Not sure what will happen, but KS polls were off by 22%

PostmodernProphet said:
???.....Republicans lead in Nevada by 2.7%......they need to maintain a lead of 2.7% for the remaining 25% of Nevada votes......
Click to expand...


Sorry, I meant Democrats have a 4.6% lead in Arizona. My mistake.

The point is that Democrats have a 4.6% lead in Arizona, while Republicans have only a 2.7% lead in Nevada. That means that it is easier for Democrats to take Nevada than for Republicans to take Arizona.
 
LV426 said:
Well how did that work out? Certainly no red wave last night. Dems may even retain control of the House.
Click to expand...

Worked out the same as almost every mid-term election--the president's party loses seats.

I ignore any talk of "waves." Getting all optimistic for your party at the last minute does not alter historical trends and polling.
 
LV426 said:
Almost always...didn't happen 20 years ago.

I think Dobbs has had a disruptive effect, as anyone can see in the 5 House Special elections and the KS abortion vote.

Remember, on the eve of the KS abortion vote, the final poll showed the pro-choice side losing by 2%...it ended up winning by 20%.

That's why I think polls are stupid and useless.
Click to expand...

Yes, 20 years ago. That is why the president's party almost always loses House seats in midterms. In the 22 midterm elections between 1934-2018 the president's party lost House seats 19/22 times. Those are facts.

The "facts" you listed are not evidence it will benefit the Democratic vote.

What happened in the KS abortion election tells us nothing about congressional elections. Republicans won 3 of 4 KS house seats yesterday (but they did elect a Democratic governor).
 
Walt said:
Sorry, I meant Democrats have a 4.6% lead in Arizona. My mistake.

The point is that Democrats have a 4.6% lead in Arizona, while Republicans have only a 2.7% lead in Nevada. That means that it is easier for Democrats to take Nevada than for Republicans to take Arizona.
Click to expand...

the uncounted votes in Arizona are the Maricopa votes from election day......heavily favoring Republicans......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the uncounted votes in Arizona are the Maricopa votes from election day......heavily favoring Republicans......
Click to expand...

Maricopa County is the County around Phoenix. It is where the majority of Arizonians vote. The other counties are 90% Republicans, but Maricopa County is where Democrats have a chance.

In other words, if it is a tie, and the rest of the votes are coming from Maricopa County, then Democrats have won.
 
Flash said:
The "facts" you listed are not evidence it will benefit the Democratic vote.
Click to expand...

Clearly it did since the party appears poised to win control of the Senate (again) and possibly even retain the House once all the votes are counted and Perry is indicted.
 
LV426 said:
Clearly it did since the party appears poised to win control of the Senate (again) and possibly even retain the House once all the votes are counted and Perry is indicted.
Click to expand...

That was true before any of your "facts" appeared. And, you certainly cannot attribute Democratic performance because of those facts because the scientific (nonpartisan) polls have shown that. The polls even showed those races which were too close to call.
 
Flash said:
That was true before any of your "facts" appeared.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, Flash...you were saying this whole time that the Democrats were going to lose not just one, but both chambers, and you jumped to that conclusion because you're an arrogant turd.

Now that the election has happened and the votes are being counted, all the facts that I listed before the election as impacting the election turned out to be true!

The Democrats built a firewall of nearly 5M votes across early voting states, and that firewall held for the most part.

Democratic voters under the age of 35 cast ballots at far higher rates than Pervert Republicans under the age of 35 did.

Democrats raised more money overall that they used to retain and/or flip seats.

CA still needs to be fully counted and there was no Pervert GOP surge in CA.

You weren't on JPP predicting a handful seat gain by the Pervert GOP, you were here predicting another massive midterm wave that simply never materialized. Like all the pundits, you got it wrong which is why you're now retreating to the lowest common denominator argument, which is your habit because you simply will never admit that your instincts are trash.
 
LV426 said:
No it wasn't, Flash...you were saying this whole time that the Democrats were going to lose not just one, but both chambers, and you jumped to that conclusion because you're an arrogant turd.

You weren't on JPP predicting a handful seat gain by the Pervert GOP, you were here predicting another massive midterm wave that simply never materialized. Like all the pundits, you got it wrong which is why you're now retreating to the lowest common denominator argument, which is your habit because you simply will never admit that your instincts are trash.
Click to expand...

Total lies. You make up lies a poster never said and then argue with that lie. I only said the president's party would lose seats and I thought the Democrats would lose the House because they only needed to lose five seats. My actual prediction was that Democrats would lost twenty-something seats.

I never said they would lose both chambers because the Senate was too close to call. I certainly never said there would be a "massive midterm wave" because drastic changes seldom occur and using the term "wave" is stupid because that can be interpreted to mean however the poster wants to define it.

Can you show me my post that said Republicans would win both chambers and there would be a massive wave?

LV426: A lot of your reasoning is fairly logical although biased too much in the favor of your party. You don't need to lie about what other posters said to make civil points. You have done that to me many times. I don't know whether they are intentional lies or just your binary thinking that a person has to agree completely with one side or the other and be overly optimistic about that sides changes of winning. Please stop lying.

I just started out with the simple statement that the president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections. You have to start an argument with that by saying "it happened 20 years ago." That is why I said "almost always."

