I'VE KNOWN THIS FR AWHILE, BUT DIDN'T WANT TO LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE FR THE LEFT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT:
THE LEFTIST DOMINATED LEGACY MEDIA PUBLISHED CRAP LIKE "OBAMA HAS A 92% CHANCE AT WINNING REELECTION", BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO DEPRESS OUR TURNOUT.
BUT BY PRETENDING TO SHOW OBAMA IN THE LEAD, THE BIASED POLLS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO DEPRESS DEMOCRAT TURNOUT:
THE POLLS HAVE GIVEN BORDERLINE AND UNENTHUSIASTIC OBAMA SUPPORTERS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT GOING TO THE POLLS THEMSELVES!
BWAHAHAHAHA!
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
3 comments:
I think it's also fired up the Republicans who can't imagine another 4 with the Emperor and desperately want him out. Thanks MSM - you bunch of cruds.
So how did you react when your elaborately constructed fantasy (as expressed in this post and many others) met the reality that the polls were actually very close to correct? For just a few seconds, did it make you think that, maybe, just maybe, that many of the other things that you believe might also be incorrect, based on logical fallacies, bad evidence, poor analysis, and limited thinking?
I seriously doubt that it did. Introspection is not something you do a lot of, I would think. Learning is often painful, especially when the one who is learning about the state of the world is heavily invested in a different outcome, and you have seemed to have an exceptionally low tolerance for pain in our past encounters.
I'm sure that your readers would appreciate at least one post of where your analysis of the state of the election was critically flawed. When you said:
"THEY SHOW THAT IF AND ONLY IF OBAMA GETS A TURNOUT GREATER THAN THE ONE HE GOT IN 2008, HE WILL DEFEAT ROMNEY.
THAT TYPE OF TURNOUT IS NOT LIKELY.
THAT TYPE OF TURNOUT IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY LIKELY."
Where were the bad assumptions? Can you see them now? At least one of those two things had to be wrong. Why did you believe them so strongly? Was it based on a rational analysis of the facts? Obviously not, given the result and the fact that many, many other people correctly predicted the outcome.
How about, "BOTTOM-LINE: DICK MORRIS IS RIGHT: IT'S SHAPING UP TO BE A ROMNEY LANDSLIDE." What possibly led you to believe in a shameful hack like Dick Morris? Why would you believe a person whose record on these matters is so bad and shun someone with a good track record like Nate Silver.
Of course, that's just a couple of posts from the last few days. I'm quite confident that you could mine many, many more that require analysis. This is a rare opportunity. Most of your rhetoric does not have much opportunity to be reviewed for accuracy with the starkness that is available here. There is no escaping the fact that you were simply wrong on every level in this situation, given the actual outcome.
If you can't understand why these were so badly wrong, how can you ever learn from experience? You will be forced to make the same analytical mistakes again and again.
Joe Yangtree
voter fraud and anti-mormon bigotry went further than i expected.
Major crises/tests are coming very fast - and given the fact that we have the same ol' folks in DC calling the shots I think there is no reason to think they will be met successfully.
On the near-term horizon:
Greece - I think the it collapses beginning 11/16
sequestration - and I think this leads to the decimation of the US military
as a result: another downgrade of USA debt
QE3 - leading to more inflation
and as a result of defense cuts: more aggressive Chinese hegemony and even the invasion of Taiwan or other islands by China
and also: more aggressive Iranian hegemony and even a Iranian nuke test within a year
a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan is now inevitable
as is the Muslim Brotherhood abrogates Camp David
i think obama will botch these and global disaster is coming.
i hope you are happy you have helped send the same failed team back to dc.
:)
Post a Comment