OCinBuffalo

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/03/chris_matthews_freaks_out_at_obama_after_debate_romney_was_winning.html When Chris Tingle is apopleptic...and left with promoting MSNBC shows as the only recourse for Obama to improve...you know how the debate went. They want to turn the bubble...into a doughnut...in which Obama floats in circular affectation.

I wonder...after 40 pages...and then, last night's debate...how many of us are going to come away from this thread thinking: "what a waste of time". Some of us, who don't already, should consider coming away from this thread with "man, the media is F'ed right now, and we need to demand better, regardless of our party ID". Or...we can do some more "Stay away from Talk Radio"....which implies..."listen to more MSM". But hold on: who exactly was responsible for calling both the election and debate for Obama for the last 10 or so days prior to last night? Who exactly then, should we be considering "staying away from"?

If that was the job, and I took the job, yeah, I'd kick your ass. Hint: that's because of you being unable to help yourself, not because of me, and that's the point. Remind me: Where's the hypocrisy...in a hypothetical? Perhaps it's time for both you, and silly Tom, to go look up what hypocrisy and hypothetical mean? Why do I have to help a writer with what words mean? Hypocrisy...is the act of doing one thing and saying another. Hypothetical...is by definition...not acting, but considering a possible scenario, and often an unlikely one. How can one be a hypocrite...in a hypothetical, if there are no actual actions taken? Yeah, say it again: hypothetical...unmitigated morons. Perhaps....if you say beat down again? Yeah...that will work. Jesus...I was wasted...and this is the best you can do when I am that far behind? Edit: The beat down I took recovering from this weekend...going to the game...and then having to make up the work I missed over the last 3 days...is a real beat down. So, if you were hoping for a beat down for me, rest assured, I got one, but, not from you 2 clowns.

I got to see the "replay". Does anybody else think that Obama saying "budgets...the budget process" or whatever he said..."is important"...going to make fine ad fodder? I mean, if budgets are important, perhaps passing one...in the last 3 years...and not sending budgets to Congress that repeatedly get 0 votes, even from Democrats, would have been helpful? I haven't seen this quoted anywhere in "the reaction" so far. I think it's a subtlety that they all missed. I guarantee the guys who review the video...will not miss it. If nothing else, it's a good debate "zinger". "Mr. President, you keep talking about my budget plans, and last debate(important, because it reminds us of the beating), you said budgets were important. I wonder: why would a person who hasn't passed a budget in 3 years, and got 0 votes for the ones he sent to Congress, feel qualified to discuss the merits other people's budgets? Are you advising me on what not do do?"

Taking a "use case" approach to the media's handling of Obama: Case 1: You liked him, and thought he was not only competent, but, uniquely smart, exciting and transformational, etc...in which case the the media has been the enfeebler-in-chief. This past debate tells you all you need to know about the media not doing its job, rooting, and forgiving every Obama mistake. He hasn't had a tough interview in years...not months. The antiquated media hasn't kept Obama in fighting shape, and he got whipped. How happy are you with your media outlets right now? And, it's not just the old media: Any Case 1 people wanna go read huffingtonpost/salon, and hear the 50 different ways in which Obama will crush Romney in the next debate? MSNBC was saying "we have this debate every night". No you don't, Chris Tingle. What you have is the spawning point for "Obama failed at this today...and instead of addressing that...we are going to repeat: 'Republicans hate(group/race/gender here)'"...and distract the entire Democratic party from its latest failure(um, 2010? Wisconsin? anyone? Beuller?), holding itself responsible, and learning from it. And, you wonder why you can't even beat Guliani in a debate, even after he misspeaks twice during it? Guliani was laughing at you, and he was right to, because scorn is all your "channel of debate" currently deserves. Guliani: "Wanna try another?" ROFL Case 2: You hated him, and not only had real concerns about his experience and governing ability, but thought you smelled phony, etc...in which case the media has been the enabler-in-chief. Who doesn't understand the damage caused by enablers...however well-meaning or wishful? Obama, even after the 2010 whipping, has been coddled to believe that no consequence matters, and as long as he keeps getting his "fix" from the media, he keeps doing the things that case 2 people were afraid he would. Do any case 2 people believe that, had the media been responsible starting in 2007, we wouldn't have seen the likes of Obamacare, Solyndra, and what is happening in Libya right now? If there had been consequences in the media, like there were for Clinton....would we have seen the same behavior from Obama? What if Obama had been held accountable for the "Russian Reset Button" debacle? Wouldn't the shame of that, had it been enforced, informed his current foreign policy? Perhaps you guys can come up with another case? Romney was the intellectual tonight. Romney was the guy who was first a good listener....and then deconstructed Obama. Obama...minus teleprompter, Bill Maher's applause machine, and human-prompter interview questions...was lost. Does anyone still think the media's full support of all things Obama since 2007, has no blame for these results? This is a bipartisan issue: hey, Democrats, are these the kind of results you want going forward? I don't. We need honest debate. Do you want to be coddled into believing things are going better for you and your guy than they are? Or, that your guy is better than he really is? Or, that F'ing up with Russia now '= F'ing up in the Middle East later? Republicans wouldn't want this media. I'm just as sure of that as this: Republicans are happy to have you continue to live in your bubble of affirmation, while they go out and win election after election.

