ot: Rasmussen Polls - Told you so!

[da pickle]

I just checked the 2008 General Election Results vs.the pollsters. The
actual final result was Obama +7.3 over McCain.

NBC/Wall Street Journal had their last poll at Obama +8 so they missed
by .7 leaning to the Democrat side.
------------
Rasmussen had Obama up +6 so they missed by 1.3 leaning to Republican
side.

The three most accurate were, CNN/Opinion Research, Ipsos/McClatchy,
and FOX News each polling Obama at +7 missing the actual result by
only .3 . (The RCP average was 7.6 also only .3 off.)

===================

AT THIS TIME in the race, late July/early August of
2008.................

Rasmussen had McCain ahead +1 polling 3000 likely voters. (8/1/2008 -
8/3/2008)
-----------
NBC/Wall Street Journal Had Obama +6 polling 1003 registered voters.
(7/18/2008 - 7/21/2008)
-----------
Actual result as mentioned above Obama +7.3.............

LOL @ Rasmussen’s 'likely voters' excuses! (told you so)

========================
source:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

[mo_ntresor]

i don't see travel's ankle anywhere around here. did you really mean to
post this drivel?

mo_ntresor

[da pickle]

On Jul 27, 10:48 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 27 2012 11:18 AM, da pickle wrote:
>
> > I just checked the 2008 General Election Results vs.the pollsters. The
> > actual final result was Obama +7.3 over McCain.
>
> > NBC/Wall Street Journal had their last poll at Obama +8 so they missed
> > by .7 leaning to the Democrat side.
> > ------------
> > Rasmussen had Obama up +6 so they missed by 1.3 leaning to Republican
> > side.
>
> > The three most accurate were, CNN/Opinion Research, Ipsos/McClatchy,
> > and FOX News each polling Obama at +7 missing the actual result by
> > only .3 . (The RCP average was 7.6 also only .3 off.)
>
> > ===================
>
> > AT THIS TIME in the race, late July/early August of
> > 2008.................
>
> > Rasmussen had McCain ahead +1 polling 3000 likely voters. (8/1/2008 -
> > 8/3/2008)
> > -----------
> > NBC/Wall Street Journal Had Obama +6 polling 1003 registered voters.
> > (7/18/2008 - 7/21/2008)
> > -----------
> > Actual result as mentioned above Obama +7.3.............
>
> > LOL @ Rasmussen’s 'likely voters' excuses! (told you so)
>
> > ========================
> > source:
>

> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_ele...

>
> i don't see travel's ankle anywhere around here. did you really mean to
> post this drivel?
>
> mo_ntresor

I'm not sure if calling proven facts (backed with sources) 'drivel'
constitutes name calling, so I’ll let it go and won’t add it to your
kindergarten count. Do you really think just calling something
‘drivel’ is any kind of an argument at all? Wow, the brilliance of the
right. I hope Romney is as sharp and witty as you when he debates
Obama.

Travel will be around later and I hope he can do better than you just
did. LOL.

[mo_ntresor]

On Jul 27 2012 12:36 PM, da pickle wrote:

> > i don't see travel's ankle anywhere around here. did you really mean to
> > post this drivel?
>

> I'm not sure if calling proven facts (backed with sources) 'drivel'
> constitutes name calling, so I’ll let it go and won’t add it to your
> kindergarten count. Do you really think just calling something
> ‘drivel’ is any kind of an argument at all? Wow, the brilliance of the
> right. I hope Romney is as sharp and witty as you when he debates
> Obama.
>
> Travel will be around later and I hope he can do better than you just
> did. LOL.

you nipped travel's future ankle in hyper-anticipation of his arrival!

mo_ntresor

[da pickle]

On Jul 27, 12:09 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
nipped:

> you nipped travel's future ankle in hyper-anticipation of his arrival!
>
> mo_ntresor

It seems to me you’re the one doing the ankle biting.

Travel will just use the ‘likely voters’ excuse and claim he’s kicked
ass. Unfortunately, that excuse is now debunked. Maybe he’ll realize
I’m right about Rasmussen, throw a hissy-fit and quit the group. Maybe
he’ll just be at a loss for words and be unable to do anything except
call me a mean name.

