Turns out the polls *were* skewed... in favor of the conservatives!
Comments174
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
All I know is that most every conservative I've run into, since election night, has been in dire need of Chapstick for Butts™, and Gold Bond Vaginal Sand Remover™.
Oh yeah, the number of attacks against me and the other liberals and liberal-leaning folks here and on other forums have just upped in volume. The Centrist Cultists are also out in force bitching and lying. And of course the conservative people actually in power have been even worse.
that has everything to do with Obama winning the election and nothing to do with you being a frothing at the mouth lunatic.
"church of centrism" btw is a term for everyone not a straight ticket democrat voter.
Also, this need for an "other" that is "out to get you", grouping everyone in this mass conspiracy. Paranoia?
no?
we can do this all night, until you stop projecting your problems on other people.
"church of centrism" btw is a term for everyone not a straight ticket democrat voter.
Also, this need for an "other" that is "out to get you", grouping everyone in this mass conspiracy. Paranoia?
no?
we can do this all night, until you stop projecting your problems on other people.
"Actually, it's the other way around that's the problem: People keep trying to project their problems on me and blame me for their own shit. I'm not the fucking village sineater; learn to take responsibility for your own bullshit and stupidity and leave me out of it."
Really? Why can't this chick look at herself at the mirror and know what a [bleep] she really is?
Really? Why can't this chick look at herself at the mirror and know what a [bleep] she really is?"that has everything to do with Obama winning the election and nothing to do with you being a frothing at the mouth lunatic."
Well, yes, that's my point. You guys make up shit about me because you're butthurt whiners, not because I'm actually crazy or anything else wrong with me. Thanks for agreeing! I love it when people make my point for me.
"'church of centrism' btw is a term for everyone not a straight ticket democrat voter."
Nope. Of course, I've explained what it really means multiple times, yet you keep repeating this, then wonder why I claim you're a liar and/or cannot read.
"Also, this need for an 'other' that is 'out to get you', grouping everyone in this mass conspiracy. Paranoia?"
Out to get everyone who has been trying to stick to just the facts, yes. And, well, seeing as how you're sitting here once again replying just to do the very bitching and lying I accused you of, I'd say it's rather justified paranoia, eh?
"we can do this all night, until you stop projecting your problems on other people."
Actually, it's the other way around that's the problem: People keep trying to project their problems on me and blame me for their own shit. I'm not the fucking village sineater; learn to take responsibility for your own bullshit and stupidity and leave me out of it.
In b4 you respond to keep lying, making up shit, and blaming me for your own stupidity and bullshit, while trying to claim I'm wrong for saying you do that. I mean, I love how I'll say people always do something, and they'll reply to me insisting I'm wrong via doing the very thing they just insisted I was wrong for saying they do. I mean, a-dur? Do you people ever actually read and think about what you post?
Well, yes, that's my point. You guys make up shit about me because you're butthurt whiners, not because I'm actually crazy or anything else wrong with me. Thanks for agreeing! I love it when people make my point for me.
"'church of centrism' btw is a term for everyone not a straight ticket democrat voter."
Nope. Of course, I've explained what it really means multiple times, yet you keep repeating this, then wonder why I claim you're a liar and/or cannot read.
"Also, this need for an 'other' that is 'out to get you', grouping everyone in this mass conspiracy. Paranoia?"
Out to get everyone who has been trying to stick to just the facts, yes. And, well, seeing as how you're sitting here once again replying just to do the very bitching and lying I accused you of, I'd say it's rather justified paranoia, eh?
"we can do this all night, until you stop projecting your problems on other people."
Actually, it's the other way around that's the problem: People keep trying to project their problems on me and blame me for their own shit. I'm not the fucking village sineater; learn to take responsibility for your own bullshit and stupidity and leave me out of it.
In b4 you respond to keep lying, making up shit, and blaming me for your own stupidity and bullshit, while trying to claim I'm wrong for saying you do that. I mean, I love how I'll say people always do something, and they'll reply to me insisting I'm wrong via doing the very thing they just insisted I was wrong for saying they do. I mean, a-dur? Do you people ever actually read and think about what you post?
"
Well, yes, that's my point. You guys make up shit about me because you're butthurt whiners, not because I'm actually crazy or anything else wrong with me. Thanks for agreeing! I love it when people make my point for me."
your actually crazy.
If you actually followed most of our participation in these forums, you'd find that next to none of us have any real connection, emotional or otherwise to the republicans, nor to ex-presidential canidate mitt romney
You'd also find that we argue with the republicans/conservatives probably more than we argue with you.