I asked you why I have to re-litigate...and you respond with litigation... Party girl says she hates lawyers. I showed her how long your post was...and she laughed. To be fair, I asked her...what the longest thing she has read in last 2 years, besides a paternity suit...(oh yeah....there will be a reckoning later...EDIT: at this point...and this goes back before you...my best hope is that she doesn't try to turn me into a real teabagger) and now I'm being threatened with all sorts of name calling and..."why the F are you doing that, come over here and..."....crap. She..and neither of us...is right. I am now fully committed to an agenda for the next 36 hours....I will have to start this again on Monday...at best.

Wait...so you agree that we are talking 2 years ago? And, I've been to Chippewa...and elsewhere...way...way..the F elsewhere tonight....so let's not take this too seriously...But...i'm the one being defensive? I'm the one who made the joke, right...? Look....in these absurd situations....I let the party girl decide..... She says we are both douches....and that we need to focus on the Bills game, and making sure we don't F up the tailgate....and some other nonsense I don't want to even bother with because it's pure, unadulterated nonsense. Yes I asked her what unadulterated means...and she thinks its porn....so there you go.

You know? I'm wasted...on multiple...levels...if you know what I mean....right now. And, amazingly...it's only now...that I pick up on the writing style, words chosen...the message...the theme...of what they are saying. I've trained kids to be objective. Amazing how alteration of your mindset makes things so clear, and how dopey I am for not following my own instruction. After re-reading so many posts in this thread....I now smell fear...and lots of it. Oh...you are the prima facie example for this. Seriously....let's put tgreg in charge of a liberal-slanted radio network... Then...let's put me in charge of a liberal-slanted radio network.... I guarantee that my network shows stay...both, on the air....and more liberal than yours...while you fail...and try to do the "middle of the road" thing as a last resort That's cause I'm more interested in results....and you're more interested in agenda-driven douchebaggery.

You know...I come back from a wicked...and I do mean Biblical(took me 5 times to spell that right)...wicked night. ......and then you see this. Now...I'm hammered....so expect the worst. I will leave it to this board. Because...this is the kind of talk that I heard in college, on the way home from the bar, after the drug fraternity demanded my presence for multiple bong hits. This is what I heard...when the hippies got "real". (Christ if you clowns only knew how many times I have hit backspace in this post) Yes, MDP, sooner or later...we all arrive at the same conclusion. It's a matter of intelligence...and a matter of experience. Your discussion, is expected, from seniors in college....not from whatevertheF you are. The difference(and really? lets get this out of the way for MDP right F'ing now)...between you and a real liberal...is that apparently you have the sack to go out and ask questions, and demand answers. It bothers you when the answers aren't congruent with the questions....doesn't it...MDP? Welcome to...why you will end up being called names..by weak minds...for the rest of your life.

