Mid Term Elections Prediction thread

[Tee&A]

I haven't been here in days so I'm still playing catchup, but: doth mine eyes deceive me? Did someone actually say--not, imply: say--that there is no proof that the Tea Party has used racist signs or slogans at their rallies? Because, um, well, there is this thing called "Google" where you can find hundreds of example...just saying.

 

[maxcok]

You wrote what you wrote.

That's correct, I wrote what I wrote, but you have paraphrased, spun, and rewritten what I wrote, attributing words to me that I never wrote. You have "quoted" and misquoted me twice, twisting my meaning and drawing conclusions to suit your own ideological arguments that were not my intent and not what I wrote.

Here's what I wrote:

Democrats lose Correct

Congratulations. A ten year old could have predicted that. Nothing like predicting the inevitable.

Lose big. Correct

Congratulations again. A twelve year old could have predicted that.

The logical conclusion which follows at your insult directed at me is that those who could not figure out what was obvious have rather low intelligence. I pointed out that a large contingent fit your definition.

Do me a favor. Don't draw your own "logical conclusions" from what I write and try to spin it off in another direction. I made no inference about intelligence, yours or anyone elses. Age does not determine intelligence, it's a question of awareness, maturity, and sophistication. I've known 10 and 12 year olds who were highly intelligent, and even some who were aware enough of the news and 'adult concerns' that they could have made decent generalized predictions for the election. Nevertheless, I was being satirical in case you missed that. If you think that was an "insult", believe me, I can do much better.

My point was that anyone with a decent degree of political awareness and detached from their own partisan bias, who looked at the polls and the current political landscape against the background of historical mid term voting patterns, could have predicted that the Republican gains this mid term would be "substantial", just as I did, just as I said. For you to then gloat over your vague predictions as though they were some great prophecy manifested that only you saw coming is just plain silly.

In this thread I credited you when you made a correct observation.
And when I was right you acknowledged it by insulting me and
portraying me as some lightweight.

Poor Pitbull. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Who knew Pitbulls were so sensitive? I am nothing if not fair.
If you made any predictions that came closer to the results than mine, I must have missed it. Please do point them out and I'll gladly give you credit. Meanwhile, if you find benign teasing metaphors about children too confusing and insulting, perhaps you are too tender to play in this schoolyard. Funny, I never thought of you that way before.

I was a little surprised but not totally so.
I guess it pained you to much to admit I was right that you could not return the favor.

Pained?? LOL!!! You overestimate yourself, sir, in more ways than one. Again, I'll gladly acknowledge your genius if you can show me anywhere you beat my predictions. The fact is you didn't. Caveat: Predictions based on vague, generalized, unquantified terms like "lose big" and "overwhelmingly" are not worthy of recognition, much less worthy of accolades. Not that you bested me with any of those either. You didn't.

And you commented on my political predictions but you and the whole lot of the left to center crew ignore the fantasies of your brethren.

Yet it seems to be open season on BF2K and 24065

I have no "crew" and no "brethren" in this debate, I can stand on my own. My challenge was to you, not to your right-wing buds and not to anyone left of you. Are you so weak in meeting that challenge you're actually trying to deflect it onto the "lefties"? As for declaring "open season" on BF2K and 24065, I don't believe I've even addressed them in this thread, though if you feel you need them for backup that's your prerogative. They don't intimidate me. They are ideological idiots and intolerable blowhards who do nothing but spew an unending stream of spoonfed propaganda, and they have as much original political insight as a pair of caged baboons. They are not worth my time and attention. If you want to associate yourself with that level of debate, be my guest. I don't think it speaks well of your intellect though.

What came out as a quote from you was actually a quote from me that I inserted as a reply in one of your posts. The red was meant to highlight so it was clear when I originally made the post that it was my reply.
When cutting and pasting is came out as if it was from your post.
Sorry for that.

If only your retraction and apology were anywhere near as bold as your misquote. Be honest, Pitbull. That "quote" from you that you posted under my name was nothing but a deliberate and gross paraphrase that you tried to deflect onto "the left of center crew", using me as your ammunition. Twice. I assume you know how to preview a post before submitting it. Yet somehow the wholly original text you wrote in big bold red type poorly paraphrasing my actual words, the text that you then you inserted it into my quote box with my name on it here - you just failed to notice that little 'mistake'? Riiiighht. And another thing - you didn't post in big, bold, Repugnant Red type to distinguish your words, you did it to scream your message.

If I may, I'd like to remind you of this bit of instruction from the forum rules: "Further, it's expected that users are mindful when quoting one another. Deliberately removing sections of quotes to mislead others or change (remove) the context, and added/changing quotes will also be met with moderator intervention." Now I'm not so tender and sensitive that I would be compelled to report such an infraction to the nannies, but you would be well advised to be "mindful" and exercise caution in the future. If you're not entirely comfortable or adept at using the quote function, perhaps you should just stick to basics.

Here's the point, Pitbull. I purposely used your predictions to lay out my own in this post because I thought you were a cut above the usual knee-jerk conservitards who babble their ideological nonsense in this forum, and because you at least risked putting your neck on the line with some actual numbers and outcomes in a few individual races. I thought it would be an interesting challenge to put my own neck on the line and see who came closer to correctly predicting the results. Your mistake was gloating after the election in this post about your vague unquantified prognostications that were virtually guaranteed by the conventional wisdom, trying to spin them into some sort of forecasting genius, exaggerating and arrogantly blasting your own horn with erroneous statements like this: "Not correct but pretty much at the upper level of most pundits," and this: "So probably closer than anyone in this thread."

The fact of the matter is that you didn't beat most of the reputable pundits, and you didn't beat me. Had you been better at predicting any of the results than I did, I would have graciously given you credit. Though you acknowledged in passing that I got the Senate result right - the one that I had previously called "the most ridiculous of all your predictions" - the fact is, in every single instance where we predicted different outcomes I beat you. So for you to acknowledge that "MaxCock got this one right" in passing, in the middle of all your post election partisan spin and dishonest self aggrandizing - well it was just fucking annoying. Hence my response here.

You're right, there were posters on the left who came up short, who made general predictions that were influenced by hopeful, wishful thinking and partisan bias, just as you did. I've not debated that, nor have I defended their predictions. My debate is with you. You have placed ideology above honesty. You have deliberately spun and reworded my comments beyond recognition in an attempt to deflect my critique of you onto others. This sort of deflection is patently dishonest, and you only diminish yourself. Bastardizing my quote is just plain sleazy. Don't do that again. This all smacks of the sort of "win at all costs" dishonest political tactics the right typically engages in as a matter of course, because their arguments are so deficient. You can do better, and I hope you will. It would be refreshing if their were at least one honest, independent thinking contributor here who could represent the right with some substance and intelligence, rather than the usual crapload of regurgitated propaganda and empty talking points. Though I seriously question whether such a beast even exists anymore.

One can hope.

 

[BF2K]

OK you dudes on the "left", you lost, get over it, we are in a democracy not a popularity contest. Admit that Obama is 1. Inexperienced, 2. has no real backbone, 3. is in FAR over his head in deep "shit", 4. thank the Lord that politicians like Obama (as was the case with Jimmy) bring REAL leaders like Ronald Reagan to bring the country back to an even keel. 5. If you want socialism move to California and smoke weed. 6. understand that if more than 50% of the population works for the Government we ALL have a problem. I'll end on a note: Where the fuck is the 700 billion spent for QE1 and where is the QE2 600 billion going to? The Banks aren't lending, the "people" still don't have jobs, the State and Federal pensions are sinking the Titanic and the Dems are still playing Mozart!!!!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

OK you dudes on the "left", you lost, get over it, we are in a democracy not a popularity contest. Admit that Obama is 1. Inexperienced, 2. has no real backbone, 3. is in FAR over his head in deep "shit", 4. thank the Lord that politicians like Obama (as was the case with Jimmy) bring REAL leaders like Ronald Reagan to bring the country back to an even keel. 5. If you want socialism move to California and smoke weed. 6. understand that if more than 50% of the population works for the Government we ALL have a problem. I'll end on a note: Where the fuck is the 700 billion spent for QE1 and where is the QE2 600 billion going to? The Banks aren't lending, the "people" still don't have jobs, the State and Federal pensions are sinking the Titanic and the Dems are still playing Mozart!!!!

Are you through, moron?

 

[B_RedDude]

The legacy of Ronald Reagan is a big reason why the country is such a mess right now. Don't slobber too much over your cold, angry hero, like the Republican politicians in Washington do.

thank the Lord that politicians like Obama (as was the case with Jimmy) bring REAL leaders like Ronald Reagan to bring the country back to an even keel.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The legacy of Ronald Reagan is a big reason why the country is such a mess right now.

Seconded.
Why do they always go back to Reagan? I can source many people who would agree with you if the presidents you sourced were more like Gerald Ford. But Reagan? His initial mishandling of the AIDS crisis as well as the failed concept that is Trickle Down Economics are enough for me to discredit him.

 

[B_RedDude]

I couldn't even begin to go into laying out the broad and negative impact Ronald Reagan had on this country in the long term, mostly because it would be exhausting to do so. The lionization/canonization of him when he died in 2004 was sickening.

Even Barack Obama seems to like to lick Reagan's ass once in a while, and perhaps even, at least publicly, to accept his legacy as a satisfactory given.

Seconded.
Why do they always go back to Reagan? I can source many people who would agree with you if the presidents you sourced were more like Gerald Ford. But Reagan? His initial mishandling of the AIDS crisis as well as the failed concept that is Trickle Down Economics are enough for me to discredit him.

 

[Tee&A]

I couldn't even begin to go into laying out the broad and negative impact Ronald Reagan had on this country in the long term, mostly because it would be exhausting to do so. The lionization/canonization of him when he died in 2004 was sickening.

Even Barack Obama seems to like to lick Reagan's ass once in a while, and perhaps even, at least publicly, to accept his legacy as a satisfactory given.

Death--especially in America, it seems--brings sweet, sweet, deification. When one's last breath is taken, their ill qualities go out the window (and the truth along with it). Is it lying? Perhaps. But for the most part I think people become uncomfortable with the notion of being the "asshole" who bashes someone who is no longer capable of "defending themselves".

...You don't want to know how many people I wanted to bitchslap the week Michael Jackson died. Three weeks before June 25, 2009 you thought Michael Jackson was a child-molesting AntiChrist, but when he passed he became "a great humanitarian who loved children and only wanted to make people happy with his music"? I don't say this often, but: Bitch, please. Whether I agree with how you feel about a person that has passed or not, if you think they owned it in life, let them own it in death.

Or, perhaps, it really is just true that Americans have embarrassingly short memories? Sigh...

 

[B_RedDude]

LPSG has been kind of boring since the midterms were over.

 

[dandelion]

You guys have real exciting elections much more often than we do. Our parliament is 5 year terms with nothing in between except local councils. Do you think the kind of electoral system affects the kind of politicians you get, and maybe affects the outlook of the whole country? The system is designed to make politicians powerless, so maybe people treat them accordingly. Have US politicians turned their attention abroad because they can do nothing at home? They can rave about killing some foreigners, and grant defence contracts to their constituents.

 

[B_RedDude]

You raise a very interesting point. The work of Congress has certainly grown quite a lot since the founding of the Republic. Maybe two year terms for Representatives in the House are too short. Perhaps we should make them four years so that the Members don't have to concentrate for so much of their terms on constant fundraising for reelection, and voting on legislation with such a constant eye toward reelection. This, in turn, might lessen the power of the lobbyists on the people's business, even if only a small amount.

Ideally, campaigns for the House and Senate would be publicly financed, as are the presidential campaigns, to reduce the influence of special interests. I'm not sure that Congress would ever go for this. We'd get some argument against the additional spending or something. As to the electorate supporting it, I don't have a sense. Ultimately, the people in our Republic are responsible for its health. I don't think it's naive to say this. The people will get as good or bad a government as they elect (and this view includes the absent influence of those who don't vote, for good or ill). If we really do need major reform, it's up to the people. But, of course, it needs to be the right kind of reform.

Our parliament is 5 year terms with nothing in between except local councils. Do you think the kind of electoral system affects the kind of politicians you get, and maybe affects the outlook of the whole country? The system is designed to make politicians powerless, so maybe people treat them accordingly.

 

[BF2K]

two words, TERM LIMITS!!!

 

[dandelion]

you point out another difference. we have no term limits. You can be prime minister for as long as you can hold it together. The disadvantage of limits must be that if people have no reason to please the elctorate, then they wont. They can do what they like.

 

[Bbucko]

two words, TERM LIMITS!!!

Despite the advantages of incumbency (which are undeniable), politicians are in power because enough people voted for them. Term limits are an odd variation on Nanny-Statism, where the government steps in and decides, if not whom to vote for, then whom one cannot.

Stop me before I vote again! I just can't help myself!

I do agree, however, that two-year terms are much too short for the House. It puts congresspeople in constant campaign mode.

 

[dandelion]

In the UK incumbency seems to set a 2 term limit automatically before people get really tired of you. SOme of the better politicians seem to be the ones who have been there longest. Maybe its only because standards are slipping so the youngest are wost.

 

[maxcok]

two words, TERM LIMITS!!!

We already have term limits. They're called elections, and majority rules.