That's not at all what you were arguing. You said on many occasions that weighting numbers should mirror 2004 turnout. The actual results show the pollsters were far closer to correct than you were. Just own up.

Sorry, man. I should have known better. I just thought that maybe, just MAYBE, there was some truth to the assertion that the poll weightings were off, and that we would see a surprise last night. But, as we saw, most polls (when used in combination with each other) were incredibly accurate. In fact, the poll of polls had Obama at something like 6.3% ahead going into last night. Which might be almost exactly where things end up. Fivethirtyeight.com had Obama at around 350 EV's, and he is going to go over that but JUST barely. Electoral-vote.com had all the states pretty much perfect except North Dakota, which I can forgive them for due to the lack of polling numbers from that state.

When I say I'm going to "ignore" him, I guess I should clarify. I'm not going to put him on ignore, as that would eliminate too much UIC value from certain threads for me. Rather, I'm going to be able to now completely ignore his assertions, no matter how "backed up" they are with supposed "facts". Or, failing that, I can bring up the EPIC FAIL of this thread that dragged on for weeks and we can all have a good laugh and go back to calling most of his assertions complete bullshit.

And yes, this is not a Republican/Democrat thing. I am more than able to have an adult discussion with Republicans who are not melodramatic, or short-sighted, or unable to admit when they are completely and utterly off-base. No, rather this is a closure as I see it once and for all to the story of MBBF as a legitimate source of anything besides raw video game sales numbers or news. Or UIC.

Unless he can admit how wrong he was. Everyone's wrong sometimes. It just takes a big man to admit it.

congratulations! you are catholic.

Anyway, anybody want to comment about the possibility of Obama appointing Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe to the cabinet as a ploy to gain 60 seats in the Senate? Is that even a real possibility, or would that be seen as too transparent a power play?

Catholics are socially liberal?

Say what?

MBBF has a mental illness. He literally cannot stop posting. He defends it as "discussion" and "sharing information" but the sheer volume of his participation is completely beyond the pale.

I think that is something that has been evident for a pretty long time now.

I think that was a poor generalization on his part. I know many catholics that are socially liberal though in regards to feeling that the government and religion shouldn't mix. The generalization is poor however because that is not always the case as you have another large number of Catholics who do feel the opposite.

A Few Notes From the National Exit Poll


Polling was pretty darn good this time around.

:banghead: @ PUMAs.

I was the only one of the top 6 posters in this thread who doesn't have a significantly liberal leaning. So according to your theory, mental illness is rampant in the liberal movement. Fabulous assertion (although totally void of substance).

This summarizes most of your posts in this thread.

The unity message continues to flow in this thread. Acceptance of all opinions and people is rampant under the new administration.

In related news, Russia just walked up to Poland's doorstep with a bunch of missiles. They were reportedly laughing.

Wait... FOFC has a cabinet post now!?!?!

Hellz YEAH!

FYI- Russia doesn't share a border with Poland.

You and I are both aware of the geography. My point does not change. I'm guessing this is the international crisis that Biden promised.

Yet.

(Which is kind of his point, really.)

I second your self-nomination.

Um... yes it does.

hint: Northern border (to the eastern side)

Oops. I thought the Kaliningrad region was part of Lithuania.

Polls tighten close to the election. No one was saying that Obama would win Ohio by, say, 10 points. They were saying that he was leading McCain by 10 points at the time of the poll. Most people who understand these things knew that Obama's large leads would shrink.

Look at it this way. If USC is playing a 1-AA school, and the 1-AA school receives the opening kickoff and manages to drive down to a long field goal and leads 3-0 with 10:00 minutes left in the 1st quarter, very few people would say that USC is not favored to win that game at that point. But even fewer people would say that 3-0 did not fairly represent the score at the time the score was reported.

To the extent your complaints about the weighting were saying that the polls were not accurately representing the state of the race at the time (i.e. that the score is not 3-0), I think that you were wrong.

