Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Romney would have WON the ELECTION if he had PICKED MARCO RUBIO
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan C
Nov 26, 2012, 2:33:38 PM11/26/12
to
There is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that if Romney had picked Marco
Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON THE HISPANIC VOTE
With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON FLORIDA
HISPANIC VOTE + FLORIDA = ROMNEY ELECTION LANDSLIDE VICTORY OVER OBAMA
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he tried to learn COBOL.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg
Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON THE HISPANIC VOTE
With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON FLORIDA
HISPANIC VOTE + FLORIDA = ROMNEY ELECTION LANDSLIDE VICTORY OVER OBAMA
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he tried to learn COBOL.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg
Lee L. Curtis
Nov 26, 2012, 2:51:37 PM11/26/12
to
Dan C wrote:
> There is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that if Romney had picked Marco
> Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
>
> With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON THE HISPANIC VOTE
> With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON FLORIDA
>
Most hispanic voters are women, and hispanic
> There is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that if Romney had picked Marco
> Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
>
> With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON THE HISPANIC VOTE
> With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON FLORIDA
>
women are turned off by the GOP war on women AND
the GOP war on minorities.
Dan C
Nov 26, 2012, 3:10:20 PM11/26/12
to
EVERY TIME:
Ask any 10 people at work or school, or at church, or at the grocery
store:
If Romney had picked Rubio to be his running mate, who would have won
the election?
8 out of 10 people say Romney EVERY TIME. But don't take my word for
it, TRY IT YOURSELF, 8 OUT OF 10 EVERY TIME.
boardirector
Nov 26, 2012, 3:12:16 PM11/26/12
to
"Lee L. Curtis" wrote in message
news:B8-dnZY8S4PUVS7N...@giganews.com...
The Quartermaster says;
The republicans would have won the election if they would have
nominated Gingrich. He would have made Obama look like the fool he is.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"If you need a handout, look at the end of you arm, not at my
paycheck."
The Quartermaster
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 26, 2012, 3:29:19 PM11/26/12
to
"Dan C" wrote in message
news:f4ad3679-cb52-46d1...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
There is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that if Romney had picked Marco
Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON THE HISPANIC VOTE
With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON FLORIDA
HISPANIC VOTE + FLORIDA = ROMNEY ELECTION LANDSLIDE VICTORY OVER OBAMA
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
Along the same line of reasoning, if the Republican party had not positioned
itself over recent years to be the party of exclusion but rather the party
of inclusion, there is no doubt that the Republicans would have won this
election easily.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/08/omalley-republicans-are-a-party-of-exclusion-133231.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yuna-shin/mike-duncans-silence-and_b_150445.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/for-me-the-party-is-over_b_470793.html
Allow me to ask you a very, very simple question as to the inclusiveness of
the Republican Party. This is a strictly "Yes" or "No" question which the
likes here of "max headroom" and "Klaus Schadenfreude" were utterly unable
to answer "Yes" or "No" and instead weaved, ducked, threw out non sequiturs,
made like dictionary academicians, and evaded for all their worth.
"Does Romney - and by extension, the Republican party - include gays, pro
choice folks, and supporters of the single payer health system in his 100%?
Yes or no?"
news:f4ad3679-cb52-46d1...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
There is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that if Romney had picked Marco
Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON THE HISPANIC VOTE
With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON FLORIDA
HISPANIC VOTE + FLORIDA = ROMNEY ELECTION LANDSLIDE VICTORY OVER OBAMA
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
Along the same line of reasoning, if the Republican party had not positioned
itself over recent years to be the party of exclusion but rather the party
of inclusion, there is no doubt that the Republicans would have won this
election easily.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/08/omalley-republicans-are-a-party-of-exclusion-133231.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yuna-shin/mike-duncans-silence-and_b_150445.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/for-me-the-party-is-over_b_470793.html
Allow me to ask you a very, very simple question as to the inclusiveness of
the Republican Party. This is a strictly "Yes" or "No" question which the
likes here of "max headroom" and "Klaus Schadenfreude" were utterly unable
to answer "Yes" or "No" and instead weaved, ducked, threw out non sequiturs,
made like dictionary academicians, and evaded for all their worth.
"Does Romney - and by extension, the Republican party - include gays, pro
choice folks, and supporters of the single payer health system in his 100%?
Yes or no?"
Dan C
Nov 26, 2012, 3:50:28 PM11/26/12
to
On Nov 26, 3:46 pm, PETER SHORTS <petersh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> i asked everyone at work. no one knew who rubio is.
They will by 2016 Mr Shorts, by 2016....
RUBIO/BACHMANN IN 2016
They will by 2016 Mr Shorts, by 2016....
RUBIO/BACHMANN IN 2016
BIG BIRD
Nov 26, 2012, 4:03:02 PM11/26/12
to
"Dan C" <acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4ad3679-cb52-46d1...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
: There is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that if Romney had picked Marco
: Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
:
: With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON THE HISPANIC VOTE
: With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON FLORIDA
:
: HISPANIC VOTE + FLORIDA = ROMNEY ELECTION LANDSLIDE VICTORY OVER OBAMA
:
:
: With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON THE HISPANIC VOTE
: With Rubio on the ticket, we would have EASILY WON FLORIDA
:
: HISPANIC VOTE + FLORIDA = ROMNEY ELECTION LANDSLIDE VICTORY OVER OBAMA
keep foaming at the mouth, you "One and Done" LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMAO
also, 90% of Hispanics hate Cubans
BIG BIRD
Nov 26, 2012, 4:03:38 PM11/26/12
to
news:ca7fb2ab-3bdf-4296...@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Ask them if "One and Done" were correct LOSER!!!!!
BIG BIRD
Nov 26, 2012, 4:04:08 PM11/26/12
to
news:f6233b84-5150-446d...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
they're "One and Done" already
Dan C
Nov 26, 2012, 4:06:27 PM11/26/12
to
On Nov 26, 4:03 pm, "BIG BIRD" <Sno...@Teranews.com> wrote:
> "Dan C" <accoun...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
Not true. It is a KNOWN FACT that if Rubio were on the ticket, Romney
would have won the Hispanic vote AND Florida....EASILY
> "Dan C" <accoun...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
would have won the Hispanic vote AND Florida....EASILY
BIG BIRD
Nov 26, 2012, 4:08:07 PM11/26/12
to
"boardirector" <boardi...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:H2Qss.71970$OJ2....@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
:
:
: "Lee L. Curtis" wrote in message
oh my, such anger,bitterness, and tooth gnashing angst in the midst of the agony
of defeat
I LOVE IT !!!!! LOSERS!!!!!!
hey shithead, remember this you lard assed, gutless, pussy,
we didn't decide which moron you were going to run, you
LOSERS!!!!!! did
does this mean it's NOT!! going to be a merry Christmas for you LOSERS!!!!???
yall already got shit on by Santa Claus who gave all the goodies to someone else ?
try this :'
"BAH HUMBUG"!!!!!!!!
LMAO
at you LOSERS!!!!!
boardirector
Nov 26, 2012, 4:13:06 PM11/26/12
to
"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message
news:k90jet$c7k$1...@dont-email.me...
The Quartermaster says;
Thankfully, NO!
BIG BIRD
Nov 26, 2012, 4:36:34 PM11/26/12
to
news:d609f94a-0739-41cf...@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
ROTFLMAO
known by whom ??
you ??, the "One and Done" LOSER!!!
it's a moot point LOSER!!!
you LOST!!!
now you have 4 years to pay for being stupid
known by whom ??
you ??, the "One and Done" LOSER!!!
it's a moot point LOSER!!!
you LOST!!!
now you have 4 years to pay for being stupid
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 26, 2012, 4:45:26 PM11/26/12
to
"boardirector" wrote in message
news:KXQss.604115$eR7.2...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
Finally - repeat, finally - a "Yes or no" answer to a very simple "Yes or
no" question!
So at least one person here - specifically "boardirector" aka "The
Quartermaster" - finds that Romney's (and by extension, the Republican
Party's) 100% is exclusionary rather than inclusionary. Such exclusion as
applied more generally to the electorate by the Romney and the Republican
Party in large part played a significant role in Romney's defeat...in
particular, his failure to garner the hispanic vote - at 27%, far less than
McCain's 31% in the 2008 Republican loss for president.
news:KXQss.604115$eR7.2...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
no" question!
So at least one person here - specifically "boardirector" aka "The
Quartermaster" - finds that Romney's (and by extension, the Republican
Party's) 100% is exclusionary rather than inclusionary. Such exclusion as
applied more generally to the electorate by the Romney and the Republican
Party in large part played a significant role in Romney's defeat...in
particular, his failure to garner the hispanic vote - at 27%, far less than
McCain's 31% in the 2008 Republican loss for president.
Josh
Nov 26, 2012, 6:09:12 PM11/26/12
to
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.retirement/msg/5283d6edc13b6f2f?hl=en
How did that 7 out of 10 work out?
If Romney/Rubio had won 60% of the Hispanic vote in every state (and he
won only 55% in his Senate race in 2010 -
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/conservative-marco-rubio-won-55-percent-latino-vote-florida-senate-race-says-exit-poll),
they still would have lost. The only states that would have flipped are
Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado - not enough to change the outcome.
Dano
Nov 26, 2012, 6:32:35 PM11/26/12
to
"boardirector" wrote in message
news:KXQss.604115$eR7.2...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
news:KXQss.604115$eR7.2...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
Allow me to ask you a very, very simple question as to the
inclusiveness of
the Republican Party. This is a strictly "Yes" or "No" question which
the
likes here of "max headroom" and "Klaus Schadenfreude" were utterly
unable
to answer "Yes" or "No" and instead weaved, ducked, threw out non
sequiturs,
made like dictionary academicians, and evaded for all their worth.
"Does Romney - and by extension, the Republican party - include gays,
pro
choice folks, and supporters of the single payer health system in his
100%?
Yes or no?"
--
The Quartermaster says;
Thankfully, NO!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"If you need a handout, look at the end of you arm, not at my
paycheck."
The Quartermaster
============================================
inclusiveness of
the Republican Party. This is a strictly "Yes" or "No" question which
the
likes here of "max headroom" and "Klaus Schadenfreude" were utterly
unable
to answer "Yes" or "No" and instead weaved, ducked, threw out non
sequiturs,
made like dictionary academicians, and evaded for all their worth.
"Does Romney - and by extension, the Republican party - include gays,
pro
choice folks, and supporters of the single payer health system in his
100%?
Yes or no?"
--
The Quartermaster says;
Thankfully, NO!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"If you need a handout, look at the end of you arm, not at my
paycheck."
The Quartermaster
Speaking about oneself in the third person...a sure sign of insanity.
boardirector
Nov 26, 2012, 6:39:00 PM11/26/12
to
"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message
The Quartermaster says;
Romney lost because he was a lousy candidate. I said it long before
the election, during the election and I'll say it long after. Having
said that he would have been a much better president than Obama ever
will be. George W. Bush won without including gays or pro-life
exempters. You seem to be advocating that a person surrender their
integrity for a political win. I will never do that. That's why I
don't vote in national or state elections. And that's why I do not
subscribe to a political party.
Message has been deleted
Dano
Nov 27, 2012, 12:09:12 AM11/27/12
to
wrote in message news:e778b89ach161vhq9...@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:33:38 -0800 (PST), Dan C
<acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>There is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that if Romney had picked Marco
>Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
That and other silly crap is why you lost.
========================================
And another example of a perfect record for Dan C. Always dead wrong.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:33:38 -0800 (PST), Dan C
<acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>There is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that if Romney had picked Marco
>Rubio to be his running mate he would have WON THIS ELECTION EASILY.
========================================
And another example of a perfect record for Dan C. Always dead wrong.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 27, 2012, 1:08:52 AM11/27/12
to
"boardirector" wrote in message
news:x4Tss.604117$eR7.5...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
/snip - follow the thread/
disparaging 47% of the American people and then claiming to be concerned
about and supporting 100% of the American people as Romney clearly did. And
if I am indeed wrong, I stand ready to be corrected by anyone here who has
the relevant references/citations/links as per GW Bush.
And I am not advocating anything...least of all that a person surrender
their [sic] integrity for a political win. After all, it was not I who made
that 47% remark followed by that 100% one. Clearly Romney when making that
100% comment without any kind of detail or clarification meant that he is
concerned about and supportive of those he considered to be part of his 100%
and not those he considered not part of his 100%, such as gays, pro choice
folks, and supporters of the single payer health program. In this way,
Romney's 100% is exclusionary rather than inclusionary.
news:x4Tss.604117$eR7.5...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
/snip - follow the thread/
--
The Quartermaster says;
Romney lost because he was a lousy candidate. I said it long before
the election, during the election and I'll say it long after. Having
said that he would have been a much better president than Obama ever
will be. George W. Bush won without including gays or pro-life
exempters. You seem to be advocating that a person surrender their
integrity for a political win. I will never do that. That's why I
don't vote in national or state elections. And that's why I do not
subscribe to a political party.
The Quartermaster says;
Romney lost because he was a lousy candidate. I said it long before
the election, during the election and I'll say it long after. Having
said that he would have been a much better president than Obama ever
will be. George W. Bush won without including gays or pro-life
exempters. You seem to be advocating that a person surrender their
integrity for a political win. I will never do that. That's why I
don't vote in national or state elections. And that's why I do not
subscribe to a political party.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
Well...I could well be wrong, but I don't ever recall George W. Bush first
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
disparaging 47% of the American people and then claiming to be concerned
about and supporting 100% of the American people as Romney clearly did. And
if I am indeed wrong, I stand ready to be corrected by anyone here who has
the relevant references/citations/links as per GW Bush.
