Red Georgia U.S. Senate Seat Going BLUE!

[NYcarbineer]

do people like the op ever care about what is best for the country over their party winning something?

PARTY over country they eat, sleep and live for

How often do you vote for Democrats?

The mayor and sheriff of my city are both Democrats, and I voted for both of them. I will continue to vote for them.

And you're Stephanie? I don't think you're supposed to have 2 accounts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just citing a left leaning outlet should be proof enough.

So name some media outlets you consider credible; name some media outlets that when posted as a source of statistical evidence you would not cite as biased in order to try to discredit the evidence.

Give us a short list. Name 5.

And how does this pertain to the discussion, mayhap? Are you trying to bait me?

Give it a rest.

You repeatedly dismiss media sources as biased, I'm asking you to name 5 you don't consider biased.

Why can't you?

 

[Statistikhengst]

And for the record, citing Politics USA is not very convincing. They are a left leaning source who would do anything to spin the polling data.

What's your evidence of that?

there is none. Politics USA, just like RCP, just like TPM, just like HHR, put out exactly the same numbers.


But in TK's "albino living in a basement" mind, it goes like this:

RCP: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "right on."

Politics USA: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "Left leaning source, spinning the data, fucking skewed!!"





Righties don't get it that all of these sites aggregate the same numbers.

That's why I have no problem checking out the numbers at RCP. They are righties, but the numbers are, of course, accurate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't see Georgia voting in a Democrat even if it is Sam Nunn's daughter.

And that my friend, is what an objective liberal looks like.

Well, actually I am more centrist than you realize, only, you love to label people cuz it somehow makes you feel good, so ok.

But taking your point, I clearly wrote, as a "Liberal".

But in the grand scope of things, in polling, at least until this point, Perdue has had the slight upper hand.

Just to note: Perdue is the Republican.

But Perdue is not likely to win the runoff today. It looks very much as if Kingston is going to win, and he is currently losing by 8 to Michelle Nunn.

Sure, I'll believe it when I see it. You accuse me of labeling others, when I see you crafting a label for yourself, all of your own accord. Your posting habits, your views, the posts you thank, the posters you associate with the most... all point to you being a liberal, not a centrist. When I'm not being impulsive, I possess quite a knack for psychoanalysis, namely the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tenets.

 

[Statistikhengst]

For the record, the above is what Stat said before researching Landmark Communications.

And this is what Stat said below after researching Landmark Communications. I do believe this was a backtrack.



That glimmer of hope, isn't.

Oh, but you decided to be deceptive. Tsk, tsk.

In the quote you made at the bottom of your posting, I was referring SPECIFICALLY to Landmark's claim that Romney was polling 22% of the black vote in that state, when the final results prove that that could absolutely have not been the case. And that poll was published 10 days out from the election in 2012.

Care to try again, and this time, maybe be honest for a change?

Anyone can read my posting and see very clearly that what you quoted is ONLY about the one point I made. In 2012, Landmark still correctly picked the winner of the state and Landmark's mathematical bias to the Right is still less than: RASMUSSEN's.

What is it with Right-Wingers and lying these days? Are your lives so piss-poor that you cannot even tell the truth. Is it so bad out there that you must twist information in order to make yourselves look good.

So, no, dumbfuck, it wasn't a backtrack. It was a very specific analysis of one point. Is your brain to small to handle that kind of stuff?

Shame on you, TK.

You are the liar here, Statistheilhitler. Callign GA for Romney was like predicting the sun would rise. That they were off indicates their polling sucks. That you think the exact same people are using the exact same methodology as 2 years ago indicates you're a dumbshit. That anyone would believe GA would elect a liberal Democrat indicates a disconnect from reality.

Ahhh, then you agree with me that Rasmussen completely sucked in 2012, what?

Because Rasmussen's mathematical bias to the RIGHT was considerably higher than Landmark's, oh fake Rabbi.

How are the anger management courses working out for you? Did you break some bricks lately or bend spoons with your massive intellect?




Oh, and Michelle Nunn is a centrist Democrat, you dumbfuck.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just citing a left leaning outlet should be proof enough.

Wouldn't that mean that anything YOU post as an argument, or as evidence, on any issue can be automatically, legitimately dismissed as having no merit because YOU'RE biased?

Circumstantial ad hominem.

Given you have provided nothing to dismiss my argument, I can summarily dismiss yours out of hand.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).

