[OT] Santorum Takes National Lead

[Bradley K. Sherman]

656 National GOP likely primary voters 9-10 Feb

Santorum: 38%
Romney..: 23
Gingrich: 17
Paul....: 13
Other...: 9

<http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0211.pdf>

Caveat: This is at variance with other national polls.
e.g. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx>

--bks

("Other" is just a kludge to bring the total to 100%.)

[Iceman]

"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jh60sf$r4e$1...@panix3.panix.com...

> 656 National GOP likely primary voters 9-10 Feb
>
> Santorum: 38%
> Romney..: 23
> Gingrich: 17
> Paul....: 13
> Other...: 9

Pass the popcorn. An Obama-Santorum race would make Johnson-Goldwater and
Reagan-Mondale look close.

[TruthSeeker]

Iceman wrote:

> Pass the popcorn. An Obama-Santorum race would make Johnson-Goldwater and
> Reagan-Mondale look close.

Oh, I don't think Santorum would win by THAT much.

Personally, I'd find Santorum's "social issues" values agenda to be
unacceptable and I couldn't vote for him, if it wasn't that the other
choice will be Obama. In the primary I'll even take "Obama Lite" Romney
over Santorum.



--
TruthSeeker

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:3YWdnXDItoY0JqvS...@giganews.com...

> Iceman wrote:
>
>> Pass the popcorn. An Obama-Santorum race would make Johnson-Goldwater
>> and
>> Reagan-Mondale look close.
>
>
> Oh, I don't think Santorum would win by THAT much.

Cute Joke
Santorum as nominee hands the house, the senate, the white house, and
perhaps several neighboring countries to social democrats

[mo_ntresor]

iceman votes how he's told by one of our political parties. i can't vote
newt or santorum either. it's romney and a chance at fiscal sanity or
obama and a second mountain of debt.

mo_ntresor

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

Totally meaningless "opinion at the moment" polling categories that
can and, have repeatedly, become obsolete overnight, throughout this
current election cycle.

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

---- 

[Travel]

On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Feb 11 2012 7:18 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 656 National GOP likely primary voters 9-10 Feb
>
> > Santorum: 38%
> > Romney..: 23
> > Gingrich: 17
> > Paul....: 13
> > Other...:  9
>
> > <http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0211.pdf>
>
> > Caveat: This is at variance with other national polls.
> > e.g. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx>
>
> >     --bks
>
> > ("Other" is just a kludge to bring the total to 100%.)
>
> Totally meaningless "opinion at the moment" polling categories that
> can and, have repeatedly, become obsolete overnight, throughout this
> current election cycle.
>
> Michael
>
>

Wrong.

An Obama, (who's not only the incumbent president, but the de facto
Democrat nominee) v. a Republican primary candidate before the
nominating conventions, would be a meaningless polling category.

A poll among the current, competing Republican candidates, however, is
obviously very much a meaningful polling category; regardless of
whether the results ,in effect, can change "overnight."

It's all, obviously, way over your head, Splashie.

If you had even foggiest idea of the reasons why that's true, you
wouldn't "submit buttoned" a dumbass post like that in the first
place.

[phlash74]

On Feb 13 2012 6:32 PM, Travel wrote:

> On Feb 13, 11:17 am, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 11 2012 7:18 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 656 National GOP likely primary voters 9-10 Feb
> >
> > > Santorum: 38%
> > > Romney..: 23
> > > Gingrich: 17
> > > Paul....: 13
> > > Other...:  9
> >
> > > <http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0211.pdf>
> >
> > > Caveat: This is at variance with other national polls.
> > > e.g. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx>
> >
> > >     --bks
> >
> > > ("Other" is just a kludge to bring the total to 100%.)
> >
> > Totally meaningless "opinion at the moment" polling categories that
> > can and, have repeatedly, become obsolete overnight, throughout this
> > current election cycle.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
>
>
> Wrong.
>
> An Obama, (who's not only the incumbent president, but the de facto
> Democrat nominee) v. a Republican primary candidate before the
> nominating conventions, would be a meaningless polling category.

