GA: Landmark: Nunn +7

[Tender Branson]

I'd go with SurveyUSA, which means Nunn is down.

Not sure what Landmark is up to.

[Niemeyerite]

LoL at new posters pretending this forum is full of dem hacks who think democrats will win in every close race and ignore polls. Just take a look at 2008, 2010 and 2012 predictions made by users in the forum, and you'll realize that it's GOP hacks making joke predictions and unskewing polls, generally speaking.

Which there IS

That's false. There are some who think democrats will win everywhere (Bandit comes to mind) but they've been the same way since they first registered here. And, of course, the forum isn't full of dem hacks and never has been.
You're new here, so if you don't want to take a look at 2010 and 2012 boards, wait one month or two and then we'll talk about this again, because I'm sure many people will come back from obscurity to predict a GOP wave and any poll showing a democrat ahead will be considered rubbish and will be unskewed. TBH, I've already seen this kind of behaviour with posts like "Junk poll because PPP" (and some of them, coming from you, if I recall).

[Free Bird]

LoL at new posters pretending this forum is full of dem hacks who think democrats will win in every close race and ignore polls. Just take a look at 2008, 2010 and 2012 predictions made by users in the forum, and you'll realize that it's GOP hacks making joke predictions and unskewing polls, generally speaking.

Which there IS

That's false. There are some who think democrats will win everywhere (Bandit comes to mind) but they've been the same way since they first registered here. And, of course, the forum isn't full of dem hacks and never has been.
You're new here, so if you don't want to take a look at 2010 and 2012 boards, wait one month or two and then we'll talk about this again, because I'm sure many people will come back from obscurity to predict a GOP wave and any poll showing a democrat ahead will be considered rubbish and will be unskewed. TBH, I've already seen this kind of behaviour with posts like "Junk poll because PPP" (and some of them, coming from you, if I recall).

PPP is Dem leaning. Get over it

[Niemeyerite]

LoL at new posters pretending this forum is full of dem hacks who think democrats will win in every close race and ignore polls. Just take a look at 2008, 2010 and 2012 predictions made by users in the forum, and you'll realize that it's GOP hacks making joke predictions and unskewing polls, generally speaking.

Which there IS

That's false. There are some who think democrats will win everywhere (Bandit comes to mind) but they've been the same way since they first registered here. And, of course, the forum isn't full of dem hacks and never has been.
You're new here, so if you don't want to take a look at 2010 and 2012 boards, wait one month or two and then we'll talk about this again, because I'm sure many people will come back from obscurity to predict a GOP wave and any poll showing a democrat ahead will be considered rubbish and will be unskewed. TBH, I've already seen this kind of behaviour with posts like "Junk poll because PPP" (and some of them, coming from you, if I recall).

PPP is Dem leaning. Get over it

Yeah. Your opinion >> facts.

[Never]

LoL at new posters pretending this forum is full of dem hacks who think democrats will win in every close race and ignore polls. Just take a look at 2008, 2010 and 2012 predictions made by users in the forum, and you'll realize that it's GOP hacks making joke predictions and unskewing polls, generally speaking.

Which there IS

That's false. There are some who think democrats will win everywhere (Bandit comes to mind) but they've been the same way since they first registered here. And, of course, the forum isn't full of dem hacks and never has been.
You're new here, so if you don't want to take a look at 2010 and 2012 boards, wait one month or two and then we'll talk about this again, because I'm sure many people will come back from obscurity to predict a GOP wave and any poll showing a democrat ahead will be considered rubbish and will be unskewed. TBH, I've already seen this kind of behaviour with posts like "Junk poll because PPP" (and some of them, coming from you, if I recall).

PPP is Dem leaning. Get over it

Yeah. Your opinion >> facts.

I wouldn't consider PPP junky, but they do have their faults. FreedomHawk is definitely right that PPP is affiliated with Democrats, that is not just his opinion.

