Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PPP GA poll: Newt 47, Romney 24, Santorum 19, terrible!!
ppp ^

Posted on 03/04/2012 8:35:15 PM PST by lilyfreeper

Georgia: Gingrich 47, Romney 24, Santorum 19, Paul 8. Looks like some chance Newt could even hit 50...

Irrelevant (for now) but interesting: GA if Newt wasn't in race is Romney 38, Santorum 37. Mitt may do better in South than expected.

Santorum definitely the loser in tonight's 3 polls. Good news for both Romney (in OH and TN) and Gingrich (in TN and GA)


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: duplicate; gingrich; newt; newt2012; newtgingrich; pppga; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-73 last
To: ansel12; napscoordinator; editor-surveyor

Technically, the freeper was also wrong about 2006.

The final vote totals were 2,392,984 to 1,684,778.

That’s a 17.3% difference. Not 18%, as someone posted an hour ago, and not 19% as this freeper posted.

By tomorrow, Santorum will be said to have lost his state by 21%; by next week, he’ll actually have a negative vote count. :-)


51 posted on 03/04/2012 10:04:17 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Many press accounts use the 18% figure.

Not that it makes much difference, it was as humiliating and revealing as Romney’s being ushered from Massachusetts with no chance of reelection.


52 posted on 03/04/2012 10:11:25 PM PST by ansel12 (Rick Santorum Catholic "I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress" he said)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
You need to study harder, son. Santorum went home friday before the election, to do his taxes. Remember everybody yelling at him about that? As it was reported at the time:
Santorum says he would rather spend his Saturday sitting at his kitchen table doing his taxes than campaigning in a state where the race for the Republican presidential nomination has become a two-man fight between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Santorum was in Philidelphia Friday night, in Washington on Saturday night, and was with his daughter in the hospital on Sunday.

On Monday he returned to campaigning -- in the midwest, not Florida.

Santorum didn't run any ads in Florida, so he was hardly "piling on with Romney". much less for "more than a week".

Now, Santorum did beat Gingrich and Romney in the Florida debate; but you claimed he was "piling on Gingrich" and "non-stop attacking Gingrich". In fact, Santorum was low on money, couldn't run ads, and was a non-entity in Florida. He still pulled significant support, because Gingrich collapsed in the polls, but that wasn't Santorum's fault.

53 posted on 03/04/2012 10:14:10 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

But nobody uses the “19%” number that appeared in the post in question.

As I said, it’s a technical issue, but the whole argument was a pissing contest anyway, and you win pissing contests by being technically accurate.


54 posted on 03/04/2012 10:15:37 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

Oh, how I wish Newt might pull this off.

At our Washington state Caucus a Romulan was saying that she just wanted to defeat Obama and that Newt has too much “baggage” and that she didn’t think Santorum is strong enough to win.

She is so wrong. Only Newt can do this. Romulus will be a punching bag for class warfare attack, flip flop and magic underwear jokes.

Rick’s sermon about Satan control everything and his comments on contraception will doom him in ads.


55 posted on 03/04/2012 10:19:39 PM PST by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

He left Florida early (sorry I thought it was the night before). He might not have run an ad in Florida (I don`t know I don`t live there).

BUT

He would not throw his support behind Gingrich even though he had given up (because it was winner take all and it was clear he couldn`t win), and even though Newt had all the momentum. Those same people were calling for Newt to drop out before Michigan, and continue to do so (hypocrites).

He may not have run ads (as I said I don`t know), but in the debates and in the press he and his supporters continued to repeat Romney`s blatant lies about Newt (ethics charges etc.).


56 posted on 03/04/2012 10:25:43 PM PST by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Sam Spade

Agree should have included your comment on At large. Thanks


57 posted on 03/04/2012 10:28:53 PM PST by Bailee (Vote Newt the Pitt bull we need. Energy Independence and we bow to NO foreign dictator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Well that was some more wasted time.


58 posted on 03/04/2012 10:29:11 PM PST by ansel12 (Rick Santorum Catholic "I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress" he said)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I can’t understand your thinking on this one. Santorum is a complete disaster on every level. A terrible campaigner, wrong on a majority of issues, unacceptable to a majority of Americans, sure to lose to Obama, worse if he doesn’t.

