Gingrich: Romney will win over 300 electoral votes

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

this isnt my prediction, its gingriches.

i am curious as to what seaoat has to say about this, you know hes a big gingrich fan. so am i

oh, i do happen to agree with him

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

More like a bullshit prediction. Not a snowballs chance in hell even if he does win, which I highly doubt, will he garner 300 electoral votes.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

this isnt my prediction, its gingriches.

i am curious as to what seaoat has to say about this, you know hes a big gingrich fan. so am i

oh, i do happen to agree with him

The question is, are YOU going to keep listening to and accepting the predictions made by him even if they turn out to be way off the mark? Are you going to hold your sources of information accountable?

If they are correct does this give them more credibility in your mind? If they are not correct, will you change your opinion of their value? Will you continue to go to these sources with the same amount of trust as you do now or will this change your opinion of them?

I am expanding the scope of the question from just Newt's thoughts to also include all the sources you may be depending on for data. I don't know who those sources are. Just wondering if they are not very accurate, once we see the votes counted, if you will hold them accountable?

Rogue wrote:
Back in 2000 and 2004 did you stop listening to all the liberal loons in the media?

oh and no one has any credibility with me. I pick and choose and sometimes I read between lines. Some are lies, some are not.

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

this isnt my prediction, its gingriches.

i am curious as to what seaoat has to say about this, you know hes a big gingrich fan. so am i

oh, i do happen to agree with him

The question is, are YOU going to keep listening to and accepting the predictions made by him even if they turn out to be way off the mark? Are you going to hold your sources of information accountable?

If they are correct does this give them more credibility in your mind? If they are not correct, will you change your opinion of their value? Will you continue to go to these sources with the same amount of trust as you do now or will this change your opinion of them?

I am expanding the scope of the question from just Newt's thoughts to also include all the sources you may be depending on for data. I don't know who those sources are. Just wondering if they are not very accurate, once we see the votes counted, if you will hold them accountable?

Back in 2000 and 2004 did you stop listening to all the liberal loons in the media?

oh and no one has any credibility with me. I pick and choose and sometimes I read between lines. Some are lies, some are not.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Rogue wrote:
Back in 2000 and 2004 did you stop listening to all the liberal loons in the media?

oh and no one has any credibility with me. I pick and choose and sometimes I read between lines. Some are lies, some are not.

But unless you have a first hand account of the issue then you have no way of telling what is the truth and what is the lie. It really boils down to nothing more that what one chooses to believe. Other than that it is nothing more than he said - she said. Truth is relative to the hearer.

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

this isnt my prediction, its gingriches.

i am curious as to what seaoat has to say about this, you know hes a big gingrich fan. so am i

oh, i do happen to agree with him

The question is, are YOU going to keep listening to and accepting the predictions made by him even if they turn out to be way off the mark? Are you going to hold your sources of information accountable?

If they are correct does this give them more credibility in your mind? If they are not correct, will you change your opinion of their value? Will you continue to go to these sources with the same amount of trust as you do now or will this change your opinion of them?

I am expanding the scope of the question from just Newt's thoughts to also include all the sources you may be depending on for data. I don't know who those sources are. Just wondering if they are not very accurate, once we see the votes counted, if you will hold them accountable?

Back in 2000 and 2004 did you stop listening to all the liberal loons in the media?

oh and no one has any credibility with me. I pick and choose and sometimes I read between lines. Some are lies, some are not.

*************************************************

Chrissy, You are refusing to respond to OS's question. If Newt's prediction is highly inaccurate would you agree he is full of crapola? Press 1 if you agree press 2 if you think he is full of crapola! Thank you. . . .

Rogue wrote:

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

this isnt my prediction, its gingriches.

i am curious as to what seaoat has to say about this, you know hes a big gingrich fan. so am i

oh, i do happen to agree with him

The question is, are YOU going to keep listening to and accepting the predictions made by him even if they turn out to be way off the mark? Are you going to hold your sources of information accountable?

