Originally posted by MRT144
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Who is going to win?
Collapse
X
-
One of the biggest surprises for me in this election has been strong support for the faux-religion candidate by the Christian right. (Not so surprising in the short term, say the last few months. But 4 years ago, I was dead wrong on whether people like Billy Graham could get past their long history of deriding Mormons as a cult to support a Romney candidacy.)Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms
Comment
-
Yeah, The Economist is not some knee jerk leftist publication and is pretty vocal about what they want to see happen economically and it is pretty much exactly what the folks at the London School of Economics would recommend. That said, they're not political ideologues and do make practical endorsements. Generally, I don't care about endorsements and most of the people I know don't either but they're one source I do trust and whom I've had a subscription to for almost a decade now. It's a damn fine publication.Originally posted by -Jrabbit View PostBecause The Economist has been a pretty vocal Obama critic, duh. Even in their endorsement, they said it was a close call and referred to him as "the devil we know."Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
I'm betting they go right back to it after the election.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostPerhaps people (with the exception of MRT's grandparents) are getting over their anti-mormon bigotry? That would certainly be nice.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostPerhaps people (with the exception of MRT's grandparents) are getting over their anti-mormon bigotry? That would certainly be nice.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Comment
-
19 battleground state polls released today. Romney led in *one* of them (FL Mason-Dixon). Obama's Ohio numbers are pretty consistently in the +3, +4, +5 range. Nate Silver noted yesterday that the only way you can believe Ohio is a tossup at this point is to disbelieve all the polling aggregates, which historically have been quite accurate.
He can lose NC and FL, the two actual coin flip states left, and still win handily. And Romney is scheduled to be in FL a lot this weekend, showing he's not put it away.
As it stands, Obama is clearly favored to win Tuesday. Even Dick "Romney in a landslide!" Morris began hedging his bets today, insinuating that Hurricane Sandy was turning the election in Obama's favor. Looks like it will at least give him an easy out for his hilarious predictions: "I woulda been right if it weren't for that damned hurricane!"Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
If it isn't, then why would the Obama campaign bother spending any time there in the final few days, as they are? He doesn't need it to win, after all. They must know it's extremely competitive.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
You think North Carolina is a coin flip? 
I'm sorry, that one statement just discredits everything else you've said...Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
Even Nate Silver puts it at Romney plus two while big changes are a foot due to Sandy. I still put NC in the Romney column but Virginia has gone blue with the new Virginia part over taking the old "I'm a **** head who is dumber than a stump" old Virginia.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
You think North Carolina is a coin flip? 
I'm sorry, that one statement just discredits everything else you've said...Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostAlso there are some absolutely valid reasons to disbelieve the polling aggregates. It sounds like you're one of the Nate Silver True Believers, so here's an article for you:
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2012/10/post.php
That's pretty pathetic.
Go to the state polling averages over the past few elections. Show me where ALL of the state-level polling across ALL of the states was consistently wrong, as you would have to believe it is in this election. Note that this guy doesn't have any pedigree when it comes to making the extremely accurate predictions like Silver does. His 2008 postings are pretty funny--he was still giving McCain a shot in PA by election night. Same ol', same ol'.
Silver uses data, like it or not. And the data tells the story.Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
Gee, in 2010 Republicans didn't disbelieve all the mathematicians and statisticians because people like Nate Silver showed Republicans winning a landslide yet, magically, now Republicans don't believe the statisticians when it shows them losing big. Give it up you ****ing liars, Romney is toast.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
){ :|:& };:
Comment