gordon smith vs. barack obama.

[Smash255]

As far as before the economic crisis you made that prediction when not even a shred of evidence pointed toward it.  As far as the general prediction saying something is going to be close and it winds up being double digits, is not an accurate or correct prediction.  Just because Zogby might try to make it so doesn't.

Why do you keep blatantly lying? Without a "shred of evidence?" Really?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, Smash, like I said about six times already, I've heard you make this argument enough times. I know you like to make the same points over and over and over and over and over and over again but it's getting annoying. We got the point. Stop bringing it up. You know I'm going to disagree and that you will say the same talking points so why even bother?

You made those claims when McCain wasn't even ahead in a single poll.  You basically tried to point to people in you heard about neighborhood not voting for Obama because he was black.  That isn't any kind of real evidence.

As far as the same talking points, your right I do bring up the same talking points and you have yet to give any concrete response.  You fail to explain how they can mathmatically make up for the drubbing they would take in the SE in the rest of the state.  Or you make the argument that they voted for conservatives in the past, so they can still at least be competitive in suburban Philly, when no current evidence suggests that is the case.

[Keystone Phil]

You made those claims when McCain wasn't even ahead in a single poll.  You basically tried to point to people in you heard about neighborhood not voting for Obama because he was black.  That isn't any kind of real evidence.

You never cease to amaze.

No, it wasn't just what I heard in my neighborhood, genius. I've been over this countless times. I'm not doing it anymore. You're either too stubborn or too stupid to hear me out. It's probably a combination of both though.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I have given concrete responses in the past. Again, you never wanted to listen.

Yes, there are examples of them voting for conservatives in the recent past. Hell, it happened this past year in a statewide race! It's simply not worth my time anymore.

I'll give you credit for not being a troll who personally insults/constantly harps on people when they're wrong but, at the same time, you constantly repeat your points even when someone asks for a simple agreement to disagree. There is no concrete proof on your end that a conservative will never win in SE PA again. That's something that can't be proven. We both have different outlooks as to what may happen over the next few elections and instead of acknowledging that we see things differently, you just keep going and going and going...

We're not going to agree, pal. Let's remain civil and leave it at that.

[memphis]

While JJ and Phil should have known better, they were just buying into their campaign's hype. McCain himself pushed the improbable notion of PA as a swing state. Also, I don't like this discussion of any state never voting x or y. Things change in many unforeseen way. Sure, PA may vote for a conservative candidate at some point in the future. What we can say right now is that it won't at the moment.

[Smash255]

You made those claims when McCain wasn't even ahead in a single poll.  You basically tried to point to people in you heard about neighborhood not voting for Obama because he was black.  That isn't any kind of real evidence.

You never cease to amaze.

No, it wasn't just what I heard in my neighborhood, genius. I've been over this countless times. I'm not doing it anymore. You're either too stubborn or too stupid to hear me out. It's probably a combination of both though.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I have given concrete responses in the past. Again, you never wanted to listen.

Yes, there are examples of them voting for conservatives in the recent past. Hell, it happened this past year in a statewide race! It's simply not worth my time anymore.

I'll give you credit for not being a troll who personally insults/constantly harps on people when they're wrong but, at the same time, you constantly repeat your points even when someone asks for a simple agreement to disagree. There is no concrete proof on your end that a conservative will never win in SE PA again. That's something that can't be proven. We both have different outlooks as to what may happen over the next few elections and instead of acknowledging that we see things differently, you just keep going and going and going...

We're not going to agree, pal. Let's remain civil and leave it at that.

Fact of the matter is you had this belief that all the polls were wrong and the state was going to be more Republican that what all the polls suggested.  Fact of the matter is even after you finally admitted you thought Obama was going to win you were wrong, because it wasn't nearly as close as you suggested.