That poll.....0 polls, explain or account for this pattern in the 600k people, never mind 1000, data set above. If you're going to dispute these results, or try to account for them, you need to find something within this data the either proves it hasn't been collected properly = no, or, that it is incomplete = yes, but the guy specifically says he's applying the data as it becomes available, so, there's no error here....and no way this accounts for Obama already losing 151k votes from last time...and this is only in absentee ballots? Or you can accept the simple concept that if you have 50.2% Democrats in a sample of LV...there's a 99% chance you're going to get 51% for Obama. You will not get 40% for Obama. Yes, amazing, more Democrats mean...more votes for Obama. I can't believe I have to explain something so simple. Well, I guess math isn't for everybody. I can't believe...in an era of hyper partisanship....we have political professionals telling us that Party ID doesn't matter, and won't affect the results. Amongst people who care enough to pick up the phone, find out what it is, and then care enough to finish the survey, saying that how they ID their party...doesn't matter...or is some flighty thing to them? Sounds a hell of a lot more like an excuse, than an explanation. Ya know what's hysterical? I leave a joking comment, that nobody who's shown up in this thread, but you and I, probably even gets.... and not only can't you let it go...and laugh about it...you can't even entertain the slightest poke at your massive ego...can you? Jesus. This isn't even a pot/kettle thing. This is more like a pot...cauldron thing?

I thought I just did. +4 oversampling wasn't good enough, because it only had Obama up by +4. It didn't improve D registration...which is SERIOUSLY LAGGING...in places like OHIO! See here: https://docs.google....gxQ0F4OVE#gid=0 Notice, this is RAW DATA...as in...data that hasn't been massaged, or messaged, and it's not a "sample" Yes... you are seeing that correctly...a 11.5% absentee ballot request shift...away from Obama from 2008-2012. Ohio Rs are historically "go down to the poll and pull the lever" people, much more so than it's Ds...so we should expect to see more Ds here. However...11.5% less of them. Are we to believe that 151k ballots will be requested, and this shift corrected, in a few weeks? Come now. It's right in front of you. EDIT: This alone proves that the D+10 expected turnout in your OHIO poll's sample is completely untenable. So, they went "full retard" and oversampled by D +10...and now...viola! Obama up by 9. If we widen the bias...we get widened results. That's not magic...that's math. Statistics, actually. Ask any expert...ask a Business Intelligence expert (um, me) if "scientific" polls can be tinkered with to produce biased results. My idiot clients have done it for years...and then cried when things didn't turn out as expected. That's why I tell clients: You get into trouble when you go looking for patterns, rather than letting them come to you. Here's a pattern that has come to us: we have raw data in spread sheet, compiled by a guy who has 0 reason to lie, and data that comes directly from the source. I just gave you raw data...that cannot be spun. Are you willing to argue against fact here? This is going to be fun....please, by all means...start telling me how these ballot requests don't matter: when you have "scientific" polls of 1000 people, and I have the factual data of 617,003 people....that proves that Obama has 0 chance of having the D turnout of 2008 in Ohio Edit: In FL....Romney has already registered 240k more voters than voted for McCain in 2008....and McCain lost to Obama there by 200k. Yet...Romney is down by 9? Again...I have raw data...and you have what? A supposedly scientific poll that has a D+10 turnout in it's sample, and Romeny winning with Independents...but down by 9 overall? How in the Sam Hell can that possibly make any sense to you?

Won't happen. They don't get that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer first. Instead, they tried to do hateful diatribe...with sarcasm, not humor, as decoration. Rush does humor...and for many, information, first....with hateful diatribe as a decoration. That was the clear cut difference between Rush and Air America. The average person will come away from a Rush show having learned something, like what the Fed does, or, a faster, more effective way of explaining what the Fed does. I spent hours listening to Air America(for the same reason I watch MSNBC = I have 0 fear of hearing what I may not agree with) I never learned a thing. In fact, I often felt the urge to call them, and explain what the Fed does, if nothing else...just to keep the show going. I often thought "now I know what John Densmore(Doors drummer) must have felt like...lets go guys...this song has to end sometime". Chris Matthews has been hysterical this week...but only for people like me....who like to do our own version of Mystery Science Theater with it.

Who can say? I mean really, unlike the liberals, who claim to know what all sorts of people are thinking, especially the TEA party...I don't claim to be telepathic. I can only say what I've observed, as I have. The auto-answer I get from rookies can be shredded inside of a minute...so, if academics are at fault, they aren't putting much work into it. Perhaps it's less a professor thing...and more of a "the grad student in Good Will Hunting...how do you like them apples" thing? ---------------- Another observation: I've been going to shows since forever. I never saw Palestinian/Yasser Arafat scarves at them...until around the same time I picked up on the rookie, Israel auto-response. Could be a coincidence, probably isn't. One thing I know: these people calling themselves non-conformist...is the height of irony...and hilarity. How non-conforming are you...if you are wearing the same scarf as most of your friends, and 20% of the show? You are as non-conformist...as 8th grade girls. Now, if you go to a Bills game, and wear a jersey, you do it because you're a fan. Same thing with tie dye, etc. So, another explanation is: all these 18-30 years old have become Yasser Arafat fans. They had to get it from somewhere, and I doubt it's some fraternity thing.

