Guess the Electoral votes thread.

[QUOTE=General]Rove was just on Hannity and he said Democratic early voting is down by at least 150k compared to 2008, and Republican is up 68k from 2008. He said McCain won election day voting in Ohio by a good margin. He thinks the numbers are on track for a slim Romney victory.

Yesterday I said Romney would win 295-243, but I'm revising it to 289-249. Iowa is going to Obama.[/QUOTE]


[IMG]http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100521/GAL-10May21-4636/media/PHO-10May21-226073.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/c8.0.403.403/p403x403/22789_524235807605508_180956801_n.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-liar413.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Please explain how that article is biased.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it's not true. I was stating that both websites had its headline with news in favour of their favourite candidate.

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]I'm not saying it's not true. I was stating that both websites had its headline with news in favour of their favourite candidate.[/QUOTE]
Picking and choosing articles which may or may not support a certain ideology is one thing. Getting on television and lying about something which is easily fact checked is something else.

I think we all know MSNBC is the left's version of FNC, but I still don't think it matches Fox in outright, blatant lies.

Like, General watches FoxNews to get information on what is happening with voting in America. It is reasonable to assume what an expert on a supposed news channel is saying about hard, raw numbers is accurate. I mean, you can twist and turn the data to favor one side or the other, but the numbers should still be the numbers.

Yet, here we are... Rove says early voting in Ohio is down from 2008... It's actually up. Easily fact checked... But how many FoxNews viewers are going to do that? They aren't twisting the numbers to support a side... They're flat-out changing the numbers, apparently.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Picking and choosing articles which may or may not support a certain ideology is one thing. Getting on television and lying about something which is easily fact checked is something else.

I think we all know MSNBC is the left's version of FNC, but I still don't think it matches Fox in outright, blatant lies.

Like, General watches FoxNews to get information on what is happening with voting in America. It is reasonable to assume what an expert on a supposed news channel is saying about hard, raw numbers is accurate. I mean, you can twist and turn the data to favor one side or the other, but the numbers should still be the numbers.

Yet, here we are... Rove says early voting in Ohio is down from 2008... It's actually up. Easily fact checked... But how many FoxNews viewers are going to do that? They aren't twisting the numbers to support a side... They're flat-out changing the numbers, apparently.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the reply. I get and undestand your point. I'm not american and, observing from the outside, I think Obama is the less of two evils. This Ohio thing is indeed easily checked. But I think there are lot of so called "facts" (in favour of Obama or Romney) and "lies" (said by Obama or Romney) by FOX and MSNBC that are in reality subjective and opinion based. And they take advantage of that to push their own agenda.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/us/politics/on-cable-news-networks-a-battle-of-bitterness.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp[/url]

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]I'm not saying it's not true. I was stating that both websites had its headline with news in favour of their favourite candidate.[/QUOTE]

???????

You still really don't know what bias is.

The First Read article is not in favor of a particular candidate. The article exams the demographics of a possible Obama win and a possible Romney win. There's nothing there but straightfoward election analysis. Also the article is written by the straight news folks at NBC, not the opinion hosts from MSNBC.

Hey Longhorn, [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/chart-dump-swings-probability_b_2077997.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster"]pollster has 332 has currently the most likely outcome[/URL] with a 15% chance of happening. 538 gives it a 20% chance of happening.

I dont think this will happen, but I think it will be funny if Obama wins the electoral vote, but Romney wins the popular vote.

It will be funny seeing liberal people I know defend the electoral college when they used to criticise it as undemocratic and seeing republicans I know attack the electoral college when they used to defend it. :oldlol:

Most importantly Obama would still be president.

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]I dont think this will happen, but I think it will be funny if Obama wins the electoral vote, but Romney wins the popular vote.

It will be funny seeing liberal people I know defend the electoral college when they used to criticise it as undemocratic and seeing republicans I know attack the electoral college when they used to defend it. :oldlol:

Most importantly Obama would still be president.[/QUOTE]

538 says
[I]Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college 4.7%[/I]

He doesn't have a listing the other way, he may still be updating or it's a zero percent chance.

He was still updating
[QUOTE]Obama wins popular vote but loses electoral college 0.6%[/QUOTE]

I'm revising my position:

Obama-303
Romney-235

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Obama - 303
Romney - 235[/QUOTE]

Pretty close, thought Florida was gonna go to Romney.

332
206

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I looked at 538 and gave Obama all the states leaning his way plus Florida with is .5% for Romney.

Obama 332
Romney total: 206[/QUOTE]
:applause:

[QUOTE=Droid101]332-206 Obama.

If Obama doesn't win Florida, then it'll be 303-225, which is my second pick.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I looked at 538 and gave Obama all the states leaning his way plus Florida with is .5% for Romney.

Obama 332
Romney total: 206[/QUOTE]

Nicccce :pimp: