Be honest, conservatives...

[ABikerSailor]

Obama won the popular vote by 3 million.

He won the electoral college by almost 100 votes.

Face it GOP, Obama won, and did so decisively.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...who among you really believed the polls were all skewed??

You know which ones of you said so, now help us out here,

did you really believe what you were saying, or were you just adding your own voices to the rightwing propaganda machine's bullshit,

while you knew it was bullshit.

In other words, were you lying, or are you genuinely that stupid??

answered before you asked, but please, hack on.

Link me to the post where you answered the above.

 

[Trajan]

Obama won the popular vote by 3 million.

He won the electoral college by almost 100 votes.

Face it GOP, Obama won, and did so decisively.

theres already been a discussion on that, and yes some cons here did admit it was an ass kicking.....next....

 

[Trajan]

...who among you really believed the polls were all skewed??

You know which ones of you said so, now help us out here,

did you really believe what you were saying, or were you just adding your own voices to the rightwing propaganda machine's bullshit,

while you knew it was bullshit.

In other words, were you lying, or are you genuinely that stupid??

answered before you asked, but please, hack on.

Link me to the post where you answered the above.

go check my thread starts and posts, and some of charles mains, its only been a few days......read, come back and lets see if you have the balls to apologize....ta ta

 

[del]

This one thinks nutters are too intelligent and respond only to high level campaigning.

It's both problems combined.
Either Romney should have run a gut-level negative campaign and smeared Obama emotionally to get people worked up about voting.
Or have better relations and agreements with supporters on what the programs and solutions are, so they vote on actual content, but takes forever to build that kind of base.

What I'm saying is the content approach DOESN'T work so well to do emotionally based campaigns to get the vote out in a short timeline. So that is why it's so hard.

So I agree with you people can't deal with the detailed approach it would have taken to overcome the negative perceptions put out by the liberal opposition.
That doesn't fly in the media, so of course you are left with nothing to push.
You have no time to explain in detail, and people only respond to simple media campaigns.

This is why people were saying to just stick to the traditional conservative message
that you can push emotionally and quite trying to address the diverse issues.
Romney WOULD have had to push a low level campaign in order to pull this off.
But that is not what he is about, and what his strengths, so he couldn't push that.

you think he didn't?

the ads on both sides were very negative in the days before the election here.

 

[del]

...who among you really believed the polls were all skewed??

You know which ones of you said so, now help us out here,

did you really believe what you were saying, or were you just adding your own voices to the rightwing propaganda machine's bullshit,

while you knew it was bullshit.

In other words, were you lying, or are you genuinely that stupid??

answered before you asked, but please, hack on.

Link me to the post where you answered the above.

you answered it, not him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

His position is he is smarter than conservatives, I mock him as often as possible for it, this thread offered a unique opportunity.

i think his position was different from that, but go with what you know.

you may want to check the definition of unique, btw.

What do you think his position is, genius?

I don't have a 'position' in this thread. The thread is a question to those who said, in one way or another,

that Romney was going to win, despite the polls saying otherwise, because the polls were skewed - or any word or phrase synonymous with 'skewed'.

The question to those particular posters was, did you say that because you really believed it,

or did you say it, for whatever reasons, knowing it was nonsense?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That it was a 5% victory rather than a 2% victory. It's a pretty simple challenge. I asked you where you got the 2%, which you were unable to answer.

I love you, Quantum.

Seriously? Did you fail math in first grade? Do you really want me to embarrass you by demonstrating, in public, how bad you are at math, or will you simply concede that every single news site on the planet gives Obama just over 50% of the total vote?

Okay. I'll say it again. 61,304,426 / 58,230,919 = 1.053.

61,304,426 represents the popular vote received by Obama. 58,230,919 represents the popular vote received by Romney. The percentage different between the two numbers is 5.3%. No, I did not fail math.

Now. I couldn't really care less what polls you relied on to accurately predict a winner, or if you relied on any at all. I simply challenged you on your claim that Obama defeated Romney by 2%, when clearly it was 5%. His 50.5% that you are referring to pertains to his percentage of the overall vote against all candidates. Are you really going to come back and say that you were talking about the entire field? You know damn well we're talking about Obama versus Romney, not Obama versus everybody. But yes, you can feel free to embarrass me in front of everybody at your earliest convenience.

You determine percentages of the vote based on total votes, not the difference between two candidates. Anyone with an Iq above the freezing point of Helium understands this, yet you think you passed math.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i think his position was different from that, but go with what you know.

you may want to check the definition of unique, btw.

