With all due respect, you continuously tooting your own horn about this, in light of the economic crisis, would be akin to me predicting the Rockets winning only 20 games this year, and then gloating about being right after Artest, McGrady, and Yao are all lost for the season in a brawl and the team subsequently winning only 20 games.
I know.. It feels like we're all kids a week before Christmas*, doesn't it? (*or Hanukkah or Kwanzaa... Festivus, etc.)
Well, I can't prove a negative, thacabbage. Even if I just got lucky, if Obama wins in a landslide I was still right. But I don't believe I did get lucky. I don't believe he is winning because of the economic crisis. Certainly I believe it's helped his case as he's favored on the economy and the economy has become an even bigger issue in this campaign than it was, but the economy was the top issue of import to voters before the current crisis. In fact, it was the top issue in June. Look it up. I said then and I say now that all it was going to take for Obama to break away was the two of them standing on a stage together - not because McCain is weak but because Obama isn't. And because, given the poor environment for Republicans running in a post-Bush era, all Obama needed to do was to be acceptable to pull away and win a clear victory. It's funny. Before the economic crisis everybody was asking why Obama was underperforming generic Dems and I was saying all he needs is to get on a stage with McCain and prove he's acceptable. Which was also all Reagan needed in the anti-Dem climate of the Carter years. You're right that his lead coincided with the current crisis. It also coincided with the debates. Regardless, I have argued all along that Obama would win and it wouldn't be close. I argued that based on who Obama is and based on the current anti-Republican climate/desire for change. You are right. The economic crisis happened and we'll never know what would have happened if it didn't. But something was going to happen regardless. If you want to say I just got lucky, so be it. However it happened I'm still going to wind up having made a bold (according to people here) but correct prediction. But I don't care nearly as much about being right as I do about Obama winning. It's the patriot in me.
It wasn't a blog that said the poll wasn't right, IROC it. It was a blog that pointed out the sample. The sample included 44% Evangelicals. That doesn't even make any sense. Do you think 44% of voters will be Evangelicals? If so, it will be nearly twice as high as Evangelical participation in 2004. I'm glad you feel like it's the night before Christmas though. Would you like to know what's in your stocking?
p.s. to thacabbage: My predictions, way back when, weren't blind ones as in your Rockets metaphor. I suggest you go back and read the posts in which I made them. I could post some links if you'd like. But I think it would be way more fun to do that on Nov. 5.
That is all you got......a shallow retort...... Scared.....fear.....scared......fear.......ROFLMAO...... Out of ideas...just like your party. DD
So you weren't told that people who don't vote for Obama are racist? You came up with that on your own?
Find one liberal that's said that. The only people making that argument are ignorant people who want to set up a strawman that they can win - presumably because they can't win arguments on the merits.
Is that all you got? That McCain is losing because all the polls have a liberal bias? Please tell me you are joking. DD
When the news is good, it's just news. When the news is bad, it's "liberal news". The only time "liberals" or "liberal" media are credible is when they say something you want to hear. Then they become EXTRA credible. The right-wing radio kooks perfected this concept years ago and others have partaken of the Kool-Aid. Just look at how Joe Lieberman went from being a dumb liberal (as Gore's running mate) to being credible (by supporting McCain).
