OCinBuffalo

3 things: 1. If I was suffering under the delusion of David Axelrod's demographic assumptions, and since I worked in that WH, I would have to be; or if I saw things clearly but, I wanted to keep my job, I'd be going along with them. Either way, I'd be quietly confident too. If I'm delusional, I have nothing to fear. If not, I have nothing to lose. In less than a week, if they lose, nobody will care that I was telling them to be afraid. If they win, I'm fired. If I'm deluded, I'll probably get promoted. Ask your brother, to ask his guy, to ask his guy whether he truly believes that this electorate = 2008. That answer, gives you the answer. For fun, ask your brother too. That will give you a whole other answer. 2. The Ohio and VA thing flies in the face of the data we have. Especially the early vote in Ohio. But, again, if you use Axelrod's demo/turnout models, the race is, at best, close. If Axelrod is wrong...and even if this is a 2004(never mind 2010, 2006, or 2000), turnout? Well? Ouch. The good news is this WH guy will have a fine "used to work for Obama, remember him?" career ahead, as a FOX News contributor. That's where all "we got smoked" D political consultants go to "die". Maybe, in a few years, that's where Axelrod will end up. 3. Dev/null football analogies are interesting...but he forgot one. IF you apply PROPER demographic data, and then average the turnouts of 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2010, and treat 2008 like the outlier that it is, and apply that averaged turnout to 2012? Then the analogy is Bears/Pats in 1986. Or, more likely, 49ers/Dolphins 1985 = Democrats will score some points because they had a decent ground/air game, but the outcome will never be in doubt. The Dolphins D, like the Democrats, just can't defend...their record, and the 49er offense, supposedly the inferior one, just like the Rs, was undersold.

I specifically asked for useful, or funny. I don't see either here.

See? Drip, drip, drip. Are these the drips that happen before the flow? Or are these the drips that come after? If it is after, then yeah, it's a more than a little splashy, and somebody needs better aim. If it's before, then look out: that power outage Bills game will have nothing on the torrents flying around. And, nobody will forget flush, or whom to flush. What did it foreshadow then? "Put Libya on the list of stops on the President's "Victory over Al Queda" world tour"? Come on. I understand that most people slept through the Democratic Convention. But, really, you don't see the 2+2 here?

I've taken dumps that have required more effort, and even...thought , than the premise of this thread. Guess I get to use "the tide" in yet another analogy. Ducky's posts are like the tide. They are thoughtless, predictable, there's little we can do to stop them, and they wouldn't exist without external forces creating them. Ducky gets pulled in one direction, and is told what both his facts and opinion will be, and then is pushed in the other direction, and they wash up here. At least with pBills, and ringing the Sarah Palin bell, there was something entertaining about it. Can anyone direct me to anything useful or funny, in these pages. Don't be afraid to point out your own work.

There we go...thought I lost ya for a second, but now we are on track. Parsing one of my posts? Well, that depends. Most of my posts are custom designed, especially the encryption.

Fast and Furious? That was an embarrassment, this is worse. F&F: The career people cashiered themselves to go against the political people, because the political people tried to use law enforcement to push a political agenda. Those are the facts. Guys threw away their careers because wrong is wrong, and they did the honorable thing. This is much worse. We have guys losing their lives, after calling for help, that we could have easily provided? It wasn't like this was a snap decision made in the heat of combat, with incoming rounds. Panetta was sitting on his ass watching this happen. We don't know if the President was too. These guys are dishonoring themselves...by saying that there needs to be an investigation...to determine what they themselves did/didn't do? That's like saying you need an investigation to find out what you had for dinner tonight. Come on. Don't embarrass yourself, or dishonor yourself, by defending the indefensible. This ain't court, and nobody's paying you here.

No, because that analogy is the kind of work we expect from you.

Yeah...I was gonna say the same thing. We are far, far away from Bush/goat here. As I've said, this has been dripped out, day by day, for a reason. The most likely explanation: somebody(s) at CIA is pissed, and Obama/Hillary/Panetta/all 3 are going to have to pay the piper. As I write this...literally...they are dripping out yet another new piece of this story on FOX. I turned on FOX, for the express purpose of seeing if there was another piece of data/ of the story, and here it is. It doesn't even matter that it is predictable...so is the tide, and nothing stops that either. Now, it's a cable that says Stevens told Hillary specifically(they've used that word 3 times now) that he needed more security, and that there was meeting about it.

The above has has now become the dumbest post in this thread You might as well tell me: you don't know why every time we need a random, meaningless number, we use 3.5. Also...the above is about VABills's religious...profligacy(can I do that?) Not really about you at all.

Yeah...but who cares about Tom? Or his Grand Torino, or his horse? His wife won't let him have the car, and he's likely to fall off the horse. Why not let him have his balcony? Can't the man have something? I'd rather have you laugh at the fact that Panetta, by using the Fog of War excuse, will most likely condemn both him and Obama to "military blunderer" status on the History Channel, forever..... Think about it: 60 years from now, some other guy, who doesn't get to have the car either, is going to flip on his TV, watch that show, and chuckle..."that Obama...what an idiot. Why didn't he pay attention the intelligence from the spring, it was right in front of his face?" He's going to take comfort in that, and that's going to make not having the car...not so bad. Doesn't that make you ?

What gave away that I was kidding, the obvious Lebowski riff, or the ? And people dare to cry about me using emoticons. (The only reason I do, and why I use lots, is that a certain poster demanded it, long ago. ) The point? Of the dumb posts in this thread...you picked that one. I replied to that same post, by using it as the answer to why atheists have to be critical of the faithful, above. I called them insecure, because anybody who demands our time, resources and attention, for the sole purpose of letting us know they don't believe in God...is insecure. You shouldn't go telling people your God is their God, any more than they should go telling you that it's Ok to sue the Boy Scouts. Religion, or lack of it, is a personal decision. And, it's not like we live in a world that "hasn't heard the message", from either side. It's far past time for everybody to be satisfied that their POV is well understood, we got it...and for them to keep their views...personal.

All of these nonsense polls, with internals that show a Romney blowout, but with top line Obama leading, are due to trolls like you? Thanks a lot. I've been doing all this analysis since August...and was trolled. Just in case it isn't trolling, and since this thread has "definitive" in the title, here is the definitive work on why Axlerod, and therefore, Nate Silver, who gets all his modeling from Axelrod, is full of it: http://battlegroundw...-turnout-model/ My "Nate Silver is full of schit" mendoza line was 68% white voter turnout. Turns out, it should have been at 72%: See? It all goes back to his f'ing book. This entire campaign is based on it. I've never heard of political campaign, whose central thrust is based on: faulty demographic assumptions and political science, and not ideas, achievements, ideology, or vision for the future. It's confounding, really. How pissed are Ds going to be, if they lose/lose big, can lucidly analyze it, and realize that this was never as much about getting Obama re-elected, as it was about trying to twist the facts to suit bad conclusions in a book? If it ends up being basically Axelrod telling them: "F your ideas, and your guy, this is about me and my book!" Yikes. Obama himself has stated it: "Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community." So, now we know that Obama has bought Axelrod's model, and Axerod wrote a book, so, of course it's right.

"See? Do you see what happens when you make a stranger feel insecure about his ass? Do you see what happens? This is what happens when you make a stranger feel insecure about his ass?" There were any number of stupid posts in this thread. yall picked this one...and that's no accident. The "teachable moment" here is: Don't be a pompous ass, and you won't get treated like a pompous ass. It's the golden rule in reverse, and therefore, should be easy for those who claim to know the bible, to understand. Do not strut, and you won't have to worry about them strutting. Example: when they get power and create HHS rules that allows them to rub your pompousness in your face, and force you to pay for contraception. Now, the fact they very well may lose this election due to historic under-performing with Catholics...due to their strutting? Well, that probably hadn't occurred to them. "No, that had not occurred to us, dude" But, VABills? Let them be the idiots. Let them strut. IF you are doing the strutting, then "you reap what you sow".

This is the inconsistency. Either Obama's orders weren't followed, in which case courts martial are in order, or, he never gave them, or, he wasn't as emphatic and specific as he has claimed. Obama saying "I ordered them to do 'everything possible'" falls into the third category, and, also approaches danger close to "Misbehavior in the face of the enemy" standards. The CIA has already covered it's ass, and I guarantee they can back that up. They are essentially saying: we never received an op order. They may have received a warning order, but not an op order. This leaves Obama and Panetta, and to a lesser extent Clinton, because the SOS doesn't issue military orders, and, the CIA handles paramilitary stuff. Normally, I wouldn't defend Tom. Normally, I'd rather see him go after you, and you go after him. However in this case: both of us know about the DOD, and how things go there. Sometimes things just go south. Fog of war is real. However: 6 hours of real time intel, including eyes on the ground, providing sitreps and calling for support, stretches fog...and makes it...mist? The mist of war? Also, "Fog of War" may not be the refuge/defense that Panetta thinks it is: when historians look at Fog of War situations, most often they conclude that a preconceived notion, or the decision maker saying "I KNOW this is what is happening, and I CHOOSE to disregard this other stuff because it doesn't matter"... when it really isn't, and it really does...is at fault. I wonder...when the history of this is written, which preconceived notion, and which decision maker, will be fault? Hmm...what a puzzle. I bet the Ds on this board are completely mystified about it, and will never be able to understand it...because it's so foggy. Nah, the Democratic Convention will never provide us any answers about any preconceived notions, or any action taken to try and preserve them, might as well not look there.

The CIA is on record as saying "nobody in OUR group told anybody to stand down". And, they are on record as having the assets to do something. Who does that leave? Panetta, Obama, Clinton. One or more told them to stand down. This will not end, until it comes out who told them to stand down and why

Neither can I. But, this "undertow" theory seems to be gaining some ground. Undertow, as in: Obama wins NoVA, but by margins that are blown away by the rest of the state, because his base doesn't show up in anywhere near the #s they were expected to. Basically "reverse John McCain", which is how Obama won VA. This same thing is already being documented in Democratic strongholds in Ohio in the early voting #s. Even crazy ass Nevada is starting to look this way. Caveat: there is of course the possibility that the reason all these D voters aren't showing up as Ds, and why R turnout has increased: these Ds actually all voted as Rs, for Santorum, in the primary. No, really, there really are people running with that "explanation". Yes, 220+k Ds in Ohio all went "activist" and cared enough to go vote for Santorum. Reality: At best, 10k did. What about the other 210k? I'd love to unleash you on some of the D boards I am lurking on, and see what your "you're an idiot"/minute rate would be.

To me? Gingrich is saying he "has it", and is going to use it. Even if he doesn't have it, it's out there, and it's just a matter of time, or, more accurately, timing, until they had it over to FOX. Like or hate it, irrelevant. As I said before, I would bet the farm that the R Congress people, the CIA, or some combination of them have ALL of this stuff, including the audio tapes of the guys asking for air support, and the video feeds, AND, the above. They have been dropping a new piece of it every day. They paused for the hurricane. Tomorrow it will start again. Rumor? Rumor my ass. Gingrich is...Gingrich = not to be taken lightly when it comes to politics. Gingrich is positioning. He is setting up the big fall. All that remains is who won't have a chair when the music stops. Gingrich is warning the MSM: they better start looking for a place to sit down. The "solar power" crap is just fluff...designed to cover the main move here. Why does anybody care whether 2 networks have this info? Why put that out there? No reason, other than when they unleash the rest of this story...the networks won't be able to deny it, or say they have to investigate further, since they already "had it". They won't be able to play defense for Obama. They will just have to sit there, and take it. This is hardball politics at its best. Like it or hate it, it's expert skill. Hey I could be wrong...but the "2 networks already have it" says: not likely.

I am going to laugh hard and mock intensely...if this election ends up Romney 51-2 - Obama 47. What will be the excuse...if Obama gets 47%? Man, the op-ed pages are going to be a treat. Just imagine the RCP home page.

The key difference between August, when I started talking about polls, and now? You are saying this is a close race now. In August, perhaps not you, but certainly Nate Silver, was saying Romney had no chance. The data has not changed. It was saying this was a close race in August. In fact, it was saying that there's no way Obama will get a D+7-8 turnout, like he did in 2008. But, that wasn't "the narrative" in August, was it? No. I KNOW the turnout will be D+2-3 at best. I know that, because the data is clear....and I've cited plenty of examples. As I've said, I'm being conservative in that estimate. There are people out there, like Dick Morris, who get paid to do this, and who are saying this will be an R+1 election. The difference is: Dick Morris has historical data to back up that claim. Where is your historical data, that shows that an incumbent, who can't reach 50 pts in most polls, state or national, wins the election? That's where we currently stand. Why isn't that, or any of the fundamentals that are used by reasonable models...such as the U of Colorado http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university, included in Nate Silver's "analysis"? What is the most likely explanation for that?

Yes....and their criticism of him was noticeably absent...when Obama put him in charge of the CIA. But, don't expect that to last...now that the CIA is dropping a new dime on Obama every day.

Why, dammit? That's my function on this board. In all seriousness...this is why we need codification of abortion, and not legal precedent. Roe vs. Wade = legal precedent and doesn't address any of the "but what if" stuff you and others are raising.

