Posted on 11/05/2018 9:58:23 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Yes the Lou Barletta campaign has been bad (though not nearly so bad as the inept Scott Wagner for Governor campaign).
Good example. Lou Barletta is not well known....hell, not known at ALL outside of NE PA where he has been a Congressman for years.
His yard signs say simply “LOU” (like the Jeb! ones we saw in 2016). Here your candidate’s #1 problem is name recognition and you don’t even put his full name on the yard signs.
That’s just one small example. Bob Casey is an incumbent with a lot of inertia and you need something much more dynamic to dislodge him.
No, it doesn’t.
If it were measured in specific—or even all contested areas it would give an indication. When 400+ seats are not in contention it is more a reading of THOSE seats. Which, based on population are going to trend democrat.
I am not trying to be argumentative. Honest.
If you are basing your drive to vote based on this—that’s great. But don’t give up because of this.
Take the DEM buses and save the GOP $$. No one knows how you vote.
You’re really good at finding irritating, lying, bullcrap, leftist propaganda. You obviously hunt for it. Now, onto the the nugget of this sh*t article:
The poll’s margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points.
Translation: This fake survey polled +12 democrats, so please, please believe our lies. And when we’re proven wrong, try to forget this leftist BS so we can keep our humpty-dumpty jobs and do this crap again in 2020.
Total BS!
RE: You’re really good at finding irritating, lying, bullcrap, leftist propaganda.
Like you, I wish this poll would show something different.
But I hasten to remind you that IBD/TIPP was one of the MOST ACCURATE poll in the 2016 elections. They predicted a Trump victory when all others were showing that he would lose.
and here:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
So, I’m not trying to find anything, I simply subscribe to Investors Business Daily and this happens to be their poll findings. If you think it is BS, maybe you can tell us why.
“If you think it is BS, maybe you can tell us why.”
You don’t get to choose what I respond to. Your history exposes you.
You post the most negative, anti-Trump crap on FR and did so throughout the entire primary and the presidential election. You did so consistently and never challenged the premise of all the negative crap articles you posted.
I don’t have to prove it because anyone can call up your posting history and see it for themselves.
Posting history heh?
It’s obvious you only want to see what you want to see and ignore or fail to see the other posts I make.
Did you see this one post of mine for instance:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3703102/posts
I guess you did not. So please don’t pretend you know about my posting history. You obviously don’t.
It took you 98 posts before responding to this vile thread. That’s typical for you.
“I guess you did not. So please don’t pretend you know about my posting history. You obviously don’t.”
I don’t need to “pretend.” Your posting history is obvious to anyone who cares to look. You post endless attacks against Trump and rarely ever attack the premise of the articles you post.
RE: I don’t need to “pretend.” Your posting history is obvious to anyone who cares to look.
Well, not obvious to you.
Look that these posts and tell me if they are attacks on Trump:
1) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3703035/posts
2) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3702254/posts
3) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3700917/posts
4) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3700897/posts
Now, be fair, read those posts, ask your self who started those threads and tell me whether or not they are attacks or supportive of Trump.
Right again. Dems took the House.
Blow it out of your you know what.
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.