I am talking about the early polls when the thread started. I predicted the polls would be far less slanted by election day... and they were. Most polls had the candidates within the margin for error. For a while it looked like Romney had a lead in the national polls. Then it tightened back up... the storm happened, the hug happened and Obama did slightly better than most closing polls had it. Stop trolling this shit... you are misrepresenting history. If you want to take this up... start it on that polling thread. As far as nate sliver... who cares... he is public figure and partisan as hell while he worked for the times. he can take it. I still don't think much of his methodology. Averaging slanted polls. Its a joke.
Total BS On November 5th, 2012, you wrote this http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?p=3670695&highlight=silver#post3670695 You call November 5th polling EARLY? Where is your apology for calling liberals 'frauds', 'fools' 'crazy' and should be 'chastised'. And that's just one of the posts, you made a lot of posts like those and they were certainly not the early polls. Polling data a day before election day is NOT fucking early.
Nov 6th, 2012 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showpost.php?p=3671750&postcount=3350 Yea, let's discuss climate change or NOT.
April 14th 2012. I wrote... http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?t=240772&highlight=slanted+polls&page=13 You know where else Obama got a double-digit lead? In the polling sample. In 2008, when Democrats surged to the polls after eight years of George W. Bush, CNNâs exit polls showed a seven-point advantage for Democrats, 39/32, which mirrored Obamaâs seven-point victory in the popular vote. In 2010â²s midterms, CNN exit polls showed a 35/35/30 split. By contrast, the previous WaPo/ABC poll in March had a D/R/I of 31/27/36, which undersampled both parties relative to independents but left Democrats with a 4-point advantage â perhaps an arguable model for 2012 turnout. Todayâs has a D/R/I of 34/23/34, adding seven points to that Democratic advantage and presenting a completely unrepresentative, absurd model for the 2012 turnout. What happens when you switch from a D+4 to a D+11 in measuring Obamaâs standing? Suddenly, his job approval goes from 46% to 50% â actually, a rather weak gain given the sampling distortion in the poll. Not coincidentally, the last time Obama hit 50% in this poll was in February, which also had a D+11 sample, after Januaryâs D+7. Adding seven points to the Democratic advantage impacted Obamaâs performance in all areas, although perhaps not as much as the editors had hoped:
The other funny one was where jem was insisting that scientists say that the universe is designed. In that one he also misrepresented experts as saying things they did not.
fraudcurrents you all are a such a moron troll ... misrepresenting everything. here is more science you reject from a top scientist. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>)
fraudcurrents trolling reduced to this by facts all in one page. look at the exchange on this page. fraudcurrents lies. I provide proof out the mouth of a top scientist. then he says wow get help. fraudcurrents is what happens when most leftist drones are forced to deal with facts.
re: Why it's pointless to debate climate change with dumb Conservatives And yet he starts a thread to debate climate change with those "dumb conservatives"
And you're fucking other men in their assholes, and actually allowed to go out in public, and spread your diseases. You and ankle-grab Michael should be locked away, and that's one thing I agree with Putin on.