If they are correct does this give them more credibility in your mind? If they are not correct, will you change your opinion of their value? Will you continue to go to these sources with the same amount of trust as you do now or will this change your opinion of them?

I am expanding the scope of the question from just Newt's thoughts to also include all the sources you may be depending on for data. I don't know who those sources are. Just wondering if they are not very accurate, once we see the votes counted, if you will hold them accountable?

Back in 2000 and 2004 did you stop listening to all the liberal loons in the media?

oh and no one has any credibility with me. I pick and choose and sometimes I read between lines. Some are lies, some are not.

*************************************************

Chrissy, You are refusing to respond to OS's question. If Newt's prediction is highly inaccurate would you agree he is full of crapola? Press 1 if you agree press 2 if you think he is full of crapola! Thank you. . . .

Why would I think he is full of crapola? I think its going to be a blow out too. Its his opinion for gods sake. hes not a damn computer that spits out data at which if gives me worng data I then toss the computer away. Its just a opinion frm a person.

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

this isnt my prediction, its gingriches.

i am curious as to what seaoat has to say about this, you know hes a big gingrich fan. so am i

oh, i do happen to agree with him

The question is, are YOU going to keep listening to and accepting the predictions made by him even if they turn out to be way off the mark? Are you going to hold your sources of information accountable?

If they are correct does this give them more credibility in your mind? If they are not correct, will you change your opinion of their value? Will you continue to go to these sources with the same amount of trust as you do now or will this change your opinion of them?

I am expanding the scope of the question from just Newt's thoughts to also include all the sources you may be depending on for data. I don't know who those sources are. Just wondering if they are not very accurate, once we see the votes counted, if you will hold them accountable?

Back in 2000 and 2004 did you stop listening to all the liberal loons in the media?

oh and no one has any credibility with me. I pick and choose and sometimes I read between lines. Some are lies, some are not.

*************************************************

Chrissy, You are refusing to respond to OS's question. If Newt's prediction is highly inaccurate would you agree he is full of crapola? Press 1 if you agree press 2 if you think he is full of crapola! Thank you. . . .

Why would I think he is full of crapola? I think its going to be a blow out too. Its his opinion for gods sake. hes not a damn computer that spits out data at which if gives me worng data I then toss the computer away. Its just a opinion frm a person.

*********************************************

I agree, it is an opinion from a person so why did it deserve a thread. We could start another about Big Momma next to you on what she thinks and it's value would be the same, agree?

Rogue wrote:

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

this isnt my prediction, its gingriches.

i am curious as to what seaoat has to say about this, you know hes a big gingrich fan. so am i

oh, i do happen to agree with him

The question is, are YOU going to keep listening to and accepting the predictions made by him even if they turn out to be way off the mark? Are you going to hold your sources of information accountable?

If they are correct does this give them more credibility in your mind? If they are not correct, will you change your opinion of their value? Will you continue to go to these sources with the same amount of trust as you do now or will this change your opinion of them?

I am expanding the scope of the question from just Newt's thoughts to also include all the sources you may be depending on for data. I don't know who those sources are. Just wondering if they are not very accurate, once we see the votes counted, if you will hold them accountable?

Back in 2000 and 2004 did you stop listening to all the liberal loons in the media?

oh and no one has any credibility with me. I pick and choose and sometimes I read between lines. Some are lies, some are not.

*************************************************

Chrissy, You are refusing to respond to OS's question. If Newt's prediction is highly inaccurate would you agree he is full of crapola? Press 1 if you agree press 2 if you think he is full of crapola! Thank you. . . .

Why would I think he is full of crapola? I think its going to be a blow out too. Its his opinion for gods sake. hes not a damn computer that spits out data at which if gives me worng data I then toss the computer away. Its just a opinion frm a person.

*********************************************

I agree, it is an opinion from a person so why did it deserve a thread. We could start another about Big Momma next to you on what she thinks and it's value would be the same, agree?

every post we ake is about persons. every single one.

even threads about polls, those are about persons too. They about the people who take them and those who give them and again if we believe them.

dont know why your so concerned about this one.

now I personally would love a thread about big momma. I love me some big momma. Please start one so we can have some laughs for a change.