That describes perfectly what you originally tried to do in attacking PoliticsUSA.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And that my friend, is what an objective liberal looks like.

Well, actually I am more centrist than you realize, only, you love to label people cuz it somehow makes you feel good, so ok.

But taking your point, I clearly wrote, as a "Liberal".

But in the grand scope of things, in polling, at least until this point, Perdue has had the slight upper hand.

Just to note: Perdue is the Republican.

But Perdue is not likely to win the runoff today. It looks very much as if Kingston is going to win, and he is currently losing by 8 to Michelle Nunn.

Sure, I'll believe it when I see it. You accuse me of labeling others, when I see you crafting a label for yourself, all of your own accord. Your posting habits, your views, the posts you thank, the posters you associate with the most... all point to you being a liberal, not a statist. When I'm not being impulsive, I possess quite a knack for psychoanalysis, namely the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tenets.

And do you develop this talent between munching chips and chugging cola on the couch during sitcoms, or afterward?





My Lord, you are a weird one.... but somehow a little bit loveable. A little bit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And for the record, citing Politics USA is not very convincing. They are a left leaning source who would do anything to spin the polling data.

What's your evidence of that?

there is none. Politics USA, just like RCP, just like TPM, just like HHR, put out exactly the same numbers.


But in TK's "albino living in a basement" mind, it goes like this:

RCP: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "right on."

Politics USA: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "Left leaning source, spinning the data, fucking skewed!!"





Righties don't get it that all of these sites aggregate the same numbers.

That's why I have no problem checking out the numbers at RCP. They are righties, but the numbers are, of course, accurate.

So, what was that about you being a centrist? I despise liars. Your rhetoric is a dead giveaway. "Righties"? Yeah.. whatever you say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And for the record, citing Politics USA is not very convincing. They are a left leaning source who would do anything to spin the polling data.

What's your evidence of that?

there is none. Politics USA, just like RCP, just like TPM, just like HHR, put out exactly the same numbers.


But in TK's "albino living in a basement" mind, it goes like this:

RCP: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "right on."

Politics USA: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "Left leaning source, spinning the data, fucking skewed!!"





Righties don't get it that all of these sites aggregate the same numbers.

That's why I have no problem checking out the numbers at RCP. They are righties, but the numbers are, of course, accurate.

TK believes that the biased source argument is valid when used against the left, but a fallacy when used against the right.

I just proved it.

1. He attacked PoliticsUSA as a biased source

2. I pointed out the he himself is a biased source and therefore the same attack should be valid against him.

3. He said such an attack on him would be a fallacy.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just citing a left leaning outlet should be proof enough.

Wouldn't that mean that anything YOU post as an argument, or as evidence, on any issue can be automatically, legitimately dismissed as having no merit because YOU'RE biased?

Circumstantial ad hominem.

Given you have provided nothing to dismiss my argument, I can summarily dismiss yours out of hand.

I don't need to. You just dismissed your own argument as circumstantial ad hominem.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One of the things not being mentioned on this thread is that Georgia, a big state, is demographically changing.

There are more and more minorities, more universities and colleges have sprouted up, the state is developing a different feel than in the days pre- and -post beginning of the nuclear age.

And Georgia is not as deep a red state as people think.

Here is the electoral history of Georgia, through 2011:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 32 / 20: Georgia

From 1904-2008, Georgia went for the GOP 8 times, for the DEMS 18 times.

Since 1948 Georgia went for the GOP 8 times, for the DEMS 7 times.and for an Independent candidate 1 time (Wallace, 1968).

Since the inclusion of the GOP in the Electoral College in 1856 , it has gone for the GOP 8 times, for the DEMS 28 times and for an independent candidate 2 times. However, the one independent candidate was actually a Southern Democrat, and therefore an offshoot of the Democratic Party.

The electoral history of Georgia is in many ways a mirror image of the state of Vermont. From the VT analysis here, we see that Vermont went for the GOP 27 cycles in a row, until 1964.

Georgia's case is similar: since the inclusion of the GOP in the Electoral College in 1856, no Republican won GA until 1964, or 26 cycles (GA was did not participate in the election of 1864).

There is just a ream of information over there. Some might find it to be very interesting reading.

The Georgia state bio will be updated late in 2015, going into 2016.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, actually I am more centrist than you realize, only, you love to label people cuz it somehow makes you feel good, so ok.

