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.