Whew!

(Note: I wrote this the day after the election but haven't gotten to post it 'till today because the hurricane knocked out my access to the World Wide Tubes. That's all fixed now so I'm back to surfing the tubes like it wasn't shit!)

I tend to be a pessimist and a worrier. The thought of the Republicons gaining more power and control of government made me feel ill. At times during the campaign season it seemed possible that the Recons could actually take control of the Presidency, the Senate, the House and thus, the Supreme Court. Even after the results of the election, just writing those words fills me with dread.
I never felt confident about how things would turn out even when Obama had what seemed like a comfortable lead.

Like most pessimist/worriers I tend not to be a gloater. But after the results of the election began to sink in, I just couldn’t help the feeling of satisfaction that began to dominate my mood as I thought about all those pompous blowhards on the right who were telling us how the pollsters were purposely manipulating the data in order to discourage Republicons from going to the polls.
It is an obvious and accepted fact among most conservatives that all polling organizations (just like the media and every other institution that has the ability to present information that displeases conservatives) are liberal hacks that will do anything in order to get Obama elected. The only exceptions to this rule are the Rasmussen polls and Fox News. Conservatives know that they can trust these two organizations because they consistently report the news that supports conservatives’ emotional biases.

These pompous blowhards were telling us that the methodology these polling organizations were using was wrong because they weren’t producing the kind of data that conservatives wanted to hear. They were absolutely certain that more people wanted to vote for Romney and that fact would be proven on Election Day. So, at the same time they were hysterically accusing the pollsters of making Obama win the election, they were guaranteeing that the pollsters were wrong and Romney would win. Some of these obnoxious jerks, like Dickhead Morris, were so sure of themselves that they predicted with absolute certitude that Romney would win by a landslide.

No one promotes the idea that polls are always fixed in favor of Democrats as much as right-wing radio windbag, Rush Dimbulb. One of his very favorite and often used conspiracy theories is that the pollsters, who are always liberal (except for Rasmussen), purposely alter the data in order to make things look good for Dems and bad for Recons in order to discourage Republiconservative voters. This theory is very useful whenever Recons are down in the polls. This is why, every election cycle, he tells his audience not to believe the polls if they don’t favor Recons.

As conservatives were feeling the angst from seeing Romney’s temporary lead melt away just before the election, Rush was telling his audience not only to disbelieve the polls (after saying ‘I told you so’ when Romney pulled ahead) but not to listen to any of the other bad news that had been coming out and that the only information they could trust was from him and Fox News. Mr. Dimbulb said this within minutes of telling his audience that one of the many, many things wrong with liberals is how they live in an information bubble. Really. He actually said that. On his Nov. 6 show.
How does that saying go? None are so blind as those who will not see?

Rush never explained why having Romney down wouldn’t motivate conservatives more, not less, or why having Obama comfortably ahead wouldn’t make Dems and libs complacent and less likely to bother to vote, thus benefiting Romney. He also never explained why the pollsters suddenly put Romney ahead after the first debate, thus validating what the entire ‘liberal media’ was saying relentlessly about Obama’s ‘terrible’ and ‘pathetic’ performance. That must have been discouraging to Dems and libs. Then Gallup had Romney up by 7 points with just a few weeks left, allowing the pundits to point out that no presidential candidate had ever lost after being up by that much that close to the election. You’d think that would devastate Obama supporters’ motivation.
Why would the ‘in the tank for Obama,’ liberally biased pollsters do such a thing?

Another question: why would a polling organization, which is in the business of predicting polls and competes against all the other Polls, not want to be the most accurate organization?
Rush’s answer: __________________________________ .
Hmmmm.

Also left unexplained was how Rush could be telling his audience that the pollsters were fixing the election for Obama by dampening conservative enthusiasm while at the same time telling them that conservative voters were much more enthusiastic about voting than libs because they knew they were right about everything and would never allow a socialist like Obama to take away their freedoms by forcing his malignant liberal policies on the American people (who, by the way, just voted Obama in for his second term.)

Interesting thing about that Gallup poll. I was reading an article in the New York Times about how Gallup (seemingly in response to the conservative critics) had changed their methodology to give more weight to the factors that conservatives wanted. In the end, Gallup and Rasmussen, the only polls that Rush said could be trusted, were off by the most.

Also, right before the election, all the polls had it practically tied (at least within the margin of error.) So you’d think that would make it a fair fight, wouldn’t you, Rush? How do you explain the results now, Rush?

Well, I listened to Rush’s show today and he suggested voter fraud.
Ah, ha ha ha.
Did Limbag just call that army of patriotic poll watchers a bunch of incompetent boobs?

So, as loathe as I am to gloat, I just can’t help myself with these jerks.