I'm trying to tip off my conservative friends to watch 538's polls. Nate Silver may be a liberal, but he's the truth when it comes to scientific polling predictions.no poll ever predicted any consistent or significant romney lead, much less a 10 point romney lead.
if you're the only one who knew it, it's because the fantasy only ever existed in your head.
one in four, horseburgers...
Except for the mid October Gallup poll that had him up by 7. And the Rasmussen poll in mid May that had him up by 7 and up again by 5 in late July. And less we forget, the Pew poll from early October that had him up by 4. But like you said, they don't exist. Add that 1%-2% inaccuracy rate and 10 isn't that far off from the 7 point lead they had for him. Did their numbers change closer to November? They sure did, as did mine, but that doesn't sound as good as comparing the final results in November to a prediction based on major polls in early to mid October. But, we both knew all along you were full of shit. I don't bother to dispute your fallacies because you've only got about 4-5 nitwits who buy into your horseshit anyways.no poll ever predicted any consistent or significant romney lead, much less a 10 point romney lead.
if you're the only one who knew it, it's because the fantasy only ever existed in your head.
so you took 3 or 4 biggest outliers out of well over a thousand polls, and not only were you unable to recognize them as obvious outliers, but you even credited them with not being big enough outliers?
I've always preferred Rasmussen and Gallop as my go to Presidential polls. And again, that was in mid to early October. You do stipulate that fortunes can change, leads can switch and front runners can still lose? That's why your ever growing 15 point mockery is so flaccid, it's apples to pomegranates. But, when has that ever stopped you? On the other hand, simple division train wrecks and the Great Missing Zeros Shitstorm of 2013, stand the test of time.
you took the three biggest outliers, convinced yourself they weren't inconsistent enough, turned them into even bigger outliers in your mind, and decided to pat yourself on the back for your fine work.
Was that your way of admitting you've been lying your ass off for 13 months? It's ok little fella, someday you'll actually have something derogatory to type about me that's even half true. Until then, stick to fallacious attacks liked by drooling, sausage fingered minions and the comfort it brings you.
Aww, Finloco is severely butthurt. Would you like me to get you some ass ointment?
what lie? you predicted a 10 point romney win, obama won by 4. you were off by 14 points.
What's hilarious is, you got so mad that I posted the question asking if Hillary was too old to be President, that you made this lame pos thread.
No, even the manufactured quote (with the username misspelled) you posted a few days ago had me saying Romney had a 10 point LEAD, not a prediction of a 10 point victory. You're digging the hole of fallacy deeper and deeper. You just perjured yourself right in front of all viewers. Now you've doubled down on the false premise that it was made anywhere close enough to the election to be arguably compared to the final tally, which is demonstrably false. You've shit the bed on this one.
you predicted an "easy 6 point win by romney" after saying that he had a 10 point lead.
you're right, i lied.
Citation needed, plus you use this defense every time the numbers don't agree with you.
I have a tendency to agree. I know there are exceptions to every rule, so even though I can provide anecdotal stories of patients who really were dealt a bad genetic card, it's rare, very rare.
