Why would Rasmussen and Gallup deliberately risk their credibility and lie to their customers?
Just because you think they were lying, doesn't mean it is true. I listened to Fred Barnes, who really knows his politics, and he seemed totally convinced Romney would get over 300 electoral votes. He might have been delusional, but I don't think he was dishonest.
I have seen at least a couple articles who believe that Christie, FEMA, and Obama looking presidential viewing storm damage is what swung this election. Do you think it helped Obama get votes? Do you think Romney's anti-FEMA statements would have cost him so many votes right before the election?
I know the talking points are that the minority vote won over the white vote, but anyone else think if the Republican had been Catholic instead of Mormon he might have received more Hispanic votes. I know Romney didn't do as well with the evangelical voters as McCain.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
There's a difference between "lying" and having methods that are provably undependable. It wasn't me that determined that Gallup & Rasmussen come in at 24th on the list for accuracy.
I frankly don't give a sh*t about your talking points, articles you've read, and friends who have told you squat. The numbers and ratings are what they are. If you want to continue in a state of denial, have at it. And all I've said is:
Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'....
(And I think Ann Coulter is going to have to into a clinic somewhere and put herself on a Thorazine drip....)
FredHayek wrote: Is it lying if the weather guy tells you we are going to have a huge blizzard tomorrow and only get 2"? If you watched Fox, Karl Rove looked like he truly believed Ohio could still go for Mitt. Was he lying?
And you liberals sound so confident now but none of you were willing to sign onto a ban if Romney won. Did you trust your polling?
The extent of my gambling runs to playing the penny slots every few years.
Probably some of them lied but I think the bigger problem was the epistemic closure thing and they believed what they wanted to believe.
FredHayek wrote: More people voted for McCain/Palin four years ago than voted for Obama/Biden this round.
I'm curious why you picked that as a comparison instead of more people voted for McCain/Palin four years ago that voted for Romney/Ryan this round? See, you can't even rationalize without making it about the left.
You rationalize that they weren't lying, they were just delusional? But you guys bought into it. What does that say about you?
And Rasmussen, Gallup? Gallup had ONE poll that showed a Romney lead far beyond any of the other polling and you guys seized on it, like it was the correct poll and all the others were wrong instead of questioning why it was showing such a wide lead for Romney when all the other polls weren't. Rasmussen is a right-wing pollster. He inserts bias to seemingly make the poll less biased. Who buys into that crazy concept? Conservatives, that's who. Why would they lie and risk their credibility? That's the question I asked myself every time one of you right-wingers said the polls showing Obama was even or ahead were biased and wrong.
Even the "unskewed poll" guy admits he screwed up and Nate Silver was right.
My OP wasn't about why Romney lost or what could have been if this or that had happened. My OP was about the fact that the traditional right-wing sources (and I forget to mention Drudge) were wrong and nobody on the right seems to be the least bit upset about it, like months of BS from them was just something that doesn't matter to you.
I didn't buy into it. I was hopeful but I believed that Obama would win the electoral vote. And I listened to different conservatives and saw numbers all over the place from 330 Romney to 200 Romney. The Right isn't a groupthink.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: I didn't buy into it. I was hopeful but I believed that Obama would win the electoral vote. And I listened to different conservatives and saw numbers all over the place from 330 Romney to 200 Romney. The Right isn't a groupthink.
No, it isn't but sometimes the groupthink part of it is very noisy. lol
Karl Rove single handedly torpedoed any shred of credibility that Fox News might have had left. Just having him on air as a commentator while he is the biggest super-PAC leader for one of the candidates was bad enough, but when he melted down and demanded that they rescind the call of Ohio going for President Obama and they actually made the anchor walk to the decision room to confront the men who make that call and then made them come on the air to defend themselves to Rove, as Kelly called it the battle of the titans, Fox shed any pretense of Fair and Balanced. If they would have just told Rove the STFU, they might have shown that they are a true news network. Instead, the whole operation was exposed as nothing more than The View or TMZ.
The Right took a huge hit this week and showed that unless it evolves and changes it's tune, it will shrivel and die. You can read that assessment all over the internet from the Left AND the Right.
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
I give Megyn Kelly credit for asking Rove, "Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is it for real?" He was supposed to be the expert and he was completely gobsmacked by it and still believed he was right even when confronted with reality. It was an incredibly funny thing to watch.