Both Romney and Santorum are statists through and through, differing only in the emphasis of their preferred statist mandates on the citizens.

I can’t support either one. I am getting thoroughly tired of having statists of one stripe or another forced down our throats election after election.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss, over and over. It’s getting to the point that I’m glad I’m old and won’t be around to see the worst of the coming disasters.


59 posted on 03/04/2012 11:31:52 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

How is this terrible? I think Newt has much to offer.... He certainly is preferable to Mittens


60 posted on 03/04/2012 11:50:03 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria
I don’t think getting hysterical over Santorum because he looks and sounds good is all that much different.

Exactly,.....we have one freeper who said "Santorum is every Conservative Woman's Dream"............... It's these voters who haven't a clue and unfortunately there's too many of them in this nation.

61 posted on 03/05/2012 12:06:36 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator; editor-surveyor

Editor:.....”Sanntorum couldn’t get reelected in his home state; missed by 19%.”

Napscoord:....”You are a liar. He did get reelected in his home state. So much for you knowing all about Santorum. Do research before you get back to me.”

Me:....Well Buck-oo you just fell off the cliff for credibility..again...

I am from Santorums state and Editor is correct....

Santorum goes in the history books as the record holder for losing by ‘the greatest landslide’ of any incumbent in the entire history of Pennsylvanian .

And just so you know Santorum was raised where I live.


62 posted on 03/05/2012 12:38:36 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: caww; editor-surveyor

Reelection means being reelected in Pennsylvania where I am from too. He was elected in 1994 and REELECTED in 2000. Why is that so hard to believe. So YES he was reelected to the state. Some of you guys are so thick it kills me. Don’t say a blanket he was not reelected to the state when that is CLEARLY a lie.


63 posted on 03/05/2012 4:36:42 AM PST by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; Gene Eric

Did Santorum get REELECTED to Pennsylvania in 2000 or not? That is the problem with your little FRIENDS statement. He said that Snatorum did NOT get reelected in his homestate and that is why he is a liar. He did. He was elected in 1994 and REELECTED in 2000. Why that is so difficult for such intelligent people like yourselves is unknown.


64 posted on 03/05/2012 4:41:28 AM PST by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Um, the only poll that counts is tomorrow.

Don’t count your chickens....


65 posted on 03/05/2012 8:30:46 AM PST by thatjoeguy (MAYDAY! MAYDAY! We are so going in ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; ansel12

If we open a window, by tomorrow your stink may be gone from the ‘room.’
.


66 posted on 03/05/2012 9:33:31 AM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

You can pretend but you know that he identified the race by using the figure of a 19% loss.

You seem to be going down the Clintonesque road, personally I think you knew immediately what the poster was trying to say, the rest of us did.


67 posted on 03/05/2012 10:08:02 AM PST by ansel12 ( Romney is a Mormon Bishop, as was his father, his uncle was in line to be the Mormon Prophet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan

“Santorum’s sinking like a rock.”

He should stayed on message instead of taking on circuit-riding-preacher persona. He was doing well for a while, but crossed a line.


68 posted on 03/05/2012 10:12:18 AM PST by MayflowerMadam (Don't blame me; I voted for the American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam

I agree. He made some missteps, and couldn’t stay on message because he kept falling into media traps.


69 posted on 03/05/2012 10:34:30 AM PST by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator; editor-surveyor; ansel12

>> He said that Snatorum did NOT get reelected in his homestate and that is why he is a liar.

He, “little FRIEND”, is not a liar. It is indeed a fact that Santorum did not get reelected. It’s also a fact he got reelected.

>> Why that is so difficult for such intelligent people like yourselves is unknown.

Like I said, not is not never.


70 posted on 03/05/2012 9:01:21 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

I always thought naps coordinator is a mother from the name.


71 posted on 03/05/2012 9:30:55 PM PST by I_be_tc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Santorum used to be so liberal, and of course pro-abortion, that might be seeping out to some voters.”

Do you have a source? If true we need to get that out.


72 posted on 03/06/2012 9:43:07 AM PST by Bizhvywt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bizhvywt

This post in this thread shows a number of them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2855093/posts?page=43#43


73 posted on 03/06/2012 10:45:32 AM PST by ansel12 (Santorum-Catholic and "I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress" he said))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-73 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson