Clinton To Take Wisconsin?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Those are ARG's numbers. Enough said.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A quick graph of all the non-ARG polls in February. The axis starting at Feb. 10 (the 1) and each since that another day:



That's tightening? All it shows is that PPP is giving one set of numbers, and everyone else another set, all numbers in each set within the MOE. In each set there is a trend slightly in favor of Obama, but once again, this is all within the MOE. In other words there is NO statistically significant evidence of any real trend in any direction.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...and it looks like J. J. got seriously clowned. Nice.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So no comment from J. J.?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You are, without a doubt, the most arrogant supporter of a candidate I have seen in a while.

J.J. has yet to provide any evidence of this supposed tightening and was owned after the actual election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I love J. J.'s 100% silence on this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I love J. J.'s 100% silence on this.

You know, New Hampshire was a long time ago. You should really get over it.

That has nothing to do with it. Read the thread and note his citing of polls that don't exist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I love J. J.'s 100% silence on this.

You know, New Hampshire was a long time ago. You should really get over it.

That has nothing to do with it. Read the thread and note his citing of polls that don't exist.

Ah, right here:

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.

The polls were wrong, just like they were NH.

That's an ARG poll. LOL!

Also note the same firm with the +11 Obama came out with a +13 Obama poll right after that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

JJ predicted that Clinton would win New Hampshire by 2%. BRTD laughed at it and even posted it in the Comedy Goldmine. Much ridicule followed.

Uh, no. That was Eraserhead. Get your facts straight.

Anyway are you willing to defend JJ on this point or do you agree he's citing polls that don't exist? If he's done something that blatantly hackish and dishonest I see nothing wrong with bringing it up later as an attack on credibility, hell this sort of thing happens in court and the legal system all the time.

Another recent example:

Alcon: While Obama tends to overperform in caucuses, that doesn't happen in counties with large Hispanic populations. There he tends to underperform his primary performance, as we saw in Texas.
J. J.: Go look at California.
Alcon: What? What's that have to do with it? *cites many examples of heavily Hispanic Texas counties where Hillary did much better in the caucus than primary*
J. J.: *silence*

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The difference is he made an out on a limb prediction in NH and turned out to be right. Here he didn't just make an out on a limb prediction and say "I think the polls are wrong and Hillary will have an upset in Wisconsin." He's basically saying the polls said something completely different from what they did. It's the worst case of hackery I've ever seen on the forum and not a single person will defend him on it and he's been attacked on it by many people who usually disagree with me.

And before anyone responds saying that I'm a hack too: I've never denied this. But as Alcon said, J. J. tries to pass off hackery as objective fair analysis.