Given this: You don't find this: even the slightest bit ironic...do you? I mean...it's on the same page, only a few posts away. It's not like this was 20 pages ago or something. I suppose hypno is happy, having you confirm his statement and all.

I wonder...how many people know the truth about these statements...or if they even realize that they are humorous/ironic.

Ha! This is what you got out of that? This...is your best work? I talk about how you are likely to hear auto-response....and you reply...with auto-response? I ask again...is this your best work? Or, are you just in a hurry this morning?

There can be little doubt that O'Reilly simply doesn't get the internet. In that, he is very like a liberal talking about guns. Neither truly understand the tool they are talking about, because neither have any real experience with said tool. Both wrongly believe that just because they can't understand what other people are doing with the tool, that makes it OK to devalue what they are doing. And, both want to point to 1% of people doing bad things with the tool, while 99% of us are doing good things with it....because they don't value, or devalue our use. Hence they create convenient scenarios....that have all gun owners as rednecks who are careless with their weapons and ammo, and all internet business...as social media triviality, porn, selling junk, or trying to steal data. Then, they try to fit all news about these tools...into their scenario.

Something that has been bothering me: maybe the OP can explain? How is Mitt Romney alienating voters....when he is winning Independents in all the polls that say he is losing...both in Swing States, and Nationally? Ohio – Leads Among Independents Ohio Newspaper Organization – Romney +28 CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +1 American Research Group – Romney +16 Fox News – Romney +4 We Ask America – Romney +3 Public Policy Polling – Romney +2 Florida - Leads Among Independents CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +3 Gravis Marketing – Romney +4 We Ask America – Romney +2 American Research Group – Romney +1 Florida Times Union – Romney +4 Fox News – Obama +2 Oh! Well! Faux News. Ha! What did you expect? Faux News...has Obama up by 2 points with Is in FL....and we all know about Faux News...don't we? Really. As a Bills fan, I have no wish to see other Bills fans put themselves through this...mishegoss. <--exact right word for it. Why is it so difficult for reasonable people to understand, or admit to themselves: 1. Obama has been in deep electoral college trouble since Obamacare, hence the 2010 outcome. 2. You are asking us to believe, with a straight face, that the D turnout in 2012 will be > than 2008, and that the R turnout will be <=. 3. You are asking us to, for the first time in history, ignore what is happening with Independents? You are asking us to believe that D turnout will be so high...like um...+13( just throw out a number!), that it makes both I and R turnout irrelevant? 4. The things you say Obama has done right...only sound like they are right...to liberals like yourself. The liberal media is included in "liberals like yourself". Do you understand how unlikely everyone else is to believe it? 5. Example of #4: Romney's 47% comment was ignored or applauded by 63% of the country. 36%, and the media, think its going to cost him votes. You and the media are right: It's going to cost him...your vote...the 36%(or 47%) he was never going to win anyway. Which makes Romney right as well! Hooray! Everybody gets to be right on this one. 6. When the media, any media, says something...it doesn't mean that the rest of us think its right. This is 2012, not 1980. The rest of us...have learned. 7. Today, only you accept what the media says at face value, because it's what you want to hear! The Rs and Is do not. That's because: 8. There's this thing called the Internet. Ask Dan Rather about the ass-raping he received from the Internet. 9. But first, ask yourself if you are still making excuses for that bad behavior, or if you've accepted the truth: the whole thing was a flat out fabricated lie. See...#8 is the best indicator. If you can't admit that truth to yourself, never mind us...then you're 5x more likely to believe that this: "Romney in Final Push to Alienate Remaining Voters" is also true. In fact, I have some carbon credits to sell you. No, there's a real exchange for them...in Chicago. Just send me your credit card info.

