Not even remotely what I wrote. I simply pointed out that MSNBC was not the source of the polling numbers they cited. That’s totally fine, and common in the media.
EDIT: Additionally – I didn’t dismiss your cite. Why did you think I did? Instead, I want to include it (and Howard’s if I can get get some info on their polling methodology) into something more comprehensive, drawing from multiple pollsters.
I think you can understand why I’m a bit defensive here, I’m in the pit. I’m not trying to just defend the latest thread I was banned from; I’m defending a point of view that while not my own, I have been talking about for over a year. Defending myself against accusations of being a troll and a racist.
I finally provide a cite from fucking MSNBC, that backs up things I’ve said over a year ago. and it’s instantly called into question by you.
You’re… gonna trust the opinions of the people that want you banned as to who’s interpretation of my post (and how could I possibly know what I meant!) is correct???
I still read the threads I can’t post in, even if they don’t follow me to the pit. At this point of course most posters are not going to come here, especially new ones.
One did and was instantly treated to my posts on Cosby taken out of context even though the poster thought I made intelligent points on the conference thread.
And to be fair, you are all saying now the polls don’t matter. When I was making my points over a year ago, all I heard was cite the polls, or that the polls don’t say that. i even said they were not polling Black Americans back then. But now that they are, three months away from the election, now it’s we’ll just have to see what happens. Just because those polls are not going the way the board thought they would.
Unless a poll is specifically planned to only study a single demographic, the sample sizes for groups-within-groups are likely to be so small that the margin of error would be huge.
That’s why focusing on the crosstabs for broad polls, much less a single poll, is a fool’s errand.
And one reason you’re treated with extreme skepticism is because of your history of crankery. Cosby and 9/11 trutherism are as nuts as flat earth and creationism.
Another reason is that you made wildly certain claims about the future, like Harris can’t win, without evidence, and then immediately walked it back a few days later. When you’re that wishy washy about your own certain claims, why should we treat them as anything other than silliness?
Yes, now the polls are the problem, and I can’t change my mind on her chances after seeing the support for Harris.
I think she moved from having no chance to having a chance to win. I thought Biden could win. I just linked todays MSNBC poll directly to a moderator in an old thread.
I suspect you will all get your wish soon, if you can quote me out of context so can I do the same to you.
I went directly at a mod, asking for a cite in a post from 8 months ago, and admitted I could not provide one at that time. I just provided my MSNBC link.
I’m done here, but it shows how any post can be taken out of context, and I’m tired of being on the bubble anytime I post.
Of course you can change your mind. But the ease in which you changed your mind should have told you that being certain about something doesn’t mean shit. Your certainty doesn’t mean shit. All you’ve done is made a hypothesis. Big fucking deal. A hypothesis from a crank on the internet is more common than leaves in the forest.