Jon Ossoff has surged to a 51% - 44% lead in the latest Georgia Special Election Poll

[JakeStarkey]

“The 06/20/17 runoff has national implications and will be seen as a referendum on the Republican President,” Survey USA said in its poll summary. from the BREITBART link
Clinton won the PV easily, as she was predicted to do, Sassy.
Get ready to eat your shorts.

Clinton was NOT popular. ESPECIALLY among African Americans. However, the promise of citizenship, free education and free health care was VERY appealing to illegal immigrants. THAT's where Hillary's votes came from. To merely suggest it did not, after ALL the left did to ensure illegals could vote is to admit being a flaming moron.
Who's first?

President Trump is well aware of the problem and is working to correct it. By 2020 there could be 3 million less illegal voters available to pad the Dims numbers. However, the 9th circus will work hard to ensure the illegal vote and Commiefornia and NewPork will encourage the illegal vote regardless.

]The great majority of the five illegals who voted did so for Trump.

 

[hadit]

1. Manufacturers advertise products that we need as well as products we don't need. Pay attention the next time you see an ad for canned vegetables or produce. This is done to convince us to buy a product from one manufacturer instead of from another, even though the products both serve the same purpose. You really should understand that to function in today's society.

Wrong.
When Green Giant advertises its can of beans it's advertising ITS SPECIFIC can of beans. Nobody "needs" Green Giant beans. We do need to EAT. Nobody needs to advertise the idea of "eating". It's biological. What they need to advertise is the idea of buying THAT PRODUCT from THAT COMPANY.. Even while the same company is also selling the same product to the grocery chain so it can slap its own name on it.

What they sell is the IDEA that you "need" to buy Green Giant. And that you "need" to buy a known brand name. Clearly -- you don't.

But you DO need to eat. Heck, you don't even NEED to vote, yet parties are blatantly trying to convince you that you absolutely not only need to vote, but that you need to vote for their candidate or terrible things will happen to you and the nation.

Nobody "needs" to be convinced to drink water. Again, it's biological. What advertising does is try to convince you that you "need" to buy Evian (naive spelled backward). Clearly --- you don't.

Nor do you NEED to vote for a democrat, yet that's exactly the message that the democrat party sends every election cycle.

Nobody "needed" inverted bathtubs with wheels on them. Nobody "needed" IPhones. Nobody "needed" deodorant. ALL of those artificial "desires" had to be created. That's what advertising does.

And political advertising does the exact same thing. Nobody NEEDS to vote for any particular candidate, but every party advertises to convince you that you do.

And every time Coke advertises the idea that you "need" to drink Coke, it's also advertising Pepsi, by virtue of its propaganda that you "need" to be drinking brown carbonated sugar water. Clearly -- you don't.

Nor do you NEED to vote for a democrat, but democrat advertising can convince that you need to vote for Republicans (if you can stand watching the ads, that is).

2. Political parties also advertise to convince us to vote for their candidate instead of for one from a different party, even though the candidates ultimately serve the same purpose, in this case to hold office. Hillary and her party famously spent untold millions doing just that this last cycle (and lost. LOL). Again, you really should understand that. This is not rocket surgery.

It's also not advertising a product. There's no difference between my buying the Green Giant BRAND and my buying the Bird's Eye BRAND. The only difference is who gets the money.[/quote]

Sure there is. If one manufacturer doesn't employ the same quality standards that another does, you can tell the difference.

If you're suggesting that Hillary Clinton and Donald Rump have no more difference between them than Green Giant and Bird's Eye, pass those mushrooms you're smoking.

That would be dumb, which is why I'm not. You could pick any products you like, they're still going to be advertised in an effort to drive brand loyalty, which is what political parties do.

3. Political parties carefully craft a brand so the voter doesn't have to pay careful attention to the candidate. The uninformed voter would likely assume that Hillary, for example, was a champion for women's rights, while the informed voter who looked past the democrat brand, would note that her actual history demonstrated a markedly different story.

In short, a political party's brand is extremely important to it.

There is no "political party's brand". The fact that you enslave yourself to such a concept belies the fact that you've enslaved yourself to an advertising mass media. Bullshit.

You are aware, are you not, that HIllary and her party spent a LOT of money on advertisements attempting to get people to vote for her in particular and democrats in general? To deny that is to truly fail as an American.

 

[Ted Frazier]

LMAO you loons didn't learn a thing last Nov ....polls? Pfffft

The Polls were accurate during the first round in Georgia. Polls also accurately predicted Hillary Clinton's popular vote Victory, which you can only refuse if you pretend that there was election fraud.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Handel lost the recent debate and Ossoff continues to hold a slim lead.

 

[Pogo]

1. Manufacturers advertise products that we need as well as products we don't need. Pay attention the next time you see an ad for canned vegetables or produce. This is done to convince us to buy a product from one manufacturer instead of from another, even though the products both serve the same purpose. You really should understand that to function in today's society.

Wrong.
When Green Giant advertises its can of beans it's advertising ITS SPECIFIC can of beans. Nobody "needs" Green Giant beans. We do need to EAT. Nobody needs to advertise the idea of "eating". It's biological. What they need to advertise is the idea of buying THAT PRODUCT from THAT COMPANY.. Even while the same company is also selling the same product to the grocery chain so it can slap its own name on it.

What they sell is the IDEA that you "need" to buy Green Giant. And that you "need" to buy a known brand name. Clearly -- you don't.

But you DO need to eat. Heck, you don't even NEED to vote, yet parties are blatantly trying to convince you that you absolutely not only need to vote, but that you need to vote for their candidate or terrible things will happen to you and the nation.

Nobody "needs" to be convinced to drink water. Again, it's biological. What advertising does is try to convince you that you "need" to buy Evian (naive spelled backward). Clearly --- you don't.

Nor do you NEED to vote for a democrat, yet that's exactly the message that the democrat party sends every election cycle.

Nobody "needed" inverted bathtubs with wheels on them. Nobody "needed" IPhones. Nobody "needed" deodorant. ALL of those artificial "desires" had to be created. That's what advertising does.

And political advertising does the exact same thing. Nobody NEEDS to vote for any particular candidate, but every party advertises to convince you that you do.

And every time Coke advertises the idea that you "need" to drink Coke, it's also advertising Pepsi, by virtue of its propaganda that you "need" to be drinking brown carbonated sugar water. Clearly -- you don't.

Nor do you NEED to vote for a democrat, but democrat advertising can convince that you need to vote for Republicans (if you can stand watching the ads, that is).

2. Political parties also advertise to convince us to vote for their candidate instead of for one from a different party, even though the candidates ultimately serve the same purpose, in this case to hold office. Hillary and her party famously spent untold millions doing just that this last cycle (and lost. LOL). Again, you really should understand that. This is not rocket surgery.

It's also not advertising a product. There's no difference between my buying the Green Giant BRAND and my buying the Bird's Eye BRAND. The only difference is who gets the money.

Sure there is. If one manufacturer doesn't employ the same quality standards that another does, you can tell the difference.

If you're suggesting that Hillary Clinton and Donald Rump have no more difference between them than Green Giant and Bird's Eye, pass those mushrooms you're smoking.

That would be dumb, which is why I'm not. You could pick any products you like, they're still going to be advertised in an effort to drive brand loyalty, which is what political parties do.

3. Political parties carefully craft a brand so the voter doesn't have to pay careful attention to the candidate. The uninformed voter would likely assume that Hillary, for example, was a champion for women's rights, while the informed voter who looked past the democrat brand, would note that her actual history demonstrated a markedly different story.

In short, a political party's brand is extremely important to it.

There is no "political party's brand". The fact that you enslave yourself to such a concept belies the fact that you've enslaved yourself to an advertising mass media. Bullshit.

You are aware, are you not, that HIllary and her party spent a LOT of money on advertisements attempting to get people to vote for her in particular and democrats in general? To deny that is to truly fail as an American.

[/QUOTE]

I couldn't even follow that trainwreck as far as who was posting what, and of course never got an alert, but just to sum up:

I agree with you that political parties advertise --- which again is the process of persuading people to buy a product they don't need --- AS IF they're selling a product. Obviously you don't purchase anything in the voting booth.

But your referring to a Republican "brand" or a Democratic "brand" ---- only entrenches and enables that attitude. It's handing them exactly what they want. It's a concession to that commodity mentality. Every time we do that we move farther away from actual civic responsibility. NOBODY should be casting a vote based on "I've heard of this guy" or "I've seen him on TV". Calling it a "brand" ultimately just chips away at the deliberative process necessary for that civic responsibility and reduces it to nothing more than a commodity fetish, reducing the selection process into one no more impactive than "which floor wax should I buy". Which is exactly what the Duopoly wants -- a populace that's not paying attention.

Stop enabling that.

 

[hadit]

1. Manufacturers advertise products that we need as well as products we don't need. Pay attention the next time you see an ad for canned vegetables or produce. This is done to convince us to buy a product from one manufacturer instead of from another, even though the products both serve the same purpose. You really should understand that to function in today's society.

Wrong.
When Green Giant advertises its can of beans it's advertising ITS SPECIFIC can of beans. Nobody "needs" Green Giant beans. We do need to EAT. Nobody needs to advertise the idea of "eating". It's biological. What they need to advertise is the idea of buying THAT PRODUCT from THAT COMPANY.. Even while the same company is also selling the same product to the grocery chain so it can slap its own name on it.

What they sell is the IDEA that you "need" to buy Green Giant. And that you "need" to buy a known brand name. Clearly -- you don't.

But you DO need to eat. Heck, you don't even NEED to vote, yet parties are blatantly trying to convince you that you absolutely not only need to vote, but that you need to vote for their candidate or terrible things will happen to you and the nation.

Nobody "needs" to be convinced to drink water. Again, it's biological. What advertising does is try to convince you that you "need" to buy Evian (naive spelled backward). Clearly --- you don't.

Nor do you NEED to vote for a democrat, yet that's exactly the message that the democrat party sends every election cycle.

Nobody "needed" inverted bathtubs with wheels on them. Nobody "needed" IPhones. Nobody "needed" deodorant. ALL of those artificial "desires" had to be created. That's what advertising does.

And political advertising does the exact same thing. Nobody NEEDS to vote for any particular candidate, but every party advertises to convince you that you do.

And every time Coke advertises the idea that you "need" to drink Coke, it's also advertising Pepsi, by virtue of its propaganda that you "need" to be drinking brown carbonated sugar water. Clearly -- you don't.

Nor do you NEED to vote for a democrat, but democrat advertising can convince that you need to vote for Republicans (if you can stand watching the ads, that is).

2. Political parties also advertise to convince us to vote for their candidate instead of for one from a different party, even though the candidates ultimately serve the same purpose, in this case to hold office. Hillary and her party famously spent untold millions doing just that this last cycle (and lost. LOL). Again, you really should understand that. This is not rocket surgery.

It's also not advertising a product. There's no difference between my buying the Green Giant BRAND and my buying the Bird's Eye BRAND. The only difference is who gets the money.

Sure there is. If one manufacturer doesn't employ the same quality standards that another does, you can tell the difference.

If you're suggesting that Hillary Clinton and Donald Rump have no more difference between them than Green Giant and Bird's Eye, pass those mushrooms you're smoking.

That would be dumb, which is why I'm not. You could pick any products you like, they're still going to be advertised in an effort to drive brand loyalty, which is what political parties do.

3. Political parties carefully craft a brand so the voter doesn't have to pay careful attention to the candidate. The uninformed voter would likely assume that Hillary, for example, was a champion for women's rights, while the informed voter who looked past the democrat brand, would note that her actual history demonstrated a markedly different story.

In short, a political party's brand is extremely important to it.

There is no "political party's brand". The fact that you enslave yourself to such a concept belies the fact that you've enslaved yourself to an advertising mass media. Bullshit.

You are aware, are you not, that HIllary and her party spent a LOT of money on advertisements attempting to get people to vote for her in particular and democrats in general? To deny that is to truly fail as an American.

I couldn't even follow that trainwreck as far as who was posting what, and of course never got an alert, but just to sum up:

I agree with you that political parties advertise --- which again is the process of persuading people to buy a product they don't need --- AS IF they're selling a product. Obviously you don't purchase anything in the voting booth.

But your referring to a Republican "brand" or a Democratic "brand" ---- only entrenches and enables that attitude. It's handing them exactly what they want. It's a concession to that commodity mentality. Every time we do that we move farther away from actual civic responsibility. NOBODY should be casting a vote based on "I've heard of this guy" or "I've seen him on TV". Calling it a "brand" ultimately just chips away at the deliberative process necessary for that civic responsibility and reduces it to nothing more than a commodity fetish, reducing the selection process into one no more impactive than "which floor wax should I buy". Which is exactly what the Duopoly wants -- a populace that's not paying attention.

Stop enabling that.[/QUOTE]
Believe me, I get where you're coming from.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I am not surprised, but this is GA. Let's see if this poll holds up. If it does, the Alt Right will be looking for illegal voters again: looking vainly. Jon Ossoff has surged to a 51% - 44% lead in the latest Georgia Special Election Poll. Check his FB page.

Last week, Breitbart gave him 7 points.

New Poll Shows Democrat with 7 Point Lead in Georgia Special Congressional Election - Breitbart

Hey Jake, what do the polls say now? Bwahahahahaha! Will you ever learn?

 

[skye]

well well well now......she won Handel won ...... beauty!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

“The 06/20/17 runoff has national implications and will be seen as a referendum on the Republican President,” Survey USA said in its poll summary. from the BREITBART link

Clinton won the PV easily, as she was predicted to do, Sassy.

Get ready to eat your shorts.

So I suppose the Republican president referendum has been confirmed. Who is eating their shorts? Bold predictions have harsh consequences when wrong.

 

[Lewdog]

Well the idiot Republican lady that literally said in a debate that she doesn't support a livable wage, won... I guess it is just a common thing now that people that vote Republican are too embarrassed to admit it, so the exit polls are always screwed up.

 

[Rustic]

I am not surprised, but this is GA. Let's see if this poll holds up. If it does, the Alt Right will be looking for illegal voters again: looking vainly. Jon Ossoff has surged to a 51% - 44% lead in the latest Georgia Special Election Poll. Check his FB page.

Last week, Breitbart gave him 7 points.

New Poll Shows Democrat with 7 Point Lead in Georgia Special Congressional Election - Breitbart

Wrong as usual

 

[Rambunctious]

I told you all a pajama boy can not win in Georgia. It's just not possible.

 

[Rambunctious]

HUGE WIN FOR TRUMP TONIGHT!!!! WAKE UP SWAMP THE PARTY IS OVER!!!!!!!!

 

[boedicca]

I am not surprised, but this is GA. Let's see if this poll holds up. If it does, the Alt Right will be looking for illegal voters again: looking vainly. Jon Ossoff has surged to a 51% - 44% lead in the latest Georgia Special Election Poll. Check his FB page.

Last week, Breitbart gave him 7 points.

New Poll Shows Democrat with 7 Point Lead in Georgia Special Congressional Election - Breitbart

Reading posts like this makes me happy. Truly truly happy and Very Amused.

 

[Snouter]

Democrat "surges" are a dribble.

 

[tyroneweaver]

News on aol.com? OK.

And what is your track record predicting elections Einstein?

Better than yours? I missed the House in 2010 and Clinton in 2016. You said McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, for starters. You said the Dems would lose seats in the House and the Senate in 2016. amirite?

Laughing out loud
No you are not right
But you are hillarious

 

[boedicca]

Democrat "surges" are a dribble.

Democrat "surges" are always premature electorations.

 

[skye]

We are moving on now
yes?

Republicans won....YAY!!!!!

moving on now to next win

 

[Papageorgio]

Handel lost the recent debate and Ossoff continues to hold a slim lead.

Oops, those poll numbers didn't hold up. Again another loss for the Dems. I am sure that this is Bush's fault.

 

[Papageorgio]

Uh oh. It looks like the conservatives on this forum are offended. Only they are allowed to post polls to fit their narrative. Don't you know that, OP?

I don't think anyone was offended, it just looks the polls were off again. I wonder why the left love polls that are wrong?