Posted on 07/17/2012 5:49:41 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
. - Despite more Granite Staters disapproving of the job he has done, President Barack Obama still holds a slim lead over Republican Mitt Romney in a new poll. RelatedResidents try to escape hot, humid... Million-dollar lottery ticket sold in... OBrien seeks stats on relatives... Nothing found in river search for... List of cooling centers across state The WMUR Granite State Poll shows that 49 percent of likely New Hampshire voters said they will vote for Obama, compared to 45 percent who plan to vote for Romney. In April, Obama held a 9-point lead over Romney.
The poll of 521 New Hampshire adults was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center by landline and cellphone from July 5 through July 15. The margin of sampling error for the survey is plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.
The poll includes a subsample of 470 likely general election voters with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
The poll shows the candidates have locked up their party bases, with 89 percent of Democrats saying they will vote for Obama and 86 percent of Republicans saying they plant to vote for Romney. Independents are split evenly, with 41 percent favoring Romney and 40 percent supporting Obama.
"This election looks to be as close as the 2000 and 2004 elections in New Hampshire," said Andrew Smith, director of the UNH Survey Center. "In both of those elections, the race was won by about 1 percentage point."
(Excerpt) Read more at wmur.com ...
Romney is the Nicholson Joker.
Much classier. Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Mr. RomneyCARE, of Wall St. and Author of RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE and Death Panels, will not.
Reagan could win MN today over Obama.
He or any other Republican living or dead would NOT win at the least CA, HI, IL, MA, VT, MD, NY, or RI.
Well put.
You’re right. Glove will win NH.
Ah, yes...
I wonder if Jack is still getting paid royalties from the sequels, spinoffs, etc.?
That would be amazing if he was paid for movies he wasn’t in.
He demanded and got top billing over Michael Keaton which was awesome.
And in the original Superman Reeves was billed THIRD after Brando and Hackman which I always thought was hilarious.
Nicholson was “bigger” than Keaton. Ditto that Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman were bigger than Christopher Reeve in 1978, the latter a soap opera actor (which was considered the lowest rung on the acting totem pole, below primetime tv actors) who mostly did stage work (and had only a small part in a film the same year “Superman” was released). Reeve wouldn’t have justifiably earned top billing until the second film, even if he was the lead actor.
I’m of the opinion that the protagonist should get top billing, especially if they are the title character. Though it’s been a while since I’ve seen it the first Batman may as well have been called “The Joker” though IIRC.
Wasn’t Brando in Superman in a glorified cameo?
Brando dominated the early part of the film when it took place on Krypton. I don’t think Reeve even showed up until a half-hour in (since they had him portrayed as a baby, a young boy and a teen before he appeared as a young man in Gotham). Reeve may have been the title character, but the film was chock full of “name” actors who were far better known than he. He wasn’t a bankable name... yet, and for what they were hoping would be a blockbuster film, it would be too risky. Putting known names (big stars) in the top billing slots would assure folks they weren’t just going to see some soap actor in tights.
I hang up on those university jackasses every time they call...as a university; they have NO credibility whatsoever. Commies to the core.
Romney has a $10 million home there...what a surprise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.