Author Topic: Coulter-ese (Read 1842 times)

Pongo · « **Reply #30 on:** November 04, 2004, 06:18:48 PM »

Ann is funny. She acctually posted that the difference between the exit poles and the actual outcome must mean that the democrats fudged the exit poles.
Man she wrote a whole page on the subject.

I wonder if there could be any other possible explanation behind why the exit pole and the electronic poling station had different results?

Karnak · « **Reply #31 on:** November 04, 2004, 06:31:20 PM »

The common reason I've seen given is the margin of error in the exit polls.

The paranoid Democrat reason given is Bush friendly computers altering people's votes.

Of the three "theories" I'll take the margin of error in the exit poll.

oboe · « **Reply #32 on:** November 04, 2004, 09:50:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
One point that I have long maintained is that we (Dems) should get away from Gun Control.

I would like to see the Democrats go back to being a party of the common people. That would mean adopting Republican views on both gays and gun control. I don't know if that is feasible though.

Even if they did, I don't think many would believe them. What alot of people "know" about the Democrats' positions is really what Republicans have told them. The Democrats have a large credibility gap to overcome.

My own mother was unaware that Bill Clinton ran a budget surplus by the end of his second term. She equates "tax and spend liberals" with Democrats, and that is a success of a long term Republican smear campaign. She thinks Republicans are the fiscally conservative party, doesn't know our deficit is 500 billion, and doesn't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit". Among her reasons in voting for Bush was that she felt Teresa Heinz Kerry would be a "disaster" as a first lady.

Pongo · « **Reply #33 on:** November 04, 2004, 09:56:03 PM »

Do you have some historical context for exit polls being inaccurate?

Mini D · « **Reply #34 on:** November 04, 2004, 10:09:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Do you have some historical context for exit polls being inaccurate?

Florida 2000 comes to mind. Exit polls had Gore taking the state by a 15% margin.

Karnak · « **Reply #35 on:** November 04, 2004, 10:59:48 PM »

I read on another BB site that they have a margin of error of 3%. I can't vouch for that figure though as it was out up by another poster and I don't recall if (s)he had a source backing it up.

Oboe, I'm sorry to hear that. I wish people on both sides would take the effort to educate themselves with the real facts and make their choices based on that. I respect a Republican who knows their facts and votes Republican based on them a heck of a lot more than I do a Democrat who doesn't and votes based on rumors and propaganda, even though I agree with the Democrat's vote. Whatever your choice, make it an informed choice.

Here's a real fact: Bill Clinton's surplus was only a surplus if you count raiding the Social Security taxes (a standard tactic that Administrations of both partys do and one of the biggest reasons Social Security is in so much trouble) that were coming in. The best he, and the Republican Congress, did in real terms was to massively shrink the deficit.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 04, 2004, 11:35:12 PM »

rshubert
You are right we need to be out there killing them and taking away safe havens of terror.

But thats only half the job, leaving our border open and unprotected is IS going to lead to a terror attack and death here.

The reason both parties ignore it is they thing ilegals will be voters in the future and or they do not want to alienate the special interest that use that ilegal labor.

cpxxx · « **Reply #37 on:** November 04, 2004, 11:35:34 PM »

How can anyone suggest that gay marriage was the most important issue exercising voters on polling day? It's absurd. Ann Coulter is so far off the wall, she is practically parodying herself. She also definitely underestimates Karl Rove's influence.

It's interesting too that so many myths have already begun to grow. Everything she wrote I've seen in one form or other elsewhere. She's a plagiarist apart from anything else. A worthy right wing equivalent to Michael Moore. Except Moore is funny, sometimes.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #38 on:** November 04, 2004, 11:36:27 PM »

Karnak,
I am pretty conservitive, and I am with y ou on coulter being a nutter in the same league as moore.

She is not all honest all the time, and she is such a rabid ***** she makes all conservitives look bad..

Plus she is smurfy.

Grits · « **Reply #39 on:** November 05, 2004, 12:00:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Ann is funny. She acctually posted that the difference between the exit poles and the actual outcome must mean that the democrats fudged the exit poles.
Man she wrote a whole page on the subject.

Thats not as funny as the PBS coverage! Bill "Lenin" Moyers and Charlie Rose were SERUIOUSLY[/b] discussing a Coup e'Etat by the Republicans if Bush didnt win.

Think about that for a second...

Ann is a kook, but a lot of the stuff she says, she says tounge in cheek with a smirk on her face. "Lenin" Moyers and Charlie Rose were having a dead serious discussion about when and how the Republican Coup was going to unfold if they didnt win!! If I didnt know better I'd have thought it was a Saturdat Night Live skit.

Moyers is a pathetic farce.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #40 on:** November 05, 2004, 12:01:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Mini D,

Note that Bush did not win 80% of the vote, he won 51% of the vote.

which according to every political analyst I've seen interviewed is Huge in todays modern political arena.
they pretty much all agree that elections ago 51% -48%would be a pretty slim victory but with the arena as it is now they have it down to such a science that a 3% victory a pretty big margin.

Just for the record going by pure numbers I personally would agree 51% -48% isnt huge.
But the "experts" say otherwise

Actually the only ones I see calling it a slim margin are Democrat senators

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #41 on:** November 05, 2004, 12:06:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
\she felt Teresa Heinz Kerry would be a "disaster" as a first lady.

LOL I doubt you would find many on either side that could honestly dissagree with that one.

Had Kerry won and I were he I'd make her an ambassador to someplace like bora bora or Kenya, or ANYPLACE outside the USA just got her her out of the country for 4-8 years.

She woulda been an embarrassment waiting to happen

Grits · « **Reply #42 on:** November 05, 2004, 12:09:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Just for the record going by pure numbers I personally would agree 51% -48% isnt huge.
But the "experts" say otherwise

Actually the only ones I see calling it a slim margin are Democrat senators

Bush won Ohio by more than Kennedy won the entire nation by in 1960. You want to see a "stolen" election, take a look at Texas and Illinois in 1960.

Pongo · « **Reply #43 on:** November 05, 2004, 01:41:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Florida 2000 comes to mind. Exit polls had Gore taking the state by a 15% margin.

lol thats an increadable example to chose

Karnak · « **Reply #44 on:** November 05, 2004, 01:43:43 AM »

DREDIOCK,

I agree that a 3% margin is a good solid win. It isn't a 60% mandate, but it is a solid win.

What I was refering to was Mini D's 80% being used to indicate that 80% of the voters voted based on Gay marriage when clearly they did not as the actual breakdown was 51% to 48%.