Why can't JJ debate the issues when his side is doing poorly?

[Eraserhead]

Isn't it weird how this guy just slithers out of his cave when it looks like the Republicans might win something for a change? Creepy.

The big question is, if Coakley pulls off the upset, does that mean he goes into hibernation for another six months?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because he never argues with anything besides talking points so cheap and hackish (not to mention frequently childish) even most pundits won't use them, and leaves before everyone sees him as a discredited fool. He spent about two weeks after the election defending why he was right all along about the Bradley Effect, and then vanished after realizing no one was buying it.

[Lief 🗽]

It wouldn't be that bad if he said something interesting, but he just repeats himself over and over and over:

10 days ago, I'd have said the same thing, not a chance in hell.

I'll be the first to say that I didn't think we'd be discussing this seriously.  It's looking like a Brown win.

This one has surprised me.

Brown       51. 2%
Coakley    47.7%
Kennedy   01.1%


I'm as surprised as everyone else.

Or, did you know that the Democrats have held this seat since 1953? That's right, 1953! 1953! 1953!

Not that particular seat however.

Until he died, Kennedy had held the seat for my lifetime, but the seat was initially won by JFK, who was sworn in in 1953.

The last time a Republican held this seat was 1/3/1953. 

Was anybody on this board alive then?

Let's put it this was.

If some 18 year old had gotten a job on 1/3/1953 (when JFK was sworn in to the seat), and he stayed with the same employer until he was 70, he would have retired five years ago.

Also, the seat has been in Democratic hand for more than seven years prior to the current President being born.

You do realize that this seat has been Democratic not only during my lifetime, but during Obama's lifetime.

[Torie]

I don't like threads that go after a particular poster, like this one, but having said that, I do believe that that as a generic matter, when you get it wrong, you should hang around to take the brick bats, with good cheer, and admit that you blew it. I am not religious, but confession is good for one's soul, or at least for one's mental health.  Anyway, if Coakley wins I will still be around. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It wouldn't be that bad if he said something interesting, but he just repeats himself over and over and over:

10 days ago, I'd have said the same thing, not a chance in hell.

I'll be the first to say that I didn't think we'd be discussing this seriously.  It's looking like a Brown win.

This one has surprised me.

Brown       51. 2%
Coakley    47.7%
Kennedy   01.1%


I'm as surprised as everyone else.

Or, did you know that the Democrats have held this seat since 1953? That's right, 1953! 1953! 1953!

Not that particular seat however.

Until he died, Kennedy had held the seat for my lifetime, but the seat was initially won by JFK, who was sworn in in 1953.

The last time a Republican held this seat was 1/3/1953. 

Was anybody on this board alive then?

Let's put it this was.

If some 18 year old had gotten a job on 1/3/1953 (when JFK was sworn in to the seat), and he stayed with the same employer until he was 70, he would have retired five years ago.

Also, the seat has been in Democratic hand for more than seven years prior to the current President being born.

You do realize that this seat has been Democratic not only during my lifetime, but during Obama's lifetime.

And let's not forget "after you, the deluge", ARGH!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Because he doesn't really debate issues. He's interested in elections fun, not confusing "policy" stuff. (Like much of the American Right.)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Because he's hack interesting only in making loud noises, not a discussion.

Duh.

 

[J. J.]

Because he never argues with anything besides talking points so cheap and hackish (not to mention frequently childish) even most pundits won't use them, and leaves before everyone sees him as a discredited fool. He spent about two weeks after the election defending why he was right all along about the Bradley Effect, and then vanished after realizing no one was buying it.

Actually, I bled in the arms of a girl I'd barely met, my prediction for Brown is slightly lower than yours.

I'm not exactly too sure why you would object to that; I think I made mine first.

[J. J.]

And let's not forget "after you, the deluge", ARGH!

I'll make sure you won't.

[Joe Republic]

Because he never argues with anything besides talking points so cheap and hackish (not to mention frequently childish) even most pundits won't use them, and leaves before everyone sees him as a discredited fool. He spent about two weeks after the election defending why he was right all along about the Bradley Effect, and then vanished after realizing no one was buying it.

Actually, I bled in the arms of a girl I'd barely met, my prediction for Brown is slightly lower than yours.

I'm not exactly too sure why you would object to that; I think I made mine first.

It's painfully obvious to anybody that you're hedging your bets by predicting a "shocking" but narrow victory for Brown.