As far as the latest statewide race where a conservative won apples to oranges when compared to a race like a Senate, Governor's or Presidential race, which is what I was mainly referring to.   Also I'm not saying a conservative in the mold of Gerlach can't win in a major statewide race anymore, but the hard kine conservatives a la Santorum and Toomey.

I do agree that you never know what can happen down the road, however suburban Philly has shown very similar signs as other suburban areas across the country have. (outside the south)    That being the hard-line flame throwing social conservative is going to have major problems, and is likely going to get their asses handed to them in these areas, and its something which shows no signs of changing anytime soon.  Until that happens, I just don't see anyway that the GOP can win statewide in a major race with a Santorum type of candidate.  Yes its only a portion of the state, but the math just isn't there.  It would have taken a several point swing further to the GOP in the rest of the state to flip the state based off bush's 04 numbers.  However, thats only part of it.  At this point a Santorum type of candidate isn't getting within 3 in Bucks, isn't winning chester (let alone winning it comfortably).  You really would need a real HARD (maybe not quite, but almost along the lines of Eastern Kentucky) type of swing in some portions of the state toward the GOP in order to make up for suburban Philly.  But with that its something we can argue for hours and days on and, so I will agree with you and agree to disagree.

[Keystone Phil]

While JJ and Phil should have known better, they were just buying into their campaign's hype.

Are you kidding? It was just hype that PA is typically a close, battleground state? Were the Dems just as foolish for spending and committing so many resources here?

Stop continuing this myth that we fell for the "campaign's hype." When it came down to it, we both had PA going for Obama and rather comfortably.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disproven in 2008. Maybe not for President but it re-elected a somewhat controversial conservative in a statewide race in 2008.

Fact of the matter is you had this belief that all the polls were wrong and the state was going to be more Republican that what all the polls suggested.  Fact of the matter is even after you finally admitted you thought Obama was going to win you were wrong, because it wasn't nearly as close as you suggested.

Yes, I did think it would be closer than the polls suggested. "Fact of the matter" is that many agreed. I don't see you getting on their case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh...so now it basically doesn't count if you're a conservative for other offices. Ok. Let's see in 2010 when the person I'm talking about is the GOP Gubernatorial nominee. I'm sure you'll have a great excuse if he wins.

By the way, he's more in the mold of Santorum than Gerlach. Get ready for some spin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...after restating what you've already stated five times. Thanks, Smash. My heart is full. 

[memphis]

Yes, it was hype that PA was a close, battleground state. PA has a slight D lean versus the national average. When the Dem is up several points nationwide, PA is safe. All the polling suggested it and the returns confimed it. You may as well have said that TX was a close battleground state. Was Obama foolish to spend time and money there? Perhaps, but he is usually a very cautious fellow, and he couldn't very well thumb his nose at PA when McCain was visiting so frequently. Also, what conservative did Pennsylvanians reelect in 2008?

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, it was hype that PA was a close, battleground state. PA has a slight D lean versus the national average. When the Dem is up several points nationwide, PA is safe.

But it doesn't always work that way. PA was seen to be a very different case in 2008 before the economic collapse. The Obama team knew that and no Democratic nominee would have ever dared to consider it safe.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Attorney General Tom Corbett with 52% of the vote to his Democratic rival's 46%. Corbett made a lot of enemies by persuing a scandal mostly involving Democrats in the State House. He was a major target. Contrary to what J.J. said (I guess this can score me points!), his Democratic opponent was a pretty strong candidate - a popular DA from a swing county in the Lehigh Valley. Just for the record, Corbett barely won in 2004. The AP actually declared his opponent the winner early on in the evening four years ago. Corbett is now pretty much about to be coronated as the GOP nominee for Governor in 2010.

[memphis]

Why would you think 2008 would be so different for PA? The polling certainly didn't suggest it. You got me on the AG race, though I don't think an election for that office is comparable to a statewide Senate, governor, or presidential election.

[Keystone Phil]

Why would you think 2008 would be so different for PA? The polling certainly didn't suggest it.

