Hillary Goes For The Kill - Iowa

[SixPackInBoxers]

Now that I am able to see the new graph (I was unable to see it or visit the web site for some season), the graph did not have the last point added when I posted it. And what I didn't realize, it uses only the data from Zogby. Focusing on one poll will not paint a clear picture. Hence the reason I presented the second chart above which uses data from multiple polling sources.

Oh what a tangled web you weave. Now that you are suddenly able to see the graph you previously posted, you

didn't realize, it uses only the data from Zogby.

There is a lot you don't seem to realize.

But it is interesting before you realized that it was only a graph of the Zogby poll, which you had posted, it nevertheless was amazingly

the reason I presented the second chart above which uses data from multiple polling sources.

But when you first posted the second graph above you said something else

For some reason the graphic is no longer coming up, but I found graph which shows the same trend using similar polling data

Ah, a different reason.

Another little bit of a misrepresentation? The first was a graph of the Zogby polls and the other one you posted was you state

using similar polling data

Not quite. One is a graph of one polling organisation and the second one is a composite of polling organisations. Hardly similar data, was it?

But, presto, now you tell us that - not what previously claimed. That it is in fact compiled

from multiple polling sources

Ah! Haven’t you by now got completely tangled up in your own web?

You have lost some of us old bumpkins about now.

Which of your whirling dervish posts, landing here there and everywhere, are actually what we are supposed to be seeing – or are we just supposed to ask where the last turn-about came from and wait for a few more whirls and see where you land the next time?

You really ought to learn the Hillary two step, which while confusing as Hell for some of us not as good at opening our mouth to change feet, it is less so than this twisting dervish of yours.

I am not clear as to how we are supposed to take any of your whirlings – perhaps they are not the funny peculiar that some of us thought they were - but funny ha-ha?

Ah ha!

Well, at least you and I are in complete agreement about your posts, whatever purpose they are supposed to serve, as sure being misleading and that they do

not paint a clear picture

 

[lancelva]

^There you go again--creating a conflict when none exists. The graph changed apparently changed after I posted it. For a couple of days, I couldn't access to site and the image just showed a red "x" so I couldn't respond to your allegations.

Just like your allegations about Senator Clinton's "drop" in the polls, these claims that you have repeatedly made about me are baseless.

If you would like to have a substantive discussion about the Democratic candidates, I would be more than happy to participate. But it seems like you have adopted the strategy of your candidate to launch misleading attacks on those who disagree with you.

 

[RandomAccess]

No, Sir, I am not calling you that. I am sure that you are not. But could it be that you were perhaps led to mistakenly look at the wrong coloured line after Lancelva's misleading post? Think that might have been possible?

No. I'm telling you, the November points WERE NOT THERE when Lance posted that chart. I'm a former economist, I think I know how to read a fucking line graph.

How else could we have both seen two different graphs? And I had seen the graph both before and after he posted it. If you go back and read this thread from the top you can read my posts and Lancelva's and you can form your own opinion as to who is posting correctly and who is not. Who is spinning incorrect information?

As I suggested before, hyperlinks attach to data which is subject to change. It changed AFTER Lance posted it.
And you can go ahead and spin the shit outta this one, as you're so prone to do, but to call Lance's honesty (and by association, my own) into question is beyond the pale. Your resistance to reason is really getting annoying.