please please tell me you think your going to win..lol

I already did that earlier..lol :D:tro:

Where is that singing coming from? ... I believe it's the Fat Lady !!!



O w/ MO MT @fivethirtyeight 7 polls released in OH in past 48 hrs: Obama +2, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +5, Obama +5, Obama +5.

Yeah, I saw that earlier :tro:

Nate Silver used to be a gambler. Guy is good with number and predictions.

He will win FL handily. He is still "Trending" higher in the I10 and I4 corridors which are the key to the state. You state as fact that somehow the state has released official voting records of early voting to you, which is a lie. You are citing exit polling by a left wing website that is ambiguous at best..

Secondly, he can lose OH and PA and still win the EC as he has already shown positive "Trending" in NV, WI, and even OH, and is "Trending" higher than Obama in CO, IA, NH, and VA.

I'm done. You are a joke. We'll see on Tuesday... I'll be traveling, but hope to be close by to wish you nothing but the best for you and your family upon your departure.

No, I did not you moronic idiot

You not knowing how early voting totals are obtained and released to the press is pretty weak reason for calling me a liar. Your ignorance about how early voting is tabulated is not my fault.

I copied to a newspaper article that has the current early voting (all states) - looks like you didn't even bother to click and learn.

That's not where how information on that newspaper website was obtained, doofus

I clearly am not the joke. You going on and on, comfortable in your ignorance of polling, is pretty funny.

Provide your source, Sugartits.



Hillsborough County (Tampa), for one, says it's illegal.

For Rude: click and learn. Bumbleballs

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

Hahaha you click on the link and it takes you to a Huff Po blog!!! C'mon!!! Get Real!!!

:zz: Are you drunk?

That is not a HuffPo blog. The web address has the edu. suffix.

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html Try again to use the clicky key.

BTW - you might go back and look at the Rasmussen polling information you posted - it gives Obama 332 to Romney 206 vote Obama electoral win.

You're kidding right? I mean, this is you trolling, right?

Has to be.

Because what kind of supporting evidence could you possibly provide to back up your opinion here?

It'd be like me saying I could do a great job predicting who uses the internet to troll for naive pu.ssy. Oh wait, I can do that.

I just ate. Thanks.

Your only link on this "site" specific to Florida is the Miami/Dade results which are always left. The rest of the state has something called "election laws" that prohibit the nonsense. keep on keepin on, playa.

And the first link on the site take you to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_2027200.html

and all subsequent "blog posts" are all from the Huff Po.

Fair and balanced, as usual. I'd expect nothing less. :D

And you still refuse to explain how your specified AGGREATION POLL shows Romney leading in FL, yet after you quote it, you dismiss the fact.

Comedy.

:zz: Are you just not intelligent enough to understand the information on the site? It has nothing to do with Huffington Post. There is no need to follow any link to any media site (of which many are listed)

Seriously - are you drunk right now? Did you miss this:


Other than the three times I did explain it, including linking to your own Rasmussen site to illustration what I said about trending, I again have to ask,

Seriously - are you drunk right now? Or just not able to follow this conversation?

Seriously, are you Drunk? You cited this post:

Then said that your Miami/Dade results, which are always Left, and ONLY REPRESENT 50,000 MIAMI DADE RESULTS (out of a state of TEN MILLION) disproved it.

Hows about this, go to your site, http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

Clicky (your word) on the first link they show you (gmu.edu isn't biased in anyway):


and tell us where it takes you - put down your drink first.{{SPOILER ALERT}} It's a Huff Po blog

Then tell us where the subsequent blog posts (which are the most important part of the site, as they are the first and only thing that you see) takes you.


Fraud.

About what? You call me liar for things I didn't say. You call me fraud because you don't like that national pollsters I quote - including the Rasmussen you posted - have Obama winning the election by multiple electoral votes?

You can't understand, three times, using your poll, I explain trends to you about Florida? So you call me names? Because you can't keep up?

If you can't understand how Florida being red on a poll today means Obama will win Florida, after I explained the concept of "trends" to you three times, how does your inability to "get it" make me deserving of verbal abuse by you, Sugartits?

Too bad for you. Call names. Does it make you feel better about your candidate losing?

What are you - five years old?

First of all, every poll that measures this has shown that conservatives are more charitable. You can look it up.

In terms of personal life experience, most of the angry liberals that I have met over the years are not very charitable. Of course there are some very charitable liberals. I was speaking in general. By the way, should I ignore my life experiences? We all make observations based on life experience. If something happens once or twice, it could be random. But when you see something fairly consistently for 20 years, you can usually draw some pretty accurate conclusions.

How old am I? I am in my 40s.

With regard to the rape thing, you are totally twisting my position. You totally misunderstood what I said. I explained my position thoroughly in a later post.

Yes I'm 5. I excelled in cut/paste in preschool.

How do you explain that you claimed FL as "Likely Obama" when your own poll disputes this and you cite .05% of the state (all in a solid blue county) as your basis?

Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ent-charities/

Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States
Conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/1...united-states/

Exploding the myth that conservatives give more to charity than liberals
A few years ago, several of our Applesauce regulars cited a study authored by Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks to support their argument that political conservatives donate more to charity than their liberal counterparts.

But now there’s a NEW STUDY showing not only that charitable contributions are roughly equal among liberals and conservatives but also that Brooks’ methodology was faulty.

Related posts:
Exploding the myth that Romney pays more of his income in taxes and charity than does Obama
Study shows that conservatives are more fearful than liberals
Research suggests that liberals have thicker brains than conservatives
Why are liberals so much better than conservatives at political satire?
Study: Higher levels of education affect minds of liberals and conservatives differently

How could you possibly know how charitable people are? Who talks about how much they donate, unless they are trying to impress someone?