Landslide!! God Bless America

[Gamoto]

Sounds like a referendum to me !!!

58 / 42

[EvosM3]

Yep, the dirty union bosses are in for a world of hurt now. As is the democrat machine which is so heavily funded by the unions.

The entire process in Wisconsin was sickening. It was over an year ago when the coward democrat representatives ran off to Chicago to evade the vote and it took police to bring them back in. Then they tried to shift the balance of the Wisconsin supreme court in their favor by holding an election for the conservative justice and almost appointed a liberal one. They actually did for a day but then it came out that the largest conservative district in Wisconsin didn't get their votes counted and so after a recount, the new liberal justice got removed and the old one was elected again. The people spoke again and by a huge margin told Governor Walker that they still wanted him. And why wouldn't they? He lowered their unemployment by over 1 point to 6.7(?)% and his budget shows that the state will have a SURPLUS of over $150 million after being in debt by several billion dollars. I'm glad that the people spoke out. Obama be warned as this does not bode well for him and his party.

[128vertinnoho]

No, actually it sounds like money can buy an election. When you're outspent 8 to 1 in advertising dollars, it will be next to impossible to win an election, unless your opponent is the devil himself. Also, more than 2/3 of Walkers campaign money came from outside WI.

The money will be much more even in the general election in November.

Also, based on exit polling, if the POTUS election were held yesterday, Obama would have beaten Rmoney in WI.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by Gamoto

Sounds like a referendum to me !!!

58 / 42

You might need more info...58/42 in what? Badminton?

[EvosM3]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

No, actually it sounds like money can buy an election. When you're outspent 8 to 1 in advertising dollars, it will be next to impossible to win an election, unless your opponent is the devil himself. Also, more than 2/3 of Walkers campaign money came from outside WI.

The money will be much more even in the general election in November.

Also, based on exit polling, if the POTUS election were held yesterday, Obama would have beaten Rmoney in WI.

Also based on the exit polling, the race should have been a toss up. Guess it wasn't. Oh, and the liberals aren't nearly as enthused about going out and voting, maybe that's why the exit polls showed Barrett and Walker with a slimmer lead (definitely not a 18 point margin).
Just admit it, it doesn't look too good for the democrats anymore.

[EvosM3]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._few_days.html

Look at this sorry sack of shit.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by EvosM3

Also based on the exit polling, the race should have been a toss up. Guess it wasn't. Oh, and the liberals aren't nearly as enthused about going out and voting, maybe that's why the exit polls showed Barrett and Walker with a slimmer lead (definitely not a 18 point margin).
Just admit it, it doesn't look too good for the democrats anymore.

So you're trying to claim that a re-vote of a republican, in a republican state, by the same people who voted for him in the first place, means anything.

I'll tell you what means something; the truth about Romney being a shitty governor of my state is now coming out in the first of many ads to come. He did a suck job on the Mass economy, but in order for you to know that, you'd actually have to comprehend information. It's much easier to just post empty rhetoric.

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

So you're trying to claim that a re-vote of a republican, in a republican state,

but in order for you to know that, you'd actually have to comprehend information. It's much easier to just post empty rhetoric.

Wisconsin is a Republican state? No, it's not.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

So you're trying to claim that a re-vote of a republican, in a republican state, by the same people who voted for him in the first place, means anything.

"Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Wisconsin on Tuesday, a state that has not gone Republican in 24 years"

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ion2008/wi.htm

Wisconsin is most definitely not a red state, and hasnt been for decades.
But, in order for someone to know that, they'd have to comprehend information, and as we all know it's much easier to just post empty rhetoric.

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess "condescending attacks with no merit" Avenue is a one way street, and I'm going the wrong way. My bad; I'll turn around....

[ScotchAndCigar]

Here's the entire sentence, Mr. Fair & Balanced:
" Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Wisconsin on Tuesday, a state that has not gone Republican in 24 years but that Democrats barely won in the past two presidential elections."
So tell me, why do surrogates keep answering for evosM3?

