By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 24 October 2012
Edit Thread
chocoloco said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
 

Based on your resonse I doubt you read the article. I also agree with Spaceguy that you bleed red out your pores and try to pretend you are not Rebublican. Any source you do not like you try to discredit it when it actually has a lot of great insight, and becausese of that I put little value in you analysis on the validity of a source. You are so biased and try to pretend not to be. You should just admit you are a republican.

Based on my response that specifically mentioned stuff in the article you doubt I read the article.

Interesting.

I'm just someone who's generally mindful of the source, takes everything skeptically and note when arguements don't really jive with reality.

Correction, you take everything not right wing skeptically. And I am sorry, but your subjective reality is not the absolute one as you seem to think it is. This has valuable insight into how Obama could easily win and you  label it as bullshit because you do not like it. It is not a reality that when you label something a bad source for info that it truly is a bad source. Kind of prententious thinking you got aboutconcerning what is a good source and what is not.

Well you know.  Where in this thread  I infact took Mitt Romney's chances of winning the election skeptically... however because of the electoral college.  A real demonstraitable disadvantage for Romney.  I'm  plenty skeptical of Republican stuff. 

 

I labeled the piece bullshit... because that's basically what it was...

It was a piece about how Obama has a better ground game then the Republicans do.  (Likely True)

and the sole reason why the "polls are wrong" in the entire piece, is because an Obama staffer thinks they are wrong.

The whole basis of your arguement is one quote.

"We think that people aren't always getting it right about who and what this electorate is going to be comprised on Election Day," Messina said. "We continue to think there's going to be a higher percentage of minority and young people than some are forecasting."

This is despite the fact that voter turnout models are largely based off of the 2008 election.

 

Essentially the arguement is "We'll do better with voter turnout then we did in 2008."   With zero cited proof, despite the fact that enthusiasm is way down for Obama.

 

I'll put it this way... if you turned that in to a college proffessor as proper research they would flunk you for not having any substatial data... either qualitative or quantiative as for why this would lead to a divergence from the polls.