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

knothead wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:On Fox News last night, Newt Gingrich put forth a bullish prediction, thanks to what he called "The Carville rule" -- which is that the incumbent will only get as many votes as the final poll predicts.

In other words, if there's a poll showing Romney and Obama tied at 47%, the president will end up with 47% and Romney, 53%.



"I believe the minimum result will be 53%-47% [for] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that on just years and years of experience.

.... You start carrying a Wisconsin, Virginia's gonna get sealed off, Florida's gonna get sealed off, North Carolina's already sealed off. As you point out, Michigan's starting to be in play, I think Pennsylvania's starting to be in play
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/10/gingrich-romney-will-win-over-300.html

curious as to what Seaoat has to say about this......

If Gingrich and the other experts you are depending on for you predictions of the election results don't pan out, what will you have to say about them then?

I mean, will these sources loose any credibility for you or will you just continue to bask in the warmth of their opinions even if they turn out to be less than accurate? Is there a penalty for them being wrong? Will their opinions have less weight with you all in the future or will they not be held accountable?

this isnt my prediction, its gingriches.

i am curious as to what seaoat has to say about this, you know hes a big gingrich fan. so am i

oh, i do happen to agree with him

The question is, are YOU going to keep listening to and accepting the predictions made by him even if they turn out to be way off the mark? Are you going to hold your sources of information accountable?

If they are correct does this give them more credibility in your mind? If they are not correct, will you change your opinion of their value? Will you continue to go to these sources with the same amount of trust as you do now or will this change your opinion of them?

I am expanding the scope of the question from just Newt's thoughts to also include all the sources you may be depending on for data. I don't know who those sources are. Just wondering if they are not very accurate, once we see the votes counted, if you will hold them accountable?

Back in 2000 and 2004 did you stop listening to all the liberal loons in the media?

oh and no one has any credibility with me. I pick and choose and sometimes I read between lines. Some are lies, some are not.

*************************************************

Chrissy, You are refusing to respond to OS's question. If Newt's prediction is highly inaccurate would you agree he is full of crapola? Press 1 if you agree press 2 if you think he is full of crapola! Thank you. . . .

Why would I think he is full of crapola? I think its going to be a blow out too. Its his opinion for gods sake. hes not a damn computer that spits out data at which if gives me worng data I then toss the computer away. Its just a opinion frm a person.

*********************************************

I agree, it is an opinion from a person so why did it deserve a thread. We could start another about Big Momma next to you on what she thinks and it's value would be the same, agree?

every post we ake is about persons. every single one.

even threads about polls, those are about persons too. They about the people who take them and those who give them and again if we believe them.

dont know why your so concerned about this one.

now I personally would love a thread about big momma. I love me some big momma. Please start one so we can have some laughs for a change.

*************************************************

Truth be told . . . . I'm just messing with ya! I just might start a thread about Big Momma and you can carry the ball for sure.

Rogue wrote:
Thats ok, im fun to mess with im told.

kind of like riding a mechanical bull, fun to get on, fall off and get back up again and no ones harmed.

please do start a thread about big momma, add madea in there if ya like, love her!

Rogue wrote:
every post we ake is about persons. every single one.

even threads about polls, those are about persons too. They about the people who take them and those who give them and again if we believe them.

dont know why your so concerned about this one.

now I personally would love a thread about big momma. I love me some big momma. Please start one so we can have some laughs for a change.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:
every post we ake is about persons. every single one.

even threads about polls, those are about persons too. They about the people who take them and those who give them and again if we believe them.

dont know why your so concerned about this one.

now I personally would love a thread about big momma. I love me some big momma. Please start one so we can have some laughs for a change.

Broadly put your statement is true, the NYT's and the National Enquirer are both produced by people but the Times has a higher standard of journalistic practices than does the Enquirer.

