Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »
1   BayArea   ignore (1)   2016 Nov 13, 4:35pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

for every one of these stories, there are 10 stating that some super predictor with XX years of nailing the results picked Hillary.

Remember, there were two candidates with any real chance of winning. Two choices. Thus it's not so surprising when some predictors got it right lol

2   indigenous   ignore (0)   2016 Nov 13, 4:52pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BayArea says

for every one of these stories, there are 10 stating that some super predictor with XX years of nailing the results picked Hillary.

Remember, there were two candidates with any real chance of winning. Two choices. Thus it's not so surprising when some predictors got it right lol

None of them have been 100% correct since 96, none of them can be back tested to 1900 with 100% accuracy save one election in 1960.

You might want to actually read the article...

3   Tenpoundbass   ignore (16)   2016 Nov 13, 5:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This guy did come out way earlier in the election with his prediction. CNN just decided to report Nate Silver and only Nate Silver as the indisputed King of Poll phish hooks.

4   HEY YOU   ignore (8)   2016 Nov 13, 5:56pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Let's let right wing nutz wish he wasn't right.

BOYCOTT Rep/Con/Teas!

5   indigenous   ignore (0)   2016 Nov 13, 7:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BTW 1960 is when Kennedy bought the election. Maybe dead people don't vote in primaries?


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions