# New Hampshire GOP poll (presidency)



## The2ndAmendment (Sep 7, 2013)

When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.

How much fraud will the GOP engage in to destroy Rand Paul's candidacy?



> Chris Christie-21%
> Rand Paul - 16%
> Jeb Bush - 10%
> Paul Ryan - 8%
> ...


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 7, 2013)

Depends if Clint Eastwood is up to it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 7, 2013)

Rand Paul is too popular among repubicans.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 7, 2013)

Chris Christie?

Have we all learned nothing?


----------



## J.E.D (Sep 7, 2013)

New Hampshire. Yeah, right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2013)

NH could be RP country in the primaries.  He won't run well in the other states, and if he finishes second to Christie in NH, then it is libertarian drown your sorrows night one more time.


----------



## RoadVirus (Sep 7, 2013)

A Paul/Christie or Christie/Paul ticket?


----------



## The2ndAmendment (Sep 7, 2013)

RoadVirus said:


> A Paul/Christie or Christie/Paul ticket?



If that happens, I'll have to vote Democrat again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2013)




----------



## The2ndAmendment (Sep 7, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


>



Everybody look at  [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] get PWNED

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/311689-fire-arms-facts-4.html#post7798161


----------



## J.E.D (Sep 7, 2013)

Everybody look at 2ndAmendment (what a stupid name) change the subject in his own thread.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 7, 2013)

Gee, with the New Hampshire primary over two years away, this is a real irrelevant poll!


----------



## Vox (Sep 7, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > A Paul/Christie or Christie/Paul ticket?
> ...



are you THAT stupid?


----------



## Intense (Sep 7, 2013)

*Moved To Election Forums.*


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 7, 2013)

All aboard the Klown Kar.

Take a seat cuz it will be filling up soon.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 7, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.
> 
> How much fraud will the GOP engage in to destroy Rand Paul's candidacy?
> 
> ...



how is 16 almost higher than 21?

you should sue your math teachers, bro.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 7, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.
> 
> How much fraud will the GOP engage in to destroy Rand Paul's candidacy?
> 
> ...



Obviously you have no idea what the rule of law is. 

You also have no idea that any poll this early from such a non-representative state is meaningless.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 7, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.
> How much fraud will the GOP engage in to destroy Rand Paul's candidacy?





J.E.D said:


> New Hampshire. Yeah, right.





JakeStarkey said:


> NH could be RP country in the primaries.  He won't run well in the other states, and if he finishes second to Christie in NH, then it is libertarian drown your sorrows night one more time.



How much fraud?   just enough  & there's probably a reason New Hampshire always goes first. Look what happened to his father in Maine & Iowa for that matter. 

Some thought some shenanigans played in NHampshire in the Hillary v Obama contest.

NewHampshire shouldnt go first it is an unrepresentative state and its someone elses turn


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2013)

Ben Carson will get the Republican Nomination and Christie will edge out Biden and Hillary for the Dem nod


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2013)




----------



## whitehall (Sep 7, 2013)

If Hilary runs on the democrat ticket any republican can win.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.
> 
> How much fraud will the GOP engage in to destroy Rand Paul's candidacy?
> 
> ...



1) Craaaaaazy Rand isn't ahead of Chris Christie. 

2) Polls this far out are meaningless.  

3) Combine in relatively "sane" GOP candidates who won't run or will drop out after Iowa, and "Not quite as crazy" easily wins.  

4) If the GOP has a major brain-fart and nominates Christie, he'll lose by Goldwater level proportions.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Rand Paul is too popular among repubicans.



which is a sad commentary on Republicans these days.  

I remember when Republicans used to be sane.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> All aboard the Klown Kar.
> 
> Take a seat cuz it will be filling up soon.



Especially since you take up two seats fatass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2013)

If Rand Paul stays economically conservative but moves toward independents and centrists on social and other issues, he could make himself very appealing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> If Rand Paul stays economically conservative but moves toward independents and centrists on social and other issues, he could make himself very appealing.



Not really.  

No great love of the Christian nutbags, but they really aren't the problem the GOP has.  

A guy who could do real damage is a GOP guy who is conservative on social issues and liberal on economic ones. 

Like Mike Huckabee, who really had the GOP Establishment crapping its pants in 2008.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 8, 2013)

We saw the same phenomenon with Ron Paul in pre election polling. Somehow, Ron Paul always came out ahead in pre election polling

When it came to actual voting......Paul disappeared


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > If Rand Paul stays economically conservative but moves toward independents and centrists on social and other issues, he could make himself very appealing.
> ...



