There are always a dozen opinions. look at the number of Pundits that said Fred won. Look at the panel that said Mitt won...
All arbitrary, but if it makes you feel better, then by all means use the data in support of your guy, it is what everyone else does.
All arbitrary, but if it makes you feel better, then by all means use the data in support of your guy, it is what everyone else does.
***You’re not getting it. When I was posting the same level of analysis and it showed that Huckster won, I went ahead with the analysis. It didn’t make me feel better. There was nothing arbitrary about the analysis when I was posting that Huckster won the debates, so why is it arbitrary now that my guy wins?
I see this a lot, the fred supporters like to go round & round, but in the end the real critique is that they just don’t like that it isn’t their guy and it is our guy.
If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. I’ve been posting that Huckster the goose has won a debate or two, and now using the same analysis I post that Hunter the gander wins a debate. In order to critique the analysis you would need to go back to when I posted that Huckster won and take issue at that time. But you didn’t.
Note that this was supposed to be the big breakout party for Thompson because he’s “all in” for Iowa, but this debate in Iowa showed him losing ground on Intrade. And Hunter is gaining ground. Today we get LOLs when he bumps up at 0.1 at a time, why was it that the Huckster didn’t get any LOLs? Is it because he’s a pro-life liberal, and the severest criticism in the republican party is reserved for the pro-life conservaties?