Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Notary Sojac

“Yep, you beat me to the post. This article is totally reminiscent of the last few days before the 2008 election here on FR.

“The “Bradley effect” and the “Pumas” were supposed to beat Zero, and all the polls were wrong...”

Nice try, but much of this was accurate and did occur. The big thing in 2008 was the economy which ultimately gave the election to Obama. When Palin was added to the ticket, McCain suddenly was even and in some ahead. There wasn’t any data on record showing an economic slide a month or two right before the election which put many people off.

If you reread what you were referring to, you will also find that it was said that the American people would never accept Obama’s direction. Obama’s fall in popularity is faster than any president ever in modern history. Ultimately, what was written, that you are referring to, was correct.

And you don’t get what Nate Silver is doing (because you aren’t that smart). Nate Silver is a joke of an analyst, but this column of his is just a mirror one where he talked about how Republicans could do better than expected.


70 posted on 11/02/2010 6:46:46 AM PDT by SlipStream
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: SlipStream
but much of this was accurate and did occur

Beg to differ. Notice I said "the last few days before the 2008 election" when everything: TARP, Palin, etc. was baked in.

Two days before the vote, the national polls had pretty much clustered around a 2-6% Obama win, but much of FR was in denial. The polls were right, and FR was wrong.

73 posted on 11/02/2010 7:02:16 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (God Hates Figs!! (Mark 11:12-14 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson