I don’t get it. Adaher actually seems to be a fairly sensible poster and doesn’t irritate me like some of the more dyed-in-the-wool conservatives here. I don’t get any impression that he’s “shilling” or anything like that.
eh, he’s certainly not that bad. He has a definite point of view, which is fine. I merely pointed out another poster’s subtle changing “shilling” to “opinion”.
Yup. ISTR that Gallup actually stopped polling a few weeks before Election Day in some states because they thought Dewey had it in the bag.
The precise contents of your beliefs I can’t say. My statement employed “you” in the third person sense, responding to the general sentiment expressed by multiple individuals within this thread, and it seems to me a fairly accurate (if tongue-in-cheek) portrait thereof. In other words: contrary to your suggestion, I wasn’t playing some game in which I tried to deflect negative attention from adaher by rules lawyering the fact that he just happened to be well-behaved in his one comment above. I think it’s genuinely silly to attack someone when the motivating transgressions are not even in evidence.
No, I took ‘shilling’ in this case for being a derogatory term used against the mere expression of adaher’s opinions, because the literal use of the word made no sense.
This board is full of partisans of all political persuasions who can be counted on to reflexively parrot their side’s talking points. Are they all shills? If I read a press release from the Obama administration, and then see people here opening threads to carry water for that opinion, are they shilling for Obama?
I’ve read lots of adaher’s posts, but not nearly all of them. So I don’t know if he’s said some outrageous things or not. But the posts I’ve read seem to be pretty mainstream Republican/Conservative viewpoints, presented reasonably well. I don’t agree with all of them, but he is certainly holding his own on this board in terms of attempting to back up what he’s saying and engaging in fair debate, albeit from a particular partisan perspective (just like everyone else). He’s not a troll, or a shill, or a moron. Therefore, he deserves to be treated with as much respect as any other poster on this board.
Yeah, adaher is not a shill. In my mind, he’s taken Bricker’s place for most reasonable conservative.
Really? Thank you!
If a guy who thinks the media is engaged in a pro-Obama conspiracy is in the running for “most reasonable conservative,” then I think you’re making Yonkeroo’s point for him that turing the SDMB into an echo chamber might not be so bad.
(For the recond: I don’t think adaher’s a shill. I don’t want conservatives removed from the SDMB. I am also against unnecessary puppy-kicking. Just to be prefectly clear.)
NOT to say that they are “Romney for sure” and NOT that it makes sense to be “no longer polling there” . . .
. . . but interestingly enough Nate Silver (who we all love to love except for those of us who love to hate him) now has all three of the Thread Title States as some shade of Red.
Florida 66.8% Romney
Virginia 52.5% Romney
North Carolina 87.1% Romney
Nate’s even got Colorado decked in pink underwear at 57.4% Romney.
And an additional bit of evidence: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/17/four_states.html
If Romney were to win those three, that’d give him 248 electoral votes (if my math doesn’t suck too bad this late at night). From there he has really two ways to win that I can see:
-
OH + any other state
-
CO, NV, and IA
Winning a state like WI would really expand his possibilities, but that seems a bit tougher task than either of these two paths.
ETA: Basically, whoever loses OH has to clean up in pretty much every other battleground state to win.
Well, I read the (rather speculative) link, and assuming it’s correct in its assumptions, just because the campaign figures it’s behind doesn’t necessarily mean they’re “conceding” anything, unless there’s some evidence I didn’t see that they’re pulling resources from Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina to concentrate on the states mentioned in the cite.
And, of course, this also doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Suffolk, unless you want to say they predicted the first debate ahead of time (or otherwise argue, much more reasonably, that there is some other factor besides the debate contributing to Romney’s gains that predates the debate).
They (Obama) just pulled staff from somewhere else for Florida offices, according to a friend involved with the campaign.
They figure if they win Ohio they win. That’s not a horrible bet if you assume you can’t get back ahead of Romney in the popular vote, but it says a lot about their confidence that they are trying to hold the map instead of expand it like they did in 2008.
Not really. It’s like saying Romney is a quitter because he isn’t bothering with California. The 2008 map was about as expanded as a map could get for a Democratic candidate.
If Romney was up by 15 it wouldn’t make sense to contest California. Giving up on Florida is a big deal for any Democrat. Especialyl since we were assured by crowing liberal op-ed writers that the Ryan selection made Florida automatically blue.
Who said the Democrats were giving up on Florida? That other poster said that he heard that the Democrats were taking staffers from other places and bringing them TO Florida. Unless I missed something, you’ve got that totally backwards and they are in fact doing the opposite of giving up on Florida.
It was hinted at/implied in HurricaneDitka’s link. But even it didn’t say anything about actual evidence of the Obama campaign giving up on those three states, thus my query.
I was referring to this post:
“They (Obama) just pulled staff from somewhere else for Florida offices, according to a friend involved with the campaign.”
from somewhere else to Florida coming from someone involved in the campaign.
I know. I was answering the question “Who said the Democrats were giving up on Florida?” The answer is: HurricaneDitka’s link, and perhaps the poster himself.
Ok cool, but adaher was talking as if this was a certain fact, and its definitely not that.