|
44980. concerned - 11/6/2012 8:45:09 AM If Romney wins, I will point to 0bama's overall condescending campaign strategy that dipped liberally into the gutter and 0bama's total lack of new or appropriate policies as well as Biden's campaign gaffe-orama and clownish, patronizing debate performance as being factors that turned a lot of voters off.
It's unquestionably true that Romney and his team has shown far more class than 0bama & his crew throughout the campaign. There has been no namecalling from Romney, no claims that 0bama is a 'liar' nor 'felon' nor that 0bama 'murdered' anyone, nor gibes in any way comparable to 0bama's 'Romnesia', nor did Romney make, among his many statements, much in the way of refutable claims regarding 0bama's shortcomings & failures.
The upshot is that all Lefties here in this forum know full well that their choice is for the low road, low brow candidate; iow, the greater of two evils, whether they will admit it here or not. And a word of advice, such campaign tactics are usually mirrored in the candidate's governing style. 44981. iiibbb - 11/6/2012 3:52:18 PM If Romney wins it will be in part thanks to the help of the Governor of Florida and the Secretary of State of Ohio.
Defend their actions Concerned.
Republicans go on and on about voter fraud, when their has been very little evidence of it... but seem to have no qualms about making it as difficult for legitimate voters to cast their legitimate vote as the possibly can. 44982. iiibbb - 11/6/2012 4:01:07 PM Regarding 538--
You can argue his methodology, but it's still a sight better than banking on the results of a single poll and making a prediction despite the fact that this year that a single poll may be more accurate that Nate's model.
George Box said, "All models are wrong, some models are useful".
By extension, any model can be right for the wrong reasons in predicting a single event outcome. So if a single poll were to perform better than Nate's model, that does not indicate the pollsters methods were superior to Nate's methodology.
At the end of the day. I would bet on Nate in the long-term over any individual pollster. 44983. robertjayb - 11/6/2012 4:46:13 PM Princeton Election Consortium:
... as of November 6, 8:02AM EST:Obama: 312 Romney: 226 44984. arkymalarky - 11/6/2012 4:46:15 PM I just don't see how silver or anyone who draws similar conclusions would be the focus. If the polls were mixed, then maybe. You don't change methodology based on results if data leads to them. You change data collection. 44985. arkymalarky - 11/6/2012 4:48:46 PM For silver, he will have to look at whether he gave disproportionate weight to battleground states if, for instance, Obama loses Ohio, or wins it and loses anyway. Or his weight of the # and strength of paths to victory for either candidate. 44986. arkymalarky - 11/6/2012 4:52:05 PM IOW, what 3i said. Which I just now read. 44987. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:10:08 PM Re. 44981 -
You'll have to help me out here. I'm not up to date on what you're complaining about. Is it anything you think is illegal, because the Democrats have taken everything else off the table, at a minimum.
44988. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:19:41 PM Republicans go on and on about voter fraud, when their has been very little evidence of it...
The forced dissolution of ACORN argues otherwise - they were responsible for thousands of documented cases nationwide of voter fraud during the last election cycle. You Lefties treat it as a big joke when there are more registered voters in certain precincts, such as in Philadelphia, than citizens, but I assure you it isn't - it's vote fraud all set to happen.
Also, there is no legitimate reason to argue against voter identification at the polls, but certainly plenty of illegitimate reasons as Democrats have undoubtedly strategized in backroom meetings for decades. I don't give a flip what you say; all this just screams opening the door to enabling vote fraud.
Besides, you implicitly have owned the Democrat Party up to it with your little argument - if you felt that Republicans were guilty of any significant amount of vote fraud, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs for voter photo id at polling places. 44989. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:27:55 PM iiibbb -
I want to hear something from you other than crickets about such as the fact the North Carolina has over 2,000 registered voters on their rolls at least 110 years old when there are less than 400 in the entire United States.
The vast majority of these Tarheel superecentarians vote Democrat, according to voting records. And this is clearly just the tip of the vote fraud iceberg here. If you are satisfied with that, you are totally on the wrong side of the vote fraud issue. 44990. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:28:44 PM supercentenarians
44991. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:29:45 PM So, I reject your argument that vote fraud is not an ongoing problem.
44992. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:31:21 PM Vote fraud is very real and present, and cries for real solutions. 44993. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:31:48 PM All of which iiibbb presumably opposes.
44994. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:35:56 PM So what are the Democrats giving voters in Reid's home state this time - bus transportation and a free hour for Filipino and Latino immigrants at the slot machines in exchange for voting straight ticket Democrat?
Reid is one of the most 'out there' crooks and scumbags in existence with his mob/casino connections. 44995. iiibbb - 11/6/2012 5:39:40 PM Conc'd we're talking percentages... Did the 2000 people on the rolls actually vote? Or are they just registered.
How much individual voter fraud is going on out there as a percentage? It is in the 100ths or 1000ths of a percent as far as I could find in the things I've read.
Now compare that to the thousands of legitimate voters who actually showed up at a polling location who have to stand in line for 4-9 hours? How about the thousands of legitimate voters who's voting window was shortened because the Florida governor decided not to accommodate them?
We're talking real people vs. your possible people. 44996. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:42:52 PM Good thing for the Democrat Party there isn't a 'Truth in Advertising' law for politics, or they might have to rename themselves the 'Entitlements and Corruption Party'. 44997. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:46:42 PM Conc'd we're talking percentages... Did the 2000 people on the rolls actually vote? Or are they just registered.
There's no justifiable reason for keeping in place a broken process that requires having to ask that question, because nobody could possibly effectively control such an out of control registration process except by purging ineligible voters.
That's the only responsible, fair, and practicable way to handle the situation, period. And if you weren't certain that the problem was only benefitting Democrats, you would be a poll purging fanatic yourself.
44998. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:48:51 PM A couple days ago, the MSM was trumpeting a *single* woman that was found trying to vote Republican at two different voting locations. This is how I know if your ox was being gored, you'd be out there on the street with the torches and pitchforks crowd yourself howling for vote roll purging. 44999. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:51:17 PM And screaming how corrupt and worthless Republicans are.
Think on this. The same applies in reverse.
|
