obama at 91.4% to win

[k0ijn]

When Romney started getting ahead the polls didnt matter. Now that they are looking better for Obama suddenly they gain relevance again.

I blame media dishonesty for alot of this.

Rmoney was never ahead in the electoral vote.
Go read a credible statistic for once in your life.
I'm not even from the US and I know your country's immediate history better than you.. You should be embarrassed by your ignorance.

The popular vote might have been close (and still is within about 2%) but that doesn't matter in your country's system.
Electoral votes matter.

Rmoney has never been ahead in the electoral votes.

What the percentages value is the chance of winning based on electoral votes.
And at this stage he is behind Obamas 91.6% (Rmoney has 8.4% for the mathematically inept of you).

 

[NLXSK1]

I heard a quote the other day.

"Pollsters were created to make Astrologists numbers credible"

You may be in for a rude awakening tonight.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Rmoney was never ahead in the electoral vote.
Go read a credible statistic for once in your life.
I'm not even from the US and I know your country's immediate history better than you.. You should be embarrassed by your ignorance.

The popular vote might have been close (and still is within about 2%) but that doesn't matter in your country's system.
Electoral votes matter.

Rmoney has never been ahead in the electoral votes.

What the percentages value is the chance of winning based on electoral votes.
And at this stage he is behind Obamas 91.6% (Rmoney has 8.4% for the mathematically inept of you).

whats going on in this election is not "Immediate History", it's called Current Events,, your post doesnt even deal with Current Events it relies on Furture Projections based om models derived from statistics (and those are always spot on)

statistics which in my personal view (as a Gary Johnson Voter) are geared to discourage the vote among the candidates who are NOT favoured by the media establishment. I for one vote for who I want to vote for, not for the guy projected to be the winner by some pollster weenbag with a personal axe to grind.

the "chance of winning" stated by you is NOT assigned electoral votes, since the polls havent closed yet both candidates currently have ZERO electoral votes. youre quoting prognostications as if they are fact.

edit: Further, NOBODY is claiming obama will receive 90+% of the electoral vote. nobody but you....

 

[Harrekin]

whats going on in this election is not "Immediate History", it's called Current Events,, your post doesnt even deal with Current Events it relies on Furture Projections based om models derived from statistics (and those are always spot on)

statistics which in my personal view (as a Gary Johnson Voter) are geared to discourage the vote among the candidates who are NOT favoured by the media establishment. I for one vote for who I want to vote for not for the guy projected to be the winner by some pollster weenbag with a personal axe to grind.

the "chance of winning" stated by you is NOT assigned electoral votes, since the polls havent closed yet bot candidates currently have ZERO electoral votes. youre quoting prognostications as if they are fact.

An American is trying to change the two party system by realising all he has to do is vote for who he actually wants to win?!

Unheard of...good show sir, good show.

 

[Dr Kynes]

An American is trying to change the two party system by realising all he has to do is vote for who he actually wants to win?!

Unheard of...good show sir, good show.

theres only one other way to change the course of an election.

but the FBI and secret service get pissed if you even make a joke about that...

 

[k0ijn]

I heard a quote the other day.

"Pollsters were created to make Astrologists numbers credible"

You may be in for a rude awakening tonight.

Wonderful change of subject there. Instead of addressing the points I made.
It just goes to prove what I've been saying all along.

whats going on in this election is not "Immediate History", it's called Current Events,, your post doesnt even deal with Current Events it relies on Furture Projections based om models derived from statistics (and those are always spot on)

statistics which in my personal view (as a Gary Johnson Voter) are geared to discourage the vote among the candidates who are NOT favoured by the media establishment. I for one vote for who I want to vote for, not for the guy projected to be the winner by some pollster weenbag with a personal axe to grind.

the "chance of winning" stated by you is NOT assigned electoral votes, since the polls havent closed yet both candidates currently have ZERO electoral votes. youre quoting prognostications as if they are fact.

edit: Further, NOBODY is claiming obama will receive 90+% of the electoral vote. nobody but you....

Of course it is. Immediate history is the same as current events, either way you spin it it's the same thing. It doesn't matter what you call it.

I agree that statistics are not always correct.
But we're talking about an educated economist who's been very near perfectly correct in past elections.
This guy knows his stuff and to discredit his views and calculations simply because you don't think statistics are credible is ignorant.

I know it's not assigned electoral votes.
I never said it was. Don't try to twist my words.

