2012 Presidential Predictions

[justin wizard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG9LqX6xGpQ

[chopper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG9LqX6xGpQ

Must be prune schnapps night at the home.

[tjq]

Do you think Hillary, or anyone else for that matter, will make a primary challenge against Obama. She got ambition, I'm not sure she wants to wait until 2016 for the prize.

Who are the GOP going to nominate? Mitt Romney is looking good. I like Palin, but she's got an artificial toxic reputation and has been made polarizing. She's got a base, surenuff, and has been a king maker in a lot of primaries, but the media will work hard against her.

However, the media hated Bush, hated the war, hated the tax cuts, and yet he demolished Kerry.

It will certainly be good theater.

[DAN O]

Palin would do best what she's doing now....She can draw big crowds, and helps other conservatives

My prediction is Romney and Governor Bobby Jindal

[the ghost of dave]

willing to place a wager on that?

[nyujoe]

How exactly did Bush "demolish" Kerry?

[tjq]

Why don't you tell me, Joe

[Laura]

Bobby Jindal has a real shot at the ticket if he handles the oil spill right.

[the ghost of dave]

hey now... your half truths while cute tend to be BS... lets use a map in which the sizes of states are rescaled according to their population

Since you did it by county i'll use the appropriate map



and as we know counties are never 100% for one side of the other so add some shading to accuratly rep the vote. and we get this...



It's not so clear cut anymore is it buddy?

[Laura]

That looks like what you'd get if a porpoise mated with a butterfly.

[tjq]

So Bush lost? What a jip!

[the ghost of dave]

he lost in 2000 also....

[chopper]

Hillary mount a primary challenge against Obama?? You can't be serious. You're seriously underestimating Obama's support.

Obama is currently at 50% in the Gallup. At the same stage of his presidency, Reagan's Gallup approval rating was 43%. At the same stage of his presidency, Clinton was at 46% in the Gallup. Both were reelected with comfortable margins. The two Bushes both started wars with Iraq before the midterms so they were riding a bump of patriotic fervor at this stage (both quickly sank into the 20s when the country's attention turned back to domestic issues).

Obama is definitely going to be the 2012 Democratic nominee.

As for Romney, he's probably the best hope for the GOP. He and Huckabee are the current GOP frontrunners, although both are trailing Obama by 8 to 9 points in "if the election were held today" polling. Romney stands the best chance of pulling votes from Obama's camp. The problem for Romney is that Teabaggers can't stand him and he's likewise been critical of them. I wouldn't discount the Tea Party mounting a third party challenge to a Romney GOP nomination.

OTOH, moderates don't like Huckabee and moderates are the ones that most often stay home on Election Day if they don't like their party's candidate.

Palin is out of the question if only because two-thirds of the country don't think she's even qualified to be president. In a sample match-up, Obama beats her by 13 points.

PS: these "if the election were held today" polls generally disadvantage the incumbent so the margins could be wider than that.

[DAN O]

Bobby Jindal has a real shot at the ticket if he handles the oil spill right.

That will be way too easy when he's compared with Obama's handling of it

[nyujoe]

If land mass could vote, TJQ's dishonest map would be meaningful. However, if you look at the actual results, Bush won by slightly more than 3 million votes and two percentage points. Hardly, the dishonest "demolish" characterization given.

[chopper]

Bobby Jindal has a real shot at the ticket if he handles the oil spill right.

That will be way too easy when he's compared with Obama's handling of it

Jindal's a media whore. What kind of idiot goes crying to Washington for special dispensation because the Coast Guard won't let his barges sail without life jackets and fire extinguishers? You get the life jackets and fire extinguishers. Fact is, Jindal had eight frickin days to have that safety gear dispatched to the workers on those barges and he failed. That's why the Coast Guard beached those barges. You've got people working in hazmat suits in 100+ degree heat and Jindal doesn't think that life jackets and fire extinguishers might be kind of important in such an explosive environment?

Any governor of a coastal state knows that you can't leave the dock in even a twelve foot bass boat without life jackets and a fire extinguisher. What's Jindal's excuse?

[the ghost of dave]

If land mass could vote, TJQ's dishonest map would be meaningful. However, if you look at the actual results, Bush won by slightly more than 3 million votes and two percentage points. Hardly, the dishonest "demolish" characterization given.

well yeah, that's why i put up the maps that I did... Dan, justin and him attempted the same argument awhile back.... i simply bookmarked the page and poof there was a need.