But taking your point, I clearly wrote, as a "Liberal".


Just to note: Perdue is the Republican.

But Perdue is not likely to win the runoff today. It looks very much as if Kingston is going to win, and he is currently losing by 8 to Michelle Nunn.

Sure, I'll believe it when I see it. You accuse me of labeling others, when I see you crafting a label for yourself, all of your own accord. Your posting habits, your views, the posts you thank, the posters you associate with the most... all point to you being a liberal, not a statist. When I'm not being impulsive, I possess quite a knack for psychoanalysis, namely the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tenets.

And do you develop this talent between munching chips and chugging cola on the couch during sitcoms, or afterward?





My Lord, you are a weird one.... but somehow a little bit loveable. A little bit.

No. I've dabbled in psychology since high school.

Funny, where did that argument of yours go? Now you can't stop attacking me.

By the way, did you get those pickup lines from Joe perchance? Sitcoms are lame. I have better things to chug cola and chips to. I've noticed how people losing debates to me start making references to my weight or my job situation. Joe learned the painful way how easily I can turn those insults back onto someone.

The key symptom of one who is losing a debate is when they resort to attacking the person, not the point.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What's your evidence of that?

there is none. Politics USA, just like RCP, just like TPM, just like HHR, put out exactly the same numbers.


But in TK's "albino living in a basement" mind, it goes like this:

RCP: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "right on."

Politics USA: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "Left leaning source, spinning the data, fucking skewed!!"





Righties don't get it that all of these sites aggregate the same numbers.

That's why I have no problem checking out the numbers at RCP. They are righties, but the numbers are, of course, accurate.

TK believes that the biased source argument is valid when used against the left, but a fallacy when used against the right.

I just proved it.

1. He attacked PoliticsUSA as a biased source

2. I pointed out the he himself is a biased source and therefore the same attack should be valid against him.

3. He said such an attack on him would be a fallacy.

lol

And yet, the numbers themselves are neutral.

They tell a story all on their own, without any help from us.

 

[mudwhistle]

The story in the OP gets blown out of the water when they claim Obamacare "is a raging success", an outright lie to say the least.

Obamacare may be a quiet success to some, meaning anyone who hasn't had to deal with it, but to those who have been exposed to it personally, it has been an unmedigated disaster.

 

[TemplarKormac]

there is none. Politics USA, just like RCP, just like TPM, just like HHR, put out exactly the same numbers.


But in TK's "albino living in a basement" mind, it goes like this:

RCP: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "right on."

Politics USA: "Blob X is leading Blob Y by +13, in so and so poll from so and so date, 56-43"

TK: "Left leaning source, spinning the data, fucking skewed!!"





Righties don't get it that all of these sites aggregate the same numbers.

That's why I have no problem checking out the numbers at RCP. They are righties, but the numbers are, of course, accurate.

TK believes that the biased source argument is valid when used against the left, but a fallacy when used against the right.

I just proved it.

1. He attacked PoliticsUSA as a biased source

2. I pointed out the he himself is a biased source and therefore the same attack should be valid against him.

3. He said such an attack on him would be a fallacy.

lol

And yet, the numbers themselves are neutral.

They tell a story all on their own, without any help from us.

Sure, and you think your arrogance stands as an argument. As mud just mentioned above me, Politics USA hailed Obamacare as a 'raging success.' That points to a bias right there.

Carbine has no room to talk, since she made mention in Fox's Intolerance thread that she was more unbiased than anyone, including Foxfyre herself. Talk about lame. How can carbine, a flaming liberal, lecture anyone on bias?

And yes, Carbine's attack is fallacy. I made sure not to reference any biased sources. It is a non sequitur. A trap argument.

You two make a great couple. I called MisterBeale for citing a neoconsevative website in the Israel and Palestine forum the other day. I don't like biased sources, left or right. You will rarely find me citing them, if at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

TK believes that the biased source argument is valid when used against the left, but a fallacy when used against the right.

I just proved it.

1. He attacked PoliticsUSA as a biased source

2. I pointed out the he himself is a biased source and therefore the same attack should be valid against him.

3. He said such an attack on him would be a fallacy.

lol

And yet, the numbers themselves are neutral.

They tell a story all on their own, without any help from us.

Sure, and you think your arrogance stands as an argument. As mud just mentioned above me, Politics USA hailed Obamacare as a 'raging success.' That points to a bias right there.

