The Goat Pen

Just as easy to find as many who missed it by a mile....

Well, you already quoted the venerable NPR as having missed the 2010 House landslide. It's hard to beat that, for sure. But I suppose you could also cite the esteemed polls of MSNBC, the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, the Nation, and Michael Moore. They probably "missed it by a mile" too.

Nobody foresaw the R taking over the House in 2010. Nobody.

Nobody foresaw the R taking over the House in 2010. Nobody.


So sad to see you turn into tick....you can't just say foresaw taking over the house....you're saying someone who predicts, based on their poll, a 6 seat majority for the Repubs is the same as another saying, based on their poll, a 55 seat majority. One of these polls is not within their stated (usually +/-3%) margin of error.

Toemeesleather wrote:Sending billions to the Solyndras and unions ain't working is it?

Perhaps we would know that for sure, if Obama tried it.

But until he does, that's only your opinion.

Nobody foresaw the R taking over the House in 2010. Nobody.

That's why term limits are a bad idea.

Truly horrible politicians are a dime a dozen, and corporate money can put them in power.

The congressional class of 2010 noobees is the worst ever.

Yer the worst ever.

...you're saying someone who predicts, based on their poll, a 6 seat majority for the Repubs is the same as another saying, based on their poll, a 55 seat majority.

No. I'm saying that a lot of REAL polls - like Rasmussen - accurately predicted the R avalanche of 2010. I provided a list to disprove your assertion that "No poll predicted it."

The only polls that didn't see it coming were "polls" like NPR, and other liberal pollsters who couldn't or wouldn't admit what was obvious to everybody else.

Currently Rasmussen has oprama at 247 - needing just 23 out of 85 'toss-ups.'

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... scoreboard

please somebody else carry the water with these frigging polls - how 'bout you, prof?

Tick, you are plagiarizing me. From August 7:

Professor Tiger wrote:I heard some complaints that in many battleground state polls, democrats are overrepresented in the polling sample. Therefore, Obama's lead in those states may be overstated, and maybe even non-existent. That is a legitimate concern.

So I looked at Rasmussen, the most Republican-friendly pollster out there.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ction_2012

He is almost the same as Real Clear Politics, except he goes ahead and concedes Nevada and New Hampshire to Obama, which seems pretty obvious given the poll numbers. He also shows Wisconsin as a toss up. He lists North Carolina a Romney lean, which is probably also accurate.

With those adjustments, Rasmussen has Obama with 247 electoral votes to Romney's 206. There are 85 EV's up for grabs. Obama needs 23 of them, and Romney needs 64 of them, to win.

That being said, the Ryan pick seems to have helped Romney in key states. Romney gained ground in Ryan's state of WI: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

Romney is now tied in OH: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

Even in FL, where many thought Ryan's plan to tamper with medicare and SS would spell doom with the old folks, Romney is still up slightly.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

If the Ryan bump holds in these states, it will be a really close election.

Professor Tiger wrote:Tick, you are plagerizing me.

Another baseless allegation. Desperate, even.

Btw, I have little regard for the argument that Americans are too dumb or corrupt to know what's good for the country and vote accordingly.

That's like a business that is not selling well, and their leaders' response is NOT to look at themselves, and ask what THEY are doing wrong. When the leaders of a business look at their poor sales figures and say, "The buyers are just too stupid to realize how much better our product is than our competitor's. Damn them!" that is a business that is delusional, worthy of no respect, and doomed to fail.

You will not best BOJ, as he is building a legend in these parts on sheer tenacity. His future moniker:

VOLuminous

(VOLtaire is already taken)

Whoa! Deja vu.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/17/ge ... latestnews

File under the heading "No good deed.......

Talk about taking attention away from the election....

bluetick wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:Tick, you are plagerizing me.

Another baseless allegation. Desperate, even.

Btw, I have little regard for the argument that Americans are too dumb or corrupt to know what's good for the country and vote accordingly.

That's like a business that is not selling well, and their leaders' response is NOT to look at themselves, and ask what THEY are doing wrong. When the leaders of a business look at their poor sales figures and say, "The buyers are just too stupid to realize how much better our product is than our competitor's. Damn them!" that is a business that is delusional, worthy of no respect, and doomed to fail.

Well as a percentage how many US Citizens if they get an extra 10 dollars back from the local Wal Mart will make a trip back down there to give it to them? That's the same percentage that have the morals needed to vote for what is right for the country vs who can "give" them the most.

Jealousy and greed have worked for the liberals for many years and the more people that are addicted to other peoples money the easier that sell is, country be damned.

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Yer the worst ever.

We did have our company golf outing on Friday...

It's fun to watch the Mitt crowd cling to branches.

Well as a percentage how many US Citizens if they get an extra 10 dollars back from the local Wal Mart will make a trip back down there to give it to them? That's the same percentage that have the morals needed to vote for what is right for the country vs who can "give" them the most.

Jealousy and greed have worked for the liberals for many years and the more people that are addicted to other peoples money the easier that sell is, country be damned.

When extremely wealthy people like Mitt Romney pay around 15% of their income in taxes, in what way are they being screwed?

Assuming it's true that the bottom half of earners pay no income taxes, and the top 10 percent of earners pay 71 percent of all taxes, then what about the remaining 40 percent of all tax payers? We're screwed by the bottom half because we pay taxes while they don't, and we're screwed by the the top 10 percent because we usually pay a higher tax rate than the billionaires. According to this, Paul Ryan pays a higher tax rate than Romney, who earns vastly more.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 57123754/1

While you weep for the horrible economic suffering of the billionaires and their crushing 15% tax rate, I save my sympathy for middle 40%, who earn far less but pay more. Nobody in either party gives a crap about them.

We need a VOLuptuous around here

The lady on the left:

http://www.secsportsfan.com/images/tennessee-fans.jpg

Even though I pay a higher effective rate than Mitt, I don't besmirch him receiving a favorable rate on investment activity. Less taxes on investments means more after-tax money left over for reinvestment, means more company start ups, means more companies needing my services, which means I make more.