I think 2016 is going to see an evolving electorate that will make your suggestion moot.

However, I agree with you on 2008.  If McCain had not been able to split the conservative vote, Huckabee would have been the nominee and might have beat Obama if the economy had waited two more weeks to tank.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 8, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.
> 
> How much fraud will the GOP engage in to destroy Rand Paul's candidacy?
> 
> ...



at this point in time i would 

have a hard time voting for anyone of them


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> > When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2013)

Soros ran that poll to show his bot Christie is the GOP Favorite, fuck both of them


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 8, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The2ndAmendment said:
> ...



that is one hell of a "one flew over the cuckoos nest" picture of biden 

but he has an assortment of them


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



McCain didn't split the conservative vote.  Conservatives wanted no part of him. 

Let's look at what really happened.  

McCain and Guiliani vied for the North-East Republican moderates who have an outsized influence in the party because of New Hampshire.  Unfortunately, Guliani didn't really contest NH, thinking he could just run on Super Tuesday saying "Noun-verb-9/11."

Meanwhile a Weird Mormon Robot tried to hide his liberalism and appeal to conservatives, but conservatives were having none of it. 

Fred Thompson tried to swoop in, but he was really running as a stalking horse for his buddy McCain.  

So that left Huckabee, a guy who was socially conservative but not really into the "Jesus was into tax cuts for rich people" string of Christianity that infects much of the GOP.   Well, when he won a primary or two, people started shitting their pants.   The business Republicans tried to prop up Romney, saw people were still not buying it, and then got behind McCain.  

Who lost spectacularly.  

You see, this is the real problem.  The Christian Conservatives don't have anything at stake in economic conservatism. (Really, no one does but the 1% who own half of everything and still want more.)  There's nothing in it for them.  But promise them you'll ban abortion and stop them homos from getting married, and they'll follow you to the gates of Hell.  

And as much as I don't like it, America is 80% Christian.   A guy who can talk social conservatism AND economic justice would probably get a pretty good following if people were paying attention.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 8, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.
> 
> How much fraud will the GOP engage in to destroy Rand Paul's candidacy?
> 
> ...



This list suggests the GOP has learned nothing and the GOP debates - limited apparently to Fox News - will be as ridiculous in content and cast as in 2012.

If the GOP wants to be competitive, they best move to the center and cast aside the those who want to effect radical change.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2013)

"McCain didn't split the conservative vote" was misconstructed by me, yes.

The conservative vote split among the so called "conservatives" allowed McCain to take the nomination, yes.

The conservative vote in 2016 will have far less impact in the national election than in 2008.

Rand has to appeal to the middle.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

No discussion of the 2016 election is meaningful because the democrats haven't felt the effects of obama's holy war yet.  After the Syrian exercise fails and blows up in the democrat face it will be time enough to figure out who democrats can dig up that won't be poisoned by obama.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> No discussion of the 2016 election is meaningful because the democrats haven't felt the effects of obama's holy war yet.  After the Syrian exercise fails and blows up in the democrat face it will be time enough to figure out who democrats can dig up that won't be poisoned by obama.



The sky is falling!.........The sky is falling!

Same hopes and dreams Republicans had in 2012.  How did Obama will fail chanted for four years work out?

Republicans need to show that they are players. The party of No will not get you elected president. Unless they can come up with new policy that they can sell the American people....they will fail


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2013)

Syria will in no way impact the campaign of 2016.

America has been conducting small overseas campaigns on the African and Near East coasts for more than 200 years.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

obama is in good shape, as long as there is no retaliation.   Campaigns against a coastal African village is pretty safe.

One of obama's worst missteps is in thinking that he can fire missiles and no one will do anything.  He can lob 24 hours worth of cruise missiles at Syria and absolutely nothing will happen.  

All he has to do is be wrong, as he often is, and democrats are through for generations.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2013)

very doubtful, that, I think, but time will tell


----------



## konradv (Sep 8, 2013)

Vox said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



Well, he said he was a Republican.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> "McCain didn't split the conservative vote" was misconstructed by me, yes.
> 
> The conservative vote split among the so called "conservatives" allowed McCain to take the nomination, yes.
> 
> ...



Again, the only two Republicans who have won in the last 40 years are the ones who were unapologetically conservative.  

The losers have been the ones who "appealled to the middle"-  McCain, Romney, Dole. 

Appeal is a factor, but so is intensity.  