[Silver E90]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Here's the entire sentence, Mr. Fair & Balanced:
" Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Wisconsin on Tuesday, a state that has not gone Republican in 24 years but that Democrats barely won in the past two presidential elections."
So tell me, why do surrogates keep answering for evosM3?

I don't think anybody is answering for evosM3, your statement was just factually incorrect that’s all. Kind of ironic that you then lecture him for his “empty rhetoric” while providing some of your own in the same post.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Here's the entire sentence, Mr. Fair & Balanced:
" Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Wisconsin on Tuesday, a state that has not gone Republican in 24 years but that Democrats barely won in the past two presidential elections."
So tell me, why do surrogates keep answering for evosM3?

Seriously? If you are interested in picking more snippets from the article, why did you leave out: "Obama captured 10 electoral votes with the win on his way to winning the presidency. He won huge in the state's two largest counties, getting 70% of the vote in both Milwaukee and Dane counties."

The fact remains, Wisconsin is NOT a red state, nor has it been for decades. 70% of the vote in the largest counties means that there are lots of people who leaned left, (in 2008 at least, when hope and change seemed so promising).

I cant speak for others, but I am not acting as a surrogate for EvosM3.

I was trying to make a point that it seems when people express an opinion which differs from yours (as they have every right to do), you seem to abnormally quick to attack them personally, suggesting that they cannot comprehend information. As I have pointed out in the post above, you are equally guilty at poorly comprehending information. Somehow, when they do so, they are either racist, or stupid, but I guess when you do so, instead of admitting you have erred, and that you live in a glass house yourself, you desparately grasp at meaningless distinctions, such as clinging to the word "barely" in the USA Today article. Sounds like a frantic 16 year old boy telling his parents, "but I BARELY got her pregnant", as if that makes any difference.

I can appreciate that it must be very alarming for you to see people in blue states exhibiting red voting behaviour, just like the congressional races a couple of years ago, but believe me, you'll win more respect by attacking the argument, not the person rendering the argument. I guess if the only game you have is to shoot the messenger rather than the message itself, then that must be a desparate place to be.

[mspeasl]

+1^

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Seriously? If you are interested in picking more snippets from the article, why did you leave out: "Obama captured 10 electoral votes with the win on his way to winning the presidency. He won huge in the state's two largest counties, getting 70% of the vote in both Milwaukee and Dane counties."

The fact remains, Wisconsin is NOT a red state, nor has it been for decades. 70% of the vote in the largest counties means that there are lots of people who leaned left, (in 2008 at least, when hope and change seemed so promising).

I cant speak for others, but I am not acting as a surrogate for EvosM3.

I was trying to make a point that it seems when people express an opinion which differs from yours (as they have every right to do), you seem to abnormally quick to attack them personally, suggesting that they cannot comprehend information. As I have pointed out in the post above, you are equally guilty at poorly comprehending information. Somehow, when they do so, they are either racist, or stupid, but I guess when you do so, instead of admitting you have erred, and that you live in a glass house yourself, you desparately grasp at meaningless distinctions, such as clinging to the word "barely" in the USA Today article. Sounds like a frantic 16 year old boy telling his parents, "but I BARELY got her pregnant", as if that makes any difference.

I can appreciate that it must be very alarming for you to see people in blue states exhibiting red voting behaviour, just like the congressional races a couple of years ago, but believe me, you'll win more respect by attacking the argument, not the person rendering the argument. I guess if the only game you have is to shoot the messenger rather than the message itself, then that must be a desparate place to be.

I'm neither alarmed or desperate. You like to ignore the multitude of posts by evosM3 where he makes ridiculous speculations with absolutely no backing facts, and every time I try to get him to respond, someone else attacks me. You've clearly set your targets on me, and this is not the first time. How bout you let them respond?