[tjq]

Dishonest map? Point to one factual inaccuracy illustrated by that map, please.

[nyujoe]

The use of the map to backup your argument is indeed dishonest. The map shows land mass it doesn't show voting percentage. Land does not have the ability to vote in this country. I know you believe that companies deserve due process and people do not, but do you really want to give land the ability to vote?

[tjq]

Jindal's a media whore.

As oppoesd to...

[the ghost of dave]

it's deceptive... it shows only the vote by county and as a all or nothing vote. The map I provided takes into count population base percentage of vote per candidate and so on, your map doesn't even show the weight of each areas votes in the electoral college ( i can provide that one also)....

The fact that you are playing dumb on this one is amusing, but you seem to have a habit of running fast and loose with the truth.

[the ghost of dave]

The use of the map to backup your argument is indeed dishonest. The map shows land mass it doesn't show voting percentage. Land does not have the ability to vote in this country. I know you believe that companies deserve due process and people do not, but do you really want to give land the ability to vote?

maybe he is that stupid... who knows.

[tjq]

Just one factual inaccuracy. One?

Decpetive? It show's which way any given county voted, Bush or Kerry.

My map is a good, honest map.

Your map is significantly more deceptive. If you weigh for this, and discount that, and bend this and mix these...you get a beautiful butterfly!

My one map is better than your two put together!

Fail.

[nyujoe]

Nothing is bent at all when you look at the real numbers. If one were to look at your map, one would believe that land can vote. It simply cannot. Many of these counties shown have insignficant populations.

A two percentage point is win can hardly be described as a demolishing. At least not by an honest person.

[tjq]

Butterflies can't vote, either!

[nyujoe]

Yes exactly and that's why using a map with butterfiles would be dishonest as well. i think you're getting it now.

[northridger]

Just one factual inaccuracy. One?

Decpetive? It show's which way any given county voted, Bush or Kerry.

My map is a good, honest map.

Your map is significantly more deceptive. If you weigh for this, and discount that, and bend this and mix these...you get a beautiful butterfly!

My one map is better than your two put together!

Fail.

Someone else already mentioned it here, but it's worth repeating. Your map is deceptive because it shows votes by county (and by the physical land-mass size of the county to boot). Unfortunately for your map, land masses don't vote, people do.

That's problem one. Problem two is that your map is binary - either red or blue per county. There might be only a 1,000 vote difference between the candidates but all you show is who won it.

What this means is that small changes in the vote counts could dramatically alter your map, but from the map itself that's not obvoius at all.

Finally, since you don't show the number of people per county, it would be easy to swap around some of your colors and end up with a map that visually looked equivalent - but where the other candidate one.

All in all, not a very good visual analogy at all.

[tjq]

Those are subjective differences, not factual inaccuracies. Sorry, try again,.

[nyujoe]

So the question of whether land can vote or not is subjective?

[the ghost of dave]

since when has population density and the electoral college been subjective?

[northridger]

Those are subjective differences, not factual inaccuracies. Sorry, try again,.

I didn't say it was factually inaccurate. I said it was deceptive.

Let me re-iterate my point. Visual representations of data are intended to show the viewer at-a-glance what a data set "looks" like. The idea is that by looking briefly at the graph you can form a gestalt of the underlying data that you wouldn't necessarily get by pouring over the individual data points.

If you do this wrong, your graph does not convey a gestalt, instead it can form a completely incorrect perception in the viewer.

For example, it's well known that earthquake intensities are on a logarithmic scale, but many people don't understand this in their gut. So if you showed them a graph of earthquake intensity vs. damage they would be completely confused. "Wait, this 5.0 earthquake did nothing. The 6.0 caused $125 million in damage. And the 7.0 levelled a country. WTF!!!". The problem here is that the a 7.0 earthquake is 1000 times more powerful than a 5.0 one, but you're showing the results in a linear scale.

Your map is like that. The gestalt it projects in the view is exactly the one you claimed - Bush decimated Kerry in the election. But in reality Bush didn't decimate Kerry at all. So why does your map show it that way? Because your map isn't showing data an intuitive way that will produce an accurate picture in the viewers mind of what the data means. What your map does is deliberately deceive the viewer into believing something that isn't supported by the underlying data.