I don't think Rand Paul can win because he's crazier than batshit.  I could see a conservative like Kascich or Walker winning pretty easily, though, in both the primaries and general election.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 9, 2013)

Romney didn't lose because he was a moderate.  He made the decision to focus his campaign on jobs.   He was under the mistaken impression that the public was interested in going to work.  What the public really wanted was free obamaphones.

The question isn't which republican will win the next presidential election.  The question is whether democrats can overcome the damage that obama is doing.   Is not only obama, but the democrat brand being destroyed?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Sep 9, 2013)

Romney lost the moderate voting bloc, which was the largest voting bloc in the 2012 election.  Romney's problem was that he tried to appeal too much to the far right. What he said obviously had a serious effect on moderates.  They didn't trust him when he tried to paint himself as a moderate.
Does anyone have a better analysis to why Romney failed so badly with the moderate voters?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 9, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Romney didn't lose because he was a moderate.  He made the decision to focus his campaign on jobs.   He was under the mistaken impression that the public was interested in going to work.  What the public really wanted was free obamaphones.
> 
> The question isn't which republican will win the next presidential election.  The question is whether democrats can overcome the damage that obama is doing.   Is not only obama, but the democrat brand being destroyed?



Not at all.  The Dems are doing quite well for themselves as the last six elections have shown.

The GOP was destroying its brand and loyalty for catering far too much to the far right and reactionaries.

The continued out reach to Hispanics, women, other minorities, etc., will help rebrand the Republicans into a winning party.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> Romney lost the moderate voting bloc, which was the largest voting bloc in the 2012 election.  Romney's problem was that he tried to appeal too much to the far right. What he said obviously had a serious effect on moderates.  They didn't trust him when he tried to paint himself as a moderate.
> Does anyone have a better analysis to why Romney failed so badly with the moderate voters?



I don't buy that.  

Romney actually WON independents, which would imply he had no problem with "moderates".  

Romney's problem was a lot more simple.  

The election of 2012 was either voting for or against Obama.  There was never a point where anyone was actually voting for Romney.  (Except the Mormons, maybe.)  And now one ever beat an incumbant by being "Not that Guy".   

Not Kerry, Not Dole, Not Mondale, Not George McGovern.  

No one had an emotional investment in Romney, really.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 10, 2013)

It really didnt even seem like Romney was trying. I think his son later came out and said something along those lines. That he didnt care.

  It worked out that he was a benefit to Obama by scaring off better Republican candidates and eliminating some among those that did run in the primaries. Santorum and Gingrich and Paul would have been better candidates against Obama. Paul was even polling better in head to head matchups if I remember right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2013)

No reactionary candidate - Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, or any of that forgettable lot - could have ran within 3% points of where Romney finished.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> No reactionary candidate - Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, or any of that forgettable lot - could have ran within 3% points of where Romney finished.



Actually, I think any one of those guys would have gotten EXACTLY what Romney got.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2013)

Oh, no, not at all.  Many of the mainstream GOP simply would not have voted for either candidate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, no, not at all.  Many of the mainstream GOP simply would not have voted for either candidate.



And a lot of people who wouldn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon Douchebag might have given Santorum (or whoever) a look.  

Truth to be told.  Obama vs. Santorum, I'd have voted for Santorum.  Yeah, he's a bit of a religous whack, but he understands working folks.  

Same with Gingrich.  Kind of a creep, but he gets that the recession has really been hell on working folks.  

Romney's idea of a recession is he can't buy a new Dressage Horsie.  

Seriously, guy, the GOP could do itself a LOT more good if it got right with working people than if it dumped the religious crazies.  

ZBecause the Religious crazies ain't going away, and there are just as many on the left.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2013)

JoeB, you always lose this argument, so "no more once more" for you, too.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, you always lose this argument, so "no more once more" for you, too.



Guy, you were the one who insisted up and down the Weird Mormon Robot was going to win. 

How'd that work out for you again? 

Not only did he FAIL to decrease the influence of the crazies of the party, but the crazies can honestly say with a straight face, "Romney wasn't a real conservative, that's why he lost!"


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 10, 2013)

"Truth to be told. Obama vs. Santorum, I'd have voted for Santorum. Yeah, he's a bit of a religous whack, but he understands working folks. 

Same with Gingrich. Kind of a creep, but he gets that the recession has really been hell on working folks."

Don't forget Paul, he probably wouldve lost some republicans but made up for it with independents. I believe some polls actually showed him winning against Obama. 