Agreed, Barney - which makes it even funnier that you've not only posted
many such polls (Obama vs. Sarah, Obama vs. Cain, Obama vs. Newt) but
attempted to use them to bolster your pathetic arguments, numbnuts.

>
> A poll among the current, competing Republican candidates, however, is
> obviously very much a meaningful polling category; regardless of
> whether the results ,in effect, can change "overnight."
>
> It's all, obviously, way over your head, Splashie.
>
> If you had even foggiest idea of the reasons why that's true, you
> wouldn't "submit buttoned" a dumbass post like that in the first
> place.

It's meaningless to take a national poll of GOP voters because it has
nothing to do with how the delegates will be awarded, numbnuts. And it's
especially meaningless BECAUSE it can change "overnight" - remember when
Newt was "beating Mittens in every region"?

Remember, Barney - back when Herman Cain was in first place in these same
polls, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he couldn't win.
When Newt had his turn, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he
couldn't win. Now that Santorum is surging from behind (chortle), let me
be the first to tell you HE CAN'T WIN.

The only thing the Republicans are accomplishing by delaying Mitt's
inevitable nomination is increasing Barack Obama's chances of being
re-elected. End of discussion.

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Feb 14, 2:10 pm, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> Remember, Barney - back when Herman Cain was in first place in these same
> polls, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he couldn't win.
> When Newt had his turn, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he
> couldn't win. Now that Santorum is surging from behind (chortle), let me
> be the first to tell you HE CAN'T WIN.

I'm not sure that's true. On Intrade, Romney has declined from 90% to
75%, while Santorum has spiked to 15%. Santorum is currently leading
Romney in the Michigan primary polls. If Romney can't win there, when
he can claim native son status, then I think it's a scramble for
delegates all the way to the convention, with the possibility that no
one will have the necessary 1150 delegates to claim the nomination.

Romney's only significant win to date is Florida, where he outspent
Gingrich 4 to 1. If Santorum can get enough funding to be competitive
with Romney, then I think it's a horse race.

The latest CBS News poll shows Obama beating Romney 48% to 42%, and
Obama beating Santorum 49% to 41%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377720-503544/poll-obama-holds-edge-over-gop-hopefuls/

If that poll is accurate, then the "Romney is more electable" argument
is no longer operative.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

>If that poll is accurate, then the "Romney is more electable" argument
>is no longer operative.

That's all good reasoning, but I don't think the all-important
independent voters --the swing vote-- know just how crazy
Santorum is (yet):
|
| Rick Santorum Wants to Fight 'The Dangers Of Contraception'
| ...
| One of the things I will talk about that no President has
| talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception
| in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in
| the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's okay.
| Contraception's okay."
|
| It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the
| sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to
| be.
| ...
<http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/>

It would be impossible for Mormon (Pseudo-Christian) Romney to
confront Santorum's crazy theocratic ideas head on, but these days
that attack can come from a Super-PAC and leave the candidate
unscathed.

--bks

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Feb 14, 6:48 pm, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> Wilhelm Kuhlmann  <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >If that poll is accurate, then the "Romney is more electable" argument
> >is no longer operative.

> That's all good reasoning, but I don't think the all-important
> independent voters --the swing vote-- know just how crazy
> Santorum is (yet):

Well, he's a wild and crazy guy, no doubt about it. But I don't think
the election would turn on Santorum's views about birth control.

I think the issues of abortion and same sex marriage would be a wash.
Opinion is divided pretty evenly on whether same sex marriage should
be legal. Only about 40% think abortion should be generally
available, about 40% think it should be available under stricter
limits, while 20% think abortion should not be available at all.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Travel]