I’m really more interested in seeing what some of the intelligent
posters have to say about Rasmussen’s now proven bias.

[Travel A]

Lol, uh, Risky Biz, you were already caught lying and cherry picking on
this in your other ridiculous thread.

Also, the left wing rag polls switch to "likey voters" polls nearing the
election date: they "go to school" (so they won't look so "in-the-bag"
for the Democrat upon the final election results) on the legitimate
polls of Rasmussen, Gallup and Pew; the later two use "registered
voters" but change to "likely voters" polls at a certain, much earlier
point, and actually have the capacity and resources to conduct their own
"likely voters" polls.

You're getting way too much attention on this for a dancing imbecile.

.

[Travel A]

Also, as I've stated for years, Rasmussen publishes their full
methodology of questions asked, weighting, "internals,"/demographics
breakdowns and cross tabs.

Also, their results v. the elections final results have an excellent
track record.

[Travel A]

Re: ot: Rasmussen Polls - Told you so!
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 10:48am
From: mo_ntresor <amontillad...@gmail.com>

On Jul 27 2012 11:18 AM, da pickle wrote:

I just checked the 2008 General Election Results vs.the pollsters. The
actual final result was Obama +7.3 over McCain.
NBC/Wall Street Journal had their last poll at Obama +8 so they missed
by .7 leaning to the Democrat side.
------------
Rasmussen had Obama up +6 so they missed by 1.3 leaning to Republican
side.

The three most accurate were, CNN/Opinion Research, Ipsos/McClatchy, and
FOX News each polling Obama at +7 missing the actual result by only .3 .
(The RCP average was 7.6 also only .3 off.)

===================

AT THIS TIME in the race, late July/early August of
2008.................

Rasmussen had McCain ahead +1 polling 3000 likely voters. (8/1/2008 -
8/3/2008)
-----------
NBC/Wall Street Journal Had Obama +6 polling 1003 registered voters.
(7/18/2008 - 7/21/2008)
-----------
Actual result as mentioned above Obama +7.3.............

LOL @ Rasmussen�s 'likely voters' excuses! (told you so)

========================
source:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls
i don't see travel's ankle anywhere around here. did you really mean to
post this drivel?

mo_ntresor

....................................................

I wrote:

A major chortle.

[Travel A]

Risky Biz blithered and lied:

I'm really more interested in seeing what some of the intelligent
posters have to say about Rasmussen's now proven bias.

I wrote:
Then go to your other joke thread and see how Hollis kicked your lying
ass all over the place on Rasmussen's track record. Ya know, where he
caught you lying and cherry picking.

Also, all I have to do (as if your ass isn't already kicked) is repost
reams of my past-proven, definitive defense of Rasmussen.

Also, not only are you hiding from Pickel, but now you can hide from
Susan, after using her real name, (in recent post) and in a disgusting
way, as yet another of you silly phony usernames.

You're a real mess, Risky Biz, and you'll never, ever "win," chortle.

[da pickle]

On Jul 27, 8:07 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
> Re: ot: Rasmussen Polls - Told you so!
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 10:48am

> From: mo_ntresor <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>

>
> On Jul 27 2012 11:18 AM, da pickle wrote:
>
> I just checked the 2008 General Election Results vs.the pollsters. The
> actual final result was Obama +7.3 over McCain.
> NBC/Wall Street Journal had their last poll at Obama +8 so they missed
> by .7 leaning to the Democrat side.
> ------------
> Rasmussen had Obama up +6 so they missed by 1.3 leaning to Republican
> side.
>
> The three most accurate were, CNN/Opinion Research, Ipsos/McClatchy, and
> FOX News each polling Obama at +7 missing the actual result by only .3 .
> (The RCP average was 7.6 also only .3 off.)
>
> ===================
>
> AT THIS TIME in the race, late July/early August of
> 2008.................
>
> Rasmussen had McCain ahead +1 polling 3000 likely voters. (8/1/2008 -
> 8/3/2008)
> -----------
> NBC/Wall Street Journal Had Obama +6 polling 1003 registered voters.
> (7/18/2008 - 7/21/2008)
> -----------
> Actual result as mentioned above Obama +7.3.............
>

> LOL @ Rasmussen s 'likely voters' excuses! (told you so)
>
> ========================
> source:
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_ele...

