And yes, Gingrich pi**es people off, but in a debate with Obama, would have taken both him and the MSM through a meat grinder. That alone would have brought the pub electorate out.

No he wouldn’t have. Gingrich has the tendency to come off as a jerk in debates. The Republican primary electorate loved him hectoring the MSM moderators, but I don’t think that smarmily hectoring the sitting President in a general election debate would have helped him win over independents. As I said earlier, my favorite moment of the 2012 election cycle was the fact that Gingrich got ripped to shreds for criticizing Ryan’s budget and had to personally apologize to Ryan. Gingrich is so irrelevant that he had to grovel to a guy who was a 24-year-old low level staffer when Gingrich was first elected Speaker.

Perry, he had a youtube moment. So? You still don’t get it, do you? With a bit of coaching, he’d have been a hundred times better in the GE.

It confirmed the prevailing suspicions about Perry.. that he was an airhead. It was similar to Palin being unable to answer questions about the newspapers she read. That one was career ending for Perry.

there are no conservative pollsters. None zero.

Umm alright. Sure. Once again, take the tinfoil hat off.

Mitt beat Perry in TX? ROFL… anyone with half a brain could tell you the answer to that. But Im sure you wll require a
poll……

No poll necessary. I have quite a few friends and lots of family in TX and many of them were Perry supporters. Even they, as biased as they are, weren’t convinced that Perry would win after he embarrassed himself and the state of TX. Of course, I would cite a poll, but they’re rigged or something. What’s funny is that I at least have something to back it up. You have nothing except your own hunch.

so now it wasn’t just Obama but AKin and Mourdock. I notice you place no blame on Mitt. funny how that works out. I don’t think you understand what being a candidate means. You opponent will not just sit back and let you win, He will not allow oppurtunites to escape from him to paint you in a unfavorable light. A good candidate knowing this will be ready to throw the attacks back in their face, launch counter offensives. Mitt did none of that and refused to attack Obama.

Ah but you assume. Did I ever say that Mitt was the perfect candidate? Did I say that he deserved no blame? Nope, I don’t believe I did. Nice strawman. What I’m saying is that for as much blame as you put on him for being a bad candidate, he actually ran a lot better than most of the statewide Republican candidates.

Mitt was the worse candidate I have ever seen worse than a 90 year old McCain. Mitt did nothing to win the election. He simply allowed Obama to paint him as Obama wanted to. Istill can’t believe the mittbots don’t understand this basic fact. what you think a unicorn was going to fart on Obama and make people vote for Mitt or something?

Okay, not trying to be a prick here, but you’ve done this twice so I thought I would correct you. It’s “worst” not “worse” in this context. Mitt did nothing to win the election? You must have forgotten the millions dollar worth of ads he ran. Or how he destroyed Obama in the first debate, in which many people called the best debate performance by a candidate in decades. Even Michael Reagan said it was better than any of his father’s performances. He was also dominating Obama in the second debate before Crowley interfered. He did plenty to win the election. The Obama campaign was just better. I don’t know about unicorns, but I’m sure unicorns are more believable than polls, which were pretty accurate in 2012, huh?

tinfoil hat? LOL. Pollsters said Brown couldn’t win he won, said christie couldn’t win he won, polls said the dems would not win the house in 2010 they won, polls said Mitt would beat Obama he lost,

Umm actually, everything you just said is completely wrong. Brown didn’t have a chance until Coakley imploded. As soon as she did, the polls clearly showed momentum shifting towards Brown and with him consistently leading until Election Day. And as for Christie, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Corzine was seen as VERY beatable and most of the polls had Christie beating Corzine once his name recognition was above 80%. The polls said that Dems would not win the House in 2010 and they won? Umm…the Dems DID lose in 2010…pretty badly, in fact. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Which polls showed Mitt beating Obama besides Rasmussen and Gallup? Most of the other polls showed Obama with a slight edge. And you just saying that the polls showed Mitt would beat Obama…is that some evidence that the “liberal” pollsters wanted Romney to win or something?

I do find it amazing that after seeing reality and seeing how the polls led you around by the nose in 2012 you still think polls should matter. I guess the guy that said there is a fool born every sec was right….

I notice you didn’t respond to the fact that Nate Silver’s final prediction was pretty darn accurate in every state. What did he use? Oh right, those poll things.

GOPRanknFile on February 3, 2013 at 11:50 AM

There were conservative pollsters too.

there are no conservative pollsters. None zero.