First: since when are you a liberal, Mr. Anarchist? The anarchists I've met/know hate liberals. Second: The answer to your question is simple really: academia hates Israel, and in liberal-think, academia is NEVER wrong. More in depth answer as to how I know: Due to my job, I have dealt with a slew of rookies = college kids. (Also, why I am writing this at 4am or whatever time it is Ze Germans) Flying all over the place, and 3 day trips that turn into 3 week trips, is usually annoying, and bad for girlfriends, if you want to keep them. If not... Most people get out. Ergo, we always need more rookies. When rookie #73 invariably brings up Israel/Middle East, etc. at lunch, it's typically like listening to a recording of the last 10 rookies. That's why it has to be academia. I've literally heard the same phrasing, and even the same words, in their arguments. When I challenge them on this, they are astonished when I proceed to bring over rookie #72, ask them, and the similarity of their wording is undeniable. You can do the same thing with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. You should all try this, it's fun! It doesn't work all the time, but it does a lot. Therefore, somehow academia has it in for Israel. And, since we know academia is where all liberal thinking originates, it's not hard to see why liberals will defend the acts of scumbags. If they don't: then they have to admit that the people who do their thinking for them, are wrong about Israel, the Muslim Street( an example of wording you will hear from rookies...and they refer to it as if they grew up on that street. ), and all the rest. And, they will have to admit that someone else is doing their thinking for them, hence the indistinguishable wording, from one rookie to the next. Neither of these are acceptable outcomes for liberals...so...instead we have what you said: "msnbc tries to sympathize or " understand their anger".

Well, I don't know anymore. Perhaps you can explain. 1. How is Romney winning Rs and Is, losing Ds....but also losing overall in Ohio by 10pts, at the same time, in the same poll? Hey take a shot at it, you'd be the first to try to explain why...for the first time ever....a candidate's performance with Is, in swing states, has become...irrelevant. 2. Where is the "Obama crushing Romney with Independents" story? Wouldn't that be news? Didn't we see 1000s of stories about Obama winning INDs in 2008? So....isn't it reasonable...to expect those stories right now, if Obama was indeed winning overall? Again, behavior, not polls, is where it's at. Why aren't we seeing these stories, if they could be supported? 3. Perhaps you can explain why Republican registration is up, in many cases by double digits, in every swing state, while Democratic registration is down, some by double digits(3 biggest Democratic counties in Ohio for example)...yet D turnout, in these polls, is expected to be > 2008, while R turnout is expected to be <= 2008? I mean at this point, somebody has to try and explain the...statistical phenomena...that we are going to see in this coming election, according to these polls, right? Why can't that be you? 4. While you're at it, please explain how Romney, who has already registered 240k more R voters in FL than McCain( who lost to Obama by 200k votes there in 2008), is down by 9 points there, while, again, winning with Is? More, amazing...phenomena, right? I hope you can do it, because you'd be the ONLY person who even tried. Using Obama increasing turnout in 25% of the electorate(minorities) is going to wallop Romney improving turnout in 75%(whites)in your explanation? Not a good plan. Especially when early voting/registration already indicates that minority/youth votes turnout will be significantly less than 2008, while white voting will be >. But then, there's always calling us all racists, right?

Yes, I use macroeconomic concepts, as a surrogate, in a discussion of economics....the same way Fred Jackson uses elusiveness, as a surrogate, as a running back. Perhaps you need to go look up what "using a surrogate" actually means? Speaking in terms of macroeconomics...in a discussion that is 100% based on macroeconomics...is not "using it as a surrogate". If you took 2 semesters...then you wouldn't be referring to "including some of the principles of macro and micro economic theory", as you did above. You would understand, like ALL of us who have actually taken these classes: Macro IS the first semester. Micro IS the second. ECON 110 is what it says on your schedule. But, Principles of Macroeconomics is what it says on your textbook. You'd know that, had you ever had your hands on one! Your words above show that you may have known people who took these classes, or, you read a syllabus or two...but you'd never make this mistake had you taken them. At best: you don't recall , and that's me being gracious. But that also = what else about it don't you recall? At worst: you never knew, and have now tried to lie about it. That = you are an unmitigated moron = did you really think you could lie, to me, about this, or anything? The answers, to 4 of your questions are contained within that textbook. 2...sorta...are contained in the Micro book. For the rest: Why do I have to re-litigate the reasons why Clinton and Gingrich passed Welfare Reform? There's plenty of research that backed up that decision. There's tons of studies that not only justified that change, but demanded it. Again, you are free to go look up these things on your own, and for the econ questions: buy the textbooks, read them, and do the homework on your own. You are asking me to do a hell of a lot of work that frankly, you should be doing for yourself. I mean: why should I? Why I am responsible for ensuring that your opinion...is educated? Isn't that your problem? The fundamental problem here Juror is this: there are valid criticisms of what I am saying. You haven't even come close to 1 of them. Why is that, do you think?