If he wins narrowly, you'll claim to have been spot on, and gloat accordingly.  If he wins big, you'll come up with some type of BS 'analysis' about it being a resounding defeat for Obama, with all kinds of doom and gloom portents, deluges, etc.  And if he loses, you'll say that you never, in your heart of hearts and so on and so forth, expected him to win.

Your strategy for attempting to be considered credible is now laughably transparent.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Because he never argues with anything besides talking points so cheap and hackish (not to mention frequently childish) even most pundits won't use them, and leaves before everyone sees him as a discredited fool. He spent about two weeks after the election defending why he was right all along about the Bradley Effect, and then vanished after realizing no one was buying it.

Actually, I bled in the arms of a girl I'd barely met, my prediction for Brown is slightly lower than yours.

I'm not exactly too sure why you would object to that; I think I made mine first.

It's painfully obvious to anybody that you're hedging your bets by predicting a "shocking" but narrow victory for Brown.

If he wins narrowly, you'll claim to have been spot on, and gloat accordingly.  If he wins big, you'll come up with some type of BS 'analysis' about it being a resounding defeat for Obama, with all kinds of doom and gloom portents, deluges, etc.  And if he loses, you'll say that you never, in your heart of hearts and so on and so forth, expected him to win.

Your strategy for attempting to be considered credible is now laughably transparent.

Man alive, Joe, it seems like anything he picks is going to come back to haunt him.

[Joe Republic]

Man alive, Joe, it seems like anything he picks is going to come back to haunt him.

Pretty much.  It would have been fine if he'd dressed his prediction up as good old guesswork, which is how virtually every other prediction is done.  But instead he chooses his numbers carefully so that he can use them to justify his crappy 'analysis' later on.

Trust me, we've all seen him do it countless times before.  I don't dislike the man, but like everybody else, my patience ran out long ago.

[J. J.]

Because he never argues with anything besides talking points so cheap and hackish (not to mention frequently childish) even most pundits won't use them, and leaves before everyone sees him as a discredited fool. He spent about two weeks after the election defending why he was right all along about the Bradley Effect, and then vanished after realizing no one was buying it.

Actually, I bled in the arms of a girl I'd barely met, my prediction for Brown is slightly lower than yours.

I'm not exactly too sure why you would object to that; I think I made mine first.

It's painfully obvious to anybody that you're hedging your bets by predicting a "shocking" but narrow victory for Brown.

If he wins narrowly, you'll claim to have been spot on, and gloat accordingly.  If he wins big, you'll come up with some type of BS 'analysis' about it being a resounding defeat for Obama, with all kinds of doom and gloom portents, deluges, etc.  And if he loses, you'll say that you never, in your heart of hearts and so on and so forth, expected him to win.

Your strategy for attempting to be considered credible is now laughably transparent.

I'm not expect a big win and wasn't expecting a win until within the last week.  I would be stunned if Brown does break 3%.


The "doom" began in February 2008, when I thought McCain would be elected (and I even referenced that I'd say it to McCain).

God Joe, you have the memory of a Cocker Spaniel.  

[Eraserhead]

Because he never argues with anything besides talking points so cheap and hackish (not to mention frequently childish) even most pundits won't use them, and leaves before everyone sees him as a discredited fool. He spent about two weeks after the election defending why he was right all along about the Bradley Effect, and then vanished after realizing no one was buying it.

Actually, I bled in the arms of a girl I'd barely met, my prediction for Brown is slightly lower than yours.

I'm not exactly too sure why you would object to that; I think I made mine first.

It's painfully obvious to anybody that you're hedging your bets by predicting a "shocking" but narrow victory for Brown.

If he wins narrowly, you'll claim to have been spot on, and gloat accordingly.  If he wins big, you'll come up with some type of BS 'analysis' about it being a resounding defeat for Obama, with all kinds of doom and gloom portents, deluges, etc.  And if he loses, you'll say that you never, in your heart of hearts and so on and so forth, expected him to win.

Your strategy for attempting to be considered credible is now laughably transparent.

If he even bothers with that. He may just disappear for a while again.

[Joe Republic]

The "doom" began in February 2008, when I thought McCain would be elected (and I even referenced that I'd say it to McCain).

Uh huh.  And of course, had McCain actually won, all that doom and gloom you spout oh so objectively would suddenly have disappeared.  We all know it, so quit the act.

[Franzl]

He's simply a dumb troll.

[Lunar]

He's simply a dumb

That's impossible.  One time he left his house to go take a photo of his MENSA bumper sticker so he could come back and upload it and post said image on this forum to prove his membership.

