GA - SurveyUSA: Ossoff+2, Warnock+7 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 07:09:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 Senate & House Election Polls
  GA - SurveyUSA: Ossoff+2, Warnock+7 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: GA - SurveyUSA: Ossoff+2, Warnock+7  (Read 4845 times)
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,102
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
« on: December 04, 2020, 08:19:47 AM »


I can't believe people on this forum have the audacity to pick out a single state from somebody who got it almost all right when they've gotten almost the entire 2020 election wrong. You guys were predicting Iowa, Ohio, and Texas a toss-up, Kansas, Iowa, and Montana Senate races a toss-up (with many predicting Dems winning them). All based on junky polls which confirmed what you wanted to happen.

Calling a Biden +4, 5% margin of error poll "junk" is not a bold statement and has nothing to do with any kind of "record" that Buzz has. Yall gang up on him just like you gang up on me or anyone who tells it like it is. Same behavior that was going on before the election validated and repeated. You'll continue to do this and learn nothing for years.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,102
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2020, 10:12:41 AM »


I can't believe people on this forum have the audacity to pick out a single state from somebody who got it almost all right when they've gotten almost the entire 2020 election wrong. You guys were predicting Iowa, Ohio, and Texas a toss-up, Kansas, Iowa, and Montana Senate races a toss-up (with many predicting Dems winning them). All based on junky polls which confirmed what you wanted to happen.

Calling a Biden +4, 5% margin of error poll "junk" is not a bold statement and has nothing to do with any kind of "record" that Buzz has. Yall gang up on him just like you gang up on me or anyone who tells it like it is. Same behavior that was going on before the election validated and repeated. You'll continue to do this and learn nothing for years.

To be honest, Kaiser Dave's predictions were very accurate

It was moreso a response to the 10 people that recommended and the behavioral aspect than any specific response to Kaiser Dave and his prediction accuracy. Obviously I wasn't referring to him when I said "they've" and "you guys".
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,102
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2020, 11:11:32 AM »


I can't believe people on this forum have the audacity to pick out a single state from somebody who got it almost all right when they've gotten almost the entire 2020 election wrong. You guys were predicting Iowa, Ohio, and Texas a toss-up, Kansas, Iowa, and Montana Senate races a toss-up (with many predicting Dems winning them). All based on junky polls which confirmed what you wanted to happen.

Calling a Biden +4, 5% margin of error poll "junk" is not a bold statement and has nothing to do with any kind of "record" that Buzz has. Yall gang up on him just like you gang up on me or anyone who tells it like it is. Same behavior that was going on before the election validated and repeated. You'll continue to do this and learn nothing for years.

To be honest, Kaiser Dave's predictions were very accurate

It was moreso a response to the 10 people that recommended and the behavioral aspect than any specific response to Kaiser Dave and his prediction accuracy. Obviously I wasn't referring to him when I said "they've" and "you guys".

Perhaps don’t quote me then

Edit: and don’t turn this into some righteous indignation thing. You’re not a heroic resistance person “telling it like it is.” You were, and I feel like this is at least somewhat relevant...wrong.

You still picked on Buzz just because you wanted to drop him down a peg. Had nothing substantial to do with rebutting his claim or anything. That's why I quoted you.

And yes, I was "wrong". I already know that, but you know it's a cheap shot because of how I got it wrong. If getting every state correct by itself is more important than closeness in margins, then yeah my prediction sucked. I mean seriously, if that's the standard then there's very little genuineness or good faith left in our community.  I was not more inaccurate than most people on here just because I got the "winner" wrong. That's just shallow. And I don't know why you think it's somewhat relevant to this discussion either.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 14 queries.