> i don't see travel's ankle anywhere around here. did you really mean to
> post this drivel?
>
> mo_ntresor
> ....................................................
>
> I wrote:
>
> A major chortle.

Four replies in this thread and two in the other made as fast as you
could possibly type on your toy webTV keyboard. You reply to my
threads by a margin of 10 to 1 versus the reverse. Who’s biting whose
ankles?


===
‘It's virtually certain that the "individual mandate" will be ruled
unconstitutional (a nice hit against the left-wing government
overreaching via the commerce clause). It's a matter of whether the
whole thing (Obama "care") is thrown-out, also.’
-----
‘So, as everyone can clearly see, your statements of Romney winning
the nomination, is the very depth of publicly displayed idiocy. Check
the polls, Risky Biz (chortle)’
----
'Look for Sarah to announce her candidacy at the Tea Party rally.'

[Travel A]

[Travel A]

[Travel A]

[Travel A]

Discussrec.gambling.pokerH

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Rasmussen has Obama ahead in the Electoral College 247-191:

<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/election_2012>

270 needed for election. Just saying.

--bks

[Travel A]


nin...@webtv.net
From: Travel A
Subject: Risky Biz: "Already Lost"
Date: Saturday, January 14, 2012 5:28 PM


Lol, back before the original "Newt Surge," you said that it was all
over and that Romney was definitely the nominee. I said that Newt had a
chance and further, predicted that, Newt, due to his debating skills and
rising to a more center debating
stage position, had a chance. He did, and he surged just as I
predicted. You lost. End of story.

Due to my, obviously, vastly superior analytical ability, I proved you
wrong and exposed you (not that it was really necessary) as a
media-parroting dumbfuck.

Trying to weasel and change your story to "who eventually wins the
nomination" won't save you: my stated position has always been that
Romney wins if the conservative field is split. And that's exactly
what's happening, just as I stated long ago.

You were, as usual, checkmated a long time ago.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: OT: Not that anyone except Travel is surprised, but... Group:
rec.gambling.poker Date: Wed, Oct 5, 2011, 5:08pm From: da pickle no
spam <jcpi...@hotmail.com>


On Oct 5, 4:28 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:

I wrote:
Lol, you merely had dumb luck on the up or down of Sarah running.

Also, with, within Sarah's numerous Fox commentaries stating that she's
thinking about running (stating she has "the fire in the belly" to run
for president in a Chris Wallace interview) and can beat Obama if she
does, the Rolling Thunder day, her historic America bus tour, her
documentary opening at a theater in Iowa, her big showing at the Iowa
State Fair/on Hannity's national television show, the professional
campaign video of it all, the big speech at Indianola Iowa, (organized
by a special tea party group for that purpose) huge tea party support
from all over the country and "owed" endorsements from those she put
into office in the 2010 mid-term elections, only a complete idiot like
Risky Biz would say she definitely wasn't running. Which Risky Biz did
say of course.

The left wing media and RINOs just said she wasn't running because it
reduced "buzz" and buzz increases poll numbers and can increase
contributions to her PAC.

So, one would either have to be a Sarah-hater or a dumb fuck or both to
declare she definitely wasn't running (rest assured that with Risky Biz,
all the above applies).

So, you still remain ass-kicked on every aspect that requires any
intelligent evaluation of the situation. What you "get out of it" is the
same as a broken clock being on the right time twice a day.

See how easy it is to kick your dumb ass. That's what you "get out of
it": another ass-kicking.

.........................................................
...........................................................

After Michigan it was over, numbnuts. It was the spilt vote that got
Romney to that point as the frontrunner. You lose. Whatever I posted
about Newt's surges, etc., was true. What's your point? You lose.

As I said from the beginning. If the vote is split, Romney can win. The
vote was split and Romney won, just as I predicted; and stored in the
archives. I was right, you lose (chortle).
....................................
....................................

Sarah Palin also, at the same time and after, was saying nice things
about Santorum.

She didn't endorse, Newt, numbnuts, and that's a fact you can't escape.
If she did endorse him, she could have held Tea Party rallies, got the
various Tea Party voters to back Newt and away from Santorum, and raised
money, etc. She didn't do that. You lose (chortle)

....................................
.......................................

From: Travel A Subject: Risky Biz-Sarah Obsession Date: Friday, December
9, 2011 10:26 AM
Wow,
this is more fun that I could ever have hoped.

Risky Biz freaks and hates Newt as much as Sarah. So, he's right back
where he started (chortle).

80% of my posts having to do with Sarah Palin have been in repsonse to
Risky Biz sputtering vitriol and tearing his hair out over her. That's
80% of the posts where I wouldn't be posting about Sarah Palin,
otherewise. But, note well, Risky Biz, DID: now there's your obsession,
folks.


Emotional investment? Holy shit! has there ever been anyone more hate-
obsessed than Risky Biz (who's the fake Pickel) over Sarah Palin?

And now he's equally freak-hating over Newt! Gotta luv that.

....................................
....................................

From: Travel A
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 11:41 PM
To: nin...@webtv.net
Subject: Risky Biz- Romney "Definitely" Slam


Fake Pickel blithered:

and with Rick Perry


leading in the polls you thought he would be the nominee.



I wrote:
I never said Rick Perry would be the nominee, I said Rick Perry would be
my choice in the current field (Risky Biz-lie #1).

Fake Pickel blithered:


Next, you insisted that Herman Cain who was then leading in all the
polls would be the nominee.

I wrote:
I never said Cain would be the nominee, only that I was okay with Cain
if he did win (Risky Biz-lie #2).

However, you, on the other hand, in your total ignorance say that Romney
is definitely the nominee: this idiocy is based on Romney with, not ever
getting out of the mid 20s percent, and 75% of the Republican electorate
rejecting Romney and speading their support around six other candiates;
of whom, with any drop-outs, their support wouldn't be going to Romney,
but would go to the remaining, leading conservative
alternative-candidate to Romney. I.e., as the lesser candidates drop
off, Romney goes down in the spread.

So, as everyone can clearly see, your statements of Romney -definitely-
winning the nomination (at this point) is the very depth of publicly
displayed idiocy.

As I say, you've already lost.

....................................
....................................

Prev Next Normal view To: Travel A From: Travel A Subject: Splashie
(use) 5/3/12 Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:38 AM

(This, of course, also applies to Risky Biz- who's the Fake Pickle)


May 2

I wrote:
- show quoted text -
Yes, that, as always, is quite easy: as I said from the beginning, if
the vote is split, Romney can win. The vote was split, and Romney won on
plurality contest wins.



Romney:

Iowa: 25%

New Hampshire, (one of his big states) a lousy 39%.

South Carolina: 28% and lost.

Florida: 46%, another weak plurality.

Nevada: a huge Mormon state for Romney and a disappointing 50%.

Colorado: Romney lost.

Minnesota: Romney lost.

Missouri: Romney lost.

Maine: another lousy plurality @ 39%.

Michigan: Another lousy plurality in another of Romney's "big states"


with 41%

Arizona: Romney-41%


After these contests it was de facto, over. With the Romney big-money,
the Romney "inevitability" set in. And, he still went on to lose states
in the south to a weak opponent with no money.

The vote was split as I just indisputably proved, and Romney won without
the majority of voters wanting him to be the nominee.

You lose. You're an imbecile.


May 2

I wrote:
Oh, and I'll destroy you on the "Romney 25% ceiling," again. This time
proved by the actual results.


Romney was at the mid 20s% throughout the many months and debates
leading up to the first contest in the Iowa caucus. Romney got 25% in
Iowa with ALL candidates in the race. I proved my point.