On Feb 14, 9:40 pm, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2:10 pm, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Remember, Barney - back when Herman Cain was in first place in these same
> > polls, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he couldn't win.
> > When Newt had his turn, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he
> > couldn't win. Now that Santorum is surging from behind (chortle), let me
> > be the first to tell you HE CAN'T WIN.
>
> I'm not sure that's true.  On Intrade, Romney has declined from 90% to
> 75%, while Santorum has spiked to 15%.  Santorum is currently leading
> Romney in the Michigan primary polls.  If Romney can't win there, when
> he can claim native son status, then I think it's a scramble for
> delegates all the way to the convention, with the possibility that no
> one will have the necessary 1150 delegates to claim the nomination.
>
> Romney's only significant win to date is Florida, where he outspent
> Gingrich 4 to 1.  If Santorum can get enough funding to be competitive
> with Romney, then I think it's a horse race.
>
> The latest CBS News poll shows Obama beating Romney 48% to 42%, and
> Obama beating Santorum 49% to 41%.
>

> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377720-503544/poll-obama-hol...

>
> If that poll is accurate, then the "Romney is more electable" argument
> is no longer operative.
>
> William Coleman  (ramashiva)

See that, Splashie, you dumbass (chortle).

[Travel]

No, I've stayed away from posting polls of "Obama v. a Republican
candidate" and for the very reasons I gave, above (see your bitch
slap, above).
So, you're lying. You've had your ass kicked so severely once again,
that you're lying as the only thing you could do besides shutting
TFU.

>
>
> > A poll among the current, competing Republican candidates, however, is
> > obviously very much a meaningful polling category; regardless of
> > whether the results ,in effect, can change "overnight."
>
> > It's all, obviously, way over your head, Splashie.
>
> > If you had even foggiest idea of the reasons why that's true, you
> > wouldn't "submit buttoned" a dumbass post like that in the first
> > place.
>

> It's meaningless to take a national poll of GOP voters because it has
> nothing to do with how the delegates will be awarded, numbnuts. And it's

That's obvious, numbnuts, and that has zero to do with the above.
You're attempting laughable, strawman arguments. That's what happens
hen you don't know what you're talking about: you get caught.

> especially meaningless BECAUSE it can change "overnight" - remember when
> Newt was "beating Mittens in every region"?
>

And? What's you're point, imbecile? That makes no sense. You're taking
a fabricated strawman argument and predicating you're next dumbass
statement on your own retarded strawman argument.

> Remember, Barney - back when Herman Cain was in first place in these same
> polls, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he couldn't win.

Actually, no, everyone on this newsgroup didn't say that.

Oh, and you knew that Gloria Allred would come up with the bimbo set-
up berfore it happened. Iiii seee. Like I enjoy telling you, Splashie,
you really couldn't be any dumber.

> When Newt had his turn, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he
> couldn't win.

Actually, no, everyone on this newsgroup didn't say that.

And you, knew beforehand that Romney and Ron Paul would combine for 10
million in attack ads in Iowa; and it would work nationally. Iiii
seee. We didn't know you were a soothsayer-dumbass, the whole
newsgroup just thought you were a regular dumbass.

Now that Santorum is surging from behind (chortle), let me
> be the first to tell you HE CAN'T WIN.
>

And you know that, how? Based on your track record as a dumbass?

> The only thing the Republicans are accomplishing by delaying Mitt's
> inevitable nomination is increasing Barack Obama's chances of being
> re-elected.

That's not even close to being true. Hillary delayed Obama's
nomination for example, and it didn't hurt Obama's chances in the
general election, imbecile. There's also a good argument, made by
many, that a long primary contest strengthens a candidate for the
general election.

You're an idiot. End of discussion.

[phlash74]

Romney is still the only one of the remaining GOP candidates to have
polled ahead of Obama in a hypothetical matchup at any point (see the
graphs on RCP posted by faux Pickle in the thread OT: Obama to win
reelection). He absolutely is more electable than any of the others, his
current hypothetical six point deficit is his lowest standing in months,
while Santorum's eight point deficit represents his peak (and likely won't
get any better).

If the GOP nominates Romney, the popular vote will likely be within five
percent and the election is in play. Newt, Rick, or Ron Paul, it's a
blowout win for Obama.

[phlash74]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/e8888191cc719844

"And here's the ass-kicking fun part:

Republican Primary canadidates Election Poll:
Newt 38%- Romny 17%

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?source=m&u=http%3A%2F%2Frace42012.com/201...

................................................................

Newt v. Obama, General Election Poll: (<----------- hm, thought you didn't
post these?)
Newt 45%- Obama 43%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele... "
---------------
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/6e9ca03ce42acee7

(This is LAST TUESDAY you posted this, Barney)

"Rasmussen poll out today:

Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.

That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...

What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.

The "independent vote" (about a third of the electorate) broke over 2
to 1 for the Republican candidate in the 2010 mid-term, referendum-on-
Obama elections.; with the conservative Republicans dominating in the
Republican primaries. "

----------------------
As you can clearly see, you're the liar here, numbnuts.

>
> >
> >
> > > A poll among the current, competing Republican candidates, however, is
> > > obviously very much a meaningful polling category; regardless of
> > > whether the results ,in effect, can change "overnight."
> >
> > > It's all, obviously, way over your head, Splashie.
> >
> > > If you had even foggiest idea of the reasons why that's true, you
> > > wouldn't "submit buttoned" a dumbass post like that in the first
> > > place.
> >
>
> > It's meaningless to take a national poll of GOP voters because it has
> > nothing to do with how the delegates will be awarded, numbnuts. And it's
>
> That's obvious, numbnuts, and that has zero to do with the above.
> You're attempting laughable, strawman arguments. That's what happens
> hen you don't know what you're talking about: you get caught.

It has everything to do with the above - more people voted for Gore in
2000 than Bush. A national poll/vote doesn't tell you who's going to win
the nomination.

>
>
> > especially meaningless BECAUSE it can change "overnight" - remember when
> > Newt was "beating Mittens in every region"?
> >
>
> And? What's you're point, imbecile? That makes no sense. You're taking
> a fabricated strawman argument and predicating you're next dumbass
> statement on your own retarded strawman argument.

The point is that the volatility in these polls shows that whoever's in
first at any given moment is meaningless. It's all based on media-fueled
"momentum" which disappears as quickly as it first shows up (see:
Bachmann, Michelle; Perry, Rick; Cain, Herman; Gingrich, Newt)

>
> > Remember, Barney - back when Herman Cain was in first place in these same
> > polls, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he couldn't win.
>
> Actually, no, everyone on this newsgroup didn't say that.

Find me one person other than you who actually thought he could win the
nomination. I won't hold my breath.

>
> Oh, and you knew that Gloria Allred would come up with the bimbo set-
> up berfore it happened. Iiii seee. Like I enjoy telling you, Splashie,
> you really couldn't be any dumber.

No, I did not know that. I said he would not get the nomination WHEN HE
WAS IN FIRST PLACE IN THE POLLS, numbnuts. Well before any of the "bimbo
set-up" happened.

>
>
> > When Newt had his turn, I and everyone else on this newsgroup told you he
> > couldn't win.
>
>
> Actually, no, everyone on this newsgroup didn't say that.

Again, find someone else who said he could/would win the nomination. I ran
a poll, 9 of 10 posters said Romney would be the nominee. (The other said
Santorum, based strictly on height) This was post-South Carolina, Barney.

>
> And you, knew beforehand that Romney and Ron Paul would combine for 10
> million in attack ads in Iowa; and it would work nationally. Iiii
> seee. We didn't know you were a soothsayer-dumbass, the whole
> newsgroup just thought you were a regular dumbass.

I didn't know they would spend that money, I just knew once people
actually looked at Newt, they'd realize he was a terrible candidate and
would get trounced by Obama should he actually get the nomination.

>
>
>
> Now that Santorum is surging from behind (chortle), let me
> > be the first to tell you HE CAN'T WIN.
> >
>
> And you know that, how? Based on your track record as a dumbass?

Let's see - I said Sarah wouldn't run, Cain wouldn't win, Newt wouldn't
win. Three for three so far unless Newt stages a miraculous comeback
(chortle).

>
>
> > The only thing the Republicans are accomplishing by delaying Mitt's
> > inevitable nomination is increasing Barack Obama's chances of being
> > re-elected.
>
> That's not even close to being true. Hillary delayed Obama's
> nomination for example, and it didn't hurt Obama's chances in the
> general election, imbecile. There's also a good argument, made by
> many, that a long primary contest strengthens a candidate for the
> general election.
>
> You're an idiot. End of discussion.

2008 there wasn't an incumbent with a massive money advantage running.
Obama was able to take the criticisms offered by Hillary and counter them.
The sooner the Republicans pick a nominee this time, the more time they
can spend hammering Obama. If it goes deep into April or even worse, the
convention, they're toast. You're forgetting that this already HAS been a
long primary contest, given the number of debates held and the early
primaries and caucuses. The one benefit for Mitt is that after his false
start, he got his tax returns out there so they may be an old story by
election time (though the Democrats will certainly hammer at them).

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Travel]

The topic is whether Santorum can win the nomination. Reread,
numbnuts. You, as an idiot, stated in caps that Santorum can't. Mr
Coleman gave some of the substantive reasons why Santorum can win.

You're a retard wasting bandwidth.

> If the GOP nominates Romney, the popular vote will likely be within five
> percent and the election is in play. Newt, Rick, or Ron Paul, it's a
> blowout win for Obama.
>
> Michael
>

You don't know what you're talking about. STFU.

[Travel]

>  ---------------http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/6e9ca03ce42acee7

> ________________________________________________________________________ - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Lol, I posted the Obama v. Newt poll in response to fake Pickel
posting an "Obama v." poll. I was demonstrating that not only are the
"Obama .v" meaningless, but Newt was actually gaining on Obama. So,
imbecile, I posted it as a statement against "Obama v." polls being
significant at this point (before the conventions); for the opposite
reason than you're claiming.

Also, I stated that I "stayed way" from the "Obama v. polls" (not,
never, ever posted one). Which I obviously, do: in fact, I've posted
several times in the past months about how the "Obama v." polls are
meaningless before the conventions. You seem to have overlooked this
fact as you were scouring the archives, (pouring over them for hours
chortle).



So, once again, you're sucking wind and got your ass kicked again.
Keep trying to catch me in an inconsistency, though (chortle). I'm so
flattered that I'm a major part of your life and efforts, lol.

[Travel]

Date: Friday, June 24, 2011 7:28 AM


Savor the irony. Splashie starts another retarded poll (or as Susan
says (paraphrase): a stupid, stupid poll that most ignore) and
Splashie gets multiple votes for idiocy and I'm not even mentioned
(chortle). This must have been quite frustrating for Splashie, as he,
while tearing his hair out, had to throw my name in himself (lol).

No, Splashie, you're not fooling anyone: here's what's bothering you
(below).


From: Travel A
Date: Saturday, June 4, 2011 8:38 PM



Well, for one thing, Splashie, you really are one dumb fuck. I can't
count the number of your retarded posts on politics and other
subjects
requiring a certain level of knowledge and analytical ability, where
I
completely humiliated you and you had to run away.


It's comical to witness the presumptuous faux-swaggering of an idiot
like Splahie. You're all girly-snark (and girly-polls) and no
substance. You're a dummy who has never posted anything to be even
remotely considered intelligent.


And Splashie, you've been told about your irritating little "Michael"
in the sig box. Get rid of it. No one givesafuck about your name,
"dumb-fuck" is all anyone needs to know.

[Travel]

..............................................................................

I wrote:
That's obvious, numbnuts, and that has zero to do with the above.
You're attempting laughable, strawman arguments. That's what happens

when you don't know what you're talking about: you get caught.

> > especially meaningless BECAUSE it can change "overnight" - remember when
> > Newt was "beating Mittens in every region"?
>


And? What's you're point, imbecile? That makes no sense. You're taking
a fabricated strawman argument and predicating you're next dumbass
statement on your own retarded strawman argument.

> > Remember, - back when Herman Cain was in first place in these same

[Travel]

[phlash74]

On Feb 16 2012 8:30 PM, Travel wrote:
> Lol, I posted the Obama v. Newt poll in response to fake Pickel
> posting an "Obama v." poll. I was demonstrating that not only are the
> "Obama .v" meaningless, but Newt was actually gaining on Obama. So,
> imbecile, I posted it as a statement against "Obama v." polls being
> significant at this point (before the conventions); for the opposite
> reason than you're claiming.

Oh, I get it now. You were showing the polls were meaningless by showing
polls saying that Newt had a chance against Obama. Very good, Barney. I
can't disagree that any poll showing Newt within 5 points of Obama is
meaningless and false, since if he miraculously won the nomination, Obama
would win by 10 points and probably increase his Electoral College total
over 2008 as well.

>
> Also, I stated that I "stayed way" from the "Obama v. polls" (not,
> never, ever posted one). Which I obviously, do: in fact, I've posted
> several times in the past months about how the "Obama v." polls are
> meaningless before the conventions. You seem to have overlooked this
> fact as you were scouring the archives, (pouring over them for hours
> chortle).

Let's see - 34 minutes between posts, maybe 5 minutes of which was spent
searching. You've never, ever posted one? How about your posting such a
poll from LAST TUESDAY? You know, this one:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/6e9ca03ce42acee7

Travel
View profile
More options Feb 8, 10:12 am

Rasmussen poll out today:

Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.

That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...

What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.

The "independent vote" (about a third of the electorate) broke over 2
to 1 for the Republican candidate in the 2010 mid-term, referendum-on-
Obama elections.; with the conservative Republicans dominating in the
Republican primaries.

-------------------------------

Oh, NOW I get it. Such polls are only "meaningless" when they disagree
with what you want to hear. Any poll that you can chortle over or at least
spin (remember Newt "beating Mittens in every region" or "surging" in
Florida? titter) you post - any poll showing something different you
ignore or try to claim is meaningless. Nice try.

>
>
>
> So, once again, you're sucking wind and got your ass kicked again.
> Keep trying to catch me in an inconsistency, though (chortle). I'm so
> flattered that I'm a major part of your life and efforts, lol.

Inconsistency? Is that what you're calling flat out lying these days,
numbnuts?
Also, I'd say you've responded to me far often than I've responded to you,
Barney. I post twice, you post five times. I'll post this one reply,
you'll re-post your idiocy about five more times.

[Mossingen]

"Travel" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:e51a7e33-d8fe-4367...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

______________________________


I agree with you on the meaning of the polls, but Santorum as the GOP
nominee would result in a Reagan-like landslide for Obama. Six months ago I
really couldn't imagine how Obama would win another term. Now, I can't
imagine how he would lose.

[Travel]

On Feb 17, 12:21 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Travel" <nine...@webtv.net> wrote in message

See that Splashie (chortle). I mean, you're making a fool of yourself,
again. I mean, Mr. Coleman and now, Hankins.

>but Santorum as the GOP
> nominee would result in a Reagan-like landslide for Obama.
Six months ago I
> really couldn't imagine how Obama would win another term.  Now, I can't
> imagine how he would lose.

I've always thought that it would take a minor miracle for Obama to
lose, regardless of the Republican nominee or whether it was six
months ago or now: Obama's an incumbent, with the media as a de facto
part of his campaign to "reinvent" Obama (they're doing it now, with
the bogus claims that Obama created millions of jobs over the last 23
months, etc.); and there's always the possibility of a phony third
party candidate like, Bloomberg, etc., to shave a few percentage
points off the Republican candidate's independent vote, if needed.

Jimmy Carter had even the Democrats against him, with Ted Kennedy
attacking him in the Democrat primaries: Obama doesn't have that
problem.

But, like with Ronald Reagan, It'd take an unbelievable Republican-
conservative, grassroots uprising that pulls in a big majority of
independents' for Obama to lose. I agree that there's no current
Republican candidate that fits that requrement. Sarah Palin had that
kind of possible, political "magic," and that's why I supported her in
a big way. It would take someone very unusual, obviously controversial
with a uber-enthusiastic following, and Sarah certainly fit that
description; as proven by the 2010 mid term elections.

No current candidate would seem to be politically-unique or be able
draw a highly distinctive difference between themselves and
Obama(possibly Newt): especially Romney.

[Travel]

[Travel]