And I am not advocating anything...least of all that a person surrender
their [sic] integrity for a political win. After all, it was not I who made
that 47% remark followed by that 100% one. Clearly Romney when making that
100% comment without any kind of detail or clarification meant that he is
concerned about and supportive of those he considered to be part of his 100%
and not those he considered not part of his 100%, such as gays, pro choice
folks, and supporters of the single payer health program. In this way,
Romney's 100% is exclusionary rather than inclusionary.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 26, 2012, 7:27:27 PM11/26/12
to
"boardirector" wrote in message
news:x4Tss.604117$eR7.5...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
/snip - follow the thread/
/snip - follow the thread/
--
The Quartermaster says;
Romney lost because he was a lousy candidate. I said it long before
the election, during the election and I'll say it long after. Having
said that he would have been a much better president than Obama ever
will be. George W. Bush won without including gays or pro-life
exempters. You seem to be advocating that a person surrender their
integrity for a political win. I will never do that. That's why I
don't vote in national or state elections. And that's why I do not
subscribe to a political party.
The Quartermaster says;
Romney lost because he was a lousy candidate. I said it long before
the election, during the election and I'll say it long after. Having
said that he would have been a much better president than Obama ever
will be. George W. Bush won without including gays or pro-life
exempters. You seem to be advocating that a person surrender their
integrity for a political win. I will never do that. That's why I
don't vote in national or state elections. And that's why I do not
subscribe to a political party.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
Well...I could well be wrong, but I don't ever recall George W. Bush first
disparaging 47% of the American people and then claiming to be concerned
about and supporting 100% of the American people as Romney clearly did. And
if I am indeed wrong, I stand ready to be corrected by anyone here who has
the relevant references/citations/links as per GW Bush.
And I am not advocating anything...least of all that a person surrender
their [sic] integrity for a political win. After all, it was not I who made
that 47% remark followed by that 100% one. Clearly Romney when making that
100% comment without any kind of detail or clarification meant that he is
concerned about and supportive of those he considered to be part of his 100%
and not those he considered not part of his 100%, such as gays, pro choice
folks, and supporters of the single payer health program. In this way,
Romney's 100% is exclusionary rather than inclusionary.
disparaging 47% of the American people and then claiming to be concerned
about and supporting 100% of the American people as Romney clearly did. And
if I am indeed wrong, I stand ready to be corrected by anyone here who has
the relevant references/citations/links as per GW Bush.
And I am not advocating anything...least of all that a person surrender
their [sic] integrity for a political win. After all, it was not I who made
that 47% remark followed by that 100% one. Clearly Romney when making that
100% comment without any kind of detail or clarification meant that he is
concerned about and supportive of those he considered to be part of his 100%
and not those he considered not part of his 100%, such as gays, pro choice
folks, and supporters of the single payer health program. In this way,
Lee L. Curtis
Nov 27, 2012, 10:50:23 AM11/27/12
to
ticket, Ferraro didn't bring over women to the Demo ticket,
John Edwards didn't bring any Southerners to the Demo
ticket. Running mates have virtually no impact on
elections anymore.
BIG BIRD
Nov 27, 2012, 11:34:49 AM11/27/12
to
"Lee L. Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MuqdnYv1koiifCnN...@giganews.com...
Biden sure brought over voters with his PROfessional ass kickin of that dick
suckin,
bambi shootin,wisconsin cocksucker
Dano
Nov 27, 2012, 12:23:04 PM11/27/12
to
"Lee L. Curtis" wrote in message
news:MuqdnYv1koiifCnN...@giganews.com...
Horseshit. Palin didn't bring over women to the GOP
ticket, Ferraro didn't bring over women to the Demo ticket,
John Edwards didn't bring any Southerners to the Demo
ticket. Running mates have virtually no impact on
elections anymore.
=================================================
I think they can definitely have a negative impact. Not sure in Ryan's
case...they pretty much hid him it seemed to me...which was probably wise.
But Palin certainly harmed the McCain campaign IMHO.
news:MuqdnYv1koiifCnN...@giganews.com...
Horseshit. Palin didn't bring over women to the GOP
ticket, Ferraro didn't bring over women to the Demo ticket,
John Edwards didn't bring any Southerners to the Demo
ticket. Running mates have virtually no impact on
elections anymore.
I think they can definitely have a negative impact. Not sure in Ryan's
case...they pretty much hid him it seemed to me...which was probably wise.
But Palin certainly harmed the McCain campaign IMHO.
0 new messages