Skip to comments.
Freep a POLL: Did the RNC help Mitt Romney's chances in the presidential election?
The Washington Post ^
| 09/01/12
| Washington Post
Posted on 09/01/2012 12:53:48 AM PDT by justlittleoleme
Did the Republican national convention help Mitt Romney's chances in the presidential election?
Yes - 28%
No - 72%
Total Votes: 1,791
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: freep; poll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
To: justlittleoleme
"Did the Republican national convention help Mitt Romney's chances in the presidential election?"I stopped buying the WaPo when I worked in DC -- during the Reagan administration! Because the editorials started on Page One!
What they probably mean is: "Did the Republican national convention help Mitt Romney's chances to lose the presidential election?" No, it did not.
I hope that a President Romney takes a Weedwacker to the slimy bureaucrats and lawyers who inhabit DC.
21
posted on
09/01/2012 4:00:23 AM PDT
by
Sooth2222
("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
To: justlittleoleme
Did the Republican national convention help Mitt Romney’s chances in the presidential election?
Yes - 45% (1294 votes)
No - 55% (1587 votes)
Total Votes: 2,881
Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding
22
posted on
09/01/2012 4:17:20 AM PDT
by
MestaMachine
(obama kills and bo stinks)
To: Yosemitest
No, Obamabots pretending to be “Uber Conservatives” don't get it.
Romney or Obama will be the next President. When you spend all your time trash talking Romney, you are actively working to elect Obama.
That may not be your intent, it is the result of your actions
23
posted on
09/01/2012 4:55:04 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
To: justlittleoleme
45/55 is pretty good for a DNC house organ.
24
posted on
09/01/2012 5:01:26 AM PDT
by
jmaroneps37
(Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
To: justlittleoleme
I feel better about voting for him than I did before the convention.
Really looking forward to the Ryan/Biden debate.
One thing both Ryan and Romney better prepare for, substantiate the $716 bil. cut from Medicare statement.
Better have page and paragraph on the tip of their tongue. That one is going to be hotly disputed.
25
posted on
09/01/2012 5:03:26 AM PDT
by
Vinnie
(A)
To: justlittleoleme
The media coverage of the GOP convention was bad. Lots of people turned it off. The Democratic Convention will be a freak show in a weird undisciplined circus.
To: justlittleoleme
27
posted on
09/01/2012 5:10:12 AM PDT
by
ContraryMary
(Obama -- Inept and Out of His Depth)
To: justlittleoleme
Wrong question. Should be, Did Romney’s take over of the Republican Party, eliminating participation by the Tea Party and Conservatives from now on, help Romney’s chances in the presidential election?
28
posted on
09/01/2012 8:56:35 AM PDT
by
Marcella
(Conservatism is dead. PREPARE)
To: Bushbacker1
Yes - 55%
No - 45%
Total Votes: 9,017
29
posted on
09/01/2012 5:27:37 PM PDT
by
Tigercap
To: dynachrome; Kaslin
Yes - 56%
No - 44%
Total Votes: 9,594
To: justlittleoleme
:grin: Much better now. WaPo :snort: LOL Let the whining & wailing begin.
31
posted on
09/01/2012 8:55:22 PM PDT
by
KGeorge
To: justlittleoleme
Poll is still open, 12000 votes. Can you get this on FR front page and confine the push... I love it... Washington Post must be dying!!!
To: GizzyGirl
Disclaimer from WaPo on the poll:
This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.
That said, poll is now:
61% Yes
39% No
33
posted on
09/02/2012 7:00:17 AM PDT
by
Road Warrior ‘04
(I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
To: GizzyGirl
To: MNJohnnie
Obviously you haven't read:
He expressed some important issues that I agree with.
Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isnt looking too terribly promising.
This, though, isnt meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.
It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our compassionate conservative president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.
It is this frustration with the GOPs betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.
If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of 06 and 08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.
First, they will be told that they are utopian, purists foolishly holding out for an ideal candidate.
Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party, they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.
Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.
Lets begin with the argument against purism. To this line, two replies are in the coming.
No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isnt an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, dont exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.
A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate is one thing;
I will only vote for a perfect candidate is something else entirely.
As for the second objection against the Tea Partiers rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.
Every election seasonand at no time more so than this past seasonRepublicans pledge to reform Washington, trim down the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for compromise and patience.
Well, when the Tea Partiers impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.
For example,
as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the countrys leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.
It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservativesand the countrywill ultimately win.
If he didnt know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.
Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.
I'm fresh out of
"patience", and I'm not in the mood for
"compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the
RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!
35
posted on
09/03/2012 10:39:19 AM PDT
by
Yosemitest
(It's simple, fight or die!)
To: justlittleoleme
Did the Republican national convention help Mitt Romney's chances in the presidential election? Yes - 58%
No - 42%
Total Votes: 18,987
Epically successful Freep. Well done!
36
posted on
09/03/2012 10:46:41 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson