Talk Elections

Suffolk Florida Poll: Obama:47/46

Obama: 46%
Romney: 45%

Romney-Rubio: 47%
Obama-Biden: 44%

http://www.suffolk.edu/images/content/FINAL_WED_FL_Marginals_May_9_2012.pdf

Their previous FL poll, in January, had been Romney 47-Obama 42. So a shift towards Obama.

I'd say this fits with the general atmosphere of the previous FL polls. It's looking to be the tightest race this year.

Today, a new Quinnipiac poll for FL will be released.

party id: D +4

Optimist...

You don't need to post here any more, we've got some dude from North Carolina covering the same bases.

You left the Democratic Party because Irish Independents offended you? That's cool.

lmao

Given his comments on Irish elections threads, he is definitely Irish.

I don't think that was annoying so much as hilarious.

I know you're a new poster who is doing his damnedest to veil hostility as humor...but yeah, the idea that Oakvale is a long-term hoax to convince us of a fictional, politically-interested Irishman is pretty objectively funny.

I think you've been misreading me :P I seriously was just amused by the idea that Oakvale might be a fictional character, but for all your assertions otherwise, you seem to have been intent on taking this in the aggro direction; I wasn't!  I mean, if you know my post history, I'm more of a guilter than a bully.

I assumed you were being humorously passive-aggressive, but I can't say I thought much into the proportion of humor versus of passive-aggression.  If you've been 'round here long enough to know Oakvale is obviously legit, then clearly it's more humor than passive-aggression.  But, in any case, we're obviously moved on to outright aggression.  Is my over-explaining impeding that?  I hope not.

?

I said the idea that Oakvale was fictional was "hilarious" (it is!)

You, after explaining what you were doing, responded "Hilarious? Doesn't take much to make you laugh, does it?"

Was that not intended to be aggressive or critical?  Were you just impressed by my upbeat personality enough to comment on it, or something?

^

Except your initial response was: "Little annoying when people automatically doubt you and think you're lying, isn't it?"  That doesn't really communicate that you don't think what you said is untrue.

You didn't post that you "have no reason to doubt him/her" until after my post, at which point you immediately posted the aggressive response.   So, by any reading of the timeline, you initiated the presumptiveness and aggression that you subsequently complained about.

I actually don't think we disagree, and this is totally ruining this thread, but I'll be happy to take it to PM if needed :P