Also, don't drag the rest of the left-leaning, the liberals, and the progressives into this, because I manage to have well thought out intellectually meaningful, and civil conversations with many of them. ~TortelliniPen comes to mind, someone who puts a great deal of though into things that are not screaming and is capable of objectively assessing problems.
Even VorpelPen can, and sometimes will make repeated attempts to be civil. Even mgonzeles who I think isn't so bright, doesn't really try and blame the rest of the forums for his own personal failures, stupidity, or even people who disagree with him on politics as mortal enemies that he has to try and recruit every yet unaligned person to help fight his battles.
Even on the right, meanus might be a fumbling doofus, but I never heard the man attack anyone another forums poster for disagreeing with him. Its well obvious that dA has a strong left bias, but you don't even here conspiracy theorists like TBSchemer trying to hijack every thread about how "the liberals are out to get him".
Of course, this places you with the real nutcases, like awake1, psyopsjunkie,infinitetollerance, and bombdrawing.
If not in content, but in the same techniques used. As they say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is see otherwise acting like a duck, it just may be.
"Nope. Of course, I've explained what it really means multiple times, yet you keep repeating this, then wonder why I claim you're a liar and/or cannot read."
It means people who refuse to blame the republicans for every single problem the nation faces, regardless, or anyone who dares hold any member of the democrat party responsible for anything, regardless of how trivial. We call this being a "straight ticket democrat voter"
And for the record, the church has held a meeting, from this moment forward, we would like to be addressed as the "mosque of centrism", as we plan on aquired property on, or around ground zero, for purely, umm, "political reasons".
"Actually, it's the other way around that's the problem: People keep trying to project their problems on me and blame me for their own shit."
You don't see me, nor any of these other "mosque of centrism" people going around complaining about how much of a retard you are, in every thread that doesn't concern you.
Well, yes, that's my point. You guys make up shit about me because you're butthurt whiners, not because I'm actually crazy or anything else wrong with me. Thanks for agreeing! I love it when people make my point for me."
your actually crazy.
If you actually followed most of our participation in these forums, you'd find that next to none of us have any real connection, emotional or otherwise to the republicans, nor to ex-presidential canidate mitt romney
You'd also find that we argue with the republicans/conservatives probably more than we argue with you.
Also, don't drag the rest of the left-leaning, the liberals, and the progressives into this, because I manage to have well thought out intellectually meaningful, and civil conversations with many of them. ~TortelliniPen comes to mind, someone who puts a great deal of though into things that are not screaming and is capable of objectively assessing problems.
Even VorpelPen can, and sometimes will make repeated attempts to be civil. Even mgonzeles who I think isn't so bright, doesn't really try and blame the rest of the forums for his own personal failures, stupidity, or even people who disagree with him on politics as mortal enemies that he has to try and recruit every yet unaligned person to help fight his battles.
Even on the right, meanus might be a fumbling doofus, but I never heard the man attack anyone another forums poster for disagreeing with him. Its well obvious that dA has a strong left bias, but you don't even here conspiracy theorists like TBSchemer trying to hijack every thread about how "the liberals are out to get him".
Of course, this places you with the real nutcases, like awake1, psyopsjunkie,infinitetollerance, and bombdrawing.
If not in content, but in the same techniques used. As they say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is see otherwise acting like a duck, it just may be.
"Nope. Of course, I've explained what it really means multiple times, yet you keep repeating this, then wonder why I claim you're a liar and/or cannot read."
It means people who refuse to blame the republicans for every single problem the nation faces, regardless, or anyone who dares hold any member of the democrat party responsible for anything, regardless of how trivial. We call this being a "straight ticket democrat voter"
And for the record, the church has held a meeting, from this moment forward, we would like to be addressed as the "mosque of centrism", as we plan on aquired property on, or around ground zero, for purely, umm, "political reasons".
"Actually, it's the other way around that's the problem: People keep trying to project their problems on me and blame me for their own shit."
You don't see me, nor any of these other "mosque of centrism" people going around complaining about how much of a retard you are, in every thread that doesn't concern you.
Thanks for claiming I'm wrong that you don't do X, then in your entire post spending quite a bit of time doing X. You always prove my point for me.
All polls are fucking skewed. Every outlet there was said something completely different, so why even bother paying attention to this shit anymore? The only way to find out who's going to win is by waiting for the results and quite frankly is counter-productive already.
Did you actually read the article? Which, by the way, was written by a guy who correctly predicted almost every result in the election? (And thus knew who was going to win?)
If you have a real honest to go fair election, the only way you know for sure is counting the votes.(duh)
Its also really easy to monday morning cornerback.