New Hampshire BTW should not be the starting point of presidential campaigns.  It is an unrepresentative state. Beginning states should have demographics similar to the whole country. Iowa is alot better than NewHampshire but should also give other states a chance.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> "Truth to be told. Obama vs. Santorum, I'd have voted for Santorum. Yeah, he's a bit of a religous whack, but he understands working folks.
> 
> Same with Gingrich. Kind of a creep, but he gets that the recession has really been hell on working folks."
> 
> ...



I try to forget the Pauls, because they are whackadoodle LiberTARDians who only survive because the Koch brothers keep sending them money.  

I also think that neither NH nor IA are representative of the country as a whole.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB, you always lose this argument, so "no more once more" for you, too.
> ...



Whatever, Joe.  You said he could not be nominated and asked if you had pulled that out of your ass, you got real snarky for a long, long time because I was right on the primaries.  

If the reactionaries could not beat him in the primaries to get the nomination, then they would have done even more poorly than Romney against your guy, Obama.

Common sense.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



ANY WARM BODY would have gotten the exact same number of votes as Romney did.  

I got snarky because I knew nominating this asshole would be a fucking disaster for the GOP. 

And it was.  

An absolute fucking disaster.  How fucking incompetent do you need to be to LOSE against an incumbant with 8% unemployment and $4.00 a gallon gas?  

But the establishment, they were going to attack anyone who ran against him, and they did.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2013)

Yup, you were snarky, and, yup, you were wrong, and, yup, the far righties would have done worse than Romney.

Your hatred for Mormonism unbalances your thinking is the problem.

You are a religio-cultural weirdo like 2d Amendment, a millennial whiner of monumental proportions about how everybody on the left is out to get him personally.

Balance, guy, balance.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, you were snarky, and, yup, you were wrong, and, yup, the far righties would have done worse than Romney.
> 
> Your hatred for Mormonism unbalances your thinking is the problem.
> 
> ...



Guy, nominating Romney was a fuckup.  

Why aren't you owning it?  

Frankly, I predicted that most of the right would turn on him the minute he lost, and they have. 

Because he was an awful candidate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2013)

Sure, Joe.  You need to own it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sure, Joe.  You need to own it.



I do. 

I said he was an awful candidate.  

Rich Douchebag, crazy religion, and I'd never vote for him. 

And he lost. 

Done.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> I try to forget the Pauls, because they are whackadoodle LiberTARDians who only survive because the Koch brothers keep sending them money.
> 
> I also think that neither NH nor IA are representative of the country as a whole.



I dont think the Koch brothers like either Paul or fund them. I dont agree with everything they do, but they're better than average major party candidates. 

no state is representative of the country as a whole but IA is a lot closer than NH. If a candidate wins NH it means that most of the rest of the country should reject that candidate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

JoeB, who is ignoring all the wacky and weird stuff he said before the national election was wrong about Romney, who won everything until the last one.

And JoeB will be wrong about the GOP primaries in 2016 as well.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, who is ignoring all the wacky and weird stuff he said before the national election was wrong about Romney, who won everything until the last one.
> 
> And JoeB will be wrong about the GOP primaries in 2016 as well.



Guy I predicted Romney would lose the general election, and he did. 

Because, frankly, most Americans didn't want their beloved country turned over to the cult wearing Magic Underwear.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

You predicted he would never get there, and you were wrong.

Get over it, kid.  And as usual, your blatant religious bigotry, a mark of so many on the far left, is obvious.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> You predicted he would never get there, and you were wrong.
> 
> Get over it, kid.  And as usual, your blatant religious bigotry, a mark of so many on the far left, is obvious.



So the Establishment rigged the primary process for him, I'm supposed to be impressed? 

Really?  

The point is, they shoved down a candidate the rank and file really didn't want, and he lost miserably. 

Maybe, and I'm just spit-balling here, you guys should check if your rank and file actually WANT a guy. 

But you'll probably shove FatBoy Christie down the throats of the rank and file, and then wonder why his fat ass loses to Hillary.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

Silly first sentence.

Sillier second sentence.

The rank and file picked, JoeB, so get over it, guy.

Yes, you are spit balling.

Christie can win the primaries and beat Hillary, of course.

You have every right to be afraid of him.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 11, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I try to forget the Pauls, because they are whackadoodle LiberTARDians who only survive because the Koch brothers keep sending them money.
> ...



They are? 

How, exactly? 

Both Pauls are ignorant reactionaries, their policies and supporters reflect more a cult than a political ideology.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silly first sentence.
> 
> Sillier second sentence.
> 
> ...



Actually, whenever a Republican is endorsed by the likes of you, it's pretty much the knell of death. 

All these people who are saying how WONDERFUL Christie is now will be the ones who break bad on him in 2016. 

Just like they did with Romney. 

Just like they did with McCain.  

Shit, man, I remember before 2008, when Democrats all those John McCain was the bee's Knees, until he got the nomination.  Then he was some crazy old man who was going to blow up the world.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

JoeB, I know you take reality hard: McCain and Romney would their candidacies to lead the party.

A Christie can trash any of the Dem potential candidates right now and can probably beat HRC.

Your predictions were o for everything until the national election.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, I know you take reality hard: McCain and Romney would their candidacies to lead the party.
> 
> A Christie can trash any of the Dem potential candidates right now and can probably beat HRC.
> 
> Your predictions were o for everything until the national election.



No, McCain and Romney got the nominations because the GOP has a bad habit of retreading losers. 

"Shit, our own voters rejected these guys 4 or 8 years ago- Let's run them again!" 

Also, every poll shows Hillary beating the fuck out of Jabba, even with the relatively good press he's getting.  

But just like the MSM didn't talk about AmPad until after the nomination, the MSM won't talk about all those union folks Jabba screwed until after he gets the nomination.  

Sorry, man, ain't buying it.  The GOP should run a candidate they like, not one the MSM tells them to like.  Then, win or lose, they do it on their own terms.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

You are entitled to your misguided opinion, JoeB.

No one cares what you buy.

And Christie will do well and has every opportunity to beat a re-run like Hillary.

Please, you may have the last word.


----------



## AceRothstein (Sep 11, 2013)

Has anyone unskewed this poll yet? I want to know the real results.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are entitled to your misguided opinion, JoeB.
> 
> No one cares what you buy.
> 
> ...



Frankly, not even seeing who Jabba's constituency is.  

Conservatives might vote for him if he's the choice, but frankly, they won't like him and they won't get their friends out. 

And liberals will do what they always do. 

"Oh, gee, why can't you be more like Chris Christie... SUCKERS!!!"


----------



## Toro (Sep 11, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Romney lost the moderate voting bloc, which was the largest voting bloc in the 2012 election.  Romney's problem was that he tried to appeal too much to the far right. What he said obviously had a serious effect on moderates.  They didn't trust him when he tried to paint himself as a moderate.
> ...



You certainly did.  You still do.

Obama won moderates 56-41.  

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

Moderates were also 45% of the electorate, more than conservatives and liberals.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The only "investment" i have is trying to point out to "conservatives" why he was sooo awful, because most of you apparently haven't learned a thing. 

Romney lost because instead of wrapping Plutocracy in the juicy bacon of racism, homophobia and religious stupidity, he just served it up straight. 

And no one was buying it.  

The GOP doesn't need to abandon conservatism, it has to get right with working folks.  

Because the Democrats are probably going to run a white person next time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 11, 2013)

Christie will get the Democrat nomination


----------



## Toro (Sep 11, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Romney lost moderates when you said they won.  

Romney won 47% of the vote, Obama won 51%, a swing of 2%.  So when you say "no one" was buying it, yet the swing was 2%, it's hard to take your "analysis" and prescriptions seriously.  

Living in a Fog of Hate is no way to go through life.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

And Toro collapses JoeB's argument.

And, yes, JoeB has a serious mancrush on Romney.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 11, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Christie will get the Democrat nomination



Christie will easily win the GOP nomination

He is the only current Republican that can appeal to GOP moderates. Like it or not, it is the moderates who select Presidential candidates not the Conservatives


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Christie will get the Democrat nomination
> ...



You are so right, finally!

Moderates elected every GOP president since Eisenhower.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Sep 11, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> When Rand Paul is almost ahead of Chris Christie in a north eastern state, you know the time to Restore the Rule of Law [Constitution] is soon at hand.
> 
> How much fraud will the GOP engage in to destroy Rand Paul's candidacy?
> 
> ...



Why do you put any faith polling a bunch of Democrats about a Republican nominee?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

They are from NH not TX, and the pubs and centrists and dems up there think Texans are politically deformed mutants, I believe.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

Toro said:


> [
> 
> Romney lost moderates when you said they won.
> 
> .



I said he won INDEPENDENTS, which he did.  

"Moderate" is kind of a meaningless label which I largely ignore.  Liberal and Conservative have become so toxic, everyone thinks of themselves as a "moderate".   

Or do you really think 20% of "Conservatives" voted for Obama in 2008?