I will be waiting for you to show my post about "winning both chambers" and a "massive wave."
 
Flash said:
Total lies. You make up lies a poster never said and then argue with that lie. I only said the president's party would lose seats and I thought the Democrats would lose the House because they only needed to lose five seats. My actual prediction was that Democrats would lost twenty-something seats.

I never said they would lose both chambers because the Senate was too close to call. I certainly never said there would be a "massive midterm wave" because drastic changes seldom occur and using the term "wave" is stupid because that can be interpreted to mean however the poster wants to define it.

Can you show me my post that said Republicans would win both chambers and there would be a massive wave?

LV426: A lot of your reasoning is fairly logical although biased too much in the favor of your party. You don't need to lie about what other posters said to make civil points. You have done that to me many times. I don't know whether they are intentional lies or just your binary thinking that a person has to agree completely with one side or the other and be overly optimistic about that sides changes of winning. Please stop lying.

I just started out with the simple statement that the president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections. You have to start an argument with that by saying "it happened 20 years ago." That is why I said "almost always."

I will be waiting for you to show my post about "winning both chambers" and a "massive wave."
Click to expand...

Again, all I did was invoke the facts.

I didn't make a prediction, and said multiple times -even on this thread- that I don't know what would happen. But there was also historical precedent of a President's party gaining seats in the first midterm because it happened in 2002, which was only 20 years ago.

The votes all still need to be counted and I truly don't know how that is going to go, but given that Democrats dominated the early and mail-in vote, chances are that those firewalls will probably hold.

I ignored the pundits and polls because polls aren't real votes, votes are real votes, and to understand how an election will play out, it's far more useful to analyze the early vote trends than it is to analyze polls that were being manufactured in order to push a narrative and provide cover for election denialism.
 
LV426 said:
Again, all I did was invoke the facts.

I didn't make a prediction, and said multiple times -even on this thread- that I don't know what would happen. But there was also historical precedent of a President's party gaining seats in the first midterm because it happened in 2002, which was only 20 years ago.

The votes all still need to be counted and I truly don't know how that is going to go, but given that Democrats dominated the early and mail-in vote, chances are that those firewalls will probably hold.
Click to expand...

Nope. You did not state "facts" when you said I predicted a massive red wave and Republicans would win both houses. I said none of those things.

Something which happened in 2002 is not really historical precedent when the opposite happened 19/22 times. That is a lame claim. 2002 was because of 9-11. You quibble with trivia when you cannot admit somebody else was right.
 
Flash said:
Nope. You did not state "facts" when you said I predicted a massive red wave and Republicans would win both houses. I said none of those things.
Click to expand...


Sure ya did, Flash...you're just trying to cover your own ass now which is why you are lowering the standards of your argument so much that those standards are now lying on the floor in a puddle of piss.
 
Flash said:
Something which happened in 2002 is not really historical precedent when the opposite happened 19/22 times.
Click to expand...

2002 was only 20 years ago, which is not that long ago for those of us whose minds aren't being ravaged by dementia and Alzheimer's because of advanced age.


That is a lame claim.
Click to expand...

I didn't make a claim. I said that historical precedent exists for the President's party gaining seats because it happened 20 years ago.

I'm not the one coming on JPP and making statements of certitude about an election before all the votes have been counted.

Didn't you learn anything from 2020? Of course you didn't because you are at the point in your life where you've just given up and closed your mind off to everything that challenges it.

You've made the calculation that since you're closer to the end of your life than the beginning of it, there is no point in changing your mind or learning anything because you're complacent now, and complacency comes from cowardice.
 
LV426 said:
Sure ya did, Flash...you're just trying to cover your own ass now which is why you are lowering the standards of your argument so much that those standards are now lying on the floor in a puddle of piss.
Click to expand...

Then show us, you liar. It should be easy to copy and past just one of my posts making that claim. Why are you making a claim you cannot prove? I guess so you can claim you were finally right about something.
 
Flash said:

Then show us, you liar. It should be easy to copy and past just one of my posts making that claim. Why are you making a claim you cannot prove? I guess so you can claim you were finally right about something.
Click to expand...

LMAO! I always love whenever the argument gets to this point with pants-shitting BotHSiDeRiSts because they are hyper protective of their poor rush to judgment before all the facts are in, and before all the votes are counted.
 
LV426 said:
LMAO! I always love whenever the argument gets to this point with pants-shitting BotHSiDeRiSts because they are hyper protective of their poor rush to judgment before all the facts are in, and before all the votes are counted.
Click to expand...

In other words, you cannot produce any post that I claimed a red wave or many red gains or red takeover of the House and Senate. You cannot produce it because I never said it. But, you have no scruples about lying about it.

I am not protective about any rush to judgement. I stick with my claim. The president's party will lose seats.
 
The polls all understated the impact of abortion on the votes. It was thought to be a 4th or 5th reason people voted. Exit polling showed it was 1 or 2 in many states.
 
evince said:
I’m telling you folks


The republicans with money order up crap polls to make the outcome a surprise

To NUMB Democratic Party enthusiasm


In hopes other voters give up and don’t show

And now they USE those unexpected losses to CLAIM fraud


We are winning
Click to expand...

Facts are awesome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top