This forum does have plenty of hacks on both sides from my view. There are undoubtedly many reasonable posters with red and dark green avatars, but I still regularly notice posters on the left who let their biases color their perception of the races (not to say that I don't see this from people on the right, but I do not believe that the blue avatars will be the only ones who have absurd preditions right before election day).

[Keystone Phil]

Julio thinks Dems around here don't disregard polls more frequently than Republicans? Bwahaha.

[Vega]

Democrats complain about Rasmussen (which is 5 times worse than PPP) and Republicans complain about PPP.

[Niemeyerite]

LoL at new posters pretending this forum is full of dem hacks who think democrats will win in every close race and ignore polls. Just take a look at 2008, 2010 and 2012 predictions made by users in the forum, and you'll realize that it's GOP hacks making joke predictions and unskewing polls, generally speaking.

Which there IS

That's false. There are some who think democrats will win everywhere (Bandit comes to mind) but they've been the same way since they first registered here. And, of course, the forum isn't full of dem hacks and never has been.
You're new here, so if you don't want to take a look at 2010 and 2012 boards, wait one month or two and then we'll talk about this again, because I'm sure many people will come back from obscurity to predict a GOP wave and any poll showing a democrat ahead will be considered rubbish and will be unskewed. TBH, I've already seen this kind of behaviour with posts like "Junk poll because PPP" (and some of them, coming from you, if I recall).

PPP is Dem leaning. Get over it

Yeah. Your opinion >> facts.

I wouldn't consider PPP junky, but they do have their faults. FreedomHawk is definitely right that PPP is affiliated with Democrats, that is not just his opinion.

This forum does have plenty of hacks on both sides from my view. There are undoubtedly many reasonable posters with red and dark green avatars, but I still regularly notice posters on the left who let their biases color their perception of the races (not to say that I don't see this from people on the right, but I do not believe that the blue avatars will be the only ones who have absurd preditions right before election day).

Being affiliated with Democrats =/= being dem. leaning.

Julio thinks Dems around here don't disregard polls more frequently than Republicans? Bwahaha.

You've been in this forum longer than I have, Phil, and you know it's usually republicans who make bad predictions and unskew polls, at least since 2010. I'm not saying that there aren't democrats who do that, too. But pretending that democrats do it more often than republicans is absurd. Specially because democrats here like to say they're "optimistic", while some republicans are "sure" of what they say (just take a look at the 2012 Pres. Election Thread, please). An example: saying "Sarkozy will win reelection" and "I think/hope Sarkozy will win this" is not the same thing, and neither is "Bronwback may/is very likely to win" and "No way Brownback loses" .

I'm sorry for talking about your Sarkozy winning prediction... It was just way too easy.

[SamInTheSouth]

Yeah, okay, sure........

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ga/georgia_senate_perdue_vs_nunn-4040.html

[Keystone Phil]

An example: saying "Sarkozy will win reelection" and "I think/hope Sarkozy will win this" is not the same thing, and neither is "Bronwback may/is very likely to win" and "No way Brownback loses" .

Oh, really? Thanks for the English lesson!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I love my haters. They need the love. But I must say that the mocking over that prediction (which really wasn't far off especially when you consider how badly Sarkozy was down early on) is just silly.

[IceSpear]

The polls in both this and the governor's race seem to be all over the map. But in the case of the Senate race, pretty much everyone besides Landmark has shown a consistent Purdue lead, so I'll just chalk this up as an outlier.

[Niemeyerite]

An example: saying "Sarkozy will win reelection" and "I think/hope Sarkozy will win this" is not the same thing, and neither is "Bronwback may/is very likely to win" and "No way Brownback loses" .

Oh, really? Thanks for the English lesson!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I love my haters. They need the love. But I must say that the mocking over that prediction (which really wasn't far off especially when you consider how badly Sarkozy was down early on) is just silly.

You said he'd win, and he lost. I'll give you another English lesson: if you had said "I think Sarkozy can win" or "the race will be close, so don't write Sarko off" nobody would be mocking your prediction now.

And thinking I hate you is just silly.

[Adam Griffin]

OMG everyone stfu this is about my state not your butts

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Nunn race is a backup to the La race, anyways in case it doesnt turn out in our favor.

Nunn as well as Carter as it seems has a far better shot to win on election day, as a team, anyways, that figured into Miller thinking.

[moderatevoter]

Yeah, Zell Miller was just so confident about Nunn and Carter's chances to win as a team. So much so, that he endorsed Nathan Deal for re-election. Sounds about right.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah, Zell Miller was just so confident about Nunn and Carter's chances to win as a team. So much so, that he endorsed Nathan Deal for re-election. Sounds about right.

Everyone knows that he had sharp differences with the Carter family than the Nunn family.

I was inferencing the fact in these duel elections in GA, AR, MI and IL, which Democratic wins are needed, chances are much higher for victory than in states like La. And I like Nunn, Pryor, Begich and Hagen, who I think will win.

[Niemeyerite]

Yeah, Zell Miller was just so confident about Nunn and Carter's chances to win as a team. So much so, that he endorsed Nathan Deal for re-election. Sounds about right.

Everyone knows that he had sharp differences with the Carter family than the Nunn family.

I was inferencing the fact in these duel elections in GA, AR, MI and IL, which Democratic wins are needed, chances are much higher for victory than in states like La. And I like Nunn, Pryor, Begich and Hagen, who I think will win.

Hagen will win becauz we need NC+AK to retain majorty this yr in the Senate and keep GA to win KY and then we can afford losing seats in SD and MT but hav Harry Reid as majority dem leader + MI+ IA will be won by democrats. But dont underestimate Hagen who will crush Tillis and give us the 54 seat + CO.

[NHLiberal]

Yeah, Zell Miller was just so confident about Nunn and Carter's chances to win as a team. So much so, that he endorsed Nathan Deal for re-election. Sounds about right.

Everyone knows that he had sharp differences with the Carter family than the Nunn family.

I was inferencing the fact in these duel elections in GA, AR, MI and IL, which Democratic wins are needed, chances are much higher for victory than in states like La. And I like Nunn, Pryor, Begich and Hagen, who I think will win.

Ultra liberal Hagen will win becauz we need NC+AK to retain majorty this yr in the Senate and keep GA to win KY and then we can afford losing seats in SD and MT but hav Harry Reid as majority dem leader + MI+ IA will be won by democrats. But dont underestimate ultra liberal Hagen who will crush Tillis and give us the 54 seat + CO.

[Keystone Phil]

An example: saying "Sarkozy will win reelection" and "I think/hope Sarkozy will win this" is not the same thing, and neither is "Bronwback may/is very likely to win" and "No way Brownback loses" .

Oh, really? Thanks for the English lesson!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I love my haters. They need the love. But I must say that the mocking over that prediction (which really wasn't far off especially when you consider how badly Sarkozy was down early on) is just silly.

You said he'd win, and he lost. I'll give you another English lesson: if you had said "I think Sarkozy can win" or "the race will be close, so don't write Sarko off" nobody would be mocking your prediction now.

And thinking I hate you is just silly.

Oh wow! I said someone would win and they lost? Oh no. Bet that has never happened to anyone else here!

The point is that we don't make fun of people for getting predictions wrong because literally every person here makes several wrong predictions each year. You make fun of really bad predictions and given how close that race turned out, it makes no sense to mock my Sarkozy victory prediction.

By the way, saying "I think Sarkozy will win" isn't a prediction. "Don't write him off" isn't a prediction. 

[Niemeyerite]

An example: saying "Sarkozy will win reelection" and "I think/hope Sarkozy will win this" is not the same thing, and neither is "Bronwback may/is very likely to win" and "No way Brownback loses" .

Oh, really? Thanks for the English lesson!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I love my haters. They need the love. But I must say that the mocking over that prediction (which really wasn't far off especially when you consider how badly Sarkozy was down early on) is just silly.