What do you think his position is, genius?

I don't have a 'position' in this thread. The thread is a question to those who said, in one way or another,

that Romney was going to win, despite the polls saying otherwise, because the polls were skewed - or any word or phrase synonymous with 'skewed'.

The question to those particular posters was, did you say that because you really believed it,

or did you say it, for whatever reasons, knowing it was nonsense?

Yet you ignore the people pointing out why the polls actually were skewed.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Let me see if I get your position. The fact that Obama won reelection by 2% proves that the polls that said he was up by 8% were accurate.

Do you understand math at all?

In the last week of the race, name the poll that had him up by 8.

Do you know what the 95% confidence limit means? It means there's a 1 in 20 chance that a poll will fall outside of the margin of error. It seems that you're the one who needs remedial math.

 

[Dick Tuck]

What do you think his position is, genius?

I don't have a 'position' in this thread. The thread is a question to those who said, in one way or another,

that Romney was going to win, despite the polls saying otherwise, because the polls were skewed - or any word or phrase synonymous with 'skewed'.

The question to those particular posters was, did you say that because you really believed it,

or did you say it, for whatever reasons, knowing it was nonsense?

Yet you ignore the people pointing out why the polls actually were skewed.

As it turns out the so-called unskewed polls were the most skewed. How'd that oversampling Democrats claim turn out for you morons?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't have a 'position' in this thread. The thread is a question to those who said, in one way or another,

that Romney was going to win, despite the polls saying otherwise, because the polls were skewed - or any word or phrase synonymous with 'skewed'.

The question to those particular posters was, did you say that because you really believed it,

or did you say it, for whatever reasons, knowing it was nonsense?

Yet you ignore the people pointing out why the polls actually were skewed.

As it turns out the so-called unskewed polls were the most skewed. How'd that oversampling Democrats claim turn out for you morons?

Feel free to go back and show all the post I complained about the polls.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yet you ignore the people pointing out why the polls actually were skewed.

As it turns out the so-called unskewed polls were the most skewed. How'd that oversampling Democrats claim turn out for you morons?

Feel free to go back and show all the post I complained about the polls.

How about your lie in post #3.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As it turns out the so-called unskewed polls were the most skewed. How'd that oversampling Democrats claim turn out for you morons?

Feel free to go back and show all the post I complained about the polls.

How about your lie in post #3.

That was not a complaint about the polls, it was a snark.

 

[AVG-JOE]

In other words, were you lying, or are you genuinely that stupid??

I'll ass-u-me you've never worked in sales or marketing.

 

[AceRothstein]

Obama won the popular vote by 3 million.

He won the electoral college by almost 100 votes.

Face it GOP, Obama won, and did so decisively.

I believe that I read Obama is one of four presidents to win two elections with over 50% of the popular vote in both elections in the last 120 years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama won the popular vote by 3 million.

He won the electoral college by almost 100 votes.

Face it GOP, Obama won, and did so decisively.

I believe that I read Obama is one of four presidents to win two elections with over 50% of the popular vote in both elections in the last 120 years.

He actually made history when he was reelected.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/260998-obama-made-history-yesterday.html

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Seriously? Did you fail math in first grade? Do you really want me to embarrass you by demonstrating, in public, how bad you are at math, or will you simply concede that every single news site on the planet gives Obama just over 50% of the total vote?

Okay. I'll say it again. 61,304,426 / 58,230,919 = 1.053.

61,304,426 represents the popular vote received by Obama. 58,230,919 represents the popular vote received by Romney. The percentage different between the two numbers is 5.3%. No, I did not fail math.

Now. I couldn't really care less what polls you relied on to accurately predict a winner, or if you relied on any at all. I simply challenged you on your claim that Obama defeated Romney by 2%, when clearly it was 5%. His 50.5% that you are referring to pertains to his percentage of the overall vote against all candidates. Are you really going to come back and say that you were talking about the entire field? You know damn well we're talking about Obama versus Romney, not Obama versus everybody. But yes, you can feel free to embarrass me in front of everybody at your earliest convenience.

You determine percentages of the vote based on total votes, not the difference between two candidates. Anyone with an Iq above the freezing point of Helium understands this, yet you think you passed math.

You have such colorful and articulate use of language, Quantum. You should write for Judd Apatow.

p.s. you are entirely too easy to fuck with.