The point of this thread is that the polls were accurate despite all of the people insisting otherwise -- from Dick Morris to people here.
Who is your favorite non-RINO? Do you have any evidence this non-RINO would have beaten Obama? A lot of people think Sarah Palin would have, but when you poll that match-up, Palin loses like Mondale. Palin fans don't want to accept that, but it's what the evidence says.
You win an election with the electorate you have -- not the electorate you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Ok, I acknowledge the polls were accurate to a point, but what matters is regardless of the "polls" being accurate something is TERRIBLY wrong with the republicans not being able to beat an incumbent we STILL don't know anything about. An incumbent who gave us the largest debt in history, gas prices at $4.00, Obamacare which is going to make health cost unaffordable and no one yet knows what's really in the legislation, Unemployment is still at 8% almost double from 4 years ago, Bengazi, bowing to foreign leaders, aligning with our sworn enemy, and we still do not truly know if this charlatan is eligible to be president!
A lot of people think Sarah Palin would have, but when you poll that match-up, Palin loses like Mondale.
The facts are rino's are losers. Palin is theory. There's no argument or no debate about this! If conservatives put a candidate up nationally and they lose then we can talk, until them you're just blowing smoke.