Skip to comments.
The Obama factor: Virginia edition
WaPo ^
| 10/27/09
Posted on 10/27/2009 11:48:53 AM PDT by freespirited
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Even the Post's poll numbers show Deeds is toast.
GOTV!
To: EDINVA; iceskater; xyz123; Corin Stormhands; jla; Flora McDonald; GeorgeW23225; GottaLuvAkitas1; ...
2
posted on
10/27/2009 11:50:15 AM PDT
by
freespirited
(Liberals are only liberal about sex & drugs. Otherwise, they want to control your life. --DHorowitz)
To: freespirited
The ongoing debate in Washington over health care also splits the electorate. A narrow majority (53%) opposes the legislation being developed - while 43% favor it. Since when is 10% a "narrow majority" on anything?
3
posted on
10/27/2009 11:51:50 AM PDT
by
PDMiller
To: freespirited
Even the Post's poll numbers show Deeds is toast. Which means the TOTUS-reader is, also.
4
posted on
10/27/2009 11:54:44 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
To: PDMiller
Since when is 10% a "narrow majority" on anything?In Marxixst "journalist" argot 10% equals a "narrow majority" when it opposes statism. On the other hand that same 10% would be read as "a clear and convincing mandate" if it supported statism...
the infowarrior
To: freespirited
Well the maccaca wapo has reported on obama’s wanderings. And they’ve deigned to write analysis and state an opinion. Too bad they failed to mention what portion of the state is voting against Deeds to teach the wapo a lesson in carpetbagging reporting. Screw you wapo.
To: freespirited
Man, all the weasel words in this article bending over backwards to give support to Zer0 would put a double-jointed gymnast to shame.
7
posted on
10/27/2009 11:58:58 AM PDT
by
JPG
(Stand up and take our country back.)
To: equalitybeforethelaw
Macaca...
I said to my wife the other night...”If not for Macaca, George Allen might be President right now.”
8
posted on
10/27/2009 12:03:53 PM PDT
by
RockinRight
(Shove it down our throats in 2009, and we'll shove it up your a$$ in 2010.)
To: freespirited
A narrow majority (53%) opposes the legislation being developed - while 43% favor it. Big is narrow in Obama Kool Aid land..
9
posted on
10/27/2009 12:05:30 PM PDT
by
cardinal4
(Dont Tread on Me)
To: PDMiller
Since when is 10% a "narrow majority" on anything? The same paper said that the 7% win in the Presidential Election was a landslide and mandate. It all has to with the new math, 7% is far greater than 10% or so the Washington Post Says.
10
posted on
10/27/2009 12:07:03 PM PDT
by
cpdiii
(roughneck, oilfield trash and proud of it, geologist, pilot, pharmacist, iconoclast.)
To: JPG
"Man, all the weasel words in this article bending over backwards to give support to Zer0 would put a double-jointed gymnast to shame." Great analogy!
11
posted on
10/27/2009 12:12:40 PM PDT
by
libs_kma
(F.U.B.O.)
To: freespirited
Obammie’s stop my shave a couple more points off Deed’s vote. The state is rife with anti-Obalmy sentiment.
12
posted on
10/27/2009 12:37:42 PM PDT
by
luvbach1
(Worse than we could have imagined.)
To: PDMiller
Its a narrow majority because its 53%, which is only 3% above the bare majority, which is narrow. The key word is majority. For example, if it was 49% against, 39% for, that’s not a majority, even though its 10% more opposed to for.
To: PDMiller
Of course 10@ is a landslide.
14
posted on
10/27/2009 12:38:39 PM PDT
by
luvbach1
(Worse than we could have imagined.)
To: luvbach1
Look for something like 15% come election day. Deeds is dead in the water and listing. He only looses voters from here on out. Bammy is a fool to campaign for him. But then bammy is a fool.
To: equalitybeforethelaw
Deeds is dead in the water and listing. Love that metaphor. I say that on election day he'll upend, sink, and break in half like the Titanic.
16
posted on
10/27/2009 12:52:27 PM PDT
by
luvbach1
(Worse than we could have imagined.)
To: cauzneffct
Point taken. (Majority vs. plurality)
17
posted on
10/27/2009 12:52:38 PM PDT
by
PDMiller
To: RockinRight
Macaca was a bunch of caca.
18
posted on
10/27/2009 12:53:09 PM PDT
by
luvbach1
(Worse than we could have imagined.)
To: RockinRight
Right on. that and the washington post, or was it the times...cant remember.
To: RockinRight
If they hadn’t used macaca, they would have found something else. Even if they had to say that something sounded like a slur. They were looking for trouble and when you do that you always find it.
20
posted on
10/27/2009 1:08:49 PM PDT
by
1raider1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson