How Selfish Can Omama Be

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Hahaha you click on the link and it takes you to a Huff Po blog!!! C'mon!!! Get Real!!!

Are you drunk?

That is not a HuffPo blog. The web address has the edu. suffix.

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html Try again to use the clicky key.

BTW - you might go back and look at the Rasmussen polling information you posted - it gives Obama 332 to Romney 206 vote Obama electoral win.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Are you drunk?

That is not a HuffPo blog. The web address has the edu. suffix.

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html Try again to use the clicky key.

BTW - you might go back and look at the Rasmussen polling information you posted - it gives Obama 332 to Romney 206 vote Obama electoral win.

Your only link on this "site" specific to Florida is the Miami/Dade results which are always left. The rest of the state has something called "election laws" that prohibit the nonsense. keep on keepin on, playa.

And the first link on the site take you to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_2027200.html

and all subsequent "blog posts" are all from the Huff Po.

Fair and balanced, as usual. I'd expect nothing less.

And you still refuse to explain how your specified AGGREATION POLL shows Romney leading in FL, yet after you quote it, you dismiss the fact.

Comedy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Your only link on this "site" specific to Florida is the Miami/Dade results which are always left. The rest of the state has something called "election laws" that prohibit the nonsense. keep on keepin on, playa.

And the first link on the site take you to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_2027200.html

and all subsequent "blog posts" are all from the Huff Po.

Fair and balanced, as usual. I'd expect nothing less.

Are you just not intelligent enough to understand the information on the site? It has nothing to do with Huffington Post. There is no need to follow any link to any media site (of which many are listed)

Seriously - are you drunk right now? Did you miss this:

About These Statistics

Election officials may not report early voting statistics. I attempt to collect as much of the information about these ballots as possible. However, I do not hound election officials for these statistics because they are busy doing the important work of preparing for the upcoming election. Sometimes data will be available only at the local level. I cannot continuously scan for local data, so I appreciate tips on where to find data.
Breakdowns of early voters by party registration, where available, are not votes for president. We do not know who a person registered with a party voted for; these early votes are tabulated on Election Day or after, depending on state law. That said, we might infer that a person registered with a party is likely to support their party's presidential nominee.
A county is listed if a state does not report statewide early vote statistics and the county does report early vote statistics.

Early Voting Statistics
Some numbers provided courtesy of the Associated Press Election Research Group or election officials.

And you still refuse to explain how your specified AGGREATION POLL shows Romney leading in FL, yet after you quote it, you dismiss the fact.

Comedy.

Other than the three times I did explain it, including linking to your own Rasmussen site to illustration what I said about trending, I again have to ask,

Seriously - are you drunk right now? Or just not able to follow this conversation?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Are you just not intelligent enough to understand the information on the site? It has nothing to do with Huffington Post. There is no need to follow any link to any media site (of which many are listed)

Seriously - are you drunk right now?



Other than the three times I did explain it, including linking to your own Rasmussen site to illustration what I said about trending, I again have to ask,

Seriously - are you drunk right now? Or just not able to follow this conversation?

Seriously, are you Drunk? You cited this post:

Originally Posted by Riot

As of today, Obama is ahead in all the swing states but North Carolina. Look at Rupert's anonymous data, it even agrees - but unlike Nate Silver, it colors North Carolina as going blue for Obama. That means Obama would sweep all the swings, and the Ipsos/Reuters Obama electoral landslide would happen.

Obama only has to win 2 out of 3 of Ohio, Florida, Colorado to win. Romney could take all the rest of the swings, but Obama would still win.

Romney has to win all three of OH, FL, and Colorado, plus nearly run the table on the rest (the other 5)

Here is Nate Silvers aggregate of national and state polling as of midnight, tonight (including todays polling)

Then said that your Miami/Dade results, which are always Left, and ONLY REPRESENT 50,000 MIAMI DADE RESULTS (out of a state of TEN MILLION) disproved it.

Hows about this, go to your site, http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

Clicky (your word) on the first link they show you (gmu.edu isn't biased in anyway):


and tell us where it takes you - put down your drink first.{{SPOILER ALERT}} It's a Huff Po blog

Then tell us where the subsequent blog posts (which are the most important part of the site, as they are the first and only thing that you see) takes you.


Fraud.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Fraud.

About what? You call me liar for things I didn't say. You call me fraud because you don't like that national pollsters I quote - including the Rasmussen you posted - have Obama winning the election by multiple electoral votes?

You can't understand, three times, using your poll, I explain trends to you about Florida? So you call me names? Because you can't keep up?

If you can't understand how Florida being red on a poll today means Obama will win Florida, after I explained the concept of "trends" to you three times, how does your inability to "get it" make me deserving of verbal abuse by you, Sugartits?

Too bad for you. Call names. Does it make you feel better about your candidate losing?

What are you - five years old?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

About what? You call me liar for things I didn't say. You call me fraud because you don't like that national pollsters I quote - including the Rasmussen you posted - have Obama winning the election by multiple electoral votes?

You can't understand, three times, using your poll, I explain trends to you about Florida? So you call me names? Because you can't keep up?

If you can't understand how Florida being red on a poll today means Obama will win Florida, after I explained the concept of "trends" to you three times, how does your inability to "get it" make me deserving of verbal abuse by you, Sugartits?

Too bad for you. Call names. Does it make you feel better about your candidate losing?

What are you - five years old?

Yes I'm 5. I excelled in cut/paste in preschool.

How do you explain that you claimed FL as "Likely Obama" when your own poll disputes this and you cite .05% of the state (all in a solid blue county) as your basis?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Yes I'm 5. I excelled in cut/paste in preschool.

How do you explain that you claimed FL as "Likely Obama" when your own poll disputes this and you cite .05% of the state (all in a solid blue county) as your basis?

Oh, and for the record, you called me a "Moronic Idiot" before I called you Sugartits. So there's that. Plus I wound up making Hossy throw up, which I regret.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Yes I'm 5. I excelled in cut/paste in preschool.

How do you explain that you claimed FL as "Likely Obama" when your own poll disputes this and you cite .05% of the state (all in a solid blue county) as your basis?

For the fourth time - please, read slowly and carefully:

I said that Obama will win Florida. Why? The trending in Florida is Romney falling, Obama rising. Multiple polls. I even used your Rasmussen poll that shows this trend is true over the past five days (which I linked to).