Posted on 11/28/2009 4:23:05 PM PST by SunkenCiv
You are a deluded fool, and blind to boot. There is EVERYTHING rational and reasoned in rejecting Romney.
Nyah, nyah, nyah, NYAAHHHHH!!
... but you insult the founder of this website, Jim Robinson, AND you attribute to "hate" (because you're a fool) that which is attributable to reasoned strategy.
You say you're not a Romneybot, but you act like one in that you fail to perceive the difference between being motivated by "hate" and being motivated by rational concerns. I think it's because your ego is too invested to admit that you have something to learn. You pretend it's all founded on a joke -- but your capacity for humor is sadly deficient; your capacity for insult and condescension is sadly overdeveloped.
I've given him the links that prove otherwise. In this case, I simply quoted from the RealClearPolitics site, showing the single poll done after Palin was picked which had McCain/Palin up by 8 points, on September 5-7, which was the convention bounce, right after days of attacks on Palin by the left.
For your viewing pleasure, here's a link to the polls: General Election McCain vs Obama Polls
Here's a link to a chart:
Interactive Chart McCain vs. Obama
But I'm sure you were alive last year, so you already know the facts, and know that McCain/Palin was never ahead by 10 points, was never ahead in ANY poll after September 25th, was never ahead by more than 3 points in the average, was never ahead in enough states to have a majority of the electoral votes, and was never ahead in a majority of the polls except for a few days right after the convention, with polls starting 9/13 swinging back to Obama except for 2 outlyers.
So without even getting into the sketchy sourcing and wildly unsubstantiated opinions reported as facts to support a faulty premise, we can dismiss the claim outright based on clearly understood FACTS.
McCain/Palin was NEVER ahead by 10 points; He was NEVER ahead in ANY poll after 9/25, he was only ahead in the averages immediately after the convention, and was back to being behind in the average and virtually every poll almost 2 months before the election.
Now, do you need me to do your research for you about what was SAID ON FREE REPUBLIC about how McCain's latching on the the bailout is what killed his chance of coming back in the polls? Of course, that was mostly near the end of september, and he was already behind, but there were slim signs he might be making a comeback before the bailout.
Of course, the generally "accepted" opinion is that Palin's appearances on national news shows is what thwarted his recovery. I don't agree with that, although it certainly didn't help.
Anyway, it's Always nice to point out irrefutable facts to people who can't bother to do a bit of research on their own before making false charges.
About the only thing you get right is that, during the last two months of the election, people who had previously supported every candidate other than McCain made attacks on Palin for various reasons, including people who had supported Romney.
Your belief that McCain would have won the election if not for negative opinion of Palin decries history, polling data, and the general consensus here at FR last year that McCain was his own worst enemy, and that Palin was NOT to blame, directly or indirectly, for the loss.
But I won’t argue about your opinion, only when you claim things as fact that are clearly false, like your false claim now retracted that McCain/Palin were ahead by 10 points days before the election.
You admit "McCain/Palin up by 8 points, on September 5-7".
8 Points ~ ,10 points is the same number, especially
when fed us by the fixed Romney MSM.
So the issue is you agree, McCain and Gov. Palin were
ahead, and could have used Team Romney's help.
But that was not to be. Nope. Romney is NOT a team player.
Romney is a sore loser.
You had me going there for a minute. :-)
I just want to know how you knew that this particular Romney Attack would be attached to your thread, rather than one of the other Romney attacks (it wouldn’t have been funny otherwise, obviously).
Or are they predictable?
Are you saying that people who are raised in a big church are predesposed to big government?
Maybe I'm missing your definition of a "big church", do you mean denomination? Because there are several Christian denominations larger than Mormon, and one VERY large one, and I think we have a lot of solid conservatives from that denomination who would disagree that they are for big government.
If they support solid conservative principles and actually act on it when it comes down to the voting they can look and act like Pee Wee Herman on acid in their off time for all I care. Gun grabbing, baby killing, gay activist supporting, half-stepping flip floppers need not apply.
I thought this was a thread about health care reform. Turns out it is some kind of arcane inside joke instead. I don't have time for riddles.
Gee, Officer Krupke...
We're depraved on account we're deprived!
Bottom line:
Romney is a loser.
He lost the primary to McCain.
Who will he lose it to in 2011?
Probably means the TOP DOWN control of MORMONism.
Follow the Prophet or else thing.
Mitt is ALMOST Prophet material now!
So you have now gone from “McCain/Palin was up 10 points days before the election, and Team Romney attacked him and caused him to lose the race” to
“One poll out of hundreds had McCain up by 8 points right after his convention, two MONTHS before the election, and if only the well-respected people at Team Romney had done more to help, he might have won.”
Personally, I don’t think “Team Romney” could possibly have helped McCain — they couldn’t even get Romney a nomination when he had all the money in the world and a 50-state organization.
Of course, Romney did do events for McCain, but hardly anything that was going to help McCain win the election.
I’m with you when you argue that Romney is not generally a help for others seeking election (he is very good at raising funds for candidates, but not for campaign events).
Hopefully, a conservative who can win the election.
"When Romney appointed her in April 2006, he was under pressure to put more women on the bench. A registered Democrat, she had worked since 1989 as a prosecutor in Essex County, where she was director of the family crimes and sexual assault unit."Well this is one more negative that I didn't know about! Thanks for the enlightenment!
I really don't understand how a real Republican Governor could live with himself!
Because Romney’s legacy is socialized medicine I want nothing to do with him. He was just a harbinger of the crap coming out of the Congress. He did what the Left is doing now. So no thanks. I don’t want more of the same.
Why can't you acknowledge that without Romney's staff spreading negative insider rumors to the press, and Romney obviously and intentionally not supporting his party's ticket in critical venues after the convention, they might have been successful?!
I believe that Romney and his former staff's backstabbing and collusion with the MSM caused the slide in polls through the anonymous negative stories that were published because of it.
It is clearly within reason to believe that without these spiteful attacks against McCain/Palin the election would have had a better outcome.
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.