January 9th, 2008

dance centipedes vagina

New Hampshire: No darkies please

I'm repeatedly amazed at how stupidly gulliable reporters continue to be about exit polls. They're full of shit, you gibbering morons. I don't care how much you paid for them or how big an industry churns them out. They're not worth crap. How many times do they have to be wrong before you realize this? When the New Hampshire primary closed, the exit polls were predicting a 5 point Obama win. About the only positive thing you can say for that is that the Obama and Clinton in-house polls were even worse. Obama's internals showed him winning by 14 and Clinton's showed him winning by 11. You know why he lost? Because there's a hidden NO NIGGERS vote. It almost makes my skin crawl to say that because I'm sure Al Sharpton or some other race-baiting jackass will be saying exactly the same thing tommorrow. Agreeing with one of those fuckers is like driving an ice pick coated in salt and lemon juice through my eye.

People always want to maintain a good opinion of themselves. That means that what they tell you about who they voted for and who they actually did, sometimes don't match. Oh look how progressive I am. I told the pollster I'm going to vote for the black guy. Get into the damn booth though and it can be a completely different story. Some individuals also don't trust pollsters and will avoid them like the plague. I just can't believe that no one took any of this into consideration beforehand.

Feh. Overall, I'm sort of torn about the whole thing. I think I can deal with an Obama presidency as long as he holds to what he's been claiming in stump speeches. It might be nice to actually get some more bipartisanship going for a while and a little less acrimony. Of course, I also think that Hillary is far more likely to be beaten in novemember, so maybe it'd be better for her to win the nomination. Feh. I guess I should just be happy that there's never going to be any chance Edwards will be elected.
dance centipedes vagina


This is going to be my last word on the NH primary. Actually, last night's entry was supposed to be the last word but I was reading Slate and ran across something that pissed me off a bit. First and foremost, Slate is full of left of center hippies for the most part. It's been a real clash for some of them over who to fawn over when it comes to the democratic primary race. After all, here you have a woman versus a black man. It's like some sort of progressive bukkake-fest.

One of the columns they've started running is the so-called XX-factor. Basically where they get all the women who work for the magazine together to write columns about women's issues. Think of it as The View, but less entertaining. Yes, less entertaining. It's possible, trust me. One of the common threads, of course, is whether women 'owe' their votes to Hillary just because she's supposedly a woman. Frankly, I'm not willing to concede that point without a gyno exam. It wouldn't surprise me if she has a penis and just tucks it up.

Anyway, today was the feminazi refutation of the Bradley Effect:

With all due respect to Chris Matthews, and a few of Slate's very own pundits, I don't buy the theory that the "Bradley Effect" explains why Obama lost New Hampshire—that voters "lied" to pollsters to seem progressive.

Here's why, via Marc Ambinder: "the pre-election polls did NOT overstate Barack Obama's support. He averaged 36.7%, according to Mark Blumenthal's compilations," which is just under his actual piece of the pie—37 percent (with 95 percent of precincts counted).

So, what happened? The people who said they would vote for Obama probably did so, and undecided voters chose Hillary. Big whoop.

This is the most intellectually dishonest piece of shit I have seen in ages. In order to accept this wanton idiocy, you would have to believe that of the undecided voters, NOT EVEN ONE PERCENT CHOSE TO VOTE FOR OBAMA. WTF? Does that seem like a likely proposition? If we believe that any undecideds ended up voting for Obama, then we have to conclude that there was an overcount of his support at some point in the polls.

I guess I should be happy that these hippie wankers are tying themselves into knots as their identity-politics clash, but it just ends up pissing me off. Not like I didn't know they were full of shit from the beginning, but to see it so starkly still gets my blood boiling.
books the giving tree

London Bridges

Just a quick note, I finished James Patteron's London Bridges last night and I'm still a bit stunned at how poorly written and paced it was compared to some of his other works. It felt like a series of disjointed scenes and half of them didn't even make sense. None of the character responses to the plot really seemed genuine, nor did the setting and environment.

I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised really. After so many books, he's just rolling around in the money and it's probably just dialing it in. God knows that's probably what I would be doing. I imagine it's much like Piers Anthony writing his 40th Xanth book or whatever it's up to now. After a while, it's all about the royalties check and considering his fan base, he could probably string random words together and still sell a million copies.

Still, it's sort of disapointing. I was hoping to see if anyone else had read it and had a similar impression. At this point, I've finally finished the entire series except the last two books, both of which I only have on audio format and haven't gotten to. I would have finished over a month ago if it weren't for the fact that I hadn't been able to find my copy of London Bridges. It wasn't until the grand cleaning that it finally resurfaced.

Anyway, if you've read it, let me know. I'd like to bounce some feedback.