> Romney won 47% of the vote, Obama won 51%, a swing of 2%.  So when you say "no one" was buying it, yet the swing was 2%, it's hard to take your "analysis" and prescriptions seriously.
> 
> Living in a Fog of Hate is no way to go through life



That's a typically MISLEADING statement.  

Romney got only as many votes as McCain got.   Maybe a tad more, but not much.   Less than a million, really.   

The reason teh PERCENTAGES changed is that 2.3 million LESS people voted in 2012 than 2008.   

And most of that loss occurred in non-Swing states that were never really in play.  For instance, the vote total was down 4% in California, 7.5% in New  York.  

It actually went UP in most of the states that were swing states.  The states that actually made a difference.  

And Obama won all of those EXCEPT North Carolina. 

Here, educate yourself. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...1oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true#gid=19


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

Yup, JoeB ignores things that disturb his world. 

In that sense, it is a common attribute of both lefty radicals and far right reactionaries.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, JoeB ignores things that disturb his world.
> 
> In that sense, it is a common attribute of both lefty radicals and far right reactionaries.



No, guy, I just don't pretend Romney improved the GOP position any by losing just as bad as McCain did.  

I mean, I can feel bad for McCain. He was a GENUINE American hero who had to defend the Bush record, with an economy quite literally collapsing around him and supporting a war everyone concluded was a bad idea at that point.  And he still managed to garner a respectable 59.5 million votes.  

Romney, on the other hand, was running against a president with 8% unemployment, $4.00 a gallon gasoline, and a lot of unfilled promises.  And he still managed to lose by about the same margin.  

But don't worry, Tubby from NJ will do just as good.  Really.


----------



## Toro (Sep 11, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> I said he won INDEPENDENTS, which he did.



You said he had no problem with moderates.



JoeB131 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Romney lost the moderate voting bloc, which was the largest voting bloc in the 2012 election.  Romney's problem was that he tried to appeal too much to the far right. What he said obviously had a serious effect on moderates.  They didn't trust him when he tried to paint himself as a moderate.
> ...



He lost moderates by 15%.  So he had a big problem with moderates.



> "Moderate" is kind of a meaningless label which I largely ignore.



Of course you do.  It doesn't fit into your narrative.  



> Or do you really think 20% of "Conservatives" voted for Obama in 2008?



I believe pollsters more than I believe one guy who lives in a Fog of Hate.



> Romney won 47% of the vote, Obama won 51%, a swing of 2%.  So when you say "no one" was buying it, yet the swing was 2%, it's hard to take your "analysis" and prescriptions seriously.
> 
> Living in a Fog of Hate is no way to go through life





> That's a typically MISLEADING statement.



No it's not.

You said "Nobody bought it."

Because you are warped with hatred you can't be objective.  He got 47% of the vote.  Clearly, a whole lot of people "bought" it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2013)

Toro soars and swoops over JoeB's flat footed finger tippy stretch to slam dunk the ball.

JoeB, guy, huh, give up the antiMormonism.  It is so 19th century.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2013)

Toro said:


> [
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> ...



No, guy.  Santorum would have gotten that same 47%.  So would have Gingrich.  So would have Michelle Bachmann.   

He got the same "not Obama" numbers John McCain got.  He really accomplished nothing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toro soars and swoops over JoeB's flat footed finger tippy stretch to slam dunk the ball.
> 
> JoeB, guy, huh, give up the antiMormonism.  It is so 19th century.



Um, yeah, Snarky, I realize that you need someone to hold your coat for you.  

But, really, Tojo trying to defend Plutocracy wasn't going to do it. 

You guys foisted a Mormon Loser on the Party that most of the Party REALLY REALLY didn't want. 

And he lost miserably to a guy that was very beatable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeB, you got no game.

We picked the best of a poor group of canidates.

It's more than ten months such the election, and you are stilling whining about Romney.

Guy, give it up.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 12, 2013)

Romney is an example of how money distorts the system. Money is the only reason he got as far as he did. ANY of the others better represented the Republican party. 

 In the general, Santorum could have appealed to the majority in the nation who are critical of all the idiotic free trade deals, and the majority who are critical of Obama/Romney care

Paul would have appealed to the majority in this country who are critical of WallStreetBanking/financial influence AND our overseas adventurism, on top of the majorities mentioned with Santorum 

Gingrich would have ran a more combative centrist campaign


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2013)

*NONE *of the far right represented but a small portion of the party, and that portion no longer represents America, dcraelin.

Those days are over fohevah!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, you got no game.
> 
> We picked the best of a poor group of canidates.
> 
> ...



But that was the point.  The establishment types, instead of saying, "you all suck, we need to get a real candidate" instead said, "Well, It's Romney, he's a Mormon, we won't find a dead hooker in his basement. Probably."  

Incidently, I think Santorum or Gingrich or Perry would have made a better president than Romney.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2013)

Give it up, no game Joe

Of course you think the others would have been better than Romney, Mr. Concern Troll: they would have so much easier to beat.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Give it up, no game Joe
> 
> Of course you think the others would have been better than Romney, Mr. Concern Troll: they would have so much easier to beat.



Not really.  

Frankly, you wouldn't have ever seen Santorum show utter fucking contempt for working people like Romney did nearly every week.  

Because Santorum gets working folks.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2013)

Yup, really.

Actually, Santorum would have lost by more than 5% points than Romney.

Guy, give it your anti-Mormon bigotry.  You are at the same level of some of the pro-Palestinian nurds who attack Israel.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 12, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> *NONE *of the far right represented but a small portion of the party, and that portion no longer represents America, dcraelin.
> 
> Those days are over fohevah!



The Democratic partys _rhetoric_ probably fits the nation better than the average Republicans. Trouble is their actions never match the rhetoric. Ironically enough, Santorum, with his  criticisms of Obama/Romney care and his social conservatism probably reaches a significant portion of "Reagan Democrats" 

Paul also better represents Democratic criticisms of Wall Street than Obama who received substantial contributions from WallStreet. Also even as a free trader Paul is more of a critic of Our trade policy than Obama who said hed reconsider NAFTA then sent someone scurrying over to Canada to say it was just rhetoric.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2013)

We don't want Dems, you are so right, dcraelin.

Santorum's incredibly social traditionalism turned off 85% of America, though.

Christie-Huckabee is the way to go.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, really.
> 
> Actually, Santorum would have lost by more than 5% points than Romney.
> 
> Guy, give it your anti-Mormon bigotry.  You are at the same level of some of the pro-Palestinian nurds who attack Israel.



Really, based on what?  

Frankly, Romney lost because he was a genuinely unlikeable human being.  

You know, like he was some weird android from the Planet Kolob who was kind of confused in his programming when he said shit like, "I like to fire people" and "the 47% are all moochers" and "We need to be like China where working women live 120 to a dorm for a pittance and LIKE IT!!!"  

yeah, the gays and the Feminists weren't going to vote for Santorum, but you know what, they didn't vote for Romney, either.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2013)

Frankly, fellow, step off.

All of this ended 10 months ago and you are still whining about Romney and Mormonism.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Frankly, fellow, step off.
> 
> All of this ended 10 months ago and you are still whining about Romney and Mormonism.



no, what I'm pointing out is that you guys foisted Romney because he brought his Mormon Money to the table and bought the nomination to give cred to his whacky cult.  

And the GOP lost an election they should have won.  Maybe one of the last ones they could have won because, hey, Demagraphics is not your friend.  

Here's the thing. I would HAPPILY vote for a conservative who I thought stood for something. 

Even if I didn't agree with him.  

I am not going to vote for a guy who is trying to pander.  But that's what we got with Mr. Etch-a-Sketch.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2013)

What you, guy, are pointing out is your creepy doosh fascination with Romney.

Stop the man crush, JoeB, and move along.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> What you, guy, are pointing out is your creepy doosh fascination with Romney.
> 
> Stop the man crush, JoeB, and move along.



Man up and own your screwup. 

You foisted this guy on an unsuspecting GOP.  

And now you are telling the Tea-Tards that they are the problem. 

The Tea-Tards are a problem, but you aren't the one to tell them that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2013)

No screw up, Tonto, he was the best of the bad lot, and the others were far worse.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> No screw up, Tonto, he was the best of the bad lot, and the others were far worse.



Not really.  

Obama was beatable.  if Romney was really the best the GOP could come up with, then they need to fold it up as a major political party.  

The things was, most of the better people either didn't run because Romney bought the nomination, or were discouraged from running by the establishment because it was Romney's turn.  

but here you are, trying to blame the Tea Party (which won most of the races they ran in) for Romney's epic fail.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2013)

Yup, he was.  Any of the others would have been hammered far worse.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, he was.  Any of the others would have been hammered far worse.



So you keep saying, but frankly, not seeing it.  

I'd have voted for Santorum.  I would not have voted for Romney. Ever.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeB, you not seeing something is exactly the guarantee most of us take in going the other way on positions.  You are wrong so much of the time.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, you not seeing something is exactly the guarantee most of take in going the other way on positions.  You are wrong so much of the time.