Because Obama is far from the ideal type of candidate for PA Dems. Then, the economy tanked. Please don't tell me that you think Obama would have won here by ten if the collapse didn't occur.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said, I anxiously await the spin if he wins the Gubernatorial race. 

[memphis]

It doesn't really matter what kind of Dem you are in PA. You will do a few points better than nationally. It was true for men as different as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Jimmy Carter. Obama may not have won PA by 10 without the current crisis, but he wouldn't have won nationally by as much either. He may have only won nationally by a few points and 5 or so in PA. It's significant significant that the last poll showing McCain up in PA was in April (long before the economic collapse). You have dozens of polls before then, half of whose margin of error favors McCain, all showing an Obama lead. That's very significant statistically.

[Smash255]

Why would you think 2008 would be so different for PA? The polling certainly didn't suggest it.

Because Obama is far from the ideal type of candidate for PA Dems. Then, the economy tanked. Please don't tell me that you think Obama would have won here by ten if the collapse didn't occur.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said, I anxiously await the spin if he wins the Gubernatorial race. 

10 without the collapse?  No, but a 4 or 5 point victory or something in that range would have been likely without it.

[Brittain33]

Stepping aside from this conversation for a bit.

Phil, the discussion of past predictions is relevant. Not because people need to gloat or rub your nose in it; we all make bad predictions.

To make the point: a few weeks ago, you said that if Mike Ditka had run in '04, he'd have held Obama to single digits, and that would have been a great showing in Illinois. I disagreed and cited reasons why, including Ditka's lack of preparedness and the fact that Obama was still a strong candidate. You stuck to your guns because you felt a Republican candidate with a celebrity tie-in has a high floor in that state and would have won plenty of sports fans. You said we have to agree to disagree. Since Ditka didn't run, it isn't impossible he'd have done extremely well, so all predictions are equal.

The fact that you've regularly overestimated how well Republicans in northern states will do in statewide races matters because it influences your predictions in other states and moving forward. It's why people get into debates with you, and it's why it's hard to just "agree to disagree" when your assessments, made on a gut feeling or on an extremely ambitious extrapolation from your assessment of how a narrow group of people you identify with will vote, don't match up with results.

Even if old Italian-Americans and ambitious ward leaders in Northeast Philly want McCain to win, or there's some Bears fan in Chicago who would otherwise vote Democratic might consider voting for Ditka, that does not translate into a huge wave of silent support for the Republican that could add 10 points to what the polls are showing. That's why these fights keep happening. People disagree about the nature of your assessments and their significance. It's not that we think you're a liar, or we hate you. It's about the essence of the predictions, and past record does matter. People cite polls, facts, and past results; you cite narrow anecdotal data and your hopes. It's not an even match-up and it keeps happening again and again.

[Keystone Phil]

The fact that you've regularly overestimated how well Republicans in northern states will do in statewide races matters because it influences your predictions in other states and moving forward.

I really don't understand why those with such a personal problem with me can't just let it go. Really, I don't get it. You insist on feeding into myths. What is this nonsense about me overestimating Republicans in northern states? Did you not just witness how I disproved the idea that I make numerous inaccurate predictions? What other "northern state" predictions did I get wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have had several forum members here respectfully disagree with my assessments. They heard me out though. My complaints are about people like BRTD and personal attack obsessed trolls like Iosif that only wish to rub it in people's faces. If you really think that this isn't about gloating with a good deal of people, well, I'll kindly suggest that you speak for yourself because you clearly don't understand enough people here.

Yeah, my past record does matter and it's exagerrated beyond belief. You people cite polls as if they're the golden standard. I cited more than "narrow anecdotal data and hopes." This is why I'll get no where with some of you. My "anecdotal" evidence was far from narrow. This isn't Phil talking to his immediate neighbors or Phil going around a supermarket asking people how they feel. I witnessed the ground game on both sides. Yes, a few "ambitious ward leaders" from the other side do tend to matter. If it wasn't for the collapse, the results would have been much different.

There are a few people here that know that I'm not some clown like BRTD (ironically, the greatest abuser of ancedotal evidence) who rants about the political process on an internet political forum. I know quite a few people on "the other side" as well. I knew that they were worried. I knew that their operation wasn't firmly beyond Obama at least not in my area (a significant swing area). In big city politics, that does matter. That is a fact. The facts aren't just on your side. Again, in the end, that didn't matter this time. You had a huge event that kept Democratic voters with Obama. If that hadn't happened, though...

My problem isn't that I don't like to be challenged. Unlike some of you, I don't want to be in an echo chamber. I don't want to be Nate Silver and have my analysis taken as the Word of God. My problem lies with the attitude I receive from a great deal of you. I can understand your hesitancy when it comes to taking my analysis seriously because of my record but that's another problem a lot of you have. It's still fun to distort my prediction record. But even if you don't want to take my analysis too seriously, do me a favor and don't dismiss it as "narrow ancedotal" evidence. It's far from narrow.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've made my points and you guys have made your's. I think we can finally let this go and you can give me another two or four years before you get on my case for my new inaccurate predictions. 

[Brittain33]

Phil, I'm certainly not denying that Iosif crossed over a while ago into taunting you. I think the reason that you get swept up into these discussions more than others is because you're such a prolific poster, and in some ways the way in which you endorse your predictions is different from how others do it. Maybe it's the passion that you bring to your politics and your views. Real earnestness in your beliefs combined with predictions that go against the polls and turn out to be wrong are catnip for people on the Internet. It's just asking for a takedown that gets personal. That's how I see it. It's not fair but the nature of discussion is that the more you put in, the more people will try to take away from you. It means trying to be dispassionate and not letting people get to you, because otherwise it will get worse and become bullying. And recognizing what are the hot buttons that promote it.

Your real problem is that you've come of age 10 years after the ideas and people you supported most hit their peak in popularity, and now you're paying for the sins of the past. I was a Democrat in the 1990s, so I know what that's about, and it sucks. It took me a long time to become dispassionate about my predictions, through several rounds of losing elections and the knowledge that not only did most of the country disagree with the party I supported, but that the party had already been "given its chance" when I wasn't paying attention.

Ideas and people that were new to me, were stale to everyone else. The interactions I had with people, the way I thought people voted and behaved, turned out not to matter much beyond my friends, my neighborhood, my part of the country. I was out of touch.

It took a few cycles of seeing how I was out of touch to understand what it meant to be in touch. I didn't change my views, but it meant recognizing how others felt, and also seeing how much events are out of our control. We're going to have a lot of that in the future.

Santorum is a good marker for this. You disagree, and you've heard it all before. Fine. However, I, and others, can't get around what we see and have seen, vs. what really looks like what you want to see and not what is going on. That's why we'll keep coming back to this.

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum is a good marker for this. You disagree, and you've heard it all before. Fine. However, I, and others, can't get around what we see and have seen, vs. what really looks like what you want to see and not what is going on. That's why we'll keep coming back to this.

So because you don't like Santorum and I do, you will continue to distort my prediction record and my beliefs? I also find it extremely arrogant for you to basically tell me "Well, here's what the rest of us know to be true and there you are in dream land, seeing only what you want to see." Don't get patronizing with me. I've criticized Santorum, too. However, some people can't take it when I expose the half truths in the anti-Santorum rhetoric. If we're going to entertain the idea that I see Santorum in too much of a positive light then you ought to entertain that you view him maybe a bit too negatively.

Dude, I'm a conservative on the Internets. I'm almost always going to be out of touch with you guys. That doesn't matter to me. Really. I take a look at the people that get on my case and really don't take it to heart. The fact that I'm "out of touch" here doesn't make me as out of touch in the real world though. I think it's safe to say that I'm more in touch with mainstream opinion than someone like BRTD. I'm never going to (and never really care to) win over extreme assclowns like BRTD. That being said, we can all be civil.

It's a shame that everything seems to come back to my support for Santorum and my prediction of his victory. The prediction bashing might be very irritating but what I really can't take is that there are people that will always personally attack and, yes, some will hate me just because the man is my politicla hero. It's very unfair but I guess I can't argue that with irrational people. If you don't like me, fine. All I ask is that people are respectable.

[memphis]

Allow me to summarize Phil's last post:
Polls don't mean anything. Even when you have dozens and they all more or less say the same thing. Even though this was true even before the financial meltdown, it was the economic collapse that allowed Obama to win. What matters in my predictions is that I know people. Lots of people. Important people. And they thought this was going close. And they were worried about it.  And that's not anecdotal. I know I've been wrong in the past because of this line of thinking. Furthermore, I like controversy, so I'm going to continue to make predictions by on my same non-anecdotal sources even when this contradicts more scientific methods. So lay off me until the next election when I'll inevitably be wrong again.

[Keystone Phil]

Allow me to summarize Phil's last post:
Polls don't mean anything. Even when you have dozens and they all more or less say the same thing. Even though this was true even before the financial meltdown, it was the economic collapse that allowed Obama to win. What matters in my predictions is that I know people. Lots of people. Important people. And they thought this was going close. And they were worried about it.  And that's not anecdotal. I know I've been wrong in the past because of this line of thinking. Furthermore, I like controversy, so I'm going to continue to make predictions by on my same non-anecdotal sources even when this contradicts more scientific methods. So lay off me until the next election when I'll inevitably be wrong again.

Right, yep, that's what I meant. Whatever, guys.

...and then people call me the asshole, saying that I'm too nasty, etc. Or wait...maybe this is one of those "jokes."

[Brittain33]

So because you don't like Santorum and I do, you will continue to distort my prediction record and my beliefs?

No. I didn't like Santorum in 1999 and 2000, and that didn't do me any good. It's because of how the actual elections turned out in PA-13 in 2004, in the Pennsylvania Senate in 2006, and in the presidential race in Pennsylvania in 2008, when you predicted one thing and the vote turned out to be not close. People value what they consider to be sharp predictions. Partisan influence of one's views are taken as a sign of weakness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has nothing to do with the content of Santorum's views. It has to do with the fact that whether you agree with them or not, they have made it very hard for him and similar candidates to get elected now and in the immediate future, whereas they were a plus in the mid-1990s and tolerated in the early 2000s.

That's all. It's about votes, not about personal feelings. The idea of Santorum's electability is laughable to most of us. The series of views Santorum holds is objectionable to a smaller number, and not with the same clarity. People will probably never object to my pointing out that Santorum won't win office again, but if every post were about how Santorum is anti-gay and corrupt etc. people would get tired of that really quickly. Most people aren't talking issues here, but the game.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's cool. I don't expect you to agree with me on lots of things, and I don't expect most people to agree with you. I am talking about splitting one's views as an analyst and predictor from one's views on the issues. Whether you think Santorum should have won in 2006, or Obama should have lost or won PA narrowly in 2008, should not be connected to what you want to happen. You blur that line, and are doing it now in your response here.

It's ok to want a certain outcome. It's different when you say that it will happen, against the weight of evidence. That's the problem. I'm sorry if I sound patronizing. You read us saying "that won't happen" or "that is unlikely to happen" as "you're wrong to want it to happen." Those are very different things! Be a proud conservative, but consider multiple views when projecting results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Understood.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really don't think that's all that is. Yes, I think that being a conservative in 2008 does put a mark on you, and from what I understand this forum has become more Democratic with time. I really think that it's not that you like Santorum, but the fact that you think he's a strong candidate for office anywhere, that is what starts this up. It's like someone who supports Chaka Fattah for Senate in Pennsylvania. It's not agreeing with Fattah that's the problem, it's thinking that your point of view would apply against the evidence that would lead people to point out, quite clearly and loudly and obnoxiously, why Fattah would be a bad statewide candidate.

