Posted on 08/27/2014 5:53:45 AM PDT by cotton1706
“Republican” U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts is facing a tougher-than-expected reelection battle in Kansas – a state heretofore reliable in its election of GOP nominees.
Roberts recently won the “Republican” nomination in the Sunflower State by a 48-41 margin over Tea Party-backed candidate Milton Wolf (with 11 percent of voters supporting other candidates).
Game over, right? Wrong …
According to the results of a recent Survey USA poll, Roberts is only leading his Democratic opponent Chad Taylor by a 37-32 percent margin. Where’s the rest of the support going? Well, 20 percent of those polled say they’re backing independent candidate Greg Orman - three times the level of support he was receiving just two months ago.
“Roberts’ numbers have been steady,” noted political analyst Jeff Jarman of KSN.com. ”Taylor’s numbers have been steady. It’s Orman who is gaining ground.”
And if Orman continues to gain momentum, there’s speculation that national Democrats might ask Taylor to drop out of the race.
Orman isn’t the only potentially credible candidate threatening to throw a monkey wrench into the traditional “red” versus “blue” calculus.
In South Carolina, “Republican” Lindsey Graham is – like Roberts – deeply unpopular with voters. He’s facing a credible Democrat (S.C. Sen. Brad Hutto) as well as an independent challenger – former State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel. According to several internal polls provided to FITS, Ravenel is currently drawing between 13-15 percent support – and he has yet to spend a dime of his considerable fortune on media messaging.
Meanwhile in North Carolina vulnerable incumbent Kay Hagan is in a dogfight against establishment “Republican” Thom Tillis (both are drawing a little over 40 percent support) – although the real story is the emergence of Libertarian nominee Sean Haugh, who is currently drawing the support of eight percent of voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at fitsnews.com ...
BS. Any amnesty done by Romney would give the republicans cover to walk right over conservatives again.
Do you remember the Gang of 8?
We would be in the same place, or worse, since Romney being a republican would give republicans cover to cave.
/johnny
Defamatory accusations intended to bludgeon me into silence won’t work. Sorry. I don’t put up with those tactics when they come from the Liberal PC crowd, I certainly won’t put up with it from people who present themselves as “Conservatives”.
But continue to stay angry and bitter, my FRiend!
It was an accurate description of you, you have a political agenda that you are pushing by fighting for Mitt Romney, and this isn’t 2006, or 2011, here we are in late 2014, and you are still pushing Romney’s politics.
*yawn*
Most rational people get that there’s a pretty big area between supporting a politician absolutely and taking up a “burn the witch!” stance against them.
Nothing changes, your war is still against the conservatives and for Romney and his liberal politics, we saw that even in regards to abortion, on this thread.
We are in at least our 9th year of this Romney infestation, from you guys.
In back to back posts you accuse me of first being a Rand Paulian Libertarian and then of being a big government Liberal Romneybot.
Something just doesnt seem right there. It seems to me that the biggest fight here over labeling is between you and, well, ... you.
I’ll step back and let you work that out amongst yourself (yourselves?). Keep me posted on how that goes!
More lying, I never accused you of being a libertarian or for Rand Paul, but you are a very dedicated Romneybot.
Pointing out that your lying about there not being any role for a president in abortion at the federal level is used most frequently by libertarians, and Rand Paul supporters was merely pointing out where you picked up that deceit, your use of it was to defend pro-abortionist Mitt Romney.
Wasn’t lying, see my post #58, above.
Thank you for clarifying (I think) your misstatements on my being either a Rand Paulian Libertarian or a Big Government Liberal Romneybot. Neither are correct, of course (along with your various lie and deciet accusations), but I’m glad that you’ve found peace with yourself (yourselves?)
No clarification was needed since I never said you were libertarian or for Paul, although if he is liberal enough, you may switch to him if you can’t get Romney, but this thread proves that you are a romneybot.
Your defense of Romney’s rabid pro-abortion politics has been the strongest focus of you anti-conservative/pro-Romney posting.
To: tanknetter
Your pretending that nothing gets done at the federal level on abortion is just a deceitful pro-abortion lie, and one favored by libertarians and Rand Paul supporters.
Here is just one example, there are others, including federal hospitals and military hospitals.
The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.
54 posted on 8/27/2014 8:31:03 AM by ansel12
It is the liberals of BOTH parties that are using divide and conquer, more so in the Republican party.
And the GOPE needs to be reminded of Reagan’s 11th commandment because they sure as hell don’t follow it if a conservative wins the nomination. Either they play by the rules or screw the rules.
The subject matter of the post was the problem the GOP has with conservative candidates pulling voters away from what should be a decisive Republican victory to the point the Democrats could take the seat. While recognizing I was going to be flamed for saying so, which proved so true, my initial point was that conservatives refusing to vote for the more conservative of the two major party candidates end up helping the furthest left win - example provided was Romney. The country has a long way to recover, and may not if purists further enable the ultra left to solidify their power. While you will disagree, the country is in far worse shape now than it would have been - even if it would not have been as good as we might have liked it - if Zero had lost. Again - the point is generic about getting the best we can in the primaries and then coalescing for the general election on every level.
Your reply to me appeared to suggest you were talking about Romney losing to “two guys without campaign funds, or organization” as referring to the 2012 general election, which would be absolute falsity. Now you clarify you were talking about 2008. OK - Romney lost and dropped out of the primaries then. Was the point electability? He overcame whatever issues and was elected the party candidate in 2012. It appears however that your comments were a repeat of an earlier tirade against Romney from “The Madness of 2008...” posting today, where the 2008 reference may have been more inherent. A look at your other comments suggests your animosity towards Romney far outweighs your concerns about conservatism. Many conservatives supported Romney, all I’ve tried to do is articulate the point that dividing the conservative between conservative light and true conservative is ensure ultra liberals win.
I don’t disagree that those in current control of the GOP are not following Reagan’s 11th commandment and really need some consequences (focus the money on conservatives). Key is bottom’s up realignment of the party. Piece by piece, will likely take years. But handing over power to the D’s will not help matters.
When every liberal republican loses, things will change fast enough.
/johnny
My reply in post 50 suggested that I was addressing 2008 and 2012.
Read it again.
To: LibertyOh
Romney despised Reagan and has smeared him for years, he left the GOP because of Reagan and became a democrat supporter and fundraiser, and voter, not returning to the GOP until Bill Clinton was safely in the White House.
Romney was the problem that killed 2008 and 2012, the Reagan hating, most radical liberal that has ever been a major player in GOP presidential politics had only won a single election in his life, and had only returned to the GOP in October of 1993, after supporting democrats, and fundraising and voting as a democrat, and fund raising for Planned Parenthood.
Since his own polling showed he wasn’t going to win reelection as governor, an office he left with 34% approval, he set out to become president and announced that he was the 800 pound gorilla with all the money, which kept out any substantive challengers and left us with nobodies, as it was, Romney spent 50 million dollars of his own money, had all the big donors, a massive organization, and still lost to two guys without campaign funds, or organization.
The proof of Romney was in 2012, in an election that republicans couldn’t lose, Romney/Ryan, somehow pulled it off, that far trumps losing in the 2008 election that was almost impossible for the GOP to win in a perfect storm of recession, 8 years of Bush, and the first black president.
43 posted on 08/27/2014 7:43:22 AM PDT by ansel12
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all."- Ronald Reagan
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.