Posted by tecwrg on 9/14/2015 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/14/2015 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/14/2015 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 9/14/2015 2:07:00 PM (view original):
If you believe California has a chance of being won by a Republican in 2016, please find someplace else to display your ignorance.

Seeing that we don't know who the Democratic or Republican candidates will be on the ballot, it's kind of silly to be able to say with any level of confidence what the electoral results will be.

No it isn't. We know, on the Democratic side, that the nominee is probably Clinton. We know, based on polling, that Clinton will probably beat any of the likely GOP nominees.

Saying that it's likely that the state will go blue in 2016 is a reasonable opinion.

Saying that we couldn't possibly guess which party will carry California in 2016 is the work of a low-power cranium.

A lot can change in 10 months.  Clinton's campaign could implode over something already on the table, or over something completely new or currently unknown that comes up between now and the Democratic convention.

So despite your seemingly strong desire that Hillary's your girl in '16, she has so much political baggage that I wouldn't call her a lock just yet.

Anything could happen.

We're talking about likely outcomes. The most likely outcome is that CA goes blue.

Do you agree or disagree?

I don't make predictions based on unknowns.

That's kind of a dumbass thing to do.  But, hey.  It's you.

PAGE 4!!!!!

Posted by tecwrg on 9/14/2015 3:06:00 PM (view original):
I don't make predictions based on unknowns.

That's kind of a dumbass thing to do.  But, hey.  It's you.

All predictions involve unknowns.

That's why they're called "predictions" and not "lists of things that already happened."

Posted by tecwrg on 9/14/2015 3:06:00 PM (view original):
I don't make predictions based on unknowns.

That's kind of a dumbass thing to do.  But, hey.  It's you.

EARWIG LOST IT HERE


CLOSED

Posted by bad_luck on 9/14/2015 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/14/2015 3:06:00 PM (view original):
I don't make predictions based on unknowns.

That's kind of a dumbass thing to do.  But, hey.  It's you.

All predictions involve unknowns.

That's why they're called "predictions" and not "lists of things that already happened."

Even your gal thinks I won this argument.

Literally no one, including you, thinks you won this argument.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/14/2015 10:31:00 AM (view original):
So you don't disagree that California will probably go blue, you just don't like that I didn't qualify "will" with "probably" or "likely?"

Is the stick up your *** permanent or do you usually take it out on weekends?

This.

tec, I hate to agree with the plethora of libs around here but I think CA is one of those states that burn one and say "Huh huh.  Where's the "vote Dem" button, bro?"

Hitler could rise from the grave, establish CA residence, put his name on the Dem ballot and beat a Republican.

They're not too bright in CA.

Maybe tec will be willing to bet on the results in California if you give him odds.

Posted by genghisxcon on 9/14/2015 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Maybe tec will be willing to bet on the results in California if you give him odds.

He isn't arguing that CA will go red. Or blue.

He's upset that I predicted CA would go blue.

ONLY MAKE PREDICTIONS ON THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED, NOT WHAT WILL HAPPEN?

EARWIG IS AN IDIOT.

That's why I suggested giving him odds. 2 to 1 should do, if it's as up in the air as he seems to think. 

With genhis bringing his special brand of dumbassery to the subject, we're making 5 pages before 9 PM EST!!!

IT'S LIKE THE WHOLE RAIDER NATION IS HERE!