[Keystone Phil]

No. I didn't like Santorum in 1999 and 2000, and that didn't do me any good. It's because of how the actual elections turned out in PA-13 in 2004, in the Pennsylvania Senate in 2006, and in the presidential race in Pennsylvania in 2008, when you predicted one thing and the vote turned out to be not close.

Even though I had PA going for Obama. Two bad predictions. But I understand. I really do. You're obligated to get on my case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know why that has anything to do with this topic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wanted George Allen in 2006. I wanted Mike DeWine in 2006. I wanted Conrad Burns in 2006. I wanted Jim Talent in 2006. Look up my other 2006 predictions. Do you want me to go through my 2008 predictions, too?

I don't blur the lines and my other predictions prove that. I'm sure you'll have a great excuse as to why they're not relevant though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

You really want to compare Santorum's chances statewide to Fattah's? Really? Wow.

Even if I do think Santorum could still be a strong candidate, who cares? It's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the viciously personal attacks that accompany your commentary as to why Santorum isn't a strong candidate.

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not as arrogant as some to say what will definitely happen in the future. Guess what? You don't know what position Santorum will be in in a few years. We've written off people before. I don't care if you write him off. Just don't constantly attack me for entertaining the idea of a comeback. Plus, you've all told me how ridiculous you think the thought of a Santorum comeback happens to be. I got the point. Even when I don't bring it up, you guys need to make it an issue. Move the hell on.

[Brittain33]

Even though I had PA going for Obama. Two bad predictions. But I understand. I really do. You're obligated to get on my case.

You didn't call Pennsylvania for Obama until a few weeks before the election, when it became clear that Obama was going to win nationwide by a sizable margin, and then you had it going narrowly, after predicting all year that Obama was in trouble in the state.

You're right; it's not the same as calling it wrong outright. However, even before the election, there were lots of fruitless discussions about why Pennsylvania would be fine for Obama, and those reasons were dismissed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's important. It shows this is really about Pennsylvania, and not races elsewhere. I certainly recall you wanting Rossi and not predicting he'd win, necessarily, even though that would have been reasonable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I do. They are both 0%, unless running against a completely unacceptable candidate on the other side. I mean Larry Craig levels of unacceptable. But perhaps Ron Klink, another candidate with close to 0%, would be a better analogy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I made no vicious personal attacks. I find it disheartening that you take these discussions so sharply personally. They are personal, but they are not motivated by hatred or other nasty motivations that you see in other people.

Look, it seems like you sincerely don't see this, but constantly accusing people of attacking you viciously is a form of attack in itself. I used to post on an internet community where one woman would compare people disagreeing with her to "beating her." She was just calling it as she experienced it, but it meant she accused people of doing something more savage and cruel than what was going on. It made people angry at her, because it was manipulative--people felt they had to treat her with kid gloves or pretend to agree with her because otherwise they were bad people. It made people resent her. That's the effect that your reactions have. You're perceiving these things more personally and acutely than should be and it escalates the situation.

Don't bring up the cases like Iosif where it is happening--you did it on the George W. Bush reading thread. People who criticize Republicans you like, get that response from you. It's disproportionate and it makes people push back.

[RosettaStoned]

Obama would easily win.

[Lunar]

Obama would easily win.

don't change the subject

[Keystone Phil]

You didn't call Pennsylvania for Obama until a few weeks before the election, when it became clear that Obama was going to win nationwide by a sizable margin, and then you had it going narrowly, after predicting all year that Obama was in trouble in the state.

Not true (again). Obama by five isn't exactly a "narrow" win.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he was said to be fine based on...polling. That was it really. Oh, and the "The Dem always does better in PA because PA is more Democratic than the national average."