It was then, numbnuts, that Bachmann dropped out and Perry skipped New
Hampshire, giving Romney a smaller field-split to his advantage in New
Hampshire: his huge state, where he couldn't even get a majority of the
vote. Not even in the 40s%, coming in at 39%. This is in New Hampshire,
not a neutral state; where he clearly wouldn't have broken the 20s%.


Then Huntsman quit, giving Romney a boost in numbers and, even then,
Romney actually lost in South Carolina with 28%. That's in his 20s%
ceiling range, imbecile.


Romney squeaked by in the early states, which, these early states,
effectively gives a primary candidate the nomination.


After candidates start dropping out, and the remaining candidates'
contributions dry-up,the "frontrunner" gets votes that he wouldn't have
had otherwise: a significant percentage of voters will just give up on
their preferred candidate and turn to the frontrunner; therefore, after
the early contests, much of the Romney vote-percentage increase was just
merely by default after a certain point.


And the media beat-back Romney's conservative opponents (Herman
Caine,Rick Perry and Newt) as much as Romney's big Wall Street money.


Bottom line: Romney had 75% of the Republican electorate that didn't
want him as the nominee.

Just as I stated at the beginning, and just as I'm proving, now.

That's the trouble with imbeciles like, Splashie, (and, of course,
"Risky Biz") they're too dumb to know when they get an ass-kicking, and
one has to waste their time totally humiliating them in the end.

....................................
....................................

Unfortunately for you, you've already taken numerous, well detailed,
well witnessed ass-kickings on all of your blitherings.

But keep up what surely has to be a rather tedious obsession, with only
a humiliating result to show for it (chortle).
....................................
....................................


This post is about: "The boy who hides from the real Pickel." 


Fact: Sarah Palin did not endorse anyone in the Nevada 2010 senate race.
Out of the countless ass-kickings and lies exposures of Risky Biz on a
daily basis, I've merely reposted a few of my favorites.

Here's a few of the countless many:


From: Travel A
Subject: Risky Biz "Own Ears"
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:38 AM


This was to "da pickel no spam" (who's Risky Biz-the Fake Pickel) a
creep who, pathetically, is too dumb to even successfully hide behind a
phony username.
The fake, lying "da pickel no spam" (Risky Biz) claimed that Sarah Palin
endorsed Sharron Angle in the Nevada Repubican primary for the U.S.
senate election. He further, bogusly claimed that he "heard it with his
own ears" at Sarah Palin's Searchlight Nevada speech. He lied, and I
proved it.

So, you can see why the fake "pickel no spam" is so upset and can't
forget his public humiliation (chortle):

Re: ot: Sarah Palin's most embarrassing screw-up yet? Group:
rec.gambling.poker Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2010, 1:55am From: Travel A
<nin...@webtv.net>


Heard it with your "own ears," huh, lol. This is what we call a total
moron-ass-kicking.

http://www.examiner.com/x-44562-National-News-Headlines-Editor~y2010m6d9-Sarah-Palins-endorsement-is-the-winning-ticket-in-key-races-in-Calif-SC-and-Iowa

Toward the end of the article, note well that Sarah Palin endorsed no
one in the Nevada, Republican senate primary race. In fact, Sarah Palin
gave a"shout-out" to Sue Lowden (not Sharron Angle) at another Nevada
speech, elsewhere.

"Risky Biz" lied through his teeth and got caught.

..................

Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 8:29pm
From: da pickle nospam <jcpi...@hotmail.com>


On Nov 26, 8:58 pm, "Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

"Sarah Palin made a slip of the tongue, on one word, in an interview and
immediately corrected it."


Risky Biz (who's the fake pickel) blithered:

"Sorry to correct you because I know how easily you are annoyed by facts
but actually it was Glenn Beck interviewing her who corrected HER. Had
he not she would still believe that North Korea was a U.S. ally."


I wrote:
Here are the facts. The fact is that Sarah was fully prepared to discuss
North/South Korea and saying "North" was clearly just a slip of the
tongue. She first, correctly, referred to whether the White Houe has the
balls to sanction North Korea. So, clearly, she used the name "North
Korea" in the correct context BEFORE she, later, misspoke in using that
same name.