To the extent that your complaints about the weighting were saying that the race would not end up as a double digit win (i.e. that USC would still win the game), I think that you were making an obvious and uncontroversial point not worth one-tenth of the time we have all spent on it.

Have no fear, I'm sure President Chamberlain will handle things just fine.

I found this information to be extremely interesting. In California, white voters were 51% opposed to the gay marriage ban. Black voters were 70% in favor of the gay marriage ban.

In Florida, white voters were 60% against the gay marriage ban. Black voters voted 3:1 in favor of a gay marriage ban.

In summary, while the massive African-American turnout of yesterday's election helped push one discrimination barrier aside, it appears that same influx of African-American voters rolled back a discrimination breakthrough on the gay rights front. The gay community may rue the day that they supported this candidate.

Nailed it!

It is astounding how easily one minority group will grab the power of government force to restrict another minority group. It can only come from ignorance, because trying to approach this one with reason and logic finds no answers for me.

Maybe they just happen to understand the definition of a relatively simple word.

I don't find it to be a surprise at all with the particulars of this case. Maybe it's merely my impression, but it just seems to me that black culture is pretty openly anti-gay. I don't know if that's mostly a macho thing or what. In fact, I've seen it just as much in black women as in men.

Please explain it, and you can't use religion since the government certainly couldn't be this jacked into a purely religious matter.

If marriage is not to be available to all consenting adults, then the government needs to get out of the business of marriage licenses, different tax tables for married couples, and basically any right/legal standing that has anything at all to do with marriage. Let the religions do with it as they wish, without government regulation, but they should derive no benefit from such status in their dealings with the government or business.

Where are these numbers from?

According to CNN, 60% of whites in Florida voted for the gay marriage ban, 71% of blacks voted for it, and 64% of Latinos voted for it. Those aren't big differences, especially when you consider that 72% of the voters in Florida were white compared to only 11% black and 14% latino.

Still, it demonstrates an ignorance of history. If you look at the establishments that are pushing the hardest to keep gays from being married, you will find a strong resemblance to those who tried to keep black men and women from truly equal status in our society.

I'm definitely not disagreeing with that. In fact, I'd take it a step further - it's not just a resemblance. In some cases we're literally talking about the same people. Jerry Falwell springs to mind as a very outspoken anti-gay rights activist that wouldn't allow blacks in his church 40 or so years ago.

Interesting stuff. Newsweek has released some behind the scenes stuff from both campaigns. (They got more behind the scenes access to the campaigns, in return for a strict promise not to publish any of this before election day).

Highlights: Newsweek's Special Election Project | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

A) Both candidates' campaign network were hacked by an unknown "foreign entity", in an attempt to gather information, presumanbly for a foreign nation to get information about how each campaign would react to certain nations.

B) The shopping spree by Palin and the first Dude was much much bigger then reported. A lot of it was paid for by a wealthy donor (who was reportedly aghast when he got the bill). Apparently, Palin was told to pick three outfits and hire a stylist, and then went nuts instead.

C) Palin wanted to speak during McCain's concession speech, but McCain's campaign manager vetoed the request.

D) Obama had to be convinced multiple times that picking Hillary as a VP would do more harm then good.

E) (this one really frightens me, to be honest, personally) The Obama campaign's New Media experts created a computer program that would allow a "flusher"—the term for a volunteer who rounds up nonvoters on Election Day—to know exactly who had, and had not, voted in real time. They dubbed it Project Houdini, because of the way names disappear off the list instantly once people are identified as they wait in line at their local polling station.

F) The McCain campaign debated telling McCain on the sunday before the final debate that they were pretty much dead in the campaign, and they decided not to, hoping that McCain could pull it off one more time.

Again with the business of telling the same lie often enough hoping it will become truth. Sigh.

"Marriage" is already available to all consenting adults (that aren't already married of course). That's because "marriage" includes two persons of opposite gender, i.e. one man & one woman. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else, two cats, two men, two file cabinets, two women, two couches, none of those are a "marriage".

And it's perhaps the saddest indictment of the decline of our civilization that something so crystal clear actually has to be legislated to clarify.

oh, and Jon, this is why people were concerned about possible meanings of what you said:

The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle asked a top campaign aide.

:lol:

Blooomberg? Though he wants to run for a third-term in NYC.

Damn, she may be dumber than I thought. Sweetheart, nobody has to "try", you do plenty without anybody's help.

I am skeptical until more information is available about this.

yeah, this is not throwing Palin under the bus, this is DRIVING THE BUS over Palin, and returning with a steamroller to finish the job.

Oh, I get it. Much like equal rights once meant that black people went to the old school, used the old textbooks, used the old water fountain, rode in the back of the bus, and used the bad bathrooms, etc. I think I get it now. Thanks for enlightening me.

It is a definition made for an earlier time that now denies equal standing to a portion of our population. It will be made right eventually, whether you like it or not. That is not something I am really worried about. I just wonder how long it is going to take and whether the military will have to get involved again to keep the bigots from hurting somebody.

I love that MBBF is trying to claim that all the people hating on him for not owning up to his incorrect assertions (even though he promised he would do so) is somehow an indication of liberals not listening to conservatives.

MBBF, you have played this game and lost so many times it is not funny. Penguins to KC. Sony vs 360. Poll weightings. I'm sure there are others.

No one is discussing putting you on ignore because you are republican/conservative/other political leaning. People want to ignore you because you are a douchebag.

Jealousy will create more than ample opportunities for that sort of thing.
It's no secret that I, what was the phrase, thought she was a better fit on Jerry Springer than the campaign trail but at least she had a pulse & some people gave a damn about her.

As is this..

At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys' club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. "I'll be just a minute," she said.

The mandatory recount will happen no matter what in the Minnesota Senate race. I just thought it was interesting that the totals just got updated again a few minutes ago and Coleman's margin is down to 462. Maybe some absentee ballots just got counted?

Edit to add: That's now 1/100 of a percentage point separating them, which is really incredible.

Congrats to Obama. He gave a hell of a speech, and it was moving to watch the crowd and see something historic.

Also big ups to McCain for a graceful concession.

So now you know how I felt in 2004.


You've got it correct. Hyperbole is the use of intended exaggeration to make a point, basically.


I think I made this point on Monday, but coming from the other side. After having many environmental advantages, running a near-flawless campaign, and everything VV says above, we're looking at basically, what, a 4-5% win for Obama? Does this mean that if I want a Democrat to win in the future I need a repeat of near-ideal conditions and near-perfect execution to win?

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

F-bombs ftw.

Amazing how people feel so emboldened in a anonymous internet forum to make statements like this about other people. I'm sure you're not a bad person, but this kind of thing isn't needed. I don't agree with some of your stances, but calling names is way out of line.

Reading through that entire article just makes me think that much better of McCain than before. It really paints McCain in a great light. It also goes further (as if it was needed) to show what kind of garbage Palin is.. and basically rubberstamps the comments of how horrible adding Palin was to the ticket. I don't know if I should be happy or sad that it seems McCain likely felt the same way but evidently was forced into using her as a running mate... but McCain is class all the way, and it truly is sad that he might go into history being tied to George Bush in the way that he was in this campaign.

If the John McCain out there had been more like McCain 2000 (and before) and less like McCain of 2001-yesterday, I would've liked him more than I did. When he started to pander to the religious right, he lost me completely. Unless the GOP can stop being driven by the religious fundamentalists, they won't get my vote. I fear religious zealots much more than tax-and-spend liberals.

Yeah it's not fair & balanced. You need to find a liberal to call a douchebag too even if it's someone who isn't a douchebag and/or isn't a liberal.

Fair enough. I was thinking more in terms of Social Justice.

How about a Libertarian then? Someone who wants the government out of their bedroom and their wallet.