[tjq]

The Yankees and the Mets are in the World Series.

The Yankees win game 1 1-0

The Mets Win Game 2 14-0

The Yankees Win Game 3 2-1

The Yankees Win Game 4 1-0

The Yankees Win Game 5 1-0

The Yankees win the World Series! Yay! They decimated the Mets 4 games to 1.

Now, here come the BRTidots, claiming that no, the Mets really decimated the Yankees because they outscored the Yankees 15-5 over all 5 games.

TJQ, with facts behind him as always, shows that it doesn't matter how many runs were scored over the 5 games, all that matters was who won each game. Who ever wins the most games wins the ring.


TJQ is right again! Yay!

[the ghost of dave]

really?

so this one is going to go right up there with Obama the drunk eh?

have it your way.

[tjq]

I will!

woo-hoo! go tjq!!! free honey for everyone!

[northridger]

The Yankees and the Mets are in the World Series.

The Yankees win game 1 1-0

The Mets Win Game 2 14-0

The Yankees Win Game 3 2-1

The Yankees Win Game 4 1-0

The Yankees Win Game 5 1-0

The Yankees win the World Series! Yay! They decimated the Mets 4 games to 1.

Now, here come the BRTidots, claiming that no, the Mets really decimated the Yankees because they outscored the Yankees 15-5 over all 5 games.

TJQ, with facts behind him as always, shows that it doesn't matter how many runs were scored over the 5 games, all that matters was who won each game. Who ever wins the most games wins the ring.

TJQ is right again! Yay!

Interesting psychology. You would honestly call that a "decimation"? I think any sports enthusiast would heartily disagree. This is a bit similar to your map, though, in that you show how you can mislead people.

Just tell people "Yanks beat the mets 4-1. Decimation!". Yeah, it sure sounds like it.

Tell people "The Yanks got clobbered in one game and squeaked by one run in the other 4" and they will reach an entirely different conclusion. An honest person would assess that and think that they were pretty closely matched as teams.

The same with the election you're referencing. With your misleading map it sounds like a decimation. Dig into the details and you see that the two players were fairly closely matched.

[tjq]

Sorry, Waltz said I could have it my way.

[northridger]

Sorry, Waltz said I could have it my way.

Sure thing. I guess when one marathon runner beats another by 25 seconds you'll be the one in the stands cheering how the winner wiped the floor with the competition.

[the ghost of dave]

yup, who am I to stop tjq from making himself look like a moron.... it'll just give us all more ammo down the road when he makes another head up his ass claim....

[tjq]

Sorry, Waltz said I could have it my way.

Sure thing. I guess when one marathon runner beats another by 25 seconds you'll be the one in the stands cheering how the winner wiped the floor with the competition.

.

25 seconds in skiing is a decimation. 25 seconds in a 1000 meter is a decimation. And 25 seconds in a marathon is the difference between winner and first loser.

[chopper]

25 seconds in this thread is an eternity.

[tjq]

Speaking of first losers....

[the ghost of dave]

pull a play from the Dan play book?

I love how you make stupid claims that anyone with half a brain knows is bullshit and you comically try to defend it despite it being painfully obvious that you are wrong. And then you just flail around, whats next yo momma jokes?

[northridger]

Sorry, Waltz said I could have it my way.

Sure thing. I guess when one marathon runner beats another by 25 seconds you'll be the one in the stands cheering how the winner wiped the floor with the competition.

.

25 seconds in skiing is a decimation. 25 seconds in a 1000 meter is a decimation. And 25 seconds in a marathon is the difference between winner and first loser.

Yes precisely. And winning 4 games by a single run apiece is hardly a "decimation".

[tjq]

Yo mama so stupid she went to the dentist to get blue tooth

[northridger]

Yo mama so stupid she went to the dentist to get blue tooth

What, no Fail?

[Laura]

Yo momma so fat she's got more chins than a Chinese phone book.

[tjq]

Yo mama so stupid it took her 2 hours to watch 60 minutes

[Laura]

Yo mama so nasty she brings crabs to the beach.

[tjq]

Yo mama so stupid she took the Pepsi challenge and chose Jif.

[Laura]

^^HAHAHA!

Yo mama so poor when she goes to KFC, she has to lick other people's fingers!