Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead

[TheGreatGatsby]

Once again, [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION] brings nothing to the table.

 

[LoneLaugher]

^^just wanted to say something....but didn't know what^^

 

[Meister]

Total Bullshit. All that stuff about Obama came out during the Democratic Primaries....just google first mention of many things such as Rev. Wright, his citizenship, his connection to Ayers, etc. All of it was out there even before the DNC convention. Those who put out the "not vetted" talking points are counting on your short term memory loss....and they are not disappointed........ever.

You are really a shallow thinking person, bo. You got it wrong.....wrong.....wrong.
When he was a politician in Il. he voted "present".....not letting anyone pin him to anything.
When he was a senator, he became a presidential campaigner and didn't vote on many things, again not knowing where he was coming from. Did the media push him....no.
What most people knew about him was that he was a community organizer.
So go pound sand

^^just called someone else "shallow".....defines irony^^

You couldn't rise to be shallow, ll. The best you could hope for is being a sheep

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You are really a shallow thinking person, bo. You got it wrong.....wrong.....wrong.
When he was a politician in Il. he voted "present".....not letting anyone pin him to anything.
When he was a senator, he became a presidential campaigner and didn't vote on many things, again not knowing where he was coming from. Did the media push him....no.
What most people knew about him was that he was a community organizer.
So go pound sand

^^just called someone else "shallow".....defines irony^^

You couldn't rise to be shallow, ll. The best you could hope for is being a sheep herder.

That'd be quite a rank advancement. Would that make him the first sheep to be a sheep herder? Talk about promoting from within.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Media personnel lean left....because they are generally well educated and informed. Well educated and informed people are likely to be lefties. But...they print/produce what sells these days. And most still carry out their duties with journalistic integrity when the subject matter has been chosen.

The whole "media in the bag for Obama" EXCUSE is presented as fact. As evidence, you cite nothing. You just feel it.

Here is a report on a PEW study that counters your claim regarding the 2012 election cycle. Enjoy.

Study: Obama's Media Coverage More Negative Than Romney's - NationalJournal.com

Your opinion of journalist leaning left and intelligence is an opinion and nothing more. If the media was doing their job we would have known about the fallout from obamacare before people started losing their jnsurance. We would have known a lot more of Obama's scandal one way or the other, because they would have demanded answers from the administration. First page news wouldn't be found on page 18. I never talked about the 2012 election cycle. My example of Christie's scandal coverage and obama's scandal coverage by the media should speak volumes with you, but apparently not. I connect dots and you don't.

I know that I called The Sac Bee long before it 'became a story' to let them know that my insurance rates were skyrocketing, more than doubling, and they didn't even bother to return the call (and I left my number with four or five different reporters/editors.)

This is really all I have to say to LL. I've experienced the lies first hand. And The Sacramento paper isn't exactly a notorious lib rag either.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Your opinion of journalist leaning left and intelligence is an opinion and nothing more. If the media was doing their job we would have known about the fallout from obamacare before people started losing their jnsurance. We would have known a lot more of Obama's scandal one way or the other, because they would have demanded answers from the administration. First page news wouldn't be found on page 18. I never talked about the 2012 election cycle. My example of Christie's scandal coverage and obama's scandal coverage by the media should speak volumes with you, but apparently not. I connect dots and you don't.

I know that I called The Sac Bee long before it 'became a story' to let them know that my insurance rates were skyrocketing, more than doubling, and they didn't even bother to return the call (and I left my number with four or five different reporters/editors.)

This is really all I have to say to LL. I've experienced the lies first hand. And The Sacramento paper isn't exactly a notorious lib rag either.

Your local paper did not pay attention to your mindless rant? Poor baby.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I know that I called The Sac Bee long before it 'became a story' to let them know that my insurance rates were skyrocketing, more than doubling, and they didn't even bother to return the call (and I left my number with four or five different reporters/editors.)

This is really all I have to say to LL. I've experienced the lies first hand. And The Sacramento paper isn't exactly a notorious lib rag either.

Your local paper did not pay attention to your mindless rant? Poor baby.

At what point did I say I ranted? I reported news to them. The only thing that is mindless is your positions and processes.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^
Also, my health premiums come out of pocket; so raising them 250 percent is no small thing, DICK.
It's funny how people like you complain about the man screwing you over and then when your god does it, you magically have no problem with it.
It's funny, too. Because at some point, I may have to go without coverage now. And when I do, I get double f'd over, cos the government screwed me on my rates is going to try and fine me if I don't pay them? That's unAmerican and so are you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

^^^
Also, my health premiums come out of pocket; so raising them 250 percent is no small thing, DICK.
It's funny how people like you complain about the man screwing you over and then when your god does it, you magically have no problem with it.
It's funny, too. Because at some point, I may have to go without coverage now. And when I do, I get double f'd over, cos the government screwed me on my rates is going to try and fine me if I don't pay them? That's unAmerican and so are you.

I do not believe you. You are lying about your health insurance status and rates.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That's quite convenient for you. I can tell you that it's not convenient for me. My health care has went from about $1,000 a year to $2,500.

Maybe, if you did a little less propaganda and a little more research, you'd know that this is happening all over the place. And then you could ask questions and start seeking truth instead of being a useful tool for people who ultimately don't give an f about you, anyways.

 

[candycorn]

I know that I called The Sac Bee long before it 'became a story' to let them know that my insurance rates were skyrocketing, more than doubling, and they didn't even bother to return the call (and I left my number with four or five different reporters/editors.)

This is really all I have to say to LL. I've experienced the lies first hand. And The Sacramento paper isn't exactly a notorious lib rag either.

Your local paper did not pay attention to your mindless rant? Poor baby.

He's shell-shocked from being on the front lines in fork-gate. I'll let him explain why forks matter; it's comedic value is on the scale of a Johnny Carson special so you won't want to miss his explanation.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This is really all I have to say to LL. I've experienced the lies first hand. And The Sacramento paper isn't exactly a notorious lib rag either.

Your local paper did not pay attention to your mindless rant? Poor baby.

He's shell-shocked from being on the front lines in fork-gate. I'll let him explain why forks matter; it's comedic value is on the scale of a Johnny Carson special so you won't want to miss his explanation.

Nah. You can explain why you (and Barry Soetoro) believe that the run of the mill Mexican can't be trusted with forks. That's your comedy right there.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I gotta say, I had a lot of fun reading this thread, since it turned out that most of the polling ended up having a CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias and not a LIBERAL mathematical bias.

All that bullshit about oversampling..... oh, this is rich.

OH, and BTW, I proved this months ago...

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?


It really is fun to read all the wailing that went on here....

 

[LoneLaugher]

That's quite convenient for you. I can tell you that it's not convenient for me. My health care has went from about $1,000 a year to $2,500.

Maybe, if you did a little less propaganda and a little more research, you'd know that this is happening all over the place. And then you could ask questions and start seeking truth instead of being a useful tool for people who ultimately don't give an f about you, anyways.

Are you now a proud owner of an insurance plan bought on the ACA exchange?

 

[Toro]

Obama won by more than what the average poll on the last 3 days said he'd win by.

By the OP's logic, conservatives were over-sampled.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Obama won by more than what the average poll on the last 3 days said he'd win by.

By the OP's logic, conservatives were over-sampled.

No. True, he exceeded the poll averages from the final days of the race:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Bonncaruso's FINAL Electoral Landscape (No.8): Obama 303 / Romney 235

Average, last 7 days of polling:

Obama. +1.33 (he won by +3.86)

Average, last 3 days of polling: Obama +1.21 (he won by +3.86)

But the averages looked that way mostly because of shitty polling from Gallup and Rasmussen.

At Obama +4, DEM CORPS, a Democratic polling organization, nailed it.

So did the Rand Polling, which uses a totally different method.

Without Rasmussen and Gallup, Obama would have been at about +2.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I gotta say, I had a lot of fun reading this thread, since it turned out that most of the polling ended up having a CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias and not a LIBERAL mathematical bias.

All that bullshit about oversampling..... oh, this is rich.

OH, and BTW, I proved this months ago...

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?


It really is fun to read all the wailing that went on here....

Simple shell game. Stuffing ballot boxes can more than make-up for inaccurate polls. And in fact, they can make a mockery of the polls. All of the battleground states ended up being not close, that were supposed to be close, the Dems stuff the shiz out of those ballot boxes. Ninety-five percent turn-out in ghettos with nobody voting for Romney? Get real.

 

[candycorn]

Or it could be that Romney sucked...the polls showed it and the ballot boxes confirmed it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Or it could be that Romney sucked...the polls showed it and the ballot boxes confirmed it.

I have little doubt that that is the case in your pathological world that you've created for yourself.

P.S. Watch out for the forks. They'll get you.

 

[candycorn]

Or it could be that Romney sucked...the polls showed it and the ballot boxes confirmed it.

I have little doubt that that is the case in your pathological world that you've created for yourself.

P.S. Watch out for the forks. They'll get you.

It was actually the case in the real world too silly.