Carbine has no room to talk, since she made mention in Fox's Phil Robertson thread that she was more unbiased than anyone, including Foxfyre herself. Talk about lame. How can carbine, a flaming liberal, lecture anyone on bias?

And yes, Carbine's attack is fallacy. I made sure not to reference any biased sources. It is a non sequitur. A trap argument.

You two make a great couple. I called MisterBeale for citing a neoconsevative website in the Israel and Palestine forum the other day. I don't like biased sources, left or right. You will rarely find me citing them, if at all.

Do you not understand that a fact is a fact no matter who states it? Is that too complicated for you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The key symptom of one who is losing a debate is when they resort to attacking the person, not the point.

You mean like attacking PoliticsUSA instead of attacking the material in the article.

(A sidenote. Does anyone think that TK is really too stupid to be aware that he is repeatedly doing the exact thing he repeatedly attacks as a losing tactic? I'm undecided on that one)

 

[Statistikhengst]

TK believes that the biased source argument is valid when used against the left, but a fallacy when used against the right.

I just proved it.

1. He attacked PoliticsUSA as a biased source

2. I pointed out the he himself is a biased source and therefore the same attack should be valid against him.

3. He said such an attack on him would be a fallacy.

lol

And yet, the numbers themselves are neutral.

They tell a story all on their own, without any help from us.

Sure, and you think your arrogance stands as an argument. As mud just mentioned above me, Politics USA hailed Obamacare as a 'raging success.' That points to a bias right there.

Carbine has no room to talk, since she made mention in Fox's Intolerance thread that she was more unbiased than anyone, including Foxfyre herself. Talk about lame. How can carbine, a flaming liberal, lecture anyone on bias?

And yes, Carbine's attack is fallacy. I made sure not to reference any biased sources. It is a non sequitur. A trap argument.

You two make a great couple. I called MisterBeale for citing a neoconsevative website in the Israel and Palestine forum the other day. I don't like biased sources, left or right. You will rarely find me citing them, if at all.

So, you are saying that in your mind, if a website posts and article that you don't like, you think the website is somehow skewed with the simple reporting of polling results?





There are lots and lots of articles in RCP that have an extreme right-wing bias, but I still visit the site and confirm polling numbers.

Discernment, TK, discernment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And yet, the numbers themselves are neutral.

They tell a story all on their own, without any help from us.

Sure, and you think your arrogance stands as an argument. As mud just mentioned above me, Politics USA hailed Obamacare as a 'raging success.' That points to a bias right there.

Carbine has no room to talk, since she made mention in Fox's Intolerance thread that she was more unbiased than anyone, including Foxfyre herself. Talk about lame. How can carbine, a flaming liberal, lecture anyone on bias?

And yes, Carbine's attack is fallacy. I made sure not to reference any biased sources. It is a non sequitur. A trap argument.

You two make a great couple. I called MisterBeale for citing a neoconsevative website in the Israel and Palestine forum the other day. I don't like biased sources, left or right. You will rarely find me citing them, if at all.

So, you are saying that in your mind, if a website posts and article that you don't like, you think the website is somehow skewed with the simple reporting of polling results?





There are lots and lots of articles in RCP that have an extreme right-wing bias, but I still visit the site and confirm polling numbers.

Discernment, TK, discernment.

Yeah, and you just got through calling me a liar. As you yourself claim, numbers don't lie. Yet as I just showed the class, they can. Discernment is when you notice what type of rhetoric the site uses. Be it left or right.

But anywho, you aren't discussing the thread anymore, namely me. I all of a sudden become a popular subject of discussion when I blow people's arguments out of the water.

Alright mister centrist, the party's over.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Democrats are looking good in the U.S. Senate race with Michelle Nunn doing great in the peach state of Georgia. Another great race, in Kentucky is also looking quite good for the Democrats that are pushing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell aside.

Democrats Poised To Flip Georgia's Senate Seat As Michelle Nunn Holds Commanding Lead

I live in Georgia and this surprises me. Georgia has been more likely to elect Democrats on the statewide level than neighbors like Alabama and Tennessee, but this is still a fairly big surprise right now. You would expect the pendulum to be swinging the other way just a bit and that should make Georgia a fairly safe GOP state. But it looks like the Governor's race could go to the Democrat as well.

Puzzling - but we'll have to wait for the votes to be counted to draw any real conclusions.