Then stop responding to my posts.

I am just trying to figure out the kind of evidence you view as valuable. You asked me for polls from reputable sources, like Gallup. I gave it to you, then you said that wasn't the kind of evidence you were after. You demanded better polls. I gave you yet another. You flatly said you don't accept it (no real reason given, other than it didn't comport with your views). Then you decided that a columnist expressing his opinion on a different topic (i.e. a "poll" of one), was the exact kind of evidence that you accepted. I am just trying to work with you here. Help me help you. Would you feel better if I found a columnist from USA Today who said the debates mattered? I can see why that would matter to you.

Why? Am I not entitled to amusement?

Hellooo, straw man.

Hello, man without any support for his statements.

Looks like the 3rd debate really did have an impact.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081022/D93VPI9O0.html

Good. We agree you were wrong about it not having an impact. We can next agree you were wrong about it helping Mccain. I look forward to our future agreement.

Just so we're clear, the only debate I said had no impact was the 2nd.

bump.

NC still hasn't been called (on CNN), but clearly it was more in contention than I thought.

bump.

It really IS amusing!

No offense intended Cali, but no one likes a sore winner.

I expressed doubt about Obama winning NC in 2008, and I was wrong by 0.3%.

This year, I'm feeling a little more confident.