I didn't totally dismiss the arguments. I listen to others. My claims were dismissed as nothing more than "narrow ancedotal" evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did predict a Rossi win. OMG ANOTHER BAD PREDICTION BY PHAILSTONE PHIL!

It's not really about PA. I wanted Swann to beat Rendell. I predicted an easy Rendell win. I have had other statewide predictions in which I predicted the person that I wanted losing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pure arrogance to think that Santorum's chances are not only on line with Fattah's but actually at 0%.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've been pretty personal before and here as well. You've basically excused personal attacks directed my way because...I like Santorum. It's a "You had it coming to you, boy" attitude. I consider that an attack.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you serious? I battle with people all the time here. My problem isn't with the people I have disagreements with; it's with those that get personal and that's people like you, BRTD, Iosif and memphis. Not everyone is like that crowd. So don't make this about me being wrong when others are stooping to low levels of "debate."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't bring up Iosif? Really? Give me a list of other people I can't name. Let's just strike off everyone that actually does personally attack me and you'll be correct.

I don't know what the Bush reading thread has to do with anything. I didn't get personal. I called out people for their lame, expected insults directed Bush's way.

Stop looking for every excuse for personally attacking me. I know you're trying your hardest. Fact of the matter is that I have given no reason for people to "push back" at me with these predictions. A bunch of immature people that dislike me will never give up. You are obviously too biased to see it. Plenty of other people that know my predictions were wrong have brought it up and let it go. These are the people with which I have honest, respectful debates. That's not the case with BRTD and Company. They have no interest in mature levels of debate and you know that to be true. Stop excusing their actions. Stop excusing the borderline harassment from people like Iosif.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Allow me to summarize Phil's last post:
Polls don't mean anything. Even when you have dozens and they all more or less say the same thing. Even though this was true even before the financial meltdown, it was the economic collapse that allowed Obama to win. What matters in my predictions is that I know people. Lots of people. Important people. And they thought this was going close. And they were worried about it.  And that's not anecdotal. I know I've been wrong in the past because of this line of thinking. Furthermore, I like controversy, so I'm going to continue to make predictions by on my same non-anecdotal sources even when this contradicts more scientific methods. So lay off me until the next election when I'll inevitably be wrong again.

Right, yep, that's what I meant. Whatever, guys.

...and then people call me the asshole, saying that I'm too nasty, etc. Or wait...maybe this is one of those "jokes."

You completely ignored his point, which is that the polls showed Obama ahead in PA even before the stock market crash. So you can't use that as an excuse unless you can explain why the polls were all so consistently wrong, and no the Bradley Effect doesn't count as a valid reason, especially as even you have renounced it.

[Keystone Phil]

Allow me to summarize Phil's last post:
Polls don't mean anything. Even when you have dozens and they all more or less say the same thing. Even though this was true even before the financial meltdown, it was the economic collapse that allowed Obama to win. What matters in my predictions is that I know people. Lots of people. Important people. And they thought this was going close. And they were worried about it.  And that's not anecdotal. I know I've been wrong in the past because of this line of thinking. Furthermore, I like controversy, so I'm going to continue to make predictions by on my same non-anecdotal sources even when this contradicts more scientific methods. So lay off me until the next election when I'll inevitably be wrong again.

Right, yep, that's what I meant. Whatever, guys.

...and then people call me the asshole, saying that I'm too nasty, etc. Or wait...maybe this is one of those "jokes."

You completely ignored his point, which is that the polls showed Obama ahead in PA even before the stock market crash. So you can't use that as an excuse unless you can explain why the polls were all so consistently wrong, and no the Bradley Effect doesn't count as a valid reason, especially as even you have renounced it.

Who is to say that the polls would have still been correct? A poll months before the election doesn't tell me for certain what will happen.

I explained why the Bradley Effect doesn't matter now. However, I still believe that plenty would have been more inclined to go with their racist feelings if the economy wasn't the major issue. You wouldn't have been hearing as much "We're voting for the n," that's for sure.