Since as was pointed out it is not possible for a person to witness every event we are all in the position of depending on others for our news.

My requirement for a valid source of news would be that the information I get from them matches up pretty well with what most people would refer to as the real world. If I was constantly getting "news" that was sooner or later found to be not true, I would start to question that source.

I'm interested in finding out if this is the same for you. Do You hold your news sources accountable? Do you check, do you care?

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:
every post we ake is about persons. every single one.

even threads about polls, those are about persons too. They about the people who take them and those who give them and again if we believe them.

dont know why your so concerned about this one.

now I personally would love a thread about big momma. I love me some big momma. Please start one so we can have some laughs for a change.

Broadly put your statement is true, the NYT's and the National Enquirer are both produced by people but the Times has a higher standard of journalistic practices than does the Enquirer.

Since as was pointed out it is not possible for a person to witness every event we are all in the position of depending on others for our news.

My requirement for a valid source of news would be that the information I get from them matches up pretty well with what most people would refer to as the real world. If I was constantly getting "news" that was sooner or later found to be not true, I would start to question that source.

I'm interested in finding out if this is the same for you. Do You hold your news sources accountable? Do you check, do you care?

Theres only one problem OS with your statement. Gingrich's comment isnt news, beause it hasnt happened yet. Its a opinion. so no, im no going to hold him in a bad light if his opinion is wrong.

as far as news, I search the world over for news. I may read news from portugal or germany, all over. Its all news with a whole bunch of opinions stuck in the delivery of it. aka spin.

You seem to want a yes or no answer to this and I dont have one for it. I veiw it more complex than just yes and no. I dont often throw babies out with the bath water either.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:
every post we ake is about persons. every single one.

even threads about polls, those are about persons too. They about the people who take them and those who give them and again if we believe them.

dont know why your so concerned about this one.

now I personally would love a thread about big momma. I love me some big momma. Please start one so we can have some laughs for a change.

Broadly put your statement is true, the NYT's and the National Enquirer are both produced by people but the Times has a higher standard of journalistic practices than does the Enquirer.

Since as was pointed out it is not possible for a person to witness every event we are all in the position of depending on others for our news.

My requirement for a valid source of news would be that the information I get from them matches up pretty well with what most people would refer to as the real world. If I was constantly getting "news" that was sooner or later found to be not true, I would start to question that source.

I'm interested in finding out if this is the same for you. Do You hold your news sources accountable? Do you check, do you care?

Theres only one problem OS with your statement. Gingrich's comment isnt news, beause it hasnt happened yet. Its a opinion. so no, im no going to hold him in a bad light if his opinion is wrong.

as far as news, I search the world over for news. I may read news from portugal or germany, all over. Its all news with a whole bunch of opinions stuck in the delivery of it. aka spin.

You seem to want a yes or no answer to this and I dont have one for it. I veiw it more complex than just yes and no. I dont often throw babies out with the bath water either.

There's nothing complex about OS's question. What you're essentially saying is if someone said it.. must be true. Or maybe it's your intuition it's true. LOL!

Rogue wrote:
Theres only one problem OS with your statement. Gingrich's comment isnt news, beause it hasnt happened yet. Its a opinion. so no, im no going to hold him in a bad light if his opinion is wrong.

as far as news, I search the world over for news. I may read news from portugal or germany, all over. Its all news with a whole bunch of opinions stuck in the delivery of it. aka spin.

You seem to want a yes or no answer to this and I dont have one for it. I veiw it more complex than just yes and no. I dont often throw babies out with the bath water either.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:
Theres only one problem OS with your statement. Gingrich's comment isnt news, beause it hasnt happened yet. Its a opinion. so no, im no going to hold him in a bad light if his opinion is wrong.

as far as news, I search the world over for news. I may read news from portugal or germany, all over. Its all news with a whole bunch of opinions stuck in the delivery of it. aka spin.

You seem to want a yes or no answer to this and I dont have one for it. I veiw it more complex than just yes and no. I dont often throw babies out with the bath water either.

Because it hasn't happened yet...? The point being that some predictions will pan out to be more accurate than others and they are being reported by the media via news programs.

I love your Sarah Palin answer about reading news from all over the world.

Still when you read the global press, you do have to give some sources more credence than others. This may be an unconscious evaluation but somewhere along the line you decide what to keep and what to throw out. We can see this by what you end up posting.

We all do this, it's not just you. We all cull through the barrage of information available from the many sources we have these days.

I'm just wondering if anyone's data gathering habits are going to be modified if they are shown to be poor at predicting the outcome of this election. This is a question for everyone/anyone who cares to chime in.

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:
Theres only one problem OS with your statement. Gingrich's comment isnt news, beause it hasnt happened yet. Its a opinion. so no, im no going to hold him in a bad light if his opinion is wrong.

as far as news, I search the world over for news. I may read news from portugal or germany, all over. Its all news with a whole bunch of opinions stuck in the delivery of it. aka spin.

You seem to want a yes or no answer to this and I dont have one for it. I veiw it more complex than just yes and no. I dont often throw babies out with the bath water either.

Because it hasn't happened yet...? The point being that some predictions will pan out to be more accurate than others and they are being reported by the media via news programs.

I love your Sarah Palin answer about reading news from all over the world.

Still when you read the global press, you do have to give some sources more credence than others. This may be an unconscious evaluation but somewhere along the line you decide what to keep and what to throw out. We can see this by what you end up posting.

We all do this, it's not just you. We all cull through the barrage of information available from the many sources we have these days.

I'm just wondering if anyone's data gathering habits are going to be modified if they are shown to be poor at predicting the outcome of this election. This is a question for everyone/anyone who cares to chime in.

You just want something to bitch about. I can see a bitchy woman for a mile coming.

I do read a variety of news, articles, magazines, oline publications. I probaly have a larger variety then just about anyone on this forum.

Sorry you didnt like my answer. All I can do is be honest.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:
Theres only one problem OS with your statement. Gingrich's comment isnt news, beause it hasnt happened yet. Its a opinion. so no, im no going to hold him in a bad light if his opinion is wrong.

as far as news, I search the world over for news. I may read news from portugal or germany, all over. Its all news with a whole bunch of opinions stuck in the delivery of it. aka spin.

You seem to want a yes or no answer to this and I dont have one for it. I veiw it more complex than just yes and no. I dont often throw babies out with the bath water either.

Because it hasn't happened yet...? The point being that some predictions will pan out to be more accurate than others and they are being reported by the media via news programs.

I love your Sarah Palin answer about reading news from all over the world.

Still when you read the global press, you do have to give some sources more credence than others. This may be an unconscious evaluation but somewhere along the line you decide what to keep and what to throw out. We can see this by what you end up posting.

We all do this, it's not just you. We all cull through the barrage of information available from the many sources we have these days.

I'm just wondering if anyone's data gathering habits are going to be modified if they are shown to be poor at predicting the outcome of this election. This is a question for everyone/anyone who cares to chime in.

You just want something to bitch about. I can see a bitchy woman for a mile coming.

I do read a variety of news, articles, magazines, oline publications. I probaly have a larger variety then just about anyone on this forum.

Sorry you didnt like my answer. All I can do is be honest.

At the risk of...



Okay, you're being honest about your variety of reading material. Still there is a culling out process going on by which you decide which of these sources to agree with.
How do you decide which reports to go with or deem credible?

Let me say how I decide which sources to give credence to: I go by the sources track record. If the source reports story after story and the facts hold up over time then I know they have credibility.

If I read or hear story after story from a media outlet that does not stand the test of time then I avoid the nonsense and go to more trusted sources. To be clear, by standing the test of time I mean that compared with many other sources also over time the story proves to be true, to agree with reality.

I'm still wondering if you will change your appraisal of sources who are giving you information that proves less than useful.

Let me just ask if you and/or all the others who claim to think mittens will win will re-evaluate your choice of news reports if in fact he does not win?