06 Electoral Predictions?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hedo,
you said:

“It’s not the latest. Look on any of your moonbat sites or the pollster himself.”

Were you wrong?

yes or no?

(note to readers: I only insisted that this was a recent poll, I never debated/mentioned/discussed the outlier factor of this poll)

also hedo, I wasn’t apologizing before…obviously I was only pointing out you were factually wrong.

just a simple yes or no hedo.

100 meters wrote:

"Goodness, I apologized already for posting the current relevant info didn’t I? "

Really?

100 you really aren’t getting it are you. Are you really this dumb or just pretending?

It really sucks when you try and frame the debate with misleading information and nobody falls for it. Maybe the Dems will realize that someday.

And to answer your question it wasn’t the latest poll…based on your own posts. The answer is no. You really are silly you know? The poll you referenced was dated the week of 8/24. You then referenced a second poll taken on 9/1. Both seem to present data contrary to all other polls mentioned…hmm. Good one for Dems to hang their hats on.

So are you really that dumb or just pretending?

Was this a yes or no?
Seems like a no.

perhaps you could kindly post the poll more recent than the gallup poll I posted on 8/31. Or explain why its the most recent poll listed at BB’s link or my link? In short its dated the most recent and listed the most recent.

In your next post, just post the poll more recent than the one I gave, as of 8/31. Easy enough?

Why? That would be answering questions to an argument you are attempting to frame rather ineptly. You posted it why would I defend your argument. See how that goes?

I thought you didn’t apologize but your own quote says otherwise. Enough fucking with you however, it’s not very challenging.

Care to articulate why your think Casey did well? He seemd rather angry and people don’t vote for angry politicians. No wonder they dems are keeping him under wraps. He didn’t seem very prepared or comfortable. He is running against someone but seems to not be for very much. How typical.

I didn’t say Casey did well. To me he kind of looks creepy, but Santorum just digs his own hole whenever he talks. It was kind of funny actually. Casey did ok (no dems like casey by the way) but didn’t have all the answers of how to fix all the things Santorum has screwed up…the budget, iraq, etc.

It was funny though Santorum almost pleading with Casey: “How will you fix the budget that I broke? Huh, huh? See Tim he can’t even think of the million ways it’ll take to fix my mess. Vote for me!”

I will reiterate it’s pointless to argue with someone like yourself who is delusional. Your sarcasm isn’t even humorous.
[/quote]

By delusional you meant that you were incorrect in saying the poll I listed was not the latest?

And I wasn’t being sarcastic. Ricky was asking what he would do fix the budget. Did you even watch? Or are you making s–t up again?

62

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hedo,
you said:

“It’s not the latest. Look on any of your moonbat sites or the pollster himself.”

Were you wrong?

yes or no?

(note to readers: I only insisted that this was a recent poll, I never debated/mentioned/discussed the outlier factor of this poll)

also hedo, I wasn’t apologizing before…obviously I was only pointing out you were factually wrong.

just a simple yes or no hedo.

100 meters wrote:

"Goodness, I apologized already for posting the current relevant info didn’t I? "

Really?

100 you really aren’t getting it are you. Are you really this dumb or just pretending?

It really sucks when you try and frame the debate with misleading information and nobody falls for it. Maybe the Dems will realize that someday.

And to answer your question it wasn’t the latest poll…based on your own posts. The answer is no. You really are silly you know? The poll you referenced was dated the week of 8/24. You then referenced a second poll taken on 9/1. Both seem to present data contrary to all other polls mentioned…hmm. Good one for Dems to hang their hats on.

So are you really that dumb or just pretending?

Was this a yes or no?
Seems like a no.

perhaps you could kindly post the poll more recent than the gallup poll I posted on 8/31. Or explain why its the most recent poll listed at BB’s link or my link? In short its dated the most recent and listed the most recent.

In your next post, just post the poll more recent than the one I gave, as of 8/31. Easy enough?

Why? That would be answering questions to an argument you are attempting to frame rather ineptly. You posted it why would I defend your argument. See how that goes?

I thought you didn’t apologize but your own quote says otherwise. Enough fucking with you however, it’s not very challenging.

Care to articulate why your think Casey did well? He seemd rather angry and people don’t vote for angry politicians. No wonder they dems are keeping him under wraps. He didn’t seem very prepared or comfortable. He is running against someone but seems to not be for very much. How typical.

I didn’t say Casey did well. To me he kind of looks creepy, but Santorum just digs his own hole whenever he talks. It was kind of funny actually. Casey did ok (no dems like casey by the way) but didn’t have all the answers of how to fix all the things Santorum has screwed up…the budget, iraq, etc.

It was funny though Santorum almost pleading with Casey: “How will you fix the budget that I broke? Huh, huh? See Tim he can’t even think of the million ways it’ll take to fix my mess. Vote for me!”

I will reiterate it’s pointless to argue with someone like yourself who is delusional. Your sarcasm isn’t even humorous.

By delusional you meant that you were incorrect in saying the poll I listed was not the latest?

And I wasn’t being sarcastic. Ricky was asking what he would do fix the budget. Did you even watch? Or are you making s–t up again?[/quote]

I am not the liar 100 you are as you have proved time and time again. You are intellectually dishonest and have been called out over and over again. You are a liar and seem to be proud of it. Maybe you should go somewhere where people fall for it. I have typed three responses that pointed out your error but you mindlessly continue.

But let me get this straight. The Dems don’t really like Casey. You think he looked creepy and really can’t point out anything he did well except mindless drivel the YOU make up…yet you still support him yet try and claim you are an independent voter. You then claim Santorum is a not yet cowardly duck the question. Have you no shame.

Strong…smart! Keep up the good work.

You then apologize…say you didn’t. Ignore your own quote and then claim I make things up. Stong…samrt!

You are a fine example of someone with Bush derangment syndrome.

If you want to talk about the televised debate post transcripts so we know at least you read it anf gave it some thought.

The most telling example from this debate…and the one that frames the choice perfectly was Casey’s argument regarding Cheyney and sanctions against Iran. Casey asked him if he would “denounce” Cheyney for opposing sanctions. Santorum said no, I disagree with his position on sanctions. Casey then said then “why won’t you denouunce him” Santorum replied “I don’t denounce people who I disagree with.” That is a government run by the moonbats. Disagree and we denounce you…then what? Strong…samrt!

63

[quote]hedo wrote:

I am not the liar 100 you are as you have proved time and time again. You are intellectually dishonest and have been called out over and over again. You are a liar and seem to be proud of it. Maybe you should go somewhere where people fall for it. I have typed three responses that pointed out your error but you mindlessly continue.

But let me get this straight. The Dems "don’t really like Casey. You think he looked creepy and really can’t point out anything he did well except mindless drivel the YOU make up…yet you still support him yet try and claim you are an independent voter. You then claim Santorum is a not yet cowardly duck the question. Have you no shame.

Strong…smart! Keep up the good work.

You then apologize…say you didn’t. Ignore your own quote and then claim I make things up. Stong…samrt!

You are a fine example of someone with Bush derangment syndrome.

If you want to talk about the televised debate post transcripts so we know at least you read it anf gave it some thought.

The most telling example from this debate…and the one that frames the choice perfectly was Casey’s argument regarding Cheyney and sanctions against Iran. Casey asked him if he would “denounce” Cheyney for opposing sanctions. Santorum said no, I disagree with his position on sanctions. Casey then said then “why won’t you denouunce him” Santorum replied “I don’t denounce people who I disagree with.” That is a government run by the moonbats. Disagree and we denounce you…then what? Strong…samrt!
[/quote]

This is bizarre! The only issue in this thread between you and I is me saying “relevant poll” and you saying its not the most recent. You were wrong! Totally wrong! That’s the only issue!

Making shit up:
I didn’t say liar, I said making shit up!

example:
support Casey.
I don’t like Casey. I donate to all kinds of canidates, but not Casey.

apology:
for posting relevant information(sarcasm). Not incorrect information. Goodness.

Just read the damn posts!

also I do apologize for not explaining ricky’s nuttiness, I just haven’t felt like typing all the stuff out…
but anybody who brings their dead baby home to cradle with their children…I don’t know…it’s weird.

then there’s the hilarious man on dog stuff…

or his claim of finding wmd (sad)…

yes I know Casey is lame, or, how hard is it to say I’d vote no on Iraq today, jeez.

64

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

I am not the liar 100 you are as you have proved time and time again. You are intellectually dishonest and have been called out over and over again. You are a liar and seem to be proud of it. Maybe you should go somewhere where people fall for it. I have typed three responses that pointed out your error but you mindlessly continue.

But let me get this straight. The Dems "don’t really like Casey. You think he looked creepy and really can’t point out anything he did well except mindless drivel the YOU make up…yet you still support him yet try and claim you are an independent voter. You then claim Santorum is a not yet cowardly duck the question. Have you no shame.

Strong…smart! Keep up the good work.

You then apologize…say you didn’t. Ignore your own quote and then claim I make things up. Stong…samrt!

You are a fine example of someone with Bush derangment syndrome.

If you want to talk about the televised debate post transcripts so we know at least you read it anf gave it some thought.

The most telling example from this debate…and the one that frames the choice perfectly was Casey’s argument regarding Cheyney and sanctions against Iran. Casey asked him if he would “denounce” Cheyney for opposing sanctions. Santorum said no, I disagree with his position on sanctions. Casey then said then “why won’t you denouunce him” Santorum replied “I don’t denounce people who I disagree with.” That is a government run by the moonbats. Disagree and we denounce you…then what? Strong…samrt!

This is bizarre! The only issue in this thread between you and I is me saying “relevant poll” and you saying its not the most recent. You were wrong! Totally wrong! That’s the only issue!

Making shit up:
I didn’t say liar, I said making shit up!

example:
support Casey.
I don’t like Casey. I donate to all kinds of canidates, but not Casey.

apology:
for posting relevant information(sarcasm). Not incorrect information. Goodness.

Just read the damn posts!

also I do apologize for not explaining ricky’s nuttiness, I just haven’t felt like typing all the stuff out…
but anybody who brings their dead baby home to cradle with their children…I don’t know…it’s weird.

then there’s the hilarious man on dog stuff…

or his claim of finding wmd (sad)…

yes I know Casey is lame, or, how hard is it to say I’d vote no on Iraq today, jeez.[/quote]

That you for confirming my point and proving finally that you are a deranged nut and cnertifiable moonbat.
Strong…smart!

As mentioned before unless you can post something relevant to the thread I will most likely dismiss you.

What a kook and a continued liar and coward.

Bye.

65

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hedo wrote:

How about Santorum vs. Casey in Pa.?

Santorum is closing the gap, so that one can’t just be penciled in as a Dem pick up. It will be extremely close, that’s about as comfortable as I am in making a call at this point.

It doesn’t seem like he’s closing the gap at 18 points back does it?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-31-midterm-elections_x.htm
of course Santorum is a nut so maybe he thinks he’s closing the gap. Still, he’s got time to pull it out…

You certainly know how to pull out the outlier don’t you:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/

That was the only poll at 18% – the others two recent polls were at 8% and 5%, respectively, with earlier ones from this month at around 6% as well. Unless I missed some major political flub or there’s an amazingly effective ad campaign running, I’d guess the outlier is wrong.

It’s the most recent poll? The context was closing the gap? Hello?

Care to place a wager on whether the next poll is closer to this outlier poll or to 6%?

Goodness, I apologized already for posting the current relevant info didn’t I?

So the answer is no, you don’t want to wager that the next poll will be closer to 6% than to 18%? Heck, I would be willing to say it will be closer to even than to 18%…

66

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hedo wrote:

How about Santorum vs. Casey in Pa.?

Santorum is closing the gap, so that one can’t just be penciled in as a Dem pick up. It will be extremely close, that’s about as comfortable as I am in making a call at this point.

It doesn’t seem like he’s closing the gap at 18 points back does it?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-31-midterm-elections_x.htm
of course Santorum is a nut so maybe he thinks he’s closing the gap. Still, he’s got time to pull it out…

You certainly know how to pull out the outlier don’t you:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/

That was the only poll at 18% – the others two recent polls were at 8% and 5%, respectively, with earlier ones from this month at around 6% as well. Unless I missed some major political flub or there’s an amazingly effective ad campaign running, I’d guess the outlier is wrong.

