Good ole Faux News.

Less than 1% and they are already predicting a winner? Typical Faux News.

Of course, a Mormon leading by a large in a highly Evangelical Christian state is odd too.

That's so wrong on so many levels. A disgrace actually.

Hint: Take a look at the current popular vote -- even the popular vote in the bottom right hand corner of the screen -- then look back at their graphic .....

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Hint: Take a look at the current popular vote -- even the popular vote in the bottom right hand corner of the screen -- then look back at their graphic .....

Gotcha. They show Huckabilly in the one and Paul(with more votes) in the other. I should have known it had to do with Paul.

I don't have a problem with who they showed. They were focusing on the ones that had, you know, actually won a state so far.

They did call it way to early IMO though.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I don't have a problem with who they showed. They were focusing on the ones that had, you know, actually won a state so far.

They did call it way to early IMO though.

You missed it(so did I at first). THe main picture completely leaves off the third place position(Paul-who Faux can't stand) but adds Faux's and the Christian Rights wet dream candidate-Huckabilly.

You know they're pissed Paul is gonna take second in Nevada tonight. :)

I bet this what we'll hear all night:
- Romney wins ... now onto the Dems ...
- Romney first, Paul ties McCain for 2nd with 13%. (It's not a tie, look at the popular vote you tool)
- Romney first, McCain and Huckabee trail ...

Hey! Actual fair coverage!

RobertN Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I don't have a problem with who they showed. They were focusing on the ones that had, you know, actually won a state so far.

They did call it way to early IMO though.

You missed it(so did I at first). THe main picture completely leaves off the third place position(Paul-who Faux can't stand) but adds Faux's and the Christian Rights wet dream candidate-Huckabilly.

No I didn't. I'll state again, they focused on candidates that had actually won a state. Romney in Michigan, McCain in NH and Huckabee in Iowa. The most likely candidates to actually win the nomination.

Can I spot whats wrong?.....GTFOOH:muttering:

maybe they were naming the people still with a shot at the election?

RobertN Wrote:Less than 1% and they are already predicting a winner?

It's not hard at all to predict a winner with less than 1% of the vote counted, if it's the right 1% - and didn't Romney win anyway?

Quote:Of course, a Mormon leading by a large in a highly Evangelical Christian state is odd too.

Not when that state has one of the highest proportions of Mormons in the country. The casinos just love to employ Mormons, as over the years they've gained a reputation for being very honest people.

Jonathan Sadow Wrote:[

Quote:Of course, a Mormon leading by a large in a highly Evangelical Christian state is odd too.

Not when that state has one of the highest proportions of Mormons in the country. The casinos just love to employ Mormons, as over the years they've gained a reputation for being very honest people.

I meant to go back and delete that. I had SC in my mind when I wrote that even though I knew it was Nevada on the screen.