Wasn't wrong about Romney. 

I predicted Obama would beat him the same way Ted Kennedy did.  

Which is exactly what happened.  

And I also predicted that most of the right wingers who were supporting him because they had no real choice at that point would be the ones coming back here saying, "Romney lost because he wasn't a real conservative".  

And guess what, right about that one, too. 

The thing is, after McCain and Romney, no one on the right is going to buy the "We need to appeal to the middle by nominating a moderate" speil you spew.  The third time will not be the charm.  

The only two real successes the REpublican Party has had have been Reagan and Dubya Bush- guys who were unapologetically conservative.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2013)

In fact, your expanded answers merely show that you don't like being and knowing that you are being wrong.

Get over your mancrush on Romney, and move on with your life.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> In fact, your expanded answers merely show that you don't like being and knowing that you are being wrong.
> 
> Get over your mancrush on Romney, and move on with your life.



Guy, I was right about everything I said.  

And frankly, who do you think your audience is at this point.  Liberals are ignoring you and conservatives think you are a liberal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2013)

Kiddo, you were wrong about almost all of it, including that any of the wacks on the far right could even equal much less exceed Romney's performance.

My audience is you, thinking you speak for liberals, you silly Joe.


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, your expanded answers merely show that you don't like being and knowing that you are being wrong.
> ...



You said Romney didn't have a problem with moderates. You were certainly wrong about that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeB is wrong about much.


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2013)

I've noticed that. 

He makes things up to support is narrative.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2013)

All through the primaries and the election he was yammering and stammering, spittle flying because of his hatred of Mormonism and right of center and business.

He is Ernie S.'s equivalent on the left.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> All through the primaries and the election he was yammering and stammering, spittle flying because of his hatred of Mormonism and right of center and business.
> 
> He is Ernie S.'s equivalent on the left.



During the Primaries and the election, I was right that Romney was the worst candidate the GOP had nominated since Barry Goldwater... 

And I was right.  

Let's look at some of those gems, shall we. 

"Corporations are people, too!" 
"I like to be able to fire people!"
The whole 47% Narrative.
The whole Etch-a-Sketch Narrative. 

And at the end of the day, he couldn't beat a failed president in a country full of racists.  

It's like not being able to get laid in a whorehouse.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 14, 2013)

Keep telling yourself that, guy.

Actually, Romney was the best of a bad lot.

Your prancing and dancing were fun to watch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Keep telling yourself that, guy.
> 
> Actually, Romney was the best of a bad lot.
> 
> Your prancing and dancing were fun to watch.



Your snivelling and whining when he lost was even funnier to watch, especially when the conservatards wouldn't let you sit at the cool kid's table.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



He really didn't.  He got a pretty good slice of them.  He also won independents.   

What he didnt' win were working folks and minorities.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 14, 2013)

Didnt losers McCain and Romney both win NewHampshire?   I believe so.  New Hampshire is a poor state to take any hint as to which candidate would be better in the general election. 

Perhaps what voters should do is boycott any candidate who even campaigns in that wretched state.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Didnt losers McCain and Romney both win NewHampshire?   I believe so.  New Hampshire is a poor state to take any hint as to which candidate would be better in the general election.
> 
> Perhaps what voters should do is boycott any candidate who even campaigns in that wretched state.



NH is just small enough where the candidates can meet nearly every voter and we can get a really solid look at them. 

Of course, the last three presidents-  Obama, Bush and CLinton- all lost NH the first time around, so that's a strong indicator that it isn't nearly that important. 

I think the low water mark for NH was in 1996 when Pat Buchanan won the GOP Primary and the whole GOP Establishment crapped itself.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 14, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> NH is just small enough where the candidates can meet nearly every voter and we can get a really solid look at them.



I keep hearing that and it would mean more if candidates didn't advertise there. If they had some sort of ban on the expensive advertising that reaches NH so the people were really basing it on meeting the candidates.......but they dont

But that would still leave the fact that NH is an unrepresentative state demographically in most all measures, and as you point out, has a dismal record in picking good candidates.


----------



## Nyvin (Sep 24, 2013)

Paul being ahead of Christie doesn't show much....all the Republican candidates are the suck really.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 25, 2013)

Christie is just the same stale grafting politician we usually get, Paul would be a postive change. Hillary also is the same tired crap. If the Dems are dumb enough to run her again almost any republican could beat her.


----------