Yes. Remember your ECON 110 class? Pretty much all you need to "win" in this thread. Just lay out 1 simple concept that you learned....and see Juror #8 spend 5k words circling it, never addressing it properly, and then give up by telling you he just doesn't agree with it. Edit: Here's an easy one: Juror agrees with Cost of Living Adjustments....but doesn't agree that inflation hurts poor/working class people. Pretty much all you need to know at this point.

While I can believe that the idiocy of the first sentence did not slip by so many of you....(yes, Obama's party had complete control of government for the first 2 years...the fact that cap and trade isn't law right now...shows you just how much better Rs are at their jobs in Congress than Ds)....I imagine it's sheer stupidity of it that made you stop reading the rest of this post. Complete control of government means: no fillibuster in the Senate. Moron. For 2 years, there was no fillibuster in the Senate. Then, with Obamacare going as badly as it was....Massachusetts elected Scott Brown...to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat. (still have a hard time believing this) They did this...for the express purpose of stopping Obamacare...and the overreach of the far-left. Yes, Democrats, who were correctly worried about the future of their party, trying to maintain the gains in the House and Senate they has so recently acquired, and trying to look out for the President they had elected...whom they saw(at the time) being beset by an out-of-control agenda....voted to stop other Democrats from bring them to ruin. All to no avail: the election of Scott Brown, and the expectation that he would at least represent reasonable compromise on Obamacare....was set aside, in favor of corruption, dishonesty, and dishonor. And, as these reasonable Mass Democrats were correct to fear, that returned: the slaughter of 2010. In fact, if it wasn't for a few poorly chose Tea Party candidates....we wouldn't be talking about a Democratically controlled Senate. Ahh...but moron....we are. We are talking about a Democratically controlled Senate...whose only role for the last 2 years has been to block anything that doesn't help Obama get re-elected. That's because all your party cares about now....since every single bit of their agenda (green, shovel-ready, stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform) is now an election-losing issue....is the retention of power. It's all you have left.

The only trend here that is consistent: however much the nonsense poll says Obama is up by = the amount of oversample of Ds. And, this has been consistent for every poll I have looked at. So, what we are seeing, and is being confirmed over and over: this looks to be a very, very tight election right now. The only thing that remains to be seen: will the 3-5% swing vote, that historically goes to the challenger at the end, show up? If it does, and all things stay the same as they are today, Romney wins. These clowns know this...that's why they are so desperate to try and manufacture any kind of lead for Obama, in hopes that the artificial lead will be replaced by a real one, by sheer momentum. It's the only thing they can do. What these clowns apparently don't know: momentum doesn't come from polls, or gaffes from the other guy. Momentum comes from the candidate saying the key things that are both truly meaningful, and truly memorable, but, both must be based on some tangible result/belief from the candidate that people can relate to. In that: these clowns are well and truly F'ed....because that isn't coming from Barry. Not this time. Candidate Empty Vessel is not designed for these things. "Kill Romney" has merely made the election close. If you notice: Obama isn't getting above 50% in any of the swing states...or the national polls. There may be one or two...but again...that's only because they know what I am about to say is true: An incumbent who isn't polling above 50% at this point in the election = a dead duck. And, nobody cares whether you post here or not. But, yeah....I'm the narcissist.

Now...do I have to go find the LV and RV party identifications of those polls, and prove you to you that they are probably biased +10 in OH, +9 in Florida and +8 in PA...or are you going to do it yourself this time? +9 in Florida :lol: Not even close. Hehe. So now they are doubling down? Obama being oversampled = up by 4 in FL/OH wasn't good enough, and didn't increase the D enthusiasm...so now they are trying to make it up by 9? Do you have any idea how pathetic this is? Obama won FL by 2.8 in 2008....and you think....he will win there by 9 this year? ROFL. Unmitigated moron. Seriously now. I don't want to see a fellow Bills fan be lied to, believe the lies, and then have their feelings hurt because they wanted to believe the lies. There's no pleasure in it for me.....unless they refuse to listen, call me names, and demand that we go along with their delusions. Then, and only then, it's quite funny watching the delusions all fall apart.