It’s the most recent poll? The context was closing the gap? Hello?

Care to place a wager on whether the next poll is closer to this outlier poll or to 6%?

Goodness, I apologized already for posting the current relevant info didn’t I?

So the answer is no, you don’t want to wager that the next poll will be closer to 6% than to 18%? Heck, I would be willing to say it will be closer to even than to 18%…
[/quote]

I’ll guess it’s within the average of 9 percent…

By the way BB, could you tell hedo that the poll I gave was (most)recent? He’s gone nuts…

67

[quote]100meters wrote:

I’ll guess it’s within the average of 9 percent…

By the way BB, could you tell hedo that the poll I gave was (most)recent? He’s gone nuts…[/quote]

That USA/Gallup poll is the most recent.

Again though, it’s quite different from the others, which would lead one to believe that, absent an obvious cause for what is at minimum a 10% discrepency from the other recent polls, the outlier likely has a flaw.

68

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’d take lumpy any day over an “independent/say anything to appear wordly” like marm.
JeffR[/quote]

Thanks for the shout out.

I am registred unaffiliated.

You are just another AWM.

69

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hedo wrote:

How about Santorum vs. Casey in Pa.?

Santorum is closing the gap, so that one can’t just be penciled in as a Dem pick up. It will be extremely close, that’s about as comfortable as I am in making a call at this point.

It doesn’t seem like he’s closing the gap at 18 points back does it?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-31-midterm-elections_x.htm
of course Santorum is a nut so maybe he thinks he’s closing the gap. Still, he’s got time to pull it out…

You certainly know how to pull out the outlier don’t you:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/

That was the only poll at 18% – the others two recent polls were at 8% and 5%, respectively, with earlier ones from this month at around 6% as well. Unless I missed some major political flub or there’s an amazingly effective ad campaign running, I’d guess the outlier is wrong.

It’s the most recent poll? The context was closing the gap? Hello?

Care to place a wager on whether the next poll is closer to this outlier poll or to 6%?

Goodness, I apologized already for posting the current relevant info didn’t I?

So the answer is no, you don’t want to wager that the next poll will be closer to 6% than to 18%? Heck, I would be willing to say it will be closer to even than to 18%…

I’ll guess it’s within the average of 9 percent…

By the way BB, could you tell hedo that the poll I gave was (most)recent? He’s gone nuts…[/quote]

Funny coming from the resident moonbat.

Your Harris prediction was of course wrong.

Try rereading your posts…keep up with the adults.

70

The right wingnuts must be scared they are going to lose in November or why would they badger another left wingnut for several pages about a few political races.

The House and Senate are the GOP’s to lose.

The fact that the GOP will not gain any seats is an interesting topic but irrelevant as far as control of the legislature is concerned.

71

The problem with the '06 races is that the GOP deserves to lose – but the Dems don’t deserve to win…

72

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The problem with the '06 races is that the GOP deserves to lose – but the Dems don’t deserve to win…[/quote]

No doubt about it.

73

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The right wingnuts must be scared they are going to lose in November or why would they badger another left wingnut for several pages about a few political races.

The House and Senate are the GOP’s to lose.

The fact that the GOP will not gain any seats is an interesting topic but irrelevant as far as control of the legislature is concerned.[/quote]

Doubtful. They won’t lose control. No great groundswell. The majority has to want change, not just the fringe.

Kean just pulled ahead in NJ. Santorum is only behind by 8pts. now, at least by Rassmussen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/BalanceofPower.htm

74

[quote]hedo wrote:
The majority has to want change, not just the fringe.[/quote]

I agree that the majority has to want change but I would not call 49% of our country ‘the fringe’.

The GOP was not ‘the fringe’ before 1994 and neither are the Democrats today.

75

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
The majority has to want change, not just the fringe.

I agree that the majority has to want change but I would not call 49% of our country ‘the fringe’.

The GOP was not ‘the fringe’ before 1994 and neither are the Democrats today.[/quote]

The fringe of the Democratic party are setting the agenda for the party. The moderate Democrat doesn’t really stand a chance any longer. The middle class no longer belongs to the Dems as the ideals of the middle class no longer mirror those of the democratic party. The middle class was lost after the 2000 elections for the Dems.

The majority is not looking for a broad shake up of the legislature. In 1994 they were.

Not many incumbent senators are behind.

Congrssional races seem to be tightening as Nov. gets closer and in a close race the incumbent has the advantage.

76

[quote]hedo wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
The majority has to want change, not just the fringe.

I agree that the majority has to want change but I would not call 49% of our country ‘the fringe’.

The GOP was not ‘the fringe’ before 1994 and neither are the Democrats today.

The fringe of the Democratic party are setting the agenda for the party. The moderate Democrat doesn’t really stand a chance any longer. The middle class no longer belongs to the Dems as the ideals of the middle class no longer mirror those of the democratic party. The middle class was lost after the 2000 elections for the Dems.

The majority is not looking for a broad shake up of the legislature. In 1994 they were.

Not many incumbent senators are behind.

Congrssional races seem to be tightening as Nov. gets closer and in a close race the incumbent has the advantage.[/quote]

John Stewart likes so say that we only hear from the fringe of both parties because the rest of America has Sh!t to do.

I would not characterize the GOP in DC as mainstream Republicans or conservatives for that matter.

It is just too bad that the majority is so busy that they get drown out by the loud lunatics on both ends of the spectrum.

77

An incumbent is more likely to die in office than to lose re-election.

*Most politicians that think they are going to lose re-election bow out.

78

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
An incumbent is more likely to die in office than to lose re-election.

*Most politicians that think they are going to lose re-election bow out.[/quote]

Someone should have told Tom Daschle about that. Check that…I enjoyed watching him lose.

79

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hedo wrote:

How about Santorum vs. Casey in Pa.?

Santorum is closing the gap, so that one can’t just be penciled in as a Dem pick up. It will be extremely close, that’s about as comfortable as I am in making a call at this point.

It doesn’t seem like he’s closing the gap at 18 points back does it?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-31-midterm-elections_x.htm
of course Santorum is a nut so maybe he thinks he’s closing the gap. Still, he’s got time to pull it out…

You certainly know how to pull out the outlier don’t you:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/

That was the only poll at 18% – the others two recent polls were at 8% and 5%, respectively, with earlier ones from this month at around 6% as well. Unless I missed some major political flub or there’s an amazingly effective ad campaign running, I’d guess the outlier is wrong.

It’s the most recent poll? The context was closing the gap? Hello?

Care to place a wager on whether the next poll is closer to this outlier poll or to 6%?

Goodness, I apologized already for posting the current relevant info didn’t I?

So the answer is no, you don’t want to wager that the next poll will be closer to 6% than to 18%? Heck, I would be willing to say it will be closer to even than to 18%…

I’ll guess it’s within the average of 9 percent…

By the way BB, could you tell hedo that the poll I gave was (most)recent? He’s gone nuts…

Funny coming from the resident moonbat.

Your Harris prediction was of course wrong.

Try rereading your posts…keep up with the adults.

[/quote]

You think Harris will win in Nov? I’ll put 5 dollar on that!

80

[quote]hedo wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
The majority has to want change, not just the fringe.

I agree that the majority has to want change but I would not call 49% of our country ‘the fringe’.

The GOP was not ‘the fringe’ before 1994 and neither are the Democrats today.

The fringe of the Democratic party are setting the agenda for the party. The moderate Democrat doesn’t really stand a chance any longer. The middle class no longer belongs to the Dems as the ideals of the middle class no longer mirror those of the democratic party. The middle class was lost after the 2000 elections for the Dems.

The majority is not looking for a broad shake up of the legislature. In 1994 they were.

Not many incumbent senators are behind.

Congrssional races seem to be tightening as Nov. gets closer and in a close race the incumbent has the advantage.

[/quote]

Define the fringe. Who are “they” and what positions specifically are totally out of touch with the mainstream.