Guest LOSer Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 52 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: I'd take the Senate reference out of there, but that's probably just me. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/the-most-bogus-stat-of-the-2016-election-how-democrats-won-the-senate-popular-vote/?utm_term=.64782cfaf65c I had forgotten about the 'jungle' primary in California. Now if I was a dishonest turd like concha I'd just call into question the source and make loud noises. But I know the Washington Post is legit and the analysis is sound. Still doesn't change the implication of my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 33 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: Rasmussen was the most accurate in the general election this cycle...so there's that I guess. The Washington Post did a rating of the accuracy of polls in 2016. They didn't even rate Rasmussen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/05/which-was-the-most-accurate-national-poll-in-the-2016-presidential-election/?utm_term=.51485e4554fe Nate Silver had them as a C+ rating because they were so bad in 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/sen_elizabeth_warren_is_up_for.html This would be seriously funny. Fauxcahontas kicked to the curb? Quote Sen. Elizabeth Warren is up for re-election in 2018 and 46 percent in new WBUR poll say give someone else a chance Forty-four percent of poll respondents said she deserves re-election. Ten percent said they didn't know or were undecided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, LOSer said: The Washington Post did a rating of the accuracy of polls in 2016. They didn't even rate Rasmussen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/05/which-was-the-most-accurate-national-poll-in-the-2016-presidential-election/?utm_term=.51485e4554fe Nate Silver had them as a C+ rating because they were so bad in 2012. Their final poll was Hillary +2. No one was closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Just now, zulu1128 said: Their final poll was Hillary +2. No one was closer. Nate had Rasmussen at a C+. Then again, Nate was 70%+ confidence that Cankles would win the WH with over 300 electoral votes. Physician, heal thyself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: Their final poll was Hillary +2. No one was closer. Hey, even you were semi-accurate one time. Even crappy polls do well occasionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, concha said: Nate had Rasmussen at a C+. Then again, Nate was 70%+ confidence that Cankles would win the WH with over 300 electoral votes. Nobody was closer than him and nobody chastised the 99%ers more than him either. If you had more than an inch deep understanding of anything you'd have read his stuff and knew that he thought a Midwest surge was very possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, concha said: Then again, Nate was 70%+ confidence that Cankles would win the WH with over 300 electoral votes. Physician, heal thyself. Also, someone else who doesn't understand probabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, LOSer said: Hey, even you were semi-accurate one time. Even crappy polls do well occasionally. They were also the most accurate in 2004, and finished #2 in 2008. Their only miss was 2012. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Wasn't Canes going off on how Hillz was going to win big? And he's talking trash? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted January 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, concha said: Wasn't Canes going off on how Hillz was going to win big? And he's talking trash? LOL You even said she would win...several times. This election was a lot like St X winning state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, TheRealCAJ said: You even said she would win...several times. This election was a lot like St X winning state. I not the one on here talking shit to a guy that called it for Trump. I hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 17 minutes ago, concha said: Wasn't Canes going off on how Hillz was going to win big? No. That's a lie that's been spread by dishonest turds like yourself. I said she was going to win big among certain voting groups and she did (although not a much as I had thought). But that's me being honest compared to zulu who still thinks he nailed the 2016 election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, LOSer said: No. That's a lie that's been spread by dishonest turds like yourself. I said she was going to win big among certain voting groups and she did (although not a much as I had thought). But that's me being honest compared to zulu who still thinks he nailed the 2016 election. In the interest of accuracy, your exact claim was "Trump will lose every minority group in historic numbers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 minute ago, zulu1128 said: In the interest of accuracy, your exact claim was "Trump will lose every minority group in historic numbers." Z, didn't he have a bet with you that Trump would lose? So Canes was just wrong and wrong and wrong again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted January 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 40 minutes ago, concha said: I not the one on here talking shit to a guy that called it for Trump. I hope this helps. It doesn't.... You are still talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted January 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 The guy that called it for Trump is a real legend. He voted for Gary Johnson! Clearly, zulu is the goofiest bird in the cage. It's like I hate you Trump, I'm voting Gary Johnson. Two months later the legend is admiring himself watching what he thinks is everyone else melting down. Welcome to the American madness. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted January 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Chip is doing his usual great job maintaining his composure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 I have to say, I personally like a good bit of the libertarian platform. They are definitely a little further left than myself on social issues as a whole, but I have to nitpick to find huge gaps between my social thoughts and theirs. They start losing me on the deregulation stuff though. I do now and always will believe that capitalists have no business anywhere near healthcare. If they'd ease back toward center a little socially and fiscally, I could find reason to join their cause. They're a little odd overall, far far right fiscally and far far left socially. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted January 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: They're a little odd overall They are MORE than a little odd. zulu, seems to be taking Johnson's defeat well though. Good God! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 43 minutes ago, TheRealCAJ said: They are MORE than a little odd. zulu, seems to be taking Johnson's defeat well though. Good God! A shining example to all. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 7 hours ago, zulu1128 said: Heavily scrutinized. Good one. Good response. I'll think about that for awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 2 hours ago, concha said: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/sen_elizabeth_warren_is_up_for.html This would be seriously funny. Fauxcahontas kicked to the curb? What would be so funny about that? Wait, I know. She will be President in 4 years so I guess now is as good a time as any to start tearing her down. Good God man, are you always so negative? Tell me how she has offended you where you feel it necessary to throw "fauxcohontas" around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, World Citizen said: Good God man, are you always so negative? Tell me how she has offended you where you feel it necessary to throw "fauxcohontas" around? She's a Harvard professor. So therefore much smarter and more accomplished than noted race-baiter concha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.