This is comming from the guy who predicted an Obama landslide the day Romney was elected(on the basis he had no real voting base), and then second guessed himself the entire election season because of mainstream polls.
Its also really easy to monday morning cornerback.
This is comming from the guy who predicted an Obama landslide the day Romney was elected(on the basis he had no real voting base), and then second guessed himself the entire election season because of mainstream polls.
Uh, dude? This guy has been making this analysis and predictions the entire pre-election, not suddenly after the fact. But hey, not like you've ever had a history of researching the facts before opening your mouth and pretending you actually know what you're talking about, so why start now, eh?
And, wow, it's almost like... people make hypotheses based on the data they have at the time, then refine/change their analysis as more data comes in to make analysis with. It's almost like scientists make guesses, test if they were right or wrong, and when they're wrong, admit it and make adjustments. It's almost like that's how science and rational thinking works.
But I forget, the anti-intellectuals and irrational ideologues think scientists and rational thinkers are fortune-tellers who are supposed to guess right from day one, and never update their conclusions to accept and deal with new facts and changes in situations. They're instead proved to be wrong if they didn't fortune-tell, or proved to be worthless sellouts if they account for new facts.
...actually, damn, you just explained why you and the other ideologues on either side have such a hard time accepting the facts without attacking everyone, strawmanning, and/or making up myths and fantasies. Because you can't accept the concept of reality ever changing, or people changing their conclusions to fit the facts rather than changing the facts to fit their conclusions because of course to ideologues their conclusions are never allowed to change or be updated with new information or be admitted to be flawed. It makes so much sense now.
And, wow, it's almost like... people make hypotheses based on the data they have at the time, then refine/change their analysis as more data comes in to make analysis with. It's almost like scientists make guesses, test if they were right or wrong, and when they're wrong, admit it and make adjustments. It's almost like that's how science and rational thinking works.
But I forget, the anti-intellectuals and irrational ideologues think scientists and rational thinkers are fortune-tellers who are supposed to guess right from day one, and never update their conclusions to accept and deal with new facts and changes in situations. They're instead proved to be wrong if they didn't fortune-tell, or proved to be worthless sellouts if they account for new facts.
...actually, damn, you just explained why you and the other ideologues on either side have such a hard time accepting the facts without attacking everyone, strawmanning, and/or making up myths and fantasies. Because you can't accept the concept of reality ever changing, or people changing their conclusions to fit the facts rather than changing the facts to fit their conclusions because of course to ideologues their conclusions are never allowed to change or be updated with new information or be admitted to be flawed. It makes so much sense now.
"This guy has been making this analysis and predictions the entire pre-election, not suddenly after the fact."
thats the point. before the election. I did read the article, and its a good one.
"But I forget, the anti-intellectuals and irrational ideologues think scientists"
anti-intellectuals eh? I suppose you fancy yourself an "intellectual". Mabey you should include why when you respond.
thats the point. before the election. I did read the article, and its a good one.
"But I forget, the anti-intellectuals and irrational ideologues think scientists"
anti-intellectuals eh? I suppose you fancy yourself an "intellectual". Mabey you should include why when you respond.
...then your point makes no sense.
Polls are always skewed to make elections more fun and exciting. I recall polls and analysts saying Kerry would win by a landslide in 2004
It's notable when you have people attempting to unskew them in the wrong direction, though.
mass support for Governor Romney was no polling fluke. he won the debates, he was going strong with issues related to the economy, and budget and he was gaining support in the face of an overwhelmingly negative ad campaign! and the usual media bias that hounds republicans...
but then the hurricane came in and took control by allowing Obama a chance to look both up front, on time and, on topic as well as giving him an amazing moment of bipartisanship with one of the hardest hitting Republican Governors in the country! this showing in a time of crisis really swung a lot of people over to support Obama, not to mention the storm effectively shut Romney up about the economy for about 3 days...
about 35% of people who voted had the storm on their minds, and about 10% had the storm as top priority. Obama may have won big in the Electoral college but he won the swing states by only a small percentage. this is no coincidence.
but then the hurricane came in and took control by allowing Obama a chance to look both up front, on time and, on topic as well as giving him an amazing moment of bipartisanship with one of the hardest hitting Republican Governors in the country! this showing in a time of crisis really swung a lot of people over to support Obama, not to mention the storm effectively shut Romney up about the economy for about 3 days...
about 35% of people who voted had the storm on their minds, and about 10% had the storm as top priority. Obama may have won big in the Electoral college but he won the swing states by only a small percentage. this is no coincidence.
He won ONE debate bro. Most every poll favored Obama in the next two debates.
Also, the only person who gets blame for the hurricane and the effect it had on the election is Romney, who stated that he'd cut funding to FEMA.
Also, the only person who gets blame for the hurricane and the effect it had on the election is Romney, who stated that he'd cut funding to FEMA.
There is no winning debates. One person does better than the other, but there is no winner. No prize. No bonus to the polls.
Blaming Cristie is a massive failure.
He won the swing States because Romney sucked. Not because of Sandy.
Blaming Cristie is a massive failure.
He won the swing States because Romney sucked. Not because of Sandy.
I actually caused that hurricane - I farted in Brighouse a couple of weeks prior.
I would only say that Romney won the first debate; nobody will argue that. However, the second debate was a tie at the very best (for Romney), and Obama definitively won the third debate.
Also, while most swing states were close, it says something that he won every single swing state except North Carolina. Even Florida, a state that most liberals (including myself) had accepted as a lost cause. That isn't a fluke either.
Plus, the effectiveness of Obama's response helped to remind people that "hey, maybe the government can be a good thing after all!" It couldn't have helped Romney that he had advocated slashing FEMA. What would President Romney have done if another superstorm came along the East Coast, or if we had another Katrina?
Romney also lost Ohio the moment he ran that fateful op-ed. Aside from checking the titles that editors give your pieces before release, Romney should've known that maybe if you're against the policies that saved jobs, then maybe the people who'es jobs were saved won't like you that much. And then Romney released an ad saying that under Obama, Chrysler was moving jobs to China. This was an audacious lie, so blatantly untrue that the higher-ups at Chrysler said that it was bullshit. This only created a storm of bad coverage for Romney only days before the election, and if he hadn't already lost Ohio then, he had certainly lost it at that moment.
Of course, it turns out that Obama didn't even need Ohio. But that's a different story.
Also, while most swing states were close, it says something that he won every single swing state except North Carolina. Even Florida, a state that most liberals (including myself) had accepted as a lost cause. That isn't a fluke either.
Plus, the effectiveness of Obama's response helped to remind people that "hey, maybe the government can be a good thing after all!" It couldn't have helped Romney that he had advocated slashing FEMA. What would President Romney have done if another superstorm came along the East Coast, or if we had another Katrina?
Romney also lost Ohio the moment he ran that fateful op-ed. Aside from checking the titles that editors give your pieces before release, Romney should've known that maybe if you're against the policies that saved jobs, then maybe the people who'es jobs were saved won't like you that much. And then Romney released an ad saying that under Obama, Chrysler was moving jobs to China. This was an audacious lie, so blatantly untrue that the higher-ups at Chrysler said that it was bullshit. This only created a storm of bad coverage for Romney only days before the election, and if he hadn't already lost Ohio then, he had certainly lost it at that moment.
Of course, it turns out that Obama didn't even need Ohio. But that's a different story.
Romney did not have a snowballs chance in hell. I called this after he won the nomination, but I let the mainstream media skew my faith in my own judgement.
My friends kinda scoffed when I compared Obama vs Romney to another rematch of Johnson vs Goldwater of 1964, but it looks like I was closer to being right. The polls made me second guess myself, but when the dust cleared, it wasn't quite Johnson vs Goldwater, but it was closer to that, than a 50/50 race. My guess is that a closer race probably sells more news, and higher ratings. people tune in more if they think its close.
While the republicans and democrats kept their positions in congress (slight blue shift?), Romney lost because he was never a viable presidential canidate. Here is my rationale:
1. He was the type of liberal republican businessman that only seems to work in far blue states like Massachusetts. There is no real demand for this on the national stage.
2. He was a centrist, back when this was acceptable, a few years ago. While centrists are out there, there are no large centrist donors, or centrist PACs, or centrist campaign organizers, or people who get fired up about the center.
3. What ground there is left in the center, Obama has on firm footing.
4. Since Obama has the center, any likely members of the Romney base are already voting for Obama, who is incumbent, this means Romney has no real base.
5. To win the primary he had to make a far dive to the right, which conservatives know him already has a liberal, and a centrist. Centrists and liberals will never see him as a centrist or liberal, and are entirely unlikely to vote for him.
6. The conservative base might have gone to Romney, but I really can't see them having come out in great numbers for him. The last ditch effort was run conspiracy theories to try and bring the "right" together about a canidate most of them were pretty apathetic about.
Since this is the US of A, its going to backfire, because even if any of the conspiracy theories were true, most people wouldn't be caught dead disagreeing with the mainstream if it cost them their lives. Most of America likes to conform, even when the facts are against them, and when the facts seem to be on their side, they don't even give a second look. Sure radio shock jocks can carve out enough of a niche to make fortunes for themselves, but really garner sizeable support from the population as a whole? No. Rush Limbaugh can make millions if as little as %10 of the nation likes him. You can't win office like that.
7. Therefor most of his campaign was not running as "Mitt Romney", but running "against Obama". The "Anybody but X" movements have historically been failures.
Romney never stood a snowballs chance in Hell. The only reason he appeared to, is because of skewed polls.
My friends kinda scoffed when I compared Obama vs Romney to another rematch of Johnson vs Goldwater of 1964, but it looks like I was closer to being right. The polls made me second guess myself, but when the dust cleared, it wasn't quite Johnson vs Goldwater, but it was closer to that, than a 50/50 race. My guess is that a closer race probably sells more news, and higher ratings. people tune in more if they think its close.
While the republicans and democrats kept their positions in congress (slight blue shift?), Romney lost because he was never a viable presidential canidate. Here is my rationale:
1. He was the type of liberal republican businessman that only seems to work in far blue states like Massachusetts. There is no real demand for this on the national stage.
2. He was a centrist, back when this was acceptable, a few years ago. While centrists are out there, there are no large centrist donors, or centrist PACs, or centrist campaign organizers, or people who get fired up about the center.
3. What ground there is left in the center, Obama has on firm footing.
4. Since Obama has the center, any likely members of the Romney base are already voting for Obama, who is incumbent, this means Romney has no real base.
5. To win the primary he had to make a far dive to the right, which conservatives know him already has a liberal, and a centrist. Centrists and liberals will never see him as a centrist or liberal, and are entirely unlikely to vote for him.
6. The conservative base might have gone to Romney, but I really can't see them having come out in great numbers for him. The last ditch effort was run conspiracy theories to try and bring the "right" together about a canidate most of them were pretty apathetic about.
Since this is the US of A, its going to backfire, because even if any of the conspiracy theories were true, most people wouldn't be caught dead disagreeing with the mainstream if it cost them their lives. Most of America likes to conform, even when the facts are against them, and when the facts seem to be on their side, they don't even give a second look. Sure radio shock jocks can carve out enough of a niche to make fortunes for themselves, but really garner sizeable support from the population as a whole? No. Rush Limbaugh can make millions if as little as %10 of the nation likes him. You can't win office like that.
7. Therefor most of his campaign was not running as "Mitt Romney", but running "against Obama". The "Anybody but X" movements have historically been failures.
Romney never stood a snowballs chance in Hell. The only reason he appeared to, is because of skewed polls.
I think that you hit the nail right on the head there. A lot of people were disappointed in Obama, but Romney isn't exactly somebody that a lot of people can really rally around. I remember a CNN article saying that "In a presidential election where there's an incumbent nobody wants to vote for, and a challenger nobody wants to vote for, then the incumbent will win."
In the end, Romney didn't really give people a specific reason to vote for him. A lot of conservative voters didn't vote for him, they just voted against Obama. That lack of enthusiasm never won anybody a race. You can see it in the number of Republicans suddenly denouncing Romney, saying that they knew he would lose, etc. Of course, the Obama campaign was counting on this, and they were exactly right.
Besides, incumbents are rarely defeated, and if you lose the election nowadays then the party will most likely not let you run again. That's why we saw Republican heavyweights like Chris Christie (who some argue was partially responsible for Romney's loss) and Jeb Bush (easily the least idiotic of all the Bushes) sit this one out: they knew they would have a much better chance in 2016. Instead we got an absolute circus of a Republican primary, with the rather boring Mitt Romney being the only sane choice out of all of them.
And this isn't even going into the demographic issues that the GOP is facing right now. This can be alleviated by nominating someone like Rubio, but he's still a bit green.
In the end, Romney didn't really give people a specific reason to vote for him. A lot of conservative voters didn't vote for him, they just voted against Obama. That lack of enthusiasm never won anybody a race. You can see it in the number of Republicans suddenly denouncing Romney, saying that they knew he would lose, etc. Of course, the Obama campaign was counting on this, and they were exactly right.
Besides, incumbents are rarely defeated, and if you lose the election nowadays then the party will most likely not let you run again. That's why we saw Republican heavyweights like Chris Christie (who some argue was partially responsible for Romney's loss) and Jeb Bush (easily the least idiotic of all the Bushes) sit this one out: they knew they would have a much better chance in 2016. Instead we got an absolute circus of a Republican primary, with the rather boring Mitt Romney being the only sane choice out of all of them.
And this isn't even going into the demographic issues that the GOP is facing right now. This can be alleviated by nominating someone like Rubio, but he's still a bit green.