LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?

**Ranger10** · 11-01-12, 09:22 PM

If Romney wins, Fov has to get a tattoo "Landslide Lazarus" on his inner thigh.

**deputyfestus** · 11-01-12, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Lol, now specifically? As far as I was aware all the media blowhards were trying to hype this up as a pure tossup. Horse races gets viewers, not boring probability.

I think that's the point much of the mainstream media on both sides are throwing out the what if's. To me that seems to spell a certain air of uncertainty.

**Fovezer** · 11-01-12, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

If Romney wins, Fov has to get a tattoo "Landslide Lazarus" on his inner thigh.

LOL! And what if Obama wins?

**deathgodusmc** · 11-01-12, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

LOL! And what if Obama wins?

Ranger has to get a tramp stamp of a navy anchor.

**deputyfestus** · 11-01-12, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

If Romney wins, Fov has to get a tattoo "Landslide Lazarus" on his inner thigh.

No a tramp stamp.

**deputyfestus** · 11-01-12, 09:36 PM

Damn either way someone needs a tramp stamp.

**-Lazarus-** · 11-01-12, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

It came from "examining" the internals from the NPR and CBS/NYT polls. They cherry-picked two polls they liked and used them to draw a scientifically unsound conclusion. The sample size of Independent voters in these polls are quite small, so the margin of error is very high. These polls don't weight by party ID, so it's quite irrelevant because they let the people self-report their party affiliation.

Also, the state polls are more important than the national ones because states decide the election, not the national vote.

Ha! Wait, who is desperate again?

**MaFioSo** · 11-01-12, 10:10 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if Romney won, however I would be surprised if he won by a "landslide". Oh and please don't cite any information from the Fox Propaganda Network, it isn't a credible source. And why are we still arguing polls? Didn't someone already present evidence that the polls have been historically inaccurate as to who the president will be? Plus the election is in 5 days! We could sit here and waste time arguing pointless polls, or we could just wait a few days until the actual result.

**Fovezer** · 11-01-12, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Ha! Wait, who is desperate again?

Not me, I'm very confident right now. All the prediction models and all the betting markets all are backing Obama. Calling out laughable methods like Faux is doing isn't a sign of desperation, it's me trying to stop you from getting your hopes up based on bad information.

Originally Posted by MaFioSo

And why are we still arguing polls? Didn't someone already present evidence that the polls have been historically inaccurate as to who the president will be?

I don't know where you heard that polls have been historically inaccurate. You can point to individual pollsters being terrible, and there are a few of them, but taken as an aggregate, they're quite accurate. What is inaccurate is people making predictions based on their "gut" or what they want to happen.