Let's see if you idiots can read a transcript and realize what I'm
talking about. I'll grade you on your reading comprehension "abilities."

This vindicates Sarah, entirely.

So, Risky Biz, it seems it's you who's afraid of the facts, doesn't it.


Here's the entire interview Q & A with regard to Korea:

Cite:http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/48554/

Quote, (relevant from the article):

PAT: And polls show that you would probably win the Republican
nomination. How would you handle a situation like just developed in
North Korea?

SARAH PALIN: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from I think a greater
problem when we're all sitting around asking, "Oh, no, what are we going
to do" and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going
to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that
North Korea's going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture here that
certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But
obviously got to stand with our North Korean allies. We're bound to by
treaty. We're also bound to by ‑‑

STU: South Korea.

SARAH PALIN: Yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our
South Korean allies, yes. And, you know, to remind North Korea, well,
we're not going to reward bad behavior and we're not going to walk away
and we do need to press China to do more to increase pressure on that
arena.



GLENN: How do we press China? I mean, Sarah, I'm going to go way out on
a lunatic fringe here but I've talked to enough people are in this
missile business who say that was not an airplane contrail that we saw
off the coast of California. It is my belief that that was a
two‑stage missile launched by China telling, sending a signal
that the world has changed. They're dropping the dollar in their trade
with Russia today. I mean, they control the world. The world has
changed. We're no longer the superpower that we were even two years ago.

SARAH PALIN: Well, that's right. And China's going to own our notes
because we are becoming so beholden on them. And a lot of this has to do
with energy. When we're not allowed to responsibly exploit our own
natural resources, and that's, of course, one of the ways that America
grew into such a prosperous nation.

GLENN: Yes.

SARAH PALIN: We developed domestically our own energy supplies. Instead
as we're reliant on foreign sources of energy, here's one thing that we
can do in pressing China. They need to restrict energy exports to North
Korea. But do you think that the Obama administration gets that and
understands why we would need to? No, they do not because they're still
locking up the lands that are warehousing our own domestic supplies of
energy. So they have it all wrong on energy policy to start with.

...................


On Dec 24, 1:20 pm, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:


On Dec 24 2011 11:40 AM, da pickle wrote:



Susan wrote:
"I take my Christmas greeting to you back, risky. You remain the coward
and
no account (insert favorite pejorative here) you proved and continue to
prove yourself to be.

It is amazing how little he must think of himself to post as you. And so
insecure in himself that he tries to ruin the whole newsgroup with his
childish antics.

Really a sad sad case."


I wrote:

(titter)


....................................
Re: "Machete"
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Sun, Sep 5, 2010, 1:14am
From: Travel A <nin...@webtv.net>


Re: "Machete"
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Sun, Sep 5, 2010, 1:50am (PDT+3)
From: jb <joe...@comcast.net>

(jb, Written to Risky Biz)
"You have listed many great movies and quite a few bad ones. What this
has to do with Tarantino is dubious at best. This list clearly proves
that you are gay by the way."


I wrote:
(Chortle)
..................................

[Travel A]

Obama is ahead in electoral votes, but the important thing is that there
are a lot of "battleground states" where, if Obama was in good shape,
there would only be several.

For an incumbent, there is a definite weakness.

Thanks for telling us what you don't know, again, Badly.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Travel A <nin...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Obama is ahead in electoral votes, but the important thing is that there
>are a lot of "battleground states" where, if Obama was in good shape,
>there would only be several.

No, the important thing is winning the electoral college, and
Romney is way, way, way behind. According to Rasmussen, that is.

How does it feel to be hoist by the Rasmussen petard?

--bks

[Travel A]

Lol, thanks for the pathetic, post ass-kicking weaseling (as usual).

I'm well aware of the Rasmussen electoral standings; no one said Obama
wasn't ahead in these polls, numbnuts.

It's a close race by any standard, but by the fact that you clearly
don't know what you're talking about, you wouldn't know that.

Romney's close enough in enough battleground states that he could win
them and therefore the presidency.