You said he'd win, and he lost. I'll give you another English lesson: if you had said "I think Sarkozy can win" or "the race will be close, so don't write Sarko off" nobody would be mocking your prediction now.

And thinking I hate you is just silly.

Oh wow! I said someone would win and they lost? Oh no. Bet that has never happened to anyone else here!

The point is that we don't make fun of people for getting predictions wrong because literally every person here makes several wrong predictions each year. You make fun of really bad predictions and given how close that race turned out, it makes no sense to mock my Sarkozy victory prediction.

By the way, saying "I think Sarkozy will win" isn't a prediction. "Don't write him off" isn't a prediction. 

You aren't mocked for making bad predictions. You're mocked because the way you say it, it looks arrogant. When you talked about Sarkozy winning it was like reading "I am right and you are not only wrong, but dumb". That's why when you were wrong and the rest of the people were right, they mocked you, Phil.

But I don't reaally have a problem with that. I'm not the humblest person here, to be fair. And I like the way you write, being so self-assured is not very common here and I appreciate it. But it has it's consequences, and you have to realize that: when you're wrong, you're parodied .

[Keystone Phil]

Ok, so I'm parodied when I'm wrong...but not when they're just incorrect predictions? Yeah...got it...

(I've made several other incorrect predictions without the "arrogance" of my Sarkozy prediction and they've been mocked. And you might think they're justifiably mocked but spare me the "You aren't mocked for making bad predictions" nonsense.)

[DrScholl]

Get a grip, it is just an internet forum. It's really not that serious.

[Niemeyerite]

Ok, so I'm parodied when I'm wrong...but not when they're just incorrect predictions? Yeah...got it...

(I've made several other incorrect predictions without the "arrogance" of my Sarkozy prediction and they've been mocked. And you might think they're justifiably mocked but spare me the "You aren't mocked for making bad predictions" nonsense.)

I only see your predictions about Sarko and Santorum mocked, and everyone here would mock a democrat saying that Blanche Lincoln was closing the gap in 2010, so the Santorum one is not because we have anything against you, it's just because it was hilarious, the same way the PA State House special election was, but you don't have to take it too seriously (I also thought my party would win in my town in 2011 and we got 19% of the vote -and I don't get angry when people make me remind my absurd prediction back then, but I understand it can get annoying sometimes-). The Sarko one was definitely because you looked a bit arrogant, yes.



Talking about this poll, was it taken before or after Zell Miller endorsed Nunn? Not that I think that'd change the votes of so many people that suddenly the seat leans dem. now, but maybe it shifted the momentum towards the Nunn campaign again...

[Free Bird]

Get a grip, it is just an internet forum. It's really not that serious.

At the same time, the subject matter is serious and affects lots of people , so you can understand why one would get riled up in that case

[Keystone Phil]

Ok, so I'm parodied when I'm wrong...but not when they're just incorrect predictions? Yeah...got it...

(I've made several other incorrect predictions without the "arrogance" of my Sarkozy prediction and they've been mocked. And you might think they're justifiably mocked but spare me the "You aren't mocked for making bad predictions" nonsense.)

I only see your predictions about Sarko and Santorum mocked, and everyone here would mock a democrat saying that Blanche Lincoln was closing the gap in 2010, so the Santorum one is not because we have anything against you, it's just because it was hilarious, the same way the PA State House special election was, but you don't have to take it too seriously (I also thought my party would win in my town in 2011 and we got 19% of the vote -and I don't get angry when people make me remind my absurd prediction back then, but I understand it can get annoying sometimes-). The Sarko one was definitely because you looked a bit arrogant, yes.



Talking about this poll, was it taken before or after Zell Miller endorsed Nunn? Not that I think that'd change the votes of so many people that suddenly the seat leans dem. now, but maybe it shifted the momentum towards the Nunn campaign again...

Julio, I really don't care if a bunch of people from the Internets have something against me. It's just annoying that the wrong predictions are constantly harped on.  It derails conversation...just like it did here. Discuss the merits of what I say, not "HEY PHIL SANTORUM WON RITE?!?"