The only thing I have ever cared about: using bad math to support a story. The story is that Obama can't lose no matter what. Remember the "Blue Wall"? Or, that, like you are saying, he has a structural probability of winning. The undeniable implication that goes along with the story = "so don't bother voting, because Obama is probably going to win anyway." That is the story, the narrative, that has been consistently informing Silver's work, and, it's just a coincidence that the same story, "we will win because of our turnout", is what we have been getting from OFA for the last year? Come on. Do you honestly believe that..."latinos are going to vote in massive, +6, #s this year" and "hey, look Obama is winning due to projected massive D turnout...just look at these (August) polls!"...are merely coincidental narratives? Come on, you are a lawyer. None of this smells foul to you? I have a narrative for you. You may not like it, but it's just as likely to be true: "This race was in fact never close. Obama had a high probability of losing. The only way Obama ever had any chance of winning, was by depressing white voter turnout <= 2008. So every story, poll and analyst that could be gotten to...was." Which story, given the #s we have today, is more likely?

Double BS. The law defines negligence differently than intent. It uses that definition to define manslaughter differently than murder. These distinctions, including yours, are why there are different charges for "you ended up killing somebody". Consider: if we made all ending of life in the womb a crime...then your distinction would only represent the difference between manslaughter vs. involuntary manslaughter. Look it up. In this ridiculous hypothetical...that's what it would be.

Not anymore. What's it going to take for you to realize that this is, and always was, the "narrative"...and representative of "the data"? This is the story, the belief, that Silver has started with, and THEN found facts to support it. He has not started with an objective model, and then seen what story emerges. He has weighted polls, that have already been weighted...incorrectly. I could see if we were talking about party ID shifts of 3-4% here. In fact I would have dismissed them the same way Silver has. I could see it if the polls had come back in September with Obama leading by 2-3 in the swing states, with a party ID of D+4. But that's not what we saw, was it?

Of course I have. Where do you think I got the the "weighting polls from 4 weeks ago heavier than ones from yesterday" from? Can you explain this? Perhaps you can explain the above? As I said, my issue is with the method. I've pointed out flaws over and over, and every time I do: your response is that of a cheerleader whose team just threw a pick = "It's alright, it's OK, we'll still beat them anyway". Stop cheerleading, and explain why you think this will be a 2008 electorate. Be aware that this Gallup of 9000+ voters, http://www.gallup.co...-like-2008.aspx, and shows current party ID as +1 for Republicans...up 11 frigging points from 2008, will severely hamper you and dopey Silver's explanation. You and Silver are still F'ing about defending D+6-10 turnout polls. The man is lying to himself, and you. Obama may still win, but there's no way that the electorate today = 2008, and that is the FUNDAMENTAL tenet of Silver's work. All I am asking is that we use proper methods, and then see where things stand. Silver has been consistent. Consistently, wrong. As I said, the worst kept secret is that Silver was getting his data from Obama internal polls in 2008. I mean, come on, this board called the race for Obama as soon as McCain did his goofy campaign suspension thing. We could have spent our time working out models to prove ourselves right, but why? The fact is that Sliver got the states picked right(all but one), but how hard is that in a D+8 election? This time...we'll see how accurate he is...when things are much more granular. Given Gallup's poll it's possible that Silver is blown out of the water. As I have said 100 times: the numbers have shown that this is a D+2 election at best. I won't believe it is R+1...until I see more data that backs this up. Nate Silver has been consistent: he has consistently ignored these #s. I wonder what he will say if it is in fact R+1? Be careful. You are going to get told that you don't like Nate Silver because he's a Democrat, works for the NYT, and is schill....rather than merely pointing out that there's no way this is a 2008 electorate. Look...in a lot of ways, this is no different than Libya: the Ds have convinced themselves that something is true, in this case that the white turnout will be 68%, not the 74% from 2004/2010, and that Latinos will make up that 6% difference and will vote 80% for Obama. Nothing can now shake that belief, and they will do/say whatever to try and support it. Every fact that contradicts that belief, even 9000+ sample polls, is an "outlier", and thus is weighted down by Silver accordingly. This belief stems from a single book that tells them Demographics == Republicans lose. Even though events have overtaken this book, they are still pushing it as Holy writ. The belief is that Latinos are going to increase 6 pts in the total electorate, when every poll shows them less likely to support Obama than in 2008 , and, that even more white voters will stay home this time, than did for McCain?. Ludicrous. This belief is a matter of faith, not reason. We can't argue against faith, no matter how right we are. This is also a matter of common sense. Ask yourself, when talking about liberals, how often do we talk in terms of common sense?