I voted for Freedom and Liberty today, I voted for Peace and Unity for our Nation, I voted for Individual Liberty, I voted against the Establishment, I voted to end the Fed, I voted for smaller government, I voted against the corruption of the Democrats and Republicans, I voted for my Son and Daughters future, I voted against War with Iran, I voted to protect our borders, I voted to bring my brothers and sisters home to protect us.
I voted for Ron Paul, Why? Because I voted against tyranny today.
Romney, Santorum and Gingrich Each Get Victories on Super Tuesday: Surprising or Expected?
SodaHead Politics
2012/03/07 01:46:44
|
|
|||||
|
79 votes
|
|
14% | |||
|
482 votes
|
|
86% | |||
It seems like the race for a GOP presidential candidate is far from over -- and Super Tuesday cleared that up pretty quickly as Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich each received victories in separate states.
A report on The Daily Caller reads: Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, was declared the victor in Georgia’s Republican presidential primary, a state he represented in Congress. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, won the Bay State as well as the Virginia and Vermont contests. Meanwhile, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum picked up a big win in Oklahoma.
The ten states being covered on Super Tuesday are Georgia, Alaska, Virginia, Vermont, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota. Now that we know the race continues, it'll be interesting to see which GOP presidential candidates snag what states. Do you think this news is surprising -- or did you expect such variety in the caucus voting on Super Tuesday?
A report on The Daily Caller reads: Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, was declared the victor in Georgia’s Republican presidential primary, a state he represented in Congress. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, won the Bay State as well as the Virginia and Vermont contests. Meanwhile, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum picked up a big win in Oklahoma.
The ten states being covered on Super Tuesday are Georgia, Alaska, Virginia, Vermont, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota. Now that we know the race continues, it'll be interesting to see which GOP presidential candidates snag what states. Do you think this news is surprising -- or did you expect such variety in the caucus voting on Super Tuesday?
Read More: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/super-tuesday-re...
Top Opinion
-
The Patriot RP 2012 2012/03/07 02:16:36
If the republicans really wanted the white house, it would have been down to two at the new year. They don't want it, they just want to complain about it. And snitch on the democrats. Like crying babies.
Obama';s Man: Mitr" will win the say.
And the other GOP contender: a guy who wants to be Preacher in Chief - and turn the U.S. into his own Christian Theocracy.
I don't know what caused this lunacy in the RW: a virus, an African American in the White House, the internet, drinking fracked water, increased radiation due to global warming in the South....but whatever it is - the GOP has clearly gone off the deep end.
It doesn't matter which of these three wins the nomination if any of them do. Obama will easly beat any of them and what really pissing off right wingers is they already know it.
Dammit all, am I gonna get a busload of Professional Law School Students and a case of Condoms from Uncles Sam or what .... I can't afford them and I want my busload of Law Gals.
People apparently are taking to heart the refusal of Obama to renounce misogynist Bill Maher's million-dollar donation. Obama's popularity has taken a real nosedive in recent days.
Thanks.
LOL
;-)
Realclear and every group that does combined polls has numbers more like this:
48.6 Obama(D) +3.6
45.0 Romney (R)
Not once, so far, has any GOP candidate polled better than the president IN COMBINED POLL NUMBERS- even if the president is not that strong.
In the end most smart, successful people are not going to vote for Mittens....
So we have what we have, which is definitely better than what we had four years ago with BUSH, but not much?
What makes Rasmussen so accurate is that it polls "likely voters," not "registered voters" or "all adults." Polls that test registered voters or all adults tend to over-sample uninformed citizens, many of whom (thankfully) don't bother to vote. Uninformed poll respondents tend to identify themselves disproportionately as Democrats and Obama supporters. (No slam - it's true.)
While "registered voter" polls are much more predictive than "all adults" polls, they too usually over-represent self-identified Democrats. Many of the most recognizable polls, unfortunately, do base their findings on interviews with "registered voters." Such polls are certainly better than "all adults" polls but less predictive than "likely voters" polls.
"All adults" polls are the least predictive and really skew the polling results toward the most ignorant, people that don't much follow the news and have only a vague, superficial sense of what is happening politically. They include too many who don't follow the primary rac...
What makes Rasmussen so accurate is that it polls "likely voters," not "registered voters" or "all adults." Polls that test registered voters or all adults tend to over-sample uninformed citizens, many of whom (thankfully) don't bother to vote. Uninformed poll respondents tend to identify themselves disproportionately as Democrats and Obama supporters. (No slam - it's true.)
While "registered voter" polls are much more predictive than "all adults" polls, they too usually over-represent self-identified Democrats. Many of the most recognizable polls, unfortunately, do base their findings on interviews with "registered voters." Such polls are certainly better than "all adults" polls but less predictive than "likely voters" polls.
"All adults" polls are the least predictive and really skew the polling results toward the most ignorant, people that don't much follow the news and have only a vague, superficial sense of what is happening politically. They include too many who don't follow the primary races at all, usually can't name the candidates or important public officials (often not even their own House representative or U.S. senators), and have an appalling absence of knowledge about American history and the workings of the American system of government. They over-sample people that can tell you all about "American Idol" or "Jersey Shore" but haven't a clue about who John Boehner and Harry Reid are. These respondents are the kind of citizens Jay Leno often interviews on the street in order to mock their stunning ignorance.
Yes, we are going to see ups and downs, zigs and zags, as different polls show different things between now and November 6. The good news for conservatives is that we're seeing some evidence President Obama WILL have a tough fight on his hands and that the judgments of those who have predicted a certain Obama victory are very premature.
you are right on most points.
but i will say this- they still only poll people by phone on land-lines.
hmm- who are those people sitting around at home waiting for the phone to ring?
and if i recall, they had harry reid losing up to the day of the election here- so...
anyway- it will be more close than anyone wants to admit and the money from Super PACS will change a lot.
sadly- Mittens is pandering to the far right and combine that with the GOP war on women, gays, latinos, union workers, college students and graduates, immigrants, blacks- etc.- is kinda dooming him.
what's left?
poor white guys who are over 50 and watch FOX news?- Cant win with that...
Anyway, Obama's disingenuous sleight of hand does not seem to be working. The president's poll numbers have dropped precipitously to new lows (and not just according to Rasmussen) in recent days. Apparently, enough people are catching on to his spurious diversionary tactics. Perhaps the blatant hypocrisy evident in the president's refusal to acknowledge the misogynistic Maher name-calling has undercut his efforts.
I know that people have in the past questioned the accuracy of landline-dependent polls given the growing preponderance of cell phones. However, this problem doesn't seem to have affected the accuracy of at least Rasmussen so far. He was as accurate in 2010 as he was in 2008. The polling experts must have found some way to get around this problem.
I could also provide a three-page list of anti-religious actions (mainly against Christianity) carried out by the current president.
By contrast, the war on woman is nothing more than a cynical political stunt concocted by the inscrupulous, increasingly desperate, and ideologically driven Democrat party.