User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:04:32 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Retroactive prediction. Uh huh. ok. yeah, who ever heard of analyzing past data and applying it to the present? those fools! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:10:26 AM EDT
[#2]
320 to 218, that's called an asswhippin'.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:13:15 AM EDT
[#3]
I have been saying for some time it will be a Landslide
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:15:19 AM EDT
[#4]
I'm not sure I could take the laughing that would result from watching the results on PMSNBC, but I'd like to try.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:21:45 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Retroactive prediction. Uh huh. ok. That's the most important part of predictive analysis. Anyone can say "my model predicts the future!" The key is building a model, then putting in historical data, and seeing if the results=reality. which is where all the global warming models fail miserably. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:24:59 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Retroactive prediction. Uh huh. ok. That's the most important part of predictive analysis. Anyone can say "my model predicts the future!" The key is building a model, then putting in historical data, and seeing if the results=reality. which is where all the global warming models fail miserably. The hell? Get the fuck outta GD with your "facts" and "logic". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:31:34 AM EDT
[#7]
Holy shit. August?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:32:41 AM EDT
[#8]
The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:50:41 AM EDT
[#9]
The only caveat is that this model is based on the standard post-WWII paradigm that has dominated American politics for the past 60 years; which is, the majority of the electorate want three things: Jobs, opportunity, and economic growth and they will throw out any party that fails to deliver those things, regardless of ideology.
What is ominous about a potential Obama victory is that if he wins it is a strong sign that paradigm is no longer valid. Obama winning despite the horrid economy means that the American Dream is no longer to find a good job and own a nice house, but rather is now getting on the public dole and having someone else pay for your fun. In this paradigm the voters will reject any candidate that they perceive will stop or even slow down the Gravy Train of Free Money. Bankruptcy, chaos, and economic collapse will be the inevitable result. If that situation is true, then America as we know it no longer exists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:52:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
The only caveat is that this model is based on the standard post-WWII paradigm that has dominated American politics for the past 60 years; which is, the majority of the electorate want three things: Jobs, opportunity, and economic growth and they will throw out any party that fails to deliver those things, regardless of ideology. What is ominous about a potential Obama victory is that if he wins it is a strong sign that paradigm is no longer valid. Obama winning despite the horrid economy means that the American Dream is no longer to find a good job and own a nice house, but rather is now getting on the public dole and having someone else pay for your fun. In this paradigm the voters will reject any candidate that they perceive will stop or even slow down the Gravy Train of Free Money. Bankruptcy, chaos, and economic collapse will be the inevitable result. If that situation is true, then America as we know it no longer exists. yep...and we will find out in a few 4 weeks. scary I will saw that I think mitt wins and wins big |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 8:55:18 AM EDT
[#11]
Make your own and post it here.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1370938_The_WI_Rifleman_Election_Challenge.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 9:00:49 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 9:01:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: The only caveat is that this model is based on the standard post-WWII paradigm that has dominated American politics for the past 60 years; which is, the majority of the electorate want three things: Jobs, opportunity, and economic growth and they will throw out any party that fails to deliver those things, regardless of ideology. That is why I fear the current models may be inaccurate. Also, why I pray for a Romney victory. I think I'll go donate another 50 bucks now.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 9:10:57 AM EDT
[#14]
Anyone else notice that not one of the MSM outlets has said a word about this?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 9:39:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 10:56:33 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:01:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. Winning GA would not have been enough for Bush 41 to win re-election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:02:21 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Assuming that 80-90% of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush is a bit...optimistic, as well. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. Winning GA would not have been enough for Bush 41 to win re-election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:04:18 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. Winning GA would not have been enough for Bush 41 to win re-election. Electorially, the R MUST have the "Solid South." He basically must win all of Dixie, including FL, plus a smattering of swing states to get to 270. If any state in the South, and OH and PA go for Obama, its over before its 1800 in St. Louis. OTOH...if Mittens can swing FL, the South, and either OH or PA, he's in really good shape. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:05:08 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Assuming that 80-90% of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush is a bit...optimistic, as well. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. Winning GA would not have been enough for Bush 41 to win re-election. I think the Perot vote was an even split. Hell, I remember that election well. When Perot dropped out, he cited reforms made by the Democrats during their convention as his reasoning in abandoning his bid. GHWB lost because of his debate performance. He seemed to be above such trivial matters while Clinton really wanted to be there (what does that sound like?).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:07:16 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Things have switched in the south over the last 20-30 years. Before, Republicans would win all of the NE and the south was known as "Solid South" in that they were solidly Democrat.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. Winning GA would not have been enough for Bush 41 to win re-election. Electorially, the R MUST have the "Solid South." He basically must win all of Dixie, including FL, plus a smattering of swing states to get to 270. If any state in the South, and OH and PA go for Obama, its over before its 1800 in St. Louis. OTOH...if Mittens can swing FL, the South, and either OH or PA, he's in really good shape. Of course things are different now, but it goes to show you that nothing stays the same. There will probably be more political re-alignment as many of the states out west, along with some states in the NE become more libertarian.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:09:15 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. If I understand correctly, the EC votes independently of the popular election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:12:14 AM EDT
[#23]
I hate to be the turd in the punchbowl but I'll believe it when I see Romney take office.
Right now the Free Shit Army is on a fucking tear and I wouldn't be surprised to see the butthurt, heart on the sleeve, liberal assholes show up in droves. I hope that it's right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:13:31 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Things have switched in the south over the last 20-30 years. Before, Republicans would win all of the NE and the south was known as "Solid South" in that they were solidly Democrat.Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. Winning GA would not have been enough for Bush 41 to win re-election. Electorially, the R MUST have the "Solid South." He basically must win all of Dixie, including FL, plus a smattering of swing states to get to 270. If any state in the South, and OH and PA go for Obama, its over before its 1800 in St. Louis. OTOH...if Mittens can swing FL, the South, and either OH or PA, he's in really good shape. Of course things are different now, but it goes to show you that nothing stays the same. There will probably be more political re-alignment as many of the states out west, along with some states in the NE become more libertarian.
The South has been voting conservatively since the 1970s. I think the libertarians will need a whole lot more national structure to turn those political leanings into any kind of tangible results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:17:03 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
This only happens if you assholes go and vote! That and vote for Romney rather than write in Ron Paul. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:20:36 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: The South has been voting conservatively since the 1970s. I think the libertarians will need a whole lot more national structure to turn those political leanings into any kind of tangible results.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:39:51 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's hope. I may actually watch MSNBC on election night just to see them have a collective coronary... If you think Matthews had a meltdown over the Obama debate performance; can you imagine what he would look like if Romney picks up 330 EV? Might actually get to see a real exploding head. That would be fap-able. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:40:31 AM EDT
[#28]
Black don't crack. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:45:51 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: This looks like outstanding news: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/shock-poll-obama-could-lose-illinois/ This would be slapping Obama in the face with a wet noodle PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE LET THIS COME TRUE!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:48:05 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
320 to 218, that's called an asswhippin'. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile How does that compare to Regan's victories? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:49:36 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: If I understand correctly, the EC votes independently of the popular election. Hypothetically, but never in practice. There have been a few "defectors", but it's never changed the outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:51:33 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: The South has been voting conservatively since the 1970s. I think the libertarians will need a whole lot more national structure to turn those political leanings into any kind of tangible results. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/ElectoralCollege1976.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1976.svg.png It's like bizarro world... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:52:29 AM EDT
[#33]
Hopefully true......we'll see how the upcoming remaining debates go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:53:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I understand correctly, the EC votes independently of the popular election. Hypothetically, but never in practice. There have been a few "defectors", but it's never changed the outcome. Not so, there have been two three presidential elections where the popular vote and EC did not match. Correction 1876, 1888, and 2000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:55:54 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I understand correctly, the EC votes independently of the popular election. Hypothetically, but never in practice. There have been a few "defectors", but it's never changed the outcome. Not so, there have been two presidential elections where the popular vote and EC did not match. I think he was saying where the EC ignores the candidate they are supposed to vote for and vote for whomever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:56:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The South has been voting conservatively since the 1970s. I think the libertarians will need a whole lot more national structure to turn those political leanings into any kind of tangible results. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/ElectoralCollege1976.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1976.svg.png I think that a post-Watergate election is a bit unfair. Additionally, you need to factor in the Dixiecrat factor, where the southern Democrats kept the Democrats much more centrist. My argument still holds. The Democrat starts with three electoral prizes in CA, NY and IL. The Republican must win all of the South. Go to 270towin.com and play with the map. Its really hard to put together R wins without the South. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:58:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: I realize that. However, the south just recently became Republican and my point also still stands that things change and regions will change their politics. Quoted: Quoted: The South has been voting conservatively since the 1970s. I think the libertarians will need a whole lot more national structure to turn those political leanings into any kind of tangible results. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/ElectoralCollege1976.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1976.svg.png I think that a post-Watergate election is a bit unfair. Additionally, you need to factor in the Dixiecrat factor, where the southern Democrats kept the Democrats much more centrist. My argument still holds. The Democrat starts with three electoral prizes in CA, NY and IL. The Republican must win all of the South. Go to 270towin.com and play with the map. Its really hard to put together R wins without the South. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:58:50 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
I think he was saying where the EC ignores the candidate they are supposed to vote for and vote for whomever. Ahh, the faithless vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 11:59:39 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Correct. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If I understand correctly, the EC votes independently of the popular election. Hypothetically, but never in practice. There have been a few "defectors", but it's never changed the outcome. Not so, there have been two presidential elections where the popular vote and EC did not match. I think he was saying where the EC ignores the candidate they are supposed to vote for and vote for whomever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 12:36:21 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Assuming that 80-90% of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush is a bit...optimistic, as well. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. Winning GA would not have been enough for Bush 41 to win re-election. All it would have taken was 55%, assuming all the rest would go to Clinton (which it wouldn't have). Even less was needed in reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 12:37:53 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The question is, with the executive branch election decided by the EC rather than popular votes, how much can third party voting by regular citizens really hurt/help a candidate? Ask Bill Clinton. No EC votes went to a third party candidate in 1992 or 1996. I'm pretty sure the same will be true in November. No, but Perot caused Clinton to win a lot of states that Bush would have won, otherwise. In GA, Clinton beat Bush by less than 1%. Perot got over 13%. if Perot han't been in the race, Bush would have easily gotten 80-90% of Perot's votes and won GA handily. Winning GA would not have been enough for Bush 41 to win re-election. Add in the other states in the same situation, and he would have. Georgia was just an example. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
