archer wrote: Consistency has never been a Republican strong point, and Romney is a perfect example. There are 3 national polls that have Obama back up after losing ground to Romney, but our conservative friends aren't mentioning those.
Apparently, you're not either. Which polls please.
archer wrote: Consistency has never been a Republican strong point, and Romney is a perfect example. There are 3 national polls that have Obama back up after losing ground to Romney, but our conservative friends aren't mentioning those.
Our "Republican friends" are individuals with individual opinions. Try to remember that.
That's pretty amusing coming from one of our conservative friends. Liberals here have endured being lumped into a stereotypical box by conservatives here, yet not one peep out of you. Spare me the feigned outrage.
Here we go again....Be careful....she might be "done with you" pretty soon.
archer wrote: Consistency has never been a Republican strong point, and Romney is a perfect example. There are 3 national polls that have Obama back up after losing ground to Romney, but our conservative friends aren't mentioning those.
Apparently, you're not either. Which polls please.
And he did have that one positive add that didn't mention how crappy Romney was once. The one I actually sat all the way through and watched.
Assembly lines are moving and Dad's are coming home.
towermonkey wrote: Oh, if there's one thing you are, its consistent...
rofllol
Thank you Bob...I take a certain pride in being consistent in my beliefs and in my core values. Perhaps that is why Romney irks me so much, he doesn't seem to have anything that he believes that can't be changed for expediency's sake....ones set of values for the primaries, another for the general election.....I don't ever want to see what he comes up with if he wins the presidency. So laugh at my consistency if you want, it doesn't matter much to me.
Raees wrote: Let me see if I remember the Republican polls argument correctly:
If Mitt is in the lead, the poll is correct. If he's not, the poll is biased and not accurate.
That about sum it up?
Not that I am surprised mind you, but no, you don't remember the argument correctly. The argument is that the weighting method uses data that strays significantly from historical participation data with what is held to be a flawed presumption that the participation numbers from 2008 are going to be repeated in 2012 rather than return to historical norms. Thus any poll weighted with that flawed presumption is going to add somewhere between 3-5 points to the support for Obama.
The polls showing Romney up which use the potentially flawed weighting model would still be overstating the support for Obama, which would then mean that Romney's lead is larger than is being reported.
You shouldn't leave balls out over the plate like that Raees. When someone decides to drive them it leaves you standing all alone on the mound looking foolish for making the mistake.
