The Walker Landslide; Evidence That Polls Have Been Inaccurate All Year?

and now we have to question the poll that 18% of Walker supporters also support Obama. How do we know that one is accurate? how about what % of Barrett supporters are voting for Romney? things will change over the next few months, Obama is a walking screw-up and crybaby. And just look at how many former Obama supporters cant wait to vote for Romney in November.
 
and now we have to question the poll that 18% of Walker supporters also support Obama. How do we know that one is accurate? how about what % of Barrett supporters are voting for Romney? things will change over the next few months, Obama is a walking screw-up and crybaby. And just look at how many former Obama supporters cant wait to vote for Romney in November.

Hi,

RCP had Walker up 6.7% and he won by 6.9%.

RCP has Obama up 4.7% in WI.

Please explain how they were right about Walker but wrong about Obama in WI.

Thanks.

Your pal,

A15
 
Walker survived the recall, but the Dems are now the majority party in the Senate. He is already sounding a conciliatory tone in acknowledgement of that. Plus, there are plenty of people that still regard Walker as a cancer on the political body in Wisconsin. As long as a large number of Wisconsin citizens feel that way, he is going to have problems in passing or implementing any of the Kochs policies.
 
and now we have to question the poll that 18% of Walker supporters also support Obama. How do we know that one is accurate? how about what % of Barrett supporters are voting for Romney? things will change over the next few months, Obama is a walking screw-up and crybaby. And just look at how many former Obama supporters cant wait to vote for Romney in November.

what if Romney picked Walker for VP....? those 18% would then have a dilemma....:lol:
 
The poll that had Walker winning by 7 was also the poll that had Obama beating Romney by 8.

So if that poll was accurate, Obama is in good shape.

Walker outspent Barrett 8 to 1. Romney is not going to outspend Obama 8 to 1.

This race was not an indicator of anything for November.
 
Walker survived the recall, but the Dems are now the majority party in the Senate. He is already sounding a conciliatory tone in acknowledgement of that. Plus, there are plenty of people that still regard Walker as a cancer on the political body in Wisconsin. As long as a large number of Wisconsin citizens feel that way, he is going to have problems in passing or implementing any of the Kochs policies.

what exactly are those horrible terrifying "Koch policies".....?
 
The poll that had Walker winning by 7 was also the poll that had Obama beating Romney by 8.

So if that poll was accurate, Obama is in good shape.

Walker outspent Barrett 8 to 1. Romney is not going to outspend Obama 8 to 1.

This race was not an indicator of anything for November.

so it was money that forced people to mark their vote for Walker.....?

does it really mean the Kochs have more money than Soros?......:eek:

i guess than means BO is toast....

:eusa_whistle:
 
The poll that had Walker winning by 7 was also the poll that had Obama beating Romney by 8.

So if that poll was accurate, Obama is in good shape.

Walker outspent Barrett 8 to 1. Romney is not going to outspend Obama 8 to 1.

This race was not an indicator of anything for November.

so it was money that forced people to mark their vote for Walker.....?

does it really mean the Kochs have more money than Soros?......:eek:

i guess than means BO is toast....

:eusa_whistle:

Are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?
 
The poll that had Walker winning by 7 was also the poll that had Obama beating Romney by 8.

So if that poll was accurate, Obama is in good shape.

Walker outspent Barrett 8 to 1. Romney is not going to outspend Obama 8 to 1.

This race was not an indicator of anything for November.

so it was money that forced people to mark their vote for Walker.....?

does it really mean the Kochs have more money than Soros?......:eek:

i guess than means BO is toast....

:eusa_whistle:

Are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?

are you asserting that your vote can be bought....?
 
so it was money that forced people to mark their vote for Walker.....?

does it really mean the Kochs have more money than Soros?......:eek:

i guess than means BO is toast....

:eusa_whistle:

Are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?

are you asserting that your vote can be bought....?

No.

Now answer the question, are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?
 
are you asserting that your vote can be bought....?

No.

Now answer the question, are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?

if your vote cannot be bought then how is money relevant....?

You can't be serious. The point of a campaign is to convince an electorate to vote for you.

The money spent isn't "here, voter, is X dollars to go to the booth and vote for me"

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

Being able to vastly outspend your opponent gives you a huge advantage in ground game, getting your message out, and attacking who you are running against. All of this has an effect on the electorate and helps win elections.
 
Walker survived the recall, but the Dems are now the majority party in the Senate. He is already sounding a conciliatory tone in acknowledgement of that. Plus, there are plenty of people that still regard Walker as a cancer on the political body in Wisconsin. As long as a large number of Wisconsin citizens feel that way, he is going to have problems in passing or implementing any of the Kochs policies.

what exactly are those horrible terrifying "Koch policies".....?

No benefits.
No overtime.
Hire and fire at will.
Monopoly.
Owners and executives making 700 times what labor makes in the same company.
No regulations.

That's what you guys are for..the gutting of the middle class and the creation of a super elite class that rules without question.

In other words..Monarchy.
 
No.

Now answer the question, are you asserting that money is irrelevant in a campaign for political office?

if your vote cannot be bought then how is money relevant....?

You can't be serious. The point of a campaign is to convince an electorate to vote for you.

The money spent isn't "here, voter, is X dollars to go to the booth and vote for me"

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

Being able to vastly outspend your opponent gives you a huge advantage in ground game, getting your message out, and attacking who you are running against. All of this has an effect on the electorate and helps win elections.

so in your mind the more money you spend the more you can convince people.....no matter what garbage your message is.....minds and votes can be "bought"....

sounds just like the Dem campaign.......:lol:

how about that 1 BILLION that BO is supposedly raising.....guess you think he's gonna win....
 
if your vote cannot be bought then how is money relevant....?

You can't be serious. The point of a campaign is to convince an electorate to vote for you.

The money spent isn't "here, voter, is X dollars to go to the booth and vote for me"

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

Being able to vastly outspend your opponent gives you a huge advantage in ground game, getting your message out, and attacking who you are running against. All of this has an effect on the electorate and helps win elections.

so in your mind the more money you spend the more you can convince people.....no matter what garbage your message is.....

sounds just like the Dem campaign.......:lol:

how about that 1 BILLION that BO is supposedly raising.....guess you think he's gonna win....

That's exactly what I am saying.
 
You can't be serious. The point of a campaign is to convince an electorate to vote for you.

The money spent isn't "here, voter, is X dollars to go to the booth and vote for me"

The money is spent on:
Advertising.
Campaign staffing.
Campaign events.
Etc.

Being able to vastly outspend your opponent gives you a huge advantage in ground game, getting your message out, and attacking who you are running against. All of this has an effect on the electorate and helps win elections.

so in your mind the more money you spend the more you can convince people.....no matter what garbage your message is.....

sounds just like the Dem campaign.......:lol:

how about that 1 BILLION that BO is supposedly raising.....guess you think he's gonna win....

That's exactly what I am saying.

that's what i thought....you think American voters....and Wisconsin voters......are just lemmings that follow the almighty dollar....
 
Last edited:
so in your mind the more money you spend the more you can convince people.....no matter what garbage your message is.....

sounds just like the Dem campaign.......:lol:

how about that 1 BILLION that BO is supposedly raising.....guess you think he's gonna win....

That's exactly what I am saying.

that's what i thought....you think American voters....and Wisconsin voters......are all lemmings that follow the almighty dollar....

No, that's not what I am saying at all and you know it.

I'm saying that money is a key component in a campaign to influence an electorate to vote for you.

You trying to pretend otherwise is pathetic.
 

Forum List

Back
Top