How Selfish Can Omama Be

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?



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:

Originally Posted by Riot

As of today, Obama is ahead in all the swing states but North Carolina. Look at Rupert's anonymous data, it even agrees - but unlike Nate Silver, it colors North Carolina as going blue for Obama. That means Obama would sweep all the swings, and the Ipsos/Reuters Obama electoral landslide would happen.

Obama only has to win 2 out of 3 of Ohio, Florida, Colorado to win. Romney could take all the rest of the swings, but Obama would still win.

Romney has to win all three of OH, FL, and Colorado, plus nearly run the table on the rest (the other 5)

Here is Nate Silvers aggregate of national and state polling as of midnight, tonight (including todays polling)

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

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?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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?

Oh, and for the record, you called me a "Moronic Idiot" before I called you Sugartits. So there's that. Plus I wound up making Hossy throw up, which I regret.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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?

For the fourth time - please, read slowly and carefully:

I said that Obama will win Florida. Why? The trending in Florida is Romney falling, Obama rising. Multiple polls. I even used your Rasmussen poll that shows this trend is true over the past five days (which I linked to).

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

For the fourth time - please, read slowly and carefully:

I said that Obama will win Florida. Why? The trending in Florida is Romney falling, Obama rising. I even used your Rasmussen poll that shows this trend is true over the past five days (which I linked to).

No, you didn't. You said that Obama was most likely based on the 538 or whatever the NYT guy said. I disputed that by presenting the 538 data.

Then you brought out the gmu.edu site which only represented 50,000 votes in in the most left county in the state.

And you got called out.

And you can't respond. You misrepresented yourself. I understand. passion can run wild at times. I don't hold it against you.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

No, you didn't. You said that Obama was most likely based on the 538 or whatever the NYT guy said. I disputed that by presenting the 538 data.

Trends cover the data over time - not one day. Yes, all polls have Obama trending up in Florida 538 is a "poll of polls", an aggregator. TPM is an aggregator. You linked Rasmussen, one of the polls the aggregators use.

All polls show Obama trending up in Florida, and Romney down. Yes - even though in a snapshot of today Romney may be ahead by a half a point to a point.

Then you brought out the gmu.edu site which only represented 50,000 votes in in the most left county in the state.

And you got called out.

Uh, no. You falsely accused me of somehow secretly getting my hands on voters data (I never said that). I then told you that you clearly do not know how the results data on early voting is made available to the public, and linked to the site so you can learn.

You refused to even move down to the applicable part of the site, instead choosing to link to various other information media links at the top and railing on about Huffington Post.

Yeah - big difference in understanding about polls and websites between you and I.

Now - you say Romney will win Florida. Do you have anything other than a one-day snapshot poll of him being barely ahead to support your contention? Because the trends all have Obama overcoming him and winning the state.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

You refused to even move down to the applicable part of the site, instead choosing to link to various other information media links at the top and railing on about Huffington Post.

Yeah - big difference in understanding about polls and websites between you and I.

Now - you say Romney will win Florida. Do you have anything other than a one-day snapshot poll of him being barely ahead to support your contention? Because the trends are have Obama overcoming him and winning the state.

Again, not true. Your NYT poll disguised as some "patriarch of election virtue" proved your assertions false.

I then waded through the propaganda link you provided (again disputing you ridiculous claim above) to expose the fact that your analysis was based on early results of only .05% of the population of the state, in ONE county, that has been historically left leaning.


You, in turn, called me a liar, drunk, idiot etc. for pointing that fact out.

Hysterically funny, since anyone who actually knows me is laughing their guts out at this.

Hope you feel better about yourself, if that's what gets you through the day.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is a different analysis of the data:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...-the-landslide