Patterico's Pontifications

10/13/2008

For Everyone Convinced The Election Is Over

Filed under: 2008 Election — WLS @ 1:55 am



Posted by WLS:

The Gallup tracking poll out Saturday showed the Obama lead down to 7, from a recent high of 11. But, as I noted earlier this week, Gallup continues to post a tracking poll of “Registered Voters” rather than “Likely Voters.”

Well, buried inside the story accompanying Gallup’s poll on Saturday was this little nugget:

Obama’s current advantage is slightly less when estimating the preferences of likely voters, which Gallup will begin reporting on a regular basis between now and the election. Gallup is providing two likely voter estimates to take into account different turnout scenarios.

The first likely voter model is based on Gallup’s traditional likely voter assumptions, which determine respondents’ likelihood to vote based on how they answer questions about their current voting intention and past voting behavior. According to this model, Obama’s advantage over McCain is 50% to 46% in Oct. 9-11 tracking data.

Likely Voters — 50-46.

Four points.

135 Responses to “For Everyone Convinced The Election Is Over”

  1. 50 is more than 46! OBAMA WON THE ELECTION!!!

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  2. can you say, PRESIDENT OBAMA???

    go on, try it. you can do it. you’re an american!!!

    archanjo (796e48)

  3. Turn out the lights and concede that the Anointed One is unstoppable..hope and change vs. Bush Redux. You don’t want rioting in the streets and democrats flummoxed again, do you? Imagine the joy on the faces of the Euroweenies and the DU/Code Pinko/Moron.org/etc. crowds with an Obama victory.

    What gets me is the extreme hatred along with media bias against Sarah Palin. I was thinking about a Messiah victory and then an unexpected diagnosis of aggressive lung cancer (not wishing it though). Joe Biden as Potus. Thirty five years experience in the Senate being an ass who is usually wrong on all things foreign policy. Say it ain’t so. Or conversely, McCain dropping out and Palin running the show. How would she be much different than Bush in 2000? Less compassionate conservative/less kissing a Teddy K’s arse? Regardless we are stuck now with a Senator taking over and Obama’s only real executive experience spending Annenberg’s money with Ayers and really not showing any positive results. At least he plans to have ACORN providing wisdom on what ways to pursue an agenda.
    My Venezuelan friends often refer to Hugo Chavez as The Monkey. Of course that would be racist applied to Obama (Remember Howard Cosell’s little monkey reference?). But there are parallels in what the future may hold and Obama’s nomination was something of a coup against Hillary. Btw, wondering whether the Pumas will consider what is best for the country over mere party affiliation?

    nobama- BEND OVER AMERICA

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  4. Yup, gallup is giving the likely voter numbers as the election grows near and shows what every other legitimate poll is showing, it’s going to be a close race. If there is anything like a “Brady” effect of 3-5 points, depending on the states, McCain is still very much in this contest.

    james conrad (6bb6e6)

  5. Can you say, NOT MY PRESIDENT (OBAMA???)

    Go on, try it. you can do it. You’re a Democrat!!!

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  6. I have officially broken my sword

    EricPWJohnson (925f3c)

  7. Likely Voters — 50-46.

    Four points.

    What’s the margin of error???

    50 is more than 46! OBAMA WON THE ELECTION!!!

    John Kerry Takes 4-point Lead in New Poll (October 8, 2004)

    Kerry takes lead in new opinion poll
    Washington
    October 8, 2004 – 5:29PM

    Democrat John Kerry has taken a slight lead over US President George W Bush, according to a new opinion poll. The survey by the Associated Press found that Kerry had gained ground with women, boosting his overall popularity and cutting into the president’s advantage on national security.

    The two candidates remain in a very close race ahead of a second debate tomorrow in St. Louis.

    Among 944 likely voters, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and John Edwards led Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, 50 per cent to 46 per cent, in the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

    It is not over until the horizonaly challenged female person vocalises

    Dan Kauffman (b31cae)

  8. Excellent point about that last election, Dan.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  9. If there is anything like a “Brady” effect of 3-5 points, depending on the states, McCain is still very much in this contest.

    Brady effect? What is that? People who claim to support Obama, but come election day they, can’t pull the lever for a “James Brady” anti-NRA candidate?

    aunursa (c07e29)

  10. “…Obama is leading 53 percent to 43 percent among likely voters, and for the first time in the general-election campaign, voters gave the Democrat a clear edge on tax policy and providing strong leadership…” (WaPo, 10/13/08)

    Tom (1e141b)

  11. I wonder,
    Can gallup and the rest take into account those of us that lie to pollsters?
    I personally am aware of four people (Including myself) that lie to pollsters at every chance. We hope to, one day, invalidate this kidnapping of the Electoral process.
    So, again I ask, can polling organizations take liars into account?
    I mean there are only two types of results:
    Stated and revealed. My stated is alot different than my revealed. How about you?

    paul from Fl (4dd8c4)

  12. Really love to see your faces on Nov.5th. It will really be the sight!

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  13. love2008: We know you’ll be here to rub it in if Obama prevails. Will you bother to show up to eat crow if he loses?

    aunursa (c07e29)

  14. #11
    In other words you are a lying racist, right? Correct me if I read you wrongly.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  15. The Washington Post poll that Tom cited had a breakdown of 39% Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 27% Independents.

    aunursa (c07e29)

  16. Brady effect? What is that? People who claim to support Obama, but come election day they, can’t pull the lever for a “James Brady” anti-NRA candidate?

    Comment by aunursa — 10/13/2008 @ 5:32 am

    Sweet jesus, please tell me that not an actual, serious question…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  17. #13
    Deal! :)

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  18. Love2008,
    I am sure your tongue was firmly in your cheek when calling me a racist.
    1) I don’t care for the polling industry and seek to invalidate it.
    2) I don’t care what color Obama is, he is not ready to serve. No executive experience. period.
    My opinion is what it is. I and my family have paid for my right, as well as yours to have political opinions.
    oh and to be clear.
    I am not racist, just Republican.

    paul from Fl (4dd8c4)

  19. International markets are up 10% not good for Zerobama. Even with the MSM in his pocket this guy can’t close the deal.

    Bfidler (e6db0a)

  20. The polls this year are probably the least reliable since 1948. Some of it is volatility and some is manipulation by biased media, like Newsweek.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  21. #16 Scott Jacobs,

    No. It’s an attempt at humor.

    aunursa (c07e29)

  22. Lovey, you mind saying goodbye here before you jump off the Golden Gate Bridge when McCain is sworn in as President on 1/20/09?

    PCD (7fe637)

  23. No. It’s an attempt at humor

    Oh thank god…

    I only asked to make sure because I had to explain the Bradey effect to the entirety of my PoliSci class (State and local Gov’t), including the instructor…

    I kinda wanted to cry.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  24. #18
    Anyone reading your comment #11 could have come to the same conclusion. But thanks for clearing things up. I respect your choice. Truth is, it’s not a winning choice. Not this year.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  25. What is really interesting about this poll is that it was done over the weekend. Weekend polls have been known to favor democrats, and for it to be this close over the weekend, means the race is probably even closer. Ayers effect anyone?

    Nancy (fc83d1)

  26. #22
    Let’s just follow your fantasy and say yes I would. But since McCain can only win in your dreams, I would turn into a dog and bite your big ass, if it happens. In your dream, that is. :)

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  27. I am sure your tongue was firmly in your cheek when calling me a racist.

    When it comes to posts coming from the Bobo, one can never tell, due to the passive – aggressive nature of the Bobo’s tone and content. Note the Bobo’s frequent use of disparaging remarks, often followed by the smiley emoticon. Quite common among the other gelatinous molds that populate your local Chuck E. Cheese’s.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  28. #27
    Hi doofy. Now wipe that drool off of your mouth. You don’t want strangers knowing about your family’s little secret, do you. Now thaaaaaaats it….. Good boy. Now run along and play with your little friends.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  29. #11
    In other words you are a lying racist, right? Correct me if I read you wrongly.

    Comment by love2008

    Or maybe an lying anti-Marxist?

    Why do Liberals always attribute reactions
    to the color of a person’s skin? Might it
    not show a tendency towards racistphobia?

    A person might gladly be prepared to vote for Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, or Michael Steele for public office, but antipathy towards Barack Obama draws an immediaten reaction from you of the label, “racist”

    Which says more about you than them.

    Dan Kauffman (b31cae)

  30. It is not over until the horizonaly challenged female person vocalises

    No duh.

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  31. What is really interesting about this poll is that it was done over the weekend. Weekend polls have been known to favor democrats…
    Comment by Nancy — 10/13/2008 @ 6:36 am

    Interesting; didn’t know about that dynamic. Why is that?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  32. #29
    Yeah, you are right. Next?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  33. #29
    Yeah, you are right. Next?

    Comment by love2008 — 10/13/2008 @ 7:09 am

    Well…so you’re saying that you know you accused someone of racism for no reason? (Am surprised – expected you to say you were joking. But you didn’t.)

    And, since you agreed that that “says more about you” than paul from FL, what exactly do you think that says about you?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  34. love2008

    Troll hammers comin…..

    EricPWJohnson (925f3c)

  35. 29.

    A person might gladly be prepared to vote for Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, or Michael Steele for public office, but antipathy towards Barack Obama draws an immediaten reaction from you of the label, “racist”

    Which says more about you than them.

    Comment by Dan Kauffman — 10/13/2008 @ 7:03 am

    Hence, the repeated, vicious, violent, hateful, malicious comments directed toward Sarah Palin because she’s female AND a Republican. None of which are condemned by those who would paint John McCain and his supporters as “racist” here.

    As I always say when liberals spew as I’ve linked above, how “progressive.”

    BTW, I only ran out of adjectives, not examples.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  36. Now thaaaaaaats it….. Good boy.

    The Bobo longs to be a sentient being, but once that becomes an impossibility, it resorts to grade – school language and vernacular, primarily because of it’s proximity to toddlers at Chuck E. Cheese’s.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  37. Now wipe that drool off of your mouth.

    The Bobo often projects it’s own worst fears onto others, since toddler drool is a common problem for The Bobo in it’s natural state.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  38. Love2008

    Honestly, don’t get yourself banned – but the guy who established this blog and his volunteers try to keep the rhectoric down so they don’t hgave to do things that require even more of their time

    Arguing that polling is more indicative is fine – calling people racists because pollesters do not take liars into account is stretching it to the extreme

    Remember – if your side wins your can point to the scoreboard for months…..

    but not if you’re banned for starting where you left off yesterday

    EricPWJohnson (925f3c)

  39. ???Brady Effect???

    Let’s fix this….Bradley Effect,
    known for the manner in which polling called the CA Gov election for Tom Bradley, but the real votes elected George Deukmejian in 1982.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  40. #33
    Yeah, he is right to call me “racismphobic” becuase I hate every thing that resembles that evil thing called racism. Even if it is meant to be a joke. He is right. I am racismphobic.
    And mind you, I never accused him of being a racist. I was simply trying to make him see how i saw his comment. But then he has explained himself. Why is everybody trying to gang up on that? It’s not red enough meat.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  41. #38

    To be fair, in class I did call it the Bradley Effect…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  42. #33
    Yeah, he is right to call me “racismphobic” becuase I hate every thing that resembles that evil thing called racism. Even if it is meant to be a joke. He is right. I am racismphobic.
    And mind you, I never accused him of being a racist. I was simply trying to make him see how i saw his comment.
    Comment by love2008 — 10/13/2008 @ 7:27 am

    Sorry, I truly don’t understand this comment, so forgive me for pressing the point.

    In one short comment, you say, not once but twice, that you immediately perceived his comment as racist (you thought it “resembled” racism, and you “saw his comment” as racist). But then you contradict yourself and say you “meant it to be a joke.” After inveighing on how evil racism is (as if we don’t all agree with you on that–of course we do agree).

    Please explain (1) the contradiction in your comment, and (2) how you came to, as you say you did, see racism (where none was expressed). Thanks.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  43. I was simply trying to make him see how i saw his comment.

    As observed previously, the Bobo habitually makes nasty insinuations of others, only to backtrack furiously with mealy – mouthed excuses and frequent uses of smiley faces at the end of passive – aggressive accusations.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  44. Sorry, I just realized you may have meant that paul in FL meant it to be a joke.

    And if that’s the case I ask, then where was any reference to race in his “joke”?

    Because either way it appears as though you’re accusing someone of racism where none occurred. Please correct me in any place I don’t understand.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  45. RACISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (f7900a)

  46. RACISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by JD — 10/13/2008 @ 7:41 am

    You deliberately disenfranchised the “eleventy.” Bigot.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  47. Gallup’s polling is moving from polling registered voters to likely voters. So let me take you back a bit: shortly after the Republican Convention Gallup released a poll showing John McCain leading 54-44. This was the only national survey showing McCain with a lead larger than 2 points, and was an obvious outlier.

    As I wrote at the time, this was hardly the first time Gallup’s Likely Voter Model had produced strange results. In 1996 and 2000 Gallup’s polling was terrible. For example, one observer noted that “on October 24, 2000 Gallup had Gore ahead of Bush by one point. Three days later, on October 27, they had Bush ahead by 13″.

    So given its disastrous track record with likely voters, Gallup this year doesn’t have one likely voter model, it has two!!! The first model is “Gallup’s traditional likely voter assumptions, which determine respondents’ likelihood to vote based on how they answer questions about their current voting intention and past voting behavior”

    Translation: this is the same crappy model that we have used in the past. We know this model stinks, so to cover ourselves we have this second model which is based on “is only based on respondents’ current voting intention. This model would take into account increased voter registration this year and possibly higher turnout among groups that are traditionally less likely to vote, such as young adults and racial minorities”.

    So the difference between the two models is the second is based only on what the interviewee says they are going to do, while the old model uses past behavior to try and measure if the interviewee is going to vote. It will be interesting over time to see how different the two models diverge.

    I doubt there will be much discussion about the real cause of Gallup’s decision to use two polling models, but I really don’t have much doubt: they know their first attempt in this cycle to use a likely voter screen failed miserably, and given their recent history they are trying to cover their you know what’s.

    But really what it shows is that they don’t know what they are doing.

    http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=59EEC8BDADD1B0BFC594F47D8C2FE655?diaryId=9045

    jharp (2282bb)

  48. How much of the yooth/koolaid drinkers for O vote will turn out this cycle? The long dead in the grave dem vote? college students and snowbirds voting multiple times?
    If Obama were white and a Republican, I’d still pass on him due to lack of good character. His long time assocations are repulsive in the extreme.

    Not so sure I would be mortified if Obama did win. I cannot see him being anything less than incompetent and he’s never worked across the aisle. No biggie since he may well have a filibuster proof majority in the collegial senate. At least with all dems controlling Congress and Potus one might think they’d have full responsibility and accountability for the consequences for their lame policies. Figure there will be another layer of bureaucracy for socialized medicine, Obama’s “volunteer” jackbooted thugs, much more power to unions with the check card folly, freer immigration and mass naturalization despite what 80% of the citizens desire, far left jurists that the meek opposition in the Senate won’t raise any hell over, ass-kissing of various despots abroad, taxes going to the UN and sundry tin horn dictators in O’s beloved sub-Saharan Africa, confiscatory taxes, smack down of American Oil companies and so on.
    Can hyperinflation and/or a Deep world-wide Depression not be far behind? Is there life before death? Do the toes really know? Can the trolls here dispute the facts about Obama? What has he ever done to show he’s a leader or not on the far left? Sad days for America ahead. Thanks for the assist, big media.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  49. “Figure there will be another layer of bureaucracy for socialized medicine”

    No one is proposing socialized medicine.

    No one.

    Why don’t you try actually discussing the difference in the two plans instead of spreading false snippets?

    jharp (2282bb)

  50. #43
    Why don’t you carefully read comment #11 and tell me your thoughts. Like I added in my response to him, I wanted to be sure I was reading him well. That at least will tell you i was not drawing a conclusion. Just wanted to know whether he meant it that way. Which he has clarified. Why is this still an issue?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  51. Yeah, he is right to call me “racismphobic” becuase I hate every thing that resembles that evil thing called racism.

    So you were upset by Obama’s quoting Wright’s bit about “a world in need run by white man’s greed”?

    Or not?

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  52. Comment by madmax333 — 10/13/2008 @ 7:46 am

    “…If Obama were white and a Republican…” he would never have won a single Primary!

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  53. “What has he ever done to show he’s a leader”

    He led a campaign to win the democratic nomination against the heavily favored Hillary Clinton.

    Like him or not you’ve got to tip your hat to his accomplishment.

    And that’s with the dittoheads crossing over to Clinton in “operation chaos” as per the drug addicted Limbo.

    jharp (2282bb)

  54. Why don’t you carefully read comment #11 and tell me your thoughts.

    There’s absolutely nothing in that comment about race. It’s about polling, and the commenter not caring for polling and the way it’s become bandwagon propaganda.

    Why is this still an issue?

    Because eagerness to impart racist motivations to others is always an issue.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  55. Comment by love2008 — 10/13/2008 @ 7:53 am

    I did read # 11 carefully, and your response at # 14. Here is your comment there:

    #11
    In other words you are a lying racist, right? Correct me if I read you wrongly.

    paul in FL did say he lied to pollsters so you said “lying” – I understand that part. What I don’t get is how at all you perceived in any way shape or form that race was an issue with his polling remarks.

    And to answer your question:


    Why is this still an issue?

    It’s still an issue because, my dear love2008, you’re still making it one by saying you did indeed perceive that there was or might be racism in his comment.

    I ask again: where in the comment does any form of reference to race appear? Because if it is true that (1) you perceive racism where none at all existed, and (2) further imply someone else is possibly racist because of your race-focus, then that does indeed “say more about you” than # 11.