Obama is consistently in the mid 40s% range in the popular vote. Under
50% for any incumbent is a significant "biggie" for indicators. It's
weak, and shows vulnerability.

How many states that McCain won in 2008, will Obama win in 2012? Zero.

How any states that Obama won in 2008 could he lose in 2012? This is
where the important aspects lie: Do you think Obama will win Indiana
again? Obama won Florida last time by 2.5% and it's not likely he'll win
it in 2012. Virginia: will Obama win it again in 2012? Virginia is an
important batleground state, where he's currently neck and neck with
Romney. There are plenty of others up for grabs if things swing even
moderately to Romney.

It's not so much about Obama being (currently projected) ahead in
-overall- electoral votes, it's how close is Romney in states that Obama
needs to "count on." That "overall" electoral standing plummets fast
with each state that swings to Romney. It's not as big of a lead as it
seems to an idiot like, you. It's about how strong is Obama, per state.

In other words, if Obama is ahead by just one point in a state, he gets
all the electoral votes of that state in the electoral-vote-count polls
standings. Are you beginning to "get it," imbecile?

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Travel A <nin...@webtv.net> wrote:
> ...

>It's a close race by any standard, but by the fact that you clearly
>don't know what you're talking about, you wouldn't know that.

> ...

The words in that sentence are English, the syntax is reasonable,
but the meaning seems to have been left in your other pants.

Let me give you a lesson in improving your semantics/keystrokes ratio:

+--------+--------+--------+
270 needed | Obama | Romney | Tossup |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+
| Rasmussen | 247 | 191 | 100 |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+
| FiveThirty | 294 | 244 | 0 |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+
| RealClear | 332 | 206 | 0 |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Electoral | 332 | 206 | 0 |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+
[last three use a no-toss-up algorithm]

Hope that helps!

--bks

[da pickle]

On Jul 28, 8:56 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) webTVed:

<Risky Biz blithered and lied: I'm really more interested in seeing
what some of the intelligent posters have to say about Rasmussen's now
proven bias.

<I wrote:

<Then go to your other joke thread and see how Hollis kicked your
lying ass all over the place on Rasmussen's track record. Ya know,
where he caught you lying and cherry picking. <

----
No such event occurred. I have shown that the date I used was the
correct one to use and further proven Rasmussen right wing bias since
then.

<Also, all I have to do (as if your ass isn't already kicked) is
repost reams of my past-proven, definitive defense of Rasmussen. <

----
Your many claimed ‘ass kickings’ are laughed at by everyone. If a
shark bit you in half you would claim you kicked it’s ass before you
drowned and/or bled to death.

<Also, not only are you hiding from Pickel, but now you can hide from
Susan, after using her real name, (in recent post) and in a disgusting

way, as yet another of you silly phony usernames< ----
I can’t respond to this one. I have no idea what you’re even talking
about.

<You're a real mess, Risky Biz, and you'll never, ever "win," chortle.
<

----
Besides Romney winning the GOP nomination and Cellulite Sarah not
running for President there have been at least 87 times where I have
won and you have lost. You’re not even right about the ‘risky biz’
bullshit.

[Travel A]

[Travel A]

[Travel A]

Conveniently, thiswasjust written an after my posts on this (Michael
Barne is the god of elections details): Michael Barone says there are at
least 12 battleground states.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/2012_campaign_very_different_than_kerry_vs_bush

[da pickle]

Michael Barone is a known right wing pundit who often contributes on
Fox Fake News. (Need I say more?)

He wrote that article for Rasmussen a proven biased organization.

And he writes for the Washington Examiner a known right wing rag.
---------------------
from wikipedia on the Washington Examiner:
‘When it came to the editorial page, the instructions were explicit —
‘nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers.’

[Travel A]

Discussrec.ga

[Travel A]

For one thing, the number of battleground states isn't an opinion,
numbnuts, it's a statistical fact that even the left wing commentators
acknowledge.


Conveniently, this was just written after my posts on this (Michael
Barone is the god of elections details): Michael Barone says there are