[J. J.]

Joe, here is the first thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0  January, 31, 2008.

Here is the first time I used the quote:

I think if Obama wins, he's better turn to Michelle and quote Mdme. de Pompadour:

After us, the deluge.

I'm not entirely convinced that Cindy McCain could not say the same thing.

[J. J.]

He's simply a dumb

That's impossible.  One time he left his house to go take a photo of his MENSA bumper sticker so he could come back and upload it and post said image on this forum to prove his membership.

Well, I sem to be coming up with it.

[Joe Republic]

Joe, here is the first thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0  January, 31, 2008.

Here is the first time I used the quote:

I think if Obama wins, he's better turn to Michelle and quote Mdme. de Pompadour:

After us, the deluge.

I'm not entirely convinced that Cindy McCain could not say the same thing.

That's great and all, but it didn't really have anything to do with my previous post.

Plus, you do realize that your deluge of "deluge" quotes already made you a laughing stock before, right?

[J. J.]

Joe, here is the first thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0  January, 31, 2008.

Here is the first time I used the quote:

I think if Obama wins, he's better turn to Michelle and quote Mdme. de Pompadour:

After us, the deluge.

I'm not entirely convinced that Cindy McCain could not say the same thing.

That's great and all, but it didn't really have anything to do with my previous post.

Plus, you do realize that your deluge of "deluge" quotes already made you a laughing stock before, right?

Except I said them before the market crash; I think there is more coming.

Now, claimed that I wouldn't say this if McCain won, but I said it about McCain.  So your statement was demonstrably false.

[bgwah]

He's simply a dumb

That's impossible.  One time he left his house to go take a photo of his MENSA bumper sticker so he could come back and upload it and post said image on this forum to prove his membership.

But for all we know he just took a picture of his neighbour's car!

[Joe Republic]

Joe, here is the first thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0  January, 31, 2008.

Here is the first time I used the quote:

I think if Obama wins, he's better turn to Michelle and quote Mdme. de Pompadour:

After us, the deluge.

I'm not entirely convinced that Cindy McCain could not say the same thing.

That's great and all, but it didn't really have anything to do with my previous post.

Plus, you do realize that your deluge of "deluge" quotes already made you a laughing stock before, right?

Except I said them before the market crash; I think there is more coming.

Now, claimed that I wouldn't say this if McCain won, but I said it about McCain.  So your statement was demonstrably false.

In both cases, your overtures were designed to make you appear objective (if not non-partisan), and thus supposedly more credible.  Everyone knows it, but unfortunately for you, we saw right through it too.

Just because you claimed that McCain would face a similar uphill struggle as president before the election has nothing to do with my claim that your tune would almost certainly have changed after the election.

[J. J.]

In both cases, your overtures were designed to make you appear objective (if not non-partisan), and thus supposedly more credible.  Everyone knows it, but unfortunately for you, we saw right through it too.

Just because you claimed that McCain would face a similar uphill struggle as president before the election has nothing to do with my claim that your tune would almost certainly have changed after the election.

And I made most of those comments about the deluge before the election.

Here is one:

"After you the deluge."  Basically, the party that wins this one will be destroyed in 2010 and 2012.

Wishful thinking.

The Republican party will still be the same sad, divisive, no-solutions, top-down, tax cuts for the rich, ultra-religious, fear driven party in 2010 and Americans won't forget that in a fortnight.

I said, in January, two things:

1.  The Republican will win (I didn't know who either of the nominees would be, and I might not have voted for Romney, even against Obama and I might now have voted for Clinton over McCain.)

2.  In 2016, we will either be in a realignment or just finishing one.

I don't know what that re-alignment will look like, but that "sad, divisive, no-solutions, top-down, tax cuts for the rich, ultra-religious, fear driven party," that you describe may be the party of the future, if Obama is elected.  Like the next three decades.

The party of extreme liberals and blacks may define the Democratic party for the next 30 years, and at base is very low (and shrinking).

Here is the thread and I can assure you that it is not wishful thinking:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

Now, how prophetic will that turn out to be?

Some of the subject of that thread, failed expectations, has been raised, by the Democrats and Obama supporters on this site.

[Joe Republic]

Holy crap.  I can't determine if you simply do not understand what I have posted here so far, or you do but are pretending you don't for whatever goddamn reason.

This is why everybody is so hostile to you, J.J.  I for one do not dislike you on a personal level, but like so many others, I've simply lost all patience with you.