What I said was that the chance of winning is calculated by the predicted states, to which side they fall, thus by electoral votes.
I never said that the votes are in and it's certain. I said it from the beginning it is a CHANCE calculation.
Just like bookmakers use to determine odds. It's simply odds.
No I didn't quote them as if they are facts.
I never claimed that Obama will receive 90% of the electoral votes.

I claimed that Obama has a 91.6% chance of WINNING based on projected electoral votes (whether states go dem or rep).

No matter how much you try to twist my words it won't work.
I never once said that Obama will receive 90% of the electoral votes.
And the fact that you have to resort to lying just proves how ignorant you are.
It's ridiculous and it just proves my point again.

You guys will do anything to twist words and views.
You will say anything to try to discredit what I've said even though I never said anything about Obama receiving 90% of the electoral votes.
Who exactly are you trying to fool here?

Look through my comments. Quote me where I said Obama would receive 90% of the electoral votes.

 

[k0ijn]

An American is trying to change the two party system by realising all he has to do is vote for who he actually wants to win?!

Unheard of...good show sir, good show.

Great job on liking lying statements btw. Really class act there.

 

[Doer]

Rmoney was never ahead in the electoral vote.
Go read a credible statistic for once in your life.
I'm not even from the US and I know your country's immediate history better than you.. You should be embarrassed by your ignorance.

The popular vote might have been close (and still is within about 2%) but that doesn't matter in your country's system.
Electoral votes matter.

Rmoney has never been ahead in the electoral votes.

What the percentages value is the chance of winning based on electoral votes.
And at this stage he is behind Obamas 91.6% (Rmoney has 8.4% for the mathematically inept of you).

So, you don't even live here. You weren't raised here, don't know our society, at all. And, yet, you know the mathematically odds.

What happens if the States don't vote the way you think? Will you lose your bet. Or didn't you put your money in,
just your mouth?

 

[Carne Seca]

theres only one other way to change the course of an election.

but the FBI and secret service get pissed if you even make a joke about that...

That is so wrong.

 

[k0ijn]

So, you don't even live here. You weren't raised here, don't know our society, at all. And, yet, you know the mathematically odds.

What happens if the States don't vote the way you think?

I know your society better than you do it seems.
You don't even value people like Nate.

I don't have to live in your country to read or to follow intelligent educated peoples deductions about what's happening in your country.

All it takes is a visit here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

All the info is there in an unbiased scientifically backed up manner.
I'm not stating my personal opinion, I'm stating the opinion of someone smarter than all you put together.
Someone who knows more about your country and politics than any of you ever will.

 

[NLXSK1]

Wonderful change of subject there. Instead of addressing the points I made.
It just goes to prove what I've been saying all along.




Of course it is. Immediate history is the same as current events, either way you spin it it's the same thing. It doesn't matter what you call it.

I agree that statistics are not always correct.
But we're talking about an educated economist who's been very near perfectly correct in past elections.
This guy knows his stuff and to discredit his views and calculations simply because you don't think statistics are credible is ignorant.

I know it's not assigned electoral votes.
I never said it was. Don't try to twist my words.

What I said was that the chance of winning is calculated by the predicted states, to which side they fall, thus by electoral votes.
I never said that the votes are in and it's certain. I said it from the beginning it is a CHANCE calculation.
Just like bookmakers use to determine odds. It's simply odds.
No I didn't quote them as if they are facts.
I never claimed that Obama will receive 90% of the electoral votes.

I claimed that Obama has a 91.6% chance of WINNING based on projected electoral votes (whether states go dem or rep).

No matter how much you try to twist my words it won't work.
I never once said that Obama will receive 90% of the electoral votes.
And the fact that you have to resort to lying just proves how ignorant you are.
It's ridiculous and it just proves my point again.

You guys will do anything to twist words and views.
You will say anything to try to discredit what I've said even though I never said anything about Obama receiving 90% of the electoral votes.
Who exactly are you trying to fool here?

Look through my comments. Quote me where I said Obama would receive 90% of the electoral votes.

Hey K0jin? It aint all about you...

If the polls are wrong then the electoral count will be wrong.

I am not going to spend the day arguing with you about what will happen this evening. Either I am right or I am wrong about my beliefs and we will know shortly.

You seem to have an enormous amount of angst considering you think Obama has a 90%+ chance of winning.

 

[k0ijn]

Hey K0jin? It aint all about you...

If the polls are wrong then the electoral count will be wrong.

I am not going to spend the day arguing with you about what will happen this evening. Either I am right or I am wrong about my beliefs and we will know shortly.

You seem to have an enormous amount of angst considering you think Obama has a 90%+ chance of winning.