    And, sorry to say, I don’t like what those two conclusions would say about you.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  56. #48
    Yes. Very offended. And I strongly condemn Wright and his racist rhetoric. That is not what we need today.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  57. Yes. Very offended. And I strongly condemn Wright and his racist rhetoric. That is not what we need today.

    And yet you support someone who listened to that crap for 20 years, and appear eager to slime anyone who doesn’t with the label “racist”.

    Lovey, one of the reasons I oppose Obama is because it’s quite obvious he has no problem with racists. Why someone who claims to “hate every thing that resembles that evil thing called racism” supports someone so comfortable with racism is a mystery to me, though I’m sure you have your own rationalizations.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  58. Comment by no one you know — 10/13/2008 @ 8:03 am

    To brain-dead liberals, everything is about race.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  59. #53
    You have no evidence to prove that assertion. It fails the truth test. Saying Obama supports racism is one thing, proving it is yet another. Majority of people supporting Obama are whites. Because he is not a racist. Stop lying.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  60. noyk – Standard fare for lovie, yet again. It will not answer a simple direct question, and attempts to divert away from its aggressive mischaraterizations and outright dishonest statements.

    JD (f7900a)

  61. love2008,
    in case I didn’t ask directly enough before,

    what is the part of paul from FL’s comment # 11 that you said you perceived as “resembling” racism and made you say he was a “…racist, right? Correct me if I read you wrongly.”

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  62. The deafening sound of crickets chirping …

    JD (f7900a)

  63. noyk – Standard fare for lovie, yet again. It will not answer a simple direct question, and attempts to divert away from its aggressive mischaraterizations and outright dishonest statements.

    Comment by JD — 10/13/2008 @ 8:41 am

    Sure appears that way at this point, to be honest. Am sure you (JD) get that in spite of being determined to be civil in every respect in this conversation, I am not cool with what said poster has just done and will continue to press this point until I get an answer or an admission that the racism charge (and that is what it was despite the claim that “correct me if I’m wrong” is akin to “just asking questions”) was unfounded.

    I do believe that people need to be called on tossing around accusations of racism, or anything else for that matter, on not only flimsy evidence but no evidence whatsoever. Wrong thing to do.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  64. Peace out.

    It’s about 75 and sunny and I’m going to play golf with my right wing friends.

    jharp (2282bb)

  65. Racist

    JD (f7900a)

  66. That is what they do, noyk. Timmah did that in another thread, just this morning. They cry racism at every time, and then have the temerity to blame it on their political opponents.

    JD (f7900a)

  67. That is what they do, noyk. Timmah did that in another thread, just this morning. They cry racism at every turn, and then have the temerity to blame it on their political opponents.

    Fixed that.

    JD (f7900a)

  68. Chuck Todd was talking about weekend polls, they tend to oversample democrats due to a “variety of factors”, there is a slate story about it saying that it is a common perception among pollsters, If you look at the trends in the daily polls, they tend to widen for Obama on the weekend and narrow slightly during the week. The exact reason for this, I dont know frankly, but the numbers tend to hold true for democratic advantage during the weekends.

    Nancy (fc83d1)

  69. #51
    noyk
    I ask again: where in the comment does any form of reference to race appear? Because if it is true that (1) you perceive racism where none at all existed, and (2) further imply someone else is possibly racist because of your race-focus, then that does indeed “say more about you” than # 11.

    And, sorry to say, I don’t like what those two conclusions would say about you.

    Ever heard about the “Bradley Effect.”? I am sure you have. His comment sounded like that. After this comment by conrad,
    “Yup, gallup is giving the likely voter numbers as the election grows near and shows what every other legitimate poll is showing, it’s going to be a close race. If there is anything like a “Brady” effect of 3-5 points, depending on the states, McCain is still very much in this contest.

    Comment by james conrad — 10/13/2008 @ 4:17 am
    the issue of the Bradley effect was raised on this thread. If you read the above comment, it sounded like he, conrad was betting on that Bradley effect myth, happening to Obama. That seemed to be one of mcCain’s hopes of winning. That people who may be telling pollsters who they may be voting for may not be telling the truth. Especially those indicating support for Obama. It was after that that Comment #11 came. I was looking at his comment in the light of the above stated issue. Was he echoing the same sentiment that he may be lying by saying he supports Obama but won’t pull the handle for him in the voting booth? It is a fact that a lot of Americans haven’t gotten over their racism. They may pretend to support a black candidate during the campaign period, only to turn their backs on him when it came to actually voting. This is true. My reaction to Paul from FL. was based on that. But he has clarified it for me.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  70. Here is a link to one such story about democratic advantage in polls:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_40_16/ai_72328737

    There are not many current articles on the topic, most are from the last election, but the point they make is to be wary of weekend polling.

    Nancy (fc83d1)

  71. “…Bradley effect myth…”

    That would come as a surprise to James Taranto of the WSJ-Online.

    Self-delusional, and a prevaricator too!

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  72. NEWS FLASH….
    Nobel Cmte awards prize in Economics to Enron Advisor, Paul Krugman!

    Dolts!

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  73. From Wikipedia:

    “In the 1989 race for Mayor of New York, a poll conducted just over a week before the election showed black candidate David Dinkins holding an 18-point lead over white candidate Rudy Giuliani. Four days before the election, a new poll showed that lead to have shrunk, but still standing at 14 points. On the day of the election, Dinkins prevailed by only two points.

    Also keep in mind that the Republican presidential candidate can win the election even while losing the popular vote by 1 point, as in 2000.

    Official Internet Data Office (ec4069)

  74. Comment by love2008 — 10/13/2008 @ 9:02 am

    OK, I’ve read your comment. Appreciate your taking the time to explain that.

    A person who wanted to check that out in a civil way wouldn’t assume racism, which is indeed what you did (you assumed the worst possible explanation right off the bat, when paul in FL had said NOTHING about race, only about a desire to fool what he saw as a misused tool:

    I personally am aware of four people (Including myself) that lie to pollsters at every chance. We hope to, one day, invalidate this kidnapping of the Electoral process.–paul in FL, comment # 11

    IOW he GAVE you his reason for lying. And it had nothing to do with race.

    I’m sorry, but the most charitable interpretation I can give to your comment is that you had the race focus and projected it on another who gave a reason – completely unrelated to the Bradley effect – for telling a pollster a lie.

    But even if you did miss his stated reason for lying and even if you did make a false assumption (I believe you did, and I’ve done the latter myself at times) the civil way to ask would be along the lines of,

    “Are you saying you lied to pollsters because of the Bradley effect?”

    instead of

    “In other words you are a lying racist, right? Correct me if I read you wrongly.”

    Which would YOU rather be greeted with in response to what you now know was a non-racist comment?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  75. Comment by Nancy — 10/13/2008 @ 9:00 am

    Comment by Nancy — 10/13/2008 @ 9:04 am

    Thanks, Nancy, for the info and the link.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  76. I generally lie to pollsters because I enjoy being an outlier… :)

    It is my goal to be part of the data set that has to be thrown away completely.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  77. It does not care, noyk.

    JD (f7900a)

  78. #69
    I get your point. I am also glad you understood mine.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  79. It does not care, noyk.

    Comment by JD — 10/13/2008 @ 9:17 am

    You’re undoubtedly right. But how else am I going to lose my distinction as “Most Honestest Person” on this blog? Am amazed at the number of people I watched get called “liars” this last weekend alone, by various liberals, just for being too blunt with the truth.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  80. You have no evidence to prove that assertion. It fails the truth test. Saying Obama supports racism is one thing, proving it is yet another

    Actually, I said he’s comfortable with racism, and has no problem with racists. Proving that is quite simple:

    o You yourself said you found Wright’s “white man’s greed” line offensive.

    o Obama not only had no problem with that line, but found it and the rant it came from so inspiring he used it as a springboard for a book and continued to attend Wright’s church.

    o Obama’s disavowal of Wright came only after Wright said things in front of the national press that had been present in his sermons for the twenty years Obama had been attending them. Probably not present in all of them, but enough of them that any person who is not comfortable with racism would have left long ago.

    o Obama appears to have sought out Wright’s church, for political purposes. Even assuming Obama does not agree with Wright’s statements, he spent 20 years associating with those toxic beliefs, even exposing his children to them. Wright performed Obama’s marriage and served as an advisor in his campaign. If Obama had a problem with racists, why seek out Wright? Why associate with him for so long?

    o Finally, flip the parties around. Flip the colors around, too, if you want. If McCain had spent two decades attending a Christian Identity church, then claimed the pastor “is not the man I knew” when the pastor’s kooky racist ideas came to public light, wouldn’t you doubt the claim? Wouldn’t you question the judgement of someone who was that close to crazy for that long and didn’t notice? Wouldn’t you wonder if, maybe, the association lasted that long because the crazy didn’t seem so crazy to the listener?

    I think it’s pretty clear, just based on the association with Wright, that Obama has no problem with racists, and is comfortable with racism.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  81. It is because we are racists. And, the trolls this weekend appeared to give themselves the power to create their own facts.

    JD (f7900a)

  82. #69
    I get your point. I am also glad you understood mine.

    Comment by love2008 — 10/13/2008 @ 9:26 am

    Appreciate the civil reply. To be honest I still don’t understand why you assumed racism in what appeared an extremely knee jerk fashion. I don’t think you were nearly as civil to paul in FL as you just were to me. I hope to see that change in the future.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  83. 4 of 6 of the daily national tracking polls today show a significant uptick for McCain in the last few days:

    Gallup:
    Obama goes from his peak of +11 4 days ago to +7, for a McCain gain of 4 (and the race is closer if we switch from RVs to LVs, either 6 or 4 points apart).

    Hotline:
    From an Obama peak +10 just 2 days ago to Obama +6 today, for another McCain pickup of 4.

    Zogby:
    From an Obama peak +6 yesterday, to Obama +4 today, for a McCain gain of 2.

    Rasmussen:
    From an Obama peak of +8 a week ago, to Obama +6 yesterday, to Obama +5 today, for a total McCain gain of 3.

    The 2 remaining daily national trackers are:
    1) Daily Kos and
    2) Battleground.

    1) Daily Kos skewed toward Obama, and this is generally recognized (See, e.g., Pollster.com at http://www.pollster.com/blogs/tracking_poll_house_effects.php )

    2) Battleground is flat; Obama remains at +8. However, 3/4 of the Battleground poll was taken from last Tuesday through Thursday, before the McCain uptick reflected in the 4 trackers above.

    I think the above is a sound basis to conclude that McCain is presently on the upswing. Add to it:

    1) the stabilization of the market, which started Friday and continues today,

    2) a solid performance by McCain in the last debate, as McCain did in the 1st one (need not be a knockout), and,

    3) the inevitable 2nd thoughts/tightening of the race in the last few days, and McCain has a good shot at winning.

    NOTE: I did not include once-a-week polls such as Newsweek and ABC in the analysis, because they are, methodologically, pieces o’ crap.

    Brian (b4ed74)

  84. Rob – Rev. Hagee is a perfect counter example. McCain is smeared with everything that Hagee ever said, even though McCain never even lived within 1000 miles of that church, and had never attended services there. Just look at the moonbats that still claim that Hagee was McCain’s preacher.

    JD (f7900a)

  85. A related thought….

    “…Democrats feel righteous indignation. Only Republicans can be guilty of hate.

    posted at 08:14 AM by Glenn Reynolds”

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  86. #75
    Obama has denounced Wright’s racist and offensive statements. That is okay by me.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  87. I caught that when I read Lance Tarrance’s piece in Real Clear Politics about the so-called “Bradley effect”, which is a total fraud. You are SO RIGHT about this stupid “registered” voter sample. This late in the Death March of an election cycle and Gallup is still using a Democrat-leaning model? Please!

    Mark J. Goluskin (7d94a9)

  88. #79
    Rob – Rev. Hagee is a perfect counter example. McCain is smeared with everything that Hagee ever said, even though McCain never even lived within 1000 miles of that church, and had never attended services there. Just look at the moonbats that still claim that Hagee was McCain’s preacher.

    Comment by JD — 10/13/2008 @ 9:33 am
    Well sorry to disappoint you JD, but I am not among those who use Hagee against McCain. I respect him as a true man of God. I also share most of his values being an evangelican christian. My only problem is that men of God should keep away from politics. They can advise, direct and disciple. But they should not interject themselves into politics. It gets very ugly when they do. They are non-partisan. They should not be seen as endorsing a particular candidate. They can only pray for peace and that the gospel will prevail over the hearts of men. Jesus does not seek to win the white house. He seeks to win the hearts of men.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  89. About the Bradley effect? Is it logical to assume that someone who is truly racist and will cast there vote merely based on the color of a person’s skin would bother to lie about that to a pollster?

    I mean, most racists are not ashamed of their opinions.

    Now White Guilt is quite another matter, I can see that it is more likely that someone who does not want Obama to be President, based on his Political Philosophy might disemble, because they feel the love2008s of the world would immediately condemn them of racism, which they do feel is shameful

    Dan Kauffman (b31cae)

  90. Sir,

    I’m a proud American who hopes (no prays to GOD) that we don’t get Obama for President because if we do we’ll cut and run just like we did in Vietnam and then we’ll get hit again by some radical (be it Muslim or others) and we’ll not only lose hundreds like we did on 9-11 but millions because they will look on us as being weak. They want to kill us for what we are and believe in (FREE and FREEDOM).

    DO YOU WANT THAT?

    I proudly wore the uniform of this country for 38 years of my 62 years and I definitely don’t want my counrty destroyed.

    J. Wilch (Tsgt, USAF, Ret.). (504089)

  91. As noted at Instapundit

    “I’m Willing To Give President Obama the Same Far Chance as the Left and the MSN GAve President Bush”

    Reynolds notes: “I Find This Email From Reader Donald Gately Depressing.”

    Gately writes:

    I consider myself a libertarian/conservative. Like many people of that bent, I was uncomfortable with Bush when he was nominated. But Al Gore’s increasingly-erratic behavior during the 2000 election made me hope Bush won.

    Once Bush won, and it became clear that the Florida democrats were trying to steal the election, I became something of a Bush loyalist. Throughout his first term, I took note of all the really horrible things that were said about him, saw that a large portion of the left would rather see Bush fail than see America succeed, and was alarmed by the complicity (and often, participation) of the MSM and mainstream Hollywood. It wasn’t far into his second term that I succumbed to Bush Fatigue, due to his inability to make the case for his foreign policy to the American people, and his inability to find the veto pen. He has truly been a terrible steward of the Republican brand, and because of this, the Conservative and libertarian causes are suffering.

    I’m no fan of McCain , but as I dislike Obama (and love Palin), I’ll be pulling the lever for McCain in November.

    This is surely small of me, but if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I’ll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a “Not My President” t-shirt. I’m sure that the mainstream bookstores won’t carry them, but I’ll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama’s watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.

    Obama’s thuggish behavior thus far in this election cycle – squashing free speech, declaring any criticism of his policies to be “racist” (a word that happily carries little weight with sensible people these days), associating with the likes of Ayers, Wright, and ACORN – suggests that I won’t have to scrape for reasons to really viscerally dislike Obama and his administration. And even if he wins, his campaign’s “get out the vote fraud” activities are enough to provide people like me with a large degree of “plausible deniability” as to whether he is actually legitimately the president.

    I’ve seen a President that I am generally-inclined to like get crapped on for eight years, and I’ve seen McCain and Palin (honorable people both, despite policy differences I may have with them) get crapped on through this election season. If the Democrats think that a President Obama is going to get some sort of honeymoon from the folks who didn’t vote for him, as a wise man once said: heh.

    Horatio (783c7d)

  92. Why don’t you try actually discussing the difference in the two plans instead of spreading false snippets?

    Comment by jharp

    Why doesn’t the Obama campaign stop using half of the McCain health plan, taxing employer health plan contributions, without mentioning the other half, a 5,000 dollar tax credit for insurance, in TV ads ? Because lying is more effective than telling the truth, as long as you don’t get caught.

    I honestly don’t know how the election is going to come out. I greatly fear an economic disaster if Obama wins. We will have difficult times even with McCain but Obama is Hoover and Jimmy Carter wrapped up in one package.

    Scary !

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  93. Obama has denounced Wright’s racist and offensive statements. That is okay by me.

    OK, so after twenty years of associating, admiring, looking for advice from a racist crank, someone just needs to make a statement “denouncing” the crank and all is forgiven?

    What about Obama’s first statement, that he could no more denounce Wright than he could his own grandmother?

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  94. Gallup has Obama back to a 10 point lead over McCain, Brian.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  95. love2008: Obama has denounced Wright’s racist and offensive statements.

    Only when Wright became a political liability. Up until that point Obama was perfectly comfortable having his family attend Wright’s sermons and listen to his racist sermons.

    Even after Obama’s Philadelphia speech, he refused to sever ties with Wright. Only when Wright repeated his racist, anti-American venom at the National Press Club did Obama quit the church.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  96. I guess you really don’t “hate every thing that resembles that evil thing called racism”, love2008. Or maybe you do, up until it comes close to making decisions you don’t want to, then, hey, any port in a storm, right?

    BTW — you’re also ignoring that the “white man’s greed” line was quoted, approvingly, in one of Obama’s books. “Audacity of Hope”, I believe, since that was the title of the sermon it came from.

    But, hey, Obama made a half-hearted denunciation, so all is forgiven, right?

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  97. I still don’t understand why you assumed racism in what appeared an extremely jerk fashion.

    There, fixed that for you.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  98. until it comes close to making decisions you don’t want to, then, hey, any port in a storm, up right?

    The Bobo will respond by discussing it’s deeply – held religious beliefs again, in an attempt to distract from actually answering the question. New day, same Bobo.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  99. grew up in boston during busing
    when I’d point out the idiocy of busing poor black kids and poor white kids into each others neighborhoods instead of putting the money where it belonged-in said schools I was called a racist ..
    kinda took it personally-to be insulted by thugs/now
    every major inner city controlled by the dem machine-{?]-how them test scores coming?
    now I ask u-who’s the racist?
    busing could only have started in a city full of libs
    what a TRAGEDY!

    pdbuttons (359493)

  100. Comment by pdbuttons — 10/13/2008 @ 2:18 pm

    Don’t forget the Fed. Dist. Court Judge in KC who forced the schools to spend $Billions to integrate/bus/every liberal wish, to “improve” educational opportunities for minorities back in the late 80’s/early 90’s.
    It was a complete failure!

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  101. Horatio: down that road lies madness. The left will use that as an excuse to treat the next Republican President just as poorly, and so forth.

    I speak as a Democrat who hasn’t engaged in the kind of thing you are upset with Democrats for; it was wrong when my side did it then, it will be wrong when you do it next year, and the Republic will suffer for it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  102. Now White Guilt is quite another matter, I can see that it is more likely that someone who does not want Obama to be President, based on his Political Philosophy might disemble, because they feel the love2008s of the world would immediately condemn them of racism, which they do feel is shameful

    Comment by Dan Kauffman — 10/13/2008 @ 10:02 am
    Dan, I agree with you that there are white voters who may not want to vote for obama, not because they are racists, but just because (1) they don’t like him as a person (2) They hate his policies, (3) They prefer another candidate and (4) They have never voted outside their political party. And don’t want to start it this year. But yet these people may be afraid to reveal it because they don’t want to be looked upon as racists. It’s one of the negative effects of racism. These ones have become victims of racial politics. They are not racists yet they have to vote for Obama or any black candidate because they don’t want to be seen as racists. That is most unfortunate. What should they do? stop trying to please anyone and do what they know is the right thing for them to do. These people have been blackmailed into becoming men pleasers. They should also not be afraid to condemn what they dislike in a particular (black) candidate. So long as they know their conscience is right. Actually pretending to like a black candidate you dislike just because you don’t want to be seen as racist is another form of racism. You are still guilty. So you might as well be yourself.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  103. It’s one of the negative effects of racism. These ones have become victims of racial politics.

    Sort of like the guy you called racist because he said he routinely lies to pollsters?

    Steverino (3ee1a3)

  104. it will be wrong when you do it next year, and the Republic will suffer for it.

    I wouldn’t worry about it – most Republicans have better things to do with their time, while the lunatic fringe from the Left has way too much of the same. Not too big on the gainful employment front, you could say. While there were some nutbags who went after Clinton akin to Moby Dick, it never came close to the level of widespread and deep hatred that we’ve seen regarding Bush.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  105. Obama is Hoover

    Hoover was a bumbling fool and diehard ideologue and a Republican. Like you know who…

    Obama is FDR.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  106. Would I be far off base if I came away from reading this thread with the distinct impression that the conservatives here are praying for the “Bradley Effect” to knock a few points off of Obama’s polling numbers come election day?

    Metacom (b8c7e2)

  107. Obama is FDR.

    You mean he’s going to threaten to pack the Supreme Court with extra justices to push through his unconstitutional agenda?

    Steverino (3ee1a3)

  108. “Would I be far off base if I came away from reading this thread with the distinct impression that the conservatives here are praying for the “Bradley Effect” to knock a few points off of Obama’s polling numbers come election day?”

    Yes

    voiceofreason2 (a03c76)

  109. I don’t believe in the “Bradley Effect”.

    Having been of voting age at the time of that election, I distinctly remember there was a very severe anti-gun proposition on the ballot. I think the initiative angered a lot of law-and-order voters who turned out to vote in larger than normal numbers, and those voters were more inclined to vote for a conservative Attorney General than for a liberal Mayor.

    Steverino (3ee1a3)

  110. Horatio: down that road lies madness. The left will use that as an excuse to treat the next Republican President just as poorly, and so forth.

    I speak as a Democrat who hasn’t engaged in the kind of thing you are upset with Democrats for; it was wrong when my side did it then, it will be wrong when you do it next year, and the Republic will suffer for it.

    I agree, but we are in a madhouse situation.

    Note – this was an email sent to Glen Reynolds, not my opinion/plan of action.

    The problem is Republicans act like country club golfers, whereas the Democrats play hardcore street ball straight from the Saul Alinsky playbook. Letting one’s self get beat up relentlessly for years is masochistic, and it’s time to recognize that sometimes the gloves have to come off, and the one doing the intimidation/denigration needs a 2×4 upside the head.

    Horatio (783c7d)

  111. Idiot wrote: “Obama is FDR.”

    I guess the Japanese-Americans are getting ready for another round of internment.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  112. More data on the “Bradley Effect”:
    On election day, the exit-polls indicated that Bradley would win, and this is what the news people were going with.
    What they didn’t take into effect, was the large amount of absentee ballots that were overwhelmingly for Deukmejian, and were promoted, distributed, and gathered by pro-gun/NRA groups leading up to the election.
    Bradley won the election on Election Day, not knowing that he had already lost the election.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  113. No, the regular polls taken well before the election showed Bradley ahead, too, same as the exit polls did on Election Day.

    Official Internet Data Office (ec4069)

  114. Obama is FDR.

    You mean he’s going to needlessly prolong the Recession by four more years?

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  115. with the distinct impression

    The only distinct impression you have is the one made upon your head when dropped by your Oby at birth. There is no other rational explanation for your inane postings, is there?

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  116. Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 10/13/2008 @ 4:58 pm

    The polling at the time did not take into consideration the absentee ballot.