Mitt beat Perry in TX? ROFL… anyone with half a brain could tell you the answer to that. But Im sure you wll require a
poll……

The Obama campaign did an excellent job tying idiots like Akin and Mourdock to Romney, which resonated in many swing states

so now it wasn’t just Obama but AKin and Mourdock. I notice you place no blame on Mitt. funny how that works out. I don’t think you understand what being a candidate means. You opponent will not just sit back and let you win, He will not allow oppurtunites to escape from him to paint you in a unfavorable light. A good candidate knowing this will be ready to throw the attacks back in their face, launch counter offensives. Mitt did none of that and refused to attack Obama.

Mitt was the worse candidate I have ever seen worse than a 90 year old McCain. Mitt did nothing to win the election. He simply allowed Obama to paint him as Obama wanted to. Istill can’t believe the mittbots don’t understand this basic fact. what you think a unicorn was going to fart on Obama and make people vote for Mitt or something?

tinfoil hat? LOL. Pollsters said Brown couldn’t win he won, said christie couldn’t win he won, polls said the dems would not win the house in 2010 they won, polls said Mitt would beat Obama he lost,

I do find it amazing that after seeing reality and seeing how the polls led you around by the nose in 2012 you still think polls should matter. I guess the guy that said there is a fool born every sec was right….

Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM

rofl….

1 perry…repeal obamacare

2. newt repeal obamacare

3. santourm repeal obamacare

4. mitt run obamacare better.

best of a bad bunch? LOL

wow you are thick. which part of polling firms are controlled by liberals and liberals told you who to vote for did you miss? If you think for a minute Mitt could have beat Perry in texas you are an idiot.

Ah so many things to pick apart in your analysis, I’m not sure where to start. I’ll try anyway. Of course, it wasn’t just liberal pollsters showing Romney running strongly. There were conservative pollsters too. And I have no idea if Mitt could have beaten Perry in TX. However, the polls showing that Mitt could have won or would have run awfully close shows Perry’s weakness as a candidate. Being considered the dumber George W. Bush probably wouldn’t have helped all that much.

Mitt the loser didn’t lose the women vote “because the obama campaign” blah blah. He lost the women vote because he was a sucko candidate that didn’t know nor care how to deflect the Obama attack. in other words Mitt was the worse candidate we could have.

Once again, this falls flat on its face. The Obama campaign did an excellent job tying idiots like Akin and Mourdock to Romney, which resonated in many swing states. It should be noted that Romney actually ran better than Akin and Mourdock in MO and IN, respectively, because you know, he won those states whereas those two lost. Of course, you keep claiming he was the “worse” candidate we could have had, but you have nothing to back it up.

He took Obamacare off the table. Perry, Newt and Santourm would have run on Obamacare repeal full tilt. When Obama brought up his war on woman all three could have easily turned to Obamacare by nominating Mitt the liberals knew that what caused the wave election of 2010 was entirely off the table and Obama would not have to run on his record. Which part of this is hard to understand. Man, I knew the mitt supporters were idiots but I had no idea they were this big of ones.

Once again, a weak argument. If Perry, Newt, and Santorum couldn’t have beaten Mitt in a Republican primary when they had Romneycare as ammunition, then what makes you think that they would have been any more effective against Obama in a general election?

then you use a “poll” after being told time andtime again and after seeing how well the liberal polls held up come election time to justify why Mitt was a good candidate or why someone would beat so and so in AK or MO or anywhere. Polls don’t tell you squat. they are used by the powers that be to shape the people into thinking the thoughts they want to think.

Do me a favor and take off the tinfoil hat. You refer to it as a liberal poll, when of course it’s clear it’s a Republican poll. Are polls always accurate? No, but they can give you an indication of trends.

They are skewed, use wrong fromula’s weighted etc to get the result the polling firms what they in no way measure for a second the reality on the ground. Elections open and fair are what matters not polls. And using polls lead by liberal and establishment people to decide your vote or who tos upport is the definition of being stupid.

Your lack of willingness to accept reality is what’s stupid. Analysis of the polls in 2012 shows that they were actually, for the most part, pretty good, which is why Nate Silver was able to accurately call all 50 states. If you think all polls that show your candidate losing must be part of some larger conspiracy, then that says a lot about you.

Any doubts about what I have just said simply look at results for NOv 6th. And anyone that thinks the worse POTUs in our lifetimes was “unbeatable” is a complete moron.

unseen on February 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM

The reality is a very good campaign can make up for a flawed candidate. You would be hardpressed to find anyone that doesn’t think that Obama’s campaign team was the greatest in history. They were just that damn good. And it also shows the weakness of the other candidates when they would have run much further behind.