I know the fucking polls can be wrong.
But a 90%+ chance is still a 90%+ chance.
And the fact that you brush it off because "Romney lead the polls once too" when it's not comparable in the same sense at all (Romney had a slight popular vote lead versus Obamas current huge chance lead (based on projected electoral votes)) is just wrong imo.
You can't compare the two.

I don't have angst regarding Obamas win.
I'm just getting slighty annoyed that you are lying about my statements and twisting my point.

You're trying to say that I said Obama will win 90% of the electoral votes when I never said anything like that.
You are straight up lying, and that bothers me.

 

[NLXSK1]

I know the fucking polls can be wrong.
But a 90%+ chance is still a 90%+ chance.
And the fact that you brush it off because "Romney lead the polls once too" when it's not comparable in the same sense at all (Romney had a slight popular vote lead versus Obamas current huge chance lead (based on projected electoral votes)) is just wrong imo.
You can't compare the two.

I don't have angst regarding Obamas win.
I'm just getting slighty annoyed that you are lying about my statements and twisting my point.

You're trying to say that I said Obama will win 90% of the electoral votes when I never said anything like that.
You are straight up lying, and that bothers me.

DUDE RELAX!!!!!

Here is what I am saying...

The polls are weighted heavily democratic. From +3 to +11. The +11 is in the latest CNN poll that puts them nationally equal. Weighting is just an educated guess and guesses can be wrong.

Secondly, the Chick Filet vote is what happened when the Chick Filet owner got castigated for saying he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Boycotts were called for and instead of a successful boycott, chick filet got MOBBED for 1 day with supporters. People didnt yell, scream and protest, they simply voted with their feet and their dollars and showed what they thought of the political correctness.

Thirdly, anyone who disagrees with Obama for 4 years has been labelled a racist, etc. That continuous beating makes people shy to tell who they are really going to vote for because they dont want to be labeled.

Also, when a black and white candidate are running against each other the polls tend to overstate the amount of people who are going to vote for the black candidate because of #3 above.

Fourth... It's the economy stupid...

Fifth, the enthusiasm is definitely more on the Republican side. 4 years ago an Obama rally with Bruce Springsteen brought 80,000 people. This year they managed about 18,000 for the same rally. People are disinterested. Contrast that to the fact that Romney is bringing 30,000+ crowds and you have quite a difference in interest.

Sixth, many of the people who came out to vote for Obama in 2008 are inconsistant voters such as students and minorities. There is no evidence that support is going to be anywhere near as strong for Obama this year.

Seventh, it is the economy stupid......


We are going to find out tonight how your 90%+ of whatever bullshit you believe holds up to reality...

 

[Carne Seca]

Secondly, the Chick Filet vote is what happened when the Chick Filet owner got castigated for saying he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Boycotts were called for and instead of a successful boycott, chick filet got MOBBED for 1 day with supporters. People didnt yell, scream and protest, they simply voted with their feet and their dollars and showed what they thought of the political correctness.
.

The Chick-fil-A protest was about the owner giving money to the organization that was responsible for instigating and helping to sponsor the Kill-the-Gays bill in Uganda. And. Ultimately responsible for the murder of several gay activists and gay couples. Some of them were burned alive. One activist was beaten to death with a hammer in his own home. It was more than him stating he supported "traditional" marriage. The media completely fucked this one up.

 

[kelly4]

No. He means Romneys dumb ass will run again, for a third time. Talk about derp. Anyone that got past fourth grade knows you can only be elected twice, kelly4...

It's called a play on words....ya bunch of mongoloids.

 

[NLXSK1]

The Chick-fil-A protest was about the owner giving money to the organization that was responsible for instigating and helping to sponsor the Kill-the-Gays bill in Uganda. And. Ultimately responsible for the murder of several gay activists and gay couples. Some of them were burned alive. One activist was beaten to death with a hammer in his own home. It was more than him stating he supported "traditional" marriage. The media completely fucked this one up.

The line for the tri-lateral commission forms to the right...

 

[kelly4]

Bookmakers have already paid out bets on Obama

Source please.

 

[k0ijn]

Source please.

http://blog.paddypower.com/2012/11/04/paddy-power-pays-out-400000-on-obama-victory-in-u-s-presidential-election/

 

[Carne Seca]

It's called a play on words....ya bunch of mongoloids.

Nerves are high. It's been a loooong election season. Hopefully senses of humor will return to normal once this is all over.

 

[kelly4]

http://blog.paddypower.com/2012/11/04/paddy-power-pays-out-400000-on-obama-victory-in-u-s-presidential-election/

I should have known.

Only in Europe...