    After-election analysis found that the polling orginizations were experiencing a large degree of push-back from people who refused to indicate any direction in the election. This, plus the respondents who clearly told people what they thought they wanted to hear (or didn’t want to say they were going to vote against Bradley for all of the previously discussed reasons, none of which were racist) skewwed the results.
    Again, on election day, Bradley thought he was going to win, and as the results were being tabulated (as I recall, absentees were tabulated last then) thought he had won; but, upon the morn found he had lost.
    Now, all absentee ballots received by the Registrar prior to election day are tabulated first. Only those absentee ballots turned into local polling places, or at the Registrar’s on election day, are tabulated after the live-vote.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  117. Another Drew-
    you said that folks who refused to indicate any direction in the election were found to have notable effect, and we had someone earlier who mentioned that they give false answers just to screw with pollsters…given that the dominant polling agencies are, or are viewed as, the main stream media…that would mean that it’s likely that the “screw you” response would give a lot of points to the conservative/Right/Republican side.

    And I noticed, while I was in the Navy, that there was a greater than civilian number of “screw you” type people. ;^p

    That might explain the Bradley effect…although, since the Left believes in “affirmative action,” the “screw you” angle might be ‘racist’ as they define it…..

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  118. Comment by Foxfier — 10/13/2008 @ 5:58 pm

    I should slow down and constipate concentrate my thought processes….

    I, like many others, do not respond to telephone polling. Usually just hang up.
    The 1982 election pre-polling suffered from this, and from people not wishing to say that they were not going to vote for Bradley (for whatever reason).
    Bradley was a popular, relatively center-left candidate who had a law & order background coming up through the ranks of the LAPD.
    Therefore, the pre-election polling was skewwed towards Bradley by the respondents, whereas we can assume at this time that the non-respondents contained a large number of those absentee, gun-owning voters, and were not tabulated in those polls.
    On Election Day, the exit-polls were skewwed also, for the majority of Deukmejian’s strength had voted Absentee, and were not tabulated in those exit-polls.
    I hope that clears that up.
    For further clarrification you can go to WSJOnline and read the writings of James Taranto on this subject.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  119. “You mean he’s going to threaten to pack the Supreme Court with extra justices to push through his unconstitutional agenda?”

    Aw man the scalia-roberts axis as the four hoursemen of the apocalypse? I wouldn’t have thought.

    “That would come as a surprise to James Taranto of the WSJ-Online.”

    No shit. Facts surprising the WSJ editorialists.

    imdw (3cd17c)

  120. AD @ 113 – Remember in 2004 how screwed up the exit polling was, particularly in Ohio, which convinced the Dems there was election fraud. There wasn’t, just flawed exit polling methodology there and elsewhere. I haven’t seen anything written about revisions to methodology since 2004. Has anybody else?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  121. No, another Drew, you can’t assume that the polls (and I mean regular polls, not exit polls) forgot to account for absentee ballots just because those absentee ballots, in retrospect, seemed to break against Bradley. In other words, the pollsters did not ask people to refrain from expressing an opinion just because the voters knew they would, or already had, cast an absentee ballot.

    It wasn’t just the absentee ballots that caused the pollsters to be wrong. It was the voters who showed the pollsters to be wrong.

    Official Internet Data Office (ec4069)

  122. I can’t find it now, but I have a recollection of someone debunking the idea that the California proposition on gun control sunk Tom Bradley by showing that there was not enough extra turnout of the right to show that such had undermined the polling predictions.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  123. imdw –
    Please, learn some basic history about FDR.

    OIDO-
    Why not? We already know that military serving abroad can vote at home, and that they tend to the Right; that would already show that the polls were (without malice) tilted against any leftward offering.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  124. Aw man the scalia-roberts axis as the four hoursemen of the apocalypse? I wouldn’t have thought.

    Your comment displays an appalling ignorance of history. It was remarkably far-sighted of Reagan to nominate Scalia knowing that Roberts would be nominated 20 years later.

    Steverino (3ee1a3)

  125. Funny that Obama will probably pick Scalia’s replacement.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  126. “Please, learn some basic history about FDR.”

    You wanna compare Obama and FDR and the courts? Fine. I’ll compare the court FDR faced with the court Obama will face:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_(Supreme_Court)

    So who thinks Bush’s plan to have the government owning billions of dollars of bank stock is constitutional?

    imdw (e66d8d)

  127. I hope that Justice Scalia stays on the bench long enough to watch Baracky lose his next election.

    JD (f7900a)

  128. “Please, learn some basic history about FDR.”

    I gotcha. If youre gonna compare FDR to Obama, compare the court FDR faced to the one Obama would face:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_(Supreme_Court)

    imdw (495ecf)

  129. Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 10/13/2008 @ 6:42 pm

    Absentee…
    As I recall, 1982 was, if not the first, one of the first statewide elections where absentee ballots had a significant impact.
    Therefore, the pre-election polling would not have had any reason to allow for it, since it was an unknown quantity.
    Anyway, that’s how I remember it, and I was working on a statewide campaign that year, and the result certainly surprised us (no, I wasn’t working for Bradley).

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  130. When a pollster takes a scientific sample, including all the party and demographic weightings, and then reports the preference voters have among the candidates, that’s the polling result. If the real results on Election Day don’t match, it’s because the pollster’s assumptions were wrong, regardless of the way the votes were cast. Blaming the discrepancy on absentee ballots is just a denial of the real problem.

    Official Internet Data Office (ec4069)

  131. IMDW-
    and a wiki TOTALLY blows the unconstitutional threat to impeach judges right out of the water…right….

    Can you at least try to find something that isn’t gossip scribbled down for your great rejoinder?

    Linking wiki is kind of like saying “but no-one I know voted for him!”

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  132. OIDO-
    in that case, the assumption would be that absentee voting would follow the lines of those polled. Which would mean they didn’t allow for it. Which would mean it was a flawed poll, due to unexpected differences.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  133. Comment by Foxfier — 10/13/2008 @ 9:22 pm

    Thank you for saying in a straight-forward manner that which I could not.

    Another Drew (1d7115)

  134. “Can you at least try to find something that isn’t gossip scribbled down for your great rejoinder?”

    Gossip scribbled what? I’m referring to the supreme court judges known as the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse during the new deal. Thats something that existed, despite the fact that its on wikipedia (and my link got effed up, you have to use the whole url including whats in parentheses). Find some other source that discusses that if you want to know what i’m talking about if you don’t like wikipedia.

    imdw (20f608)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5568 secs.