "super" delegates started switching side. Then she was on the losing side until the SNL skits gave her a boost at the end.
I'll admit to having a shortfall here in that I very avidly followed the primaries and thus don't have the mindset of the vast majority of people who did not. Anyone actively paying attention knew that Obama had it at a draw after Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) and then had it pretty much a lock when he swept rows of caucus states after that, running up his delegate total.
To anyone not playing at home with the score cards and map of the US covered in push pins, the media had an interest in presenting the race as a close thing, possible to change at any second up until the very end. You don't collect eyeballs by saying "Meh, it's over... go home and wait six months for it to be official".
To anyone not playing at home with the score cards and map of the US covered in push pins, the media had an interest in presenting the race as a close thing, possible to change at any second up until the very end. You don't collect eyeballs by saying "Meh, it's over... go home and wait six months for it to be official".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Almalieque wrote:
I don't know enough to intellectually counter your arguments;
Huh?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't know enough to intellectually counter your arguments;
Huh?
It's his idiotic word of the day calendar.
Just as Planned.
I knew Obama would win, because he has a *****.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
rdmcandie wrote:
I knew Obama would win, because he has a *****.
I voted for her in the primaries 4 years ago. She's badass.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Do you think Bill and Hil still do the dirty?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
I'll admit to having a shortfall here in that I very avidly followed the primaries and thus don't have the mindset of the vast majority of people who did not. Anyone actively paying attention knew that Obama had it at a draw after Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) and then had it pretty much a lock when he swept rows of caucus states after that, running up his delegate total.
To anyone not playing at home with the score cards and map of the US covered in push pins, the media had an interest in presenting the race as a close thing, possible to change at any second up until the very end. You don't collect eyeballs by saying "Meh, it's over... go home and wait six months for it to be official".
To anyone not playing at home with the score cards and map of the US covered in push pins, the media had an interest in presenting the race as a close thing, possible to change at any second up until the very end. You don't collect eyeballs by saying "Meh, it's over... go home and wait six months for it to be official".
You said it better than me.
Timelordwho wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't know enough to intellectually counter your arguments;
Huh?
It's his idiotic word of the day calendar.
WTF? That doesn't even make sense.
First, I don't have a word of the day calender, so quit pretending to be omniscient.
Second, it was a simple statement meaning that I'm only speaking from what I perceived, not necessarily facts. Maybe you should try that sometime.
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'll admit to having a shortfall here in that I very avidly followed the primaries and thus don't have the mindset of the vast majority of people who did not. Anyone actively paying attention knew that Obama had it at a draw after Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) and then had it pretty much a lock when he swept rows of caucus states after that, running up his delegate total.
To anyone not playing at home with the score cards and map of the US covered in push pins, the media had an interest in presenting the race as a close thing, possible to change at any second up until the very end. You don't collect eyeballs by saying "Meh, it's over... go home and wait six months for it to be official".
To anyone not playing at home with the score cards and map of the US covered in push pins, the media had an interest in presenting the race as a close thing, possible to change at any second up until the very end. You don't collect eyeballs by saying "Meh, it's over... go home and wait six months for it to be official".
You said it better than me.
.
You keep score cards a primary map and colored pushpins too! Alma wrote:
I lost my post
So uh, let me get this right, you are complaining that I speak the truth ( ie assert facts) entirely too much?
Just as Planned.
You'll never be a successful politician doing that.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Good politicians are believed to be telling the truth even when lying.
Just as Planned.
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
I knew Obama would win, because he has a *****.
I voted for her in the primaries 4 years ago. She's badass.
Hil-Bill 2016!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'll admit to having a shortfall here in that I very avidly followed the primaries and thus don't have the mindset of the vast majority of people who did not. Anyone actively paying attention knew that Obama had it at a draw after Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) and then had it pretty much a lock when he swept rows of caucus states after that, running up his delegate total.
To anyone not playing at home with the score cards and map of the US covered in push pins, the media had an interest in presenting the race as a close thing, possible to change at any second up until the very end. You don't collect eyeballs by saying "Meh, it's over... go home and wait six months for it to be official".
To anyone not playing at home with the score cards and map of the US covered in push pins, the media had an interest in presenting the race as a close thing, possible to change at any second up until the very end. You don't collect eyeballs by saying "Meh, it's over... go home and wait six months for it to be official".
You said it better than me.
.
You keep score cards a primary map and colored pushpins too! No need to, because it's flashing over the news.
Debalic wrote:
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
I knew Obama would win, because he has a *****.
I voted for her in the primaries 4 years ago. She's badass.
Hil-Bill 2016!
I concur.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Rasmussen had the least accurate polls in 2010 out of the major firms.
Actually even their 2008 polling favored McCain more than the norm throughout much of the 2008 race but they firmed up closer to the rest towards the end of the race, not the other way around.
Actually even their 2008 polling favored McCain more than the norm throughout much of the 2008 race but they firmed up closer to the rest towards the end of the race, not the other way around.
As Obama's numbers have hovered in the +3.x range, guess whose numbers have gone R+2, R+1, Tie, D+1, D+2?
Less and less chanting of "There is only one divine pollster and Rasmussen Reports is his infallible holy gospel" from the Right these days
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Timelordwho wrote:
So uh, let me get this right, you are complaining that I speak the truth ( ie assert facts) entirely too much?
No, the complaint is to not just blabber uncertain information posed as facts, but to admit to your own ignorance.
The only explanation that makes sense is that Rasmussen has been bought out by liberals.
Oh, and oversampling.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2012 3:06pm by lolgaxe
Oh, and oversampling.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2012 3:06pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I oversampled your mother last night. It wasn't pretty.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
So uh, let me get this right, you are complaining that I speak the truth ( ie assert facts) entirely too much?
No, the complaint is to not just blabber uncertain information posed as facts, but to admit to your own ignorance.
We get it, you're bad with words.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
So uh, let me get this right, you are complaining that I speak the truth ( ie assert facts) entirely too much?
No, the complaint is to not just blabber uncertain information posed as facts, but to admit to your own ignorance.
We get it, you're bad with words.
I get it, you're bad with words.
And Alma breaks out the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. Classic... 
Recent Visitors: 440
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (440)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Pre-Debate Election Roundup
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC