181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 347:
Line 347: +
Talk:United States presidential election, 2012 (view source)
Revision as of 05:17, February 10, 2012
, 05:17, February 10, 2012→Predictions
:::Predictions should change over time, taking into account new developments. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:12, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::Predictions should change over time, taking into account new developments. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:12, 9 February 2012 (EST)
::::"''If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it.''" If you will follow the links in my initial post, you will see that I linked to the "diffs" of the various seemingly contradictory predictions you have made. At the time of this writing, this page states that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee. While this site's "proven right" page takes credit for accurately predicting Newt Gingrich to be the eventual nominee (an event that hasn't even actually occurred). I'm not sure how I could make it any clearer. Also, if Newt fails to get the nomination (or any other Conservapedia prediction fail to pass, will a [[Conservapedia proven wrong]] page be created? Otherwise how can readers gauge this site's overall predictive accuracy, if they have no hit-to-miss data? Anyway, I enjoy the site, and keep up the great work! --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:17, 10 February 2012 (EST)