• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scholar's “13 Keys” Predict Another Obama Win

Conservative said:
Yes I read the article, these results were generated after adding 4 trillion dollars to the debt and we still have these numbers. That is liberalism
Click to expand...
Please explain how an increase in the debt caused more people into poverty.
 
liblady said:
as usual, no civil conversation with you.
Click to expand...

Apparently civil conversation with you means agreeing with you and I cannot do that based upon the facts, logic, and common sense. Why would anyone support re-election of Obama with the results he has generated?
 
pbrauer said:
Please explain how an increase in the debt caused more people into poverty.
Click to expand...

Spending all that money and we get these kind of results? You don't have a problem with that? Seems that results don't matter to a liberal who only want to spend in the name of compassion yet getting compassionate results never seems to be part of the equation.
 
pbrauer said:
Please explain how an increase in the debt caused more people into poverty.
Click to expand...
Well with that kind of debt, I guess people are skiddish about the economy, don't invest or expand businesses and therefore less new jobs. Businesses going out of business as the same time is part of the natural business cycle. So these people can't find jobs. Without jobs they become poor.
 
Conservative said:
Yes I read the article, these results were generated after adding 4 trillion dollars to the debt and we still have these numbers. That is liberalism
Click to expand...

You neglected to answer how less than 1% change in the poverty rate caused by the Bush Recession would change the keys. If you can not stay on topic your posts will be ignored.
 
Catawba said:
You neglected to answer how less than 1% change in the poverty rate caused by the Bush Recession would change the keys. If you can not stay on topic your posts will be ignored.
Click to expand...
Must be on topic, you didn't ignore it.
 
Catawba said:
You neglected to answer how less than 1% change in the poverty rate caused by the Bush Recession would change the keys. If you can not stay on topic your posts will be ignored.
Click to expand...

1% represents a small number but a lot of people and that wasn't supposed to happen with Obama taking charge. Just like a 2% increase in the unemployment rate increased the number of unemployed by almost 3 million people so small percentages mean big numbers. Keep promoting the percentage change numbers and not the actual numbers of real people.
 
Conservative said:
Spending all that money and we get these kind of results? You don't have a problem with that? Seems that results don't matter to a liberal who only want to spend in the name of compassion yet getting compassionate results never seems to be part of the equation.
Click to expand...
President Bush doubled the debt, so didn't he create poverty? I don't believe either you or most conservatives worry about poverty, unless its next door.
American said:
Well with that kind of debt, I guess people are skiddish about the economy, don't invest or expand businesses and therefore less new jobs. Businesses going out of business as the same time is part of the natural business cycle. So these people can't find jobs. Without jobs they become poor.
Click to expand...
Who was President in 2008 when we started losing all those jobs?:roll:
 
pbrauer said:
President Bush doubled the debt, so didn't he create poverty? I don't believe either you or most conservatives worry about poverty, unless its next door.
Click to expand...


And of course it would not negatively affect any of keys for Obama.
 
pbrauer said:
President Bush doubled the debt, so didn't he create poverty? I don't believe either you or most conservatives worry about poverty, unless its next door.

Who was President in 2008 when we started losing all those jobs?:roll:
Click to expand...

Bush doubled the debt in 8 years some of that due to 9/11 and Katrina but too much, Obama has added 4 trillion in less than 3 years.

I am not going there with you any more because you cannot change the mind of the brainwashed. Obama was in the Congress in 2008 and took over the Presidency in 2009, the unemployment numbers in 2008 are the responsibility of the Congress and the President just like they are in 2009-2010-2011
 
Conservative said:
Bush doubled the debt in 8 years some of that due to 9/11 and Katrina but too much, Obama has added 4 trillion in less than 3 years.

I am not going there with you any more because you cannot change the mind of the brainwashed. Obama was in the Congress in 2008 and took over the Presidency in 2009, the unemployment numbers in 2008 are the responsibility of the Congress and the President just like they are in 2009-2010-2011
Click to expand...
He's going to vote for a loser whether reelected or retired. Pete isn't interested in positive results, but merely winning elections.
 
American said:
He's going to vote for a loser whether reelected or retired. Pete isn't interested in positive results, but merely winning elections.
Click to expand...

Maybe the problem is "Pete" lives in Oregon and just doesn't get the news there so he doesn't know what is going on in the country. He is so used to poor liberal results that the national results don't phase him.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The personal crap ends now, and the thread needs to get on topic.
 
With another successful prediction of presidential winner, the 13 Keys to the White House prediction model retains its unbroken record of correct predictions!!!!!
 
Catawba said:
With another successful prediction of presidential winner, the 13 Keys to the White House prediction model retains its unbroken record of correct predictions!!!!!
Click to expand...

Except when it failed in 2000. The keys still suck.

And it is really easy to guess these elections
1984: Reagan won by 18% and 500 electoral vote
1988: Bush won by 8% and 300 electoral vote
1992: Clinton won by 5.5% and 200 electoral votes
1996: Clinton won by 9% and 200 electoral votes
2000: Bush won by -0.4% and 5 electoral votes
2004: Bush won by 2.4% and 35 electoral votes
2008: Obama won by 7% and 200 electoral votes
2012: Obama won by 4% and 140 electoral votes

With the exception of 2000 and 2004 the elections were really easy to predict and it failed on one of them. Of course when that happends they came up with two explanations. One is, Gore won the popular vote. The other is that the third party key turned against him. But these explanations are contridictary. If one of them is true, then the other explanation will make the prediction false again. And my guess is that they would have proclaimed another successful prediction if it turned different. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
Except when it failed in 2000. The keys still suck.

And it is really easy to guess these elections
1984: Reagan won by 18% and 500 electoral vote
1988: Bush won by 8% and 300 electoral vote
1992: Clinton won by 5.5% and 200 electoral votes
1996: Clinton won by 9% and 200 electoral votes
2000: Bush won by -0.4% and 5 electoral votes
2004: Bush won by 2.4% and 35 electoral votes
2008: Obama won by 7% and 200 electoral votes
2012: Obama won by 4% and 140 electoral votes

With the exception of 2000 and 2004 the elections were really easy to predict and it failed on one of them. Of course when that happends they came up with two explanations. One is, Gore won the popular vote. The other is that the third party key turned against him. But these explanations are contridictary. If one of them is true, then the other explanation will make the prediction false again. And my guess is that they would have proclaimed another successful prediction if it turned different. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...



If creating your own little history makes you happy, the above storyline you made up should work well for you.

The facts show Al Gore won the popular vote with 48.38% of the popular vote and Bush got 47.87%.
Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary — Infoplease.com

Since the "13 Keys" are designed to predict the popular vote and not the electoral college vote, they called that one correct as they have called all the others.

If it was so easy, name any other group or person who is on record as having correctly predicted every one correctly from 84 - 2012?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
If creating your own little history makes you happy, the above storyline you made up should work well for you.

The facts show Al Gore won the popular vote with 48.38% of the popular vote and Bush got 47.87%.
Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary — Infoplease.com

Since the "13 Keys" are designed to predict the popular vote and not the electoral college vote, they called that one correct as they have called all the others.

If it was so easy, name any other group or person who is on record as having correctly predicted every one correctly from 84 - 2012?
Click to expand...

I heard about plenty of groups/people who had predicted correctly since some year and they were predicting Obama to win this election.

And this change to popular vote was done after, not before. And as mentioned the two excuses are contridictary.

I don't really mind this survey. It is a nice way to find out who will win, but don't take is as the word of God, okay? And don't say it is flawless when they just changed the definition after failing in 2000.
 
Camlon said:
I heard about plenty of groups/people who had predicted correctly since some year and they were predicting Obama to win this election.

And this change to popular vote was done after, not before. And as mentioned the two excuses are contridictary.

I don't really mind this survey. It is a nice way to find out who will win, but don't take is as the word of God, okay? And don't say it is flawless when they just changed the definition after failing in 2000.
Click to expand...


No one has suggested that it is "the word of God" as you say. It is simply the only system that I know of that is documented to have predicted the popular vote for every president since 1984.

If you know of another, post it on up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom