Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main

Date: 01 Jan 2009 07:17:26
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

1. Bush ruined the economy.
2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
Palin made women jealous and hate her.
3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
4-1.

What has been overlooked here?

Date: 04 Jan 2009 10:55:31
From: Double Down Now
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

1) The economy sucks
2) The economy sucks
3) The economy sucks

Date: 03 Jan 2009 10:38:33
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:17:26 -0800 (PST), Senator Millionaire
<moone99@gmail.com > wrote:

>1. Bush ruined the economy.
>2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
>Palin made women jealous and hate her.
>3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
>4-1.
>
>What has been overlooked here?

Just to expand on #2 and #3.

The VRWC had long since lost respect for McCain.
He did make some progress by "running to the Right", but it was nearly
not enough to make VRWC members enthusiastic.

His best move was to select Palin, but it was still not enough.
99.9% of the women who hate Palin also wouldn't vote for a
Conservative, or even a Rino Republican like McCain for that matter.

-----------------------------
Don't blame me - I voted for Ron Paul

Date: 03 Jan 2009 10:38:17
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message
news:444vl41vlk8ahaeh7et76g51ufgvdl4fc6@4ax.com...

> His best move was to select Palin, but it was still not enough.

lol..no it wasn't...it was the biggest fuck-up in a vp choice since McGovern
picked Eagleton.

> 99.9% of the women who hate Palin also wouldn't vote for a
> Conservative, or even a Rino Republican like McCain for that matter.

I don't think there are too many people, woman or otherwise, who "hate"
Palin. There's nothing to hate about her. She seems like a very nice person.
On the other hand, almost all intelligent people did quickly come to the
conclusion that she was in no way, shape, or form equipped with the
knowledge or intelligence to be president, which is the primary
qualification for a vp.

Date: 03 Jan 2009 14:46:25
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 10:38:17 -0800, "BillB" <bogus@shaw1.ca > wrote:

>
>"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:444vl41vlk8ahaeh7et76g51ufgvdl4fc6@4ax.com...
>
>> His best move was to select Palin, but it was still not enough.
>
>lol..no it wasn't...it was the biggest fuck-up in a vp choice since McGovern
>picked Eagleton.
>

Seeing all the enthusiastic Repo supporters filling the stands
wherever Palin appeared at a campaign rally, I can say that you are
full of shit.

>
>> 99.9% of the women who hate Palin also wouldn't vote for a
>> Conservative, or even a Rino Republican like McCain for that matter.
>
>I don't think there are too many people, woman or otherwise, who "hate"
>Palin. There's nothing to hate about her. She seems like a very nice person.
>On the other hand, almost all intelligent people did quickly come to the
>conclusion that she was in no way, shape, or form equipped with the
>knowledge or intelligence to be president, which is the primary
>qualification for a vp.
>

So why is it that the Liberal MSM was still stalking her after the
election to breathlessly report that her son's girlfriends mother was
charged with something or the other?

BTW
Sarah Palin did NOT say that she could see Russia from her window at
home.
That was said by Tina Fey in a SNL skit.

If you have some other lies that you need explained, just ask me.

Date: 03 Jan 2009 13:16:16
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message
news:n1jvl45is0rqtaml812amktc90jdgdicsf@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 10:38:17 -0800, "BillB" <bogus@shaw1.ca> wrote:

> Seeing all the enthusiastic Repo supporters filling the stands
> wherever Palin appeared at a campaign rally, I can say that you are
> full of shit.

The stands would have been similarly full if he picked BoBo the Clown. It's
not hard to fill stadiums with true believers in a country of over 300
million people. That means there's 50 million people in the US with sub-85
IQs. Look at the big numbers. That's what counts.

> So why is it that the Liberal MSM was still stalking her after the
> election to breathlessly report that her son's girlfriends mother was
> charged with something or the other?

I would hardly call it stalking. It was a one-line aside in the news
broadcasts for one day. It's interesting gossip. Same way they reported on
the foibles of Roger Clinton or Billy Carter. Was that MSM "stalking" too?

> BTW
> Sarah Palin did NOT say that she could see Russia from her window at
> home.
> That was said by Tina Fey in a SNL skit.

> If you have some other lies that you need explained, just ask me.

I don't think anyone believes Palin said she could see Russia from her
window. Do you? Parody is only funny when it has a ring of truth to it. And
the skits on Palin *were* funny.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 20:31:34
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:16:16 -0800, "BillB" <bogus@shaw1.ca > wrote:

>
>"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:n1jvl45is0rqtaml812amktc90jdgdicsf@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 10:38:17 -0800, "BillB" <bogus@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>> Seeing all the enthusiastic Repo supporters filling the stands
>> wherever Palin appeared at a campaign rally, I can say that you are
>> full of shit.
>
>The stands would have been similarly full if he picked BoBo the Clown. It's
>not hard to fill stadiums with true believers in a country of over 300
>million people. That means there's 50 million people in the US with sub-85
>IQs. Look at the big numbers. That's what counts.
>
>
>> So why is it that the Liberal MSM was still stalking her after the
>> election to breathlessly report that her son's girlfriends mother was
>> charged with something or the other?
>
>I would hardly call it stalking. It was a one-line aside in the news
>broadcasts for one day. It's interesting gossip. Same way they reported on
>the foibles of Roger Clinton or Billy Carter. Was that MSM "stalking" too?
>
>> BTW
>> Sarah Palin did NOT say that she could see Russia from her window at
>> home.
>> That was said by Tina Fey in a SNL skit.
>
>> If you have some other lies that you need explained, just ask me.
>
>I don't think anyone believes Palin said she could see Russia from her
>window. Do you? Parody is only funny when it has a ring of truth to it. And
>the skits on Palin *were* funny.
>

We shall see.

My Fearless Prediction is that in the next few years, that quote will
be repeated many, many times as being an authentic quote by Palin.

Stay tuned.

Date: 03 Jan 2009 15:18:30
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Number one, BillB's only a Canadian.

Of course, BillB is so much more intelligent than Sarah Palin that he
could be a governor of a state any time he felt like becoming a US
citizen and winning a state wide election by fighting not only the
opposition, but by beating and reforming his own party. That would be a
piece o' cake for BillB; he just doesn't feel like being successful.

BillB, as the Vice President, would be ready to become President,
because BillB has the intelligence to absorb briefings material, study
the issues and has great experience in managing committees and advisory
teams of experts from his former governorship. Just like Ronald Reagan.
How else do you think BillB would be able to give the best convention
speech in Republican history after being picked as a presidential
running mate only a few weeks before the convention if he wasn't so
intelligent and savvy? (Whew! one runs out breath just posting about it)

Do you really think that BillB isn't intelligent enough, when we know
that he could jump right into presidential election VP debate and
impress the world? Do you really think that BillB would be any different
than other governors who became President, but had little to do with
foreign policy because they were running a state, and state business as
governor?

Ohhh no, don't let BillB fool you, he just seems like an idiot and posts
like an idiot on Usenet, because he just doesn't FEEEEL like being
intelligent and successful.

Date: 03 Jan 2009 16:14:59
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Travel A" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:9372-495FF246-6542@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...

> Number one, BillB's only a Canadian.
>
> Of course, BillB is so much more intelligent than Sarah Palin that he
> could be a governor of a state any time he felt like becoming a US
> citizen and winning a state wide election by fighting not only the
> opposition, but by beating and reforming his own party. That would be a
> piece o' cake for BillB; he just doesn't feel like being successful.

My iq is a good 3 sd's higher than Palin's, but I don't have the skill set
to be a politician. For one thing, I am far too candid. Plus I have
skeletons. Don't get me wrong though. I am not trying to belittle the
woman's intelligence or prodigious accomplishments. When I said she lacked
intelligence, I meant by the standards of a G7 leader. Compared to you she's
a fucking hyper-genius.

Date: 03 Jan 2009 17:42:43
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

". I am not trying to belittle the woman's intelligence or prodigious
accomplishments."

Yes you are. That's exactly what you're doing. You just think you're
being smooth about it. You're being: "a Hankins".

"When I said she lacked intelligence, I meant by the standards of a G7
leader"

What standards are they exactly? Sarah Palin has about the exact same
background as Ronald Reagan, and similar leadership and communication
skills. That's pretty high standards for any national leader. You don't
know what you're talking about.

Republicans are wild about her.
When she gets to run her own campaign without being undermined by the
left wing McCain staff, it'll be a different story. She'll be calling
the shots and communicating her own message.

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, now there's a fricken joke. We
don't hear any criticism about that or the Affirmative Action
President-elect with two years experience in the senate.

Plus, none of them are qualified if they're left wing communists.

Why are you trying to hide your hatred for Sarah Palin's evangelical
christian background, anyway? I mean, everyone around here knows the
deal with you.

Date: 03 Jan 2009 17:13:43
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

No, compared to you, she's a "hyper-genius" and your intelligence is
commonly referred to as "intelligence". As in: "is there intelligent
life on Mars?" "Is there anything even BillBlike up there?"

Date: 02 Jan 2009 11:12:59
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 2, 10:30=A0am, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com > wrote:
> Senator Millionaire wrote:
> > 1. Bush ruined the economy.
> > 2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
> > Palin made women jealous and hate her.
> > 3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
> > 4-1.
>
> > What has been overlooked here?
>
> The War. =A0The Torture. =A0Gitmo. The Vice President. =A0The Patriot Act=
.
> The Wire Tapping. =A0Donald Rumsfeld. =A0Obama still walks. =A0All of tho=
se
> signings. =A0The presidential orders. =A0The belief in kingship over the
> people. =A0I am the decider. =A0Mission Accomplished. =A0Heck of a job
> Brownie. =A0Katrina. =A0 All of this certainly kicked 2's ass.

You brought up some real good points but I have to believe the fancy
expensive wardrobe was particularly bothersome to women voters. It's
not often women get to go on a $150,000 shopping spree. For the sake
of comparison, it would be interesting to find out what Hillary spent
on her clothes? Anyone know?

Date: 02 Jan 2009 17:15:33
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:06d494b1-fe81-4ee2-b25b-079e1e0483cb@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 2, 10:30 am, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com > wrote:
> Senator Millionaire wrote:
> > 1. Bush ruined the economy.
> > 2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
> > Palin made women jealous and hate her.
> > 3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
> > 4-1.
>
> > What has been overlooked here?
>
> The War. The Torture. Gitmo. The Vice President. The Patriot Act.
> The Wire Tapping. Donald Rumsfeld. Obama still walks. All of those
> signings. The presidential orders. The belief in kingship over the
> people. I am the decider. Mission Accomplished. Heck of a job
> Brownie. Katrina. All of this certainly kicked 2's ass.

You brought up some real good points but I have to believe the fancy
expensive wardrobe was particularly bothersome to women voters.
====================================================================

That and the fact that she turned out to be a frickin' bonehead.

Jim

Date: 02 Jan 2009 11:24:33
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:06d494b1-fe81-4ee2-b25b-

> You brought up some real good points

No, it was TRAVEL who brought up some real good points. He seems to be the
ONLY one in this thread who has a good understanding, and sadly I am even
including Da Voice on that. Travel called it to a tee. He's right on the
money!

-PP

Date: 02 Jan 2009 07:30:35
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Senator Millionaire wrote:
> 1. Bush ruined the economy.
> 2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
> Palin made women jealous and hate her.
> 3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
> 4-1.
>
> What has been overlooked here?
>

The War. The Torture. Gitmo. The Vice President. The Patriot Act.
The Wire Tapping. Donald Rumsfeld. Obama still walks. All of those
signings. The presidential orders. The belief in kingship over the
people. I am the decider. Mission Accomplished. Heck of a job
Brownie. Katrina. All of this certainly kicked 2's ass.

Date: 02 Jan 2009 14:40:59
From: Bill Hartwick
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

johnny_t wrote:
> Senator Millionaire wrote:
>
>> 1. Bush ruined the economy.
>> 2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
>> Palin made women jealous and hate her.
>> 3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
>> 4-1.
>>
>> What has been overlooked here?
>>
>
> The War. The Torture. Gitmo. The Vice President. The Patriot Act. The
> Wire Tapping. Donald Rumsfeld. Obama still walks. All of those
> signings. The presidential orders. The belief in kingship over the
> people. I am the decider. Mission Accomplished. Heck of a job
> Brownie. Katrina. All of this certainly kicked 2's ass.

How about Osama still walks?

Date: 02 Jan 2009 14:32:57
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Bill Hartwick wrote:
>
>
> johnny_t wrote:
>> Senator Millionaire wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Bush ruined the economy.
>>> 2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
>>> Palin made women jealous and hate her.
>>> 3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
>>> 4-1.
>>>
>>> What has been overlooked here?
>>>
>>
>> The War. The Torture. Gitmo. The Vice President. The Patriot Act.
>> The Wire Tapping. Donald Rumsfeld. Obama still walks. All of those
>> signings. The presidential orders. The belief in kingship over the
>> people. I am the decider. Mission Accomplished. Heck of a job
>> Brownie. Katrina. All of this certainly kicked 2's ass.
>
> How about Osama still walks?
>
lol. that too...

Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:28:40
From: DaVoice
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:bb980230-3fd9-4777-b7c8-0ca8a7adeda8@s14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> 1. Bush ruined the economy.
> 2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
> Palin made women jealous and hate her.
> 3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
> 4-1.
>
> What has been overlooked here?

Reason # 4. STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE

--
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles

Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:00:11
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Date: 01 Jan 2009 13:06:17
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"James L. Hankins" <jhankins5@cox.net > wrote in message
news:v9a7l.51108$Uk3.41225@newsfe10.iad...

> "The fundamentals of the economy are sound."

The basic reason he lost is that after voting for the dumb candidate twice
in a row, and watching the country go down the toilet, Joe the Voter finally
said to himself, "hmmmm....maybe I better vote for the smart one this time."

Date: 01 Jan 2009 14:50:05
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

The reason he lost is that:

1) McCain took a dive. He never intended to win in the first place. It
was a bag job for Obama. Although, with the Bush low appoval rating and
the timing of the financial crisis, McCain didn't have to try too hard
to lose.

2) Obama had the media as part of his campaign.

3) Obama out spent McCain 3, or 4 to 1.

The Republican base (which didn't vote for McCain in the primaries) was
not going to turn out to vote for McCain in the general election. This
would have been number "4" if McCain didn't choose Sarah Palin for a
running mate.

McCain's left-wing and a big part of the Republican electorate knows it.

("didn't vote", meaning of course, remarkable, unusually low numbers)

It's estimated that McCain would have lost over 40 states without Sarah
Palin. That's why he picked her; his otherwise huge loss would have
looked too suspicious and embarrassing.

Date: 02 Jan 2009 11:46:15
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Travel did bring up some good points. But I disagree with the last
paragraph:

"It's estimated that McCain would have lost over 40 states without
Sarah
Palin. That's why he picked her; his otherwise huge loss would have
looked too suspicious and embarrassing."

Obama received 56% of women votes. This indicates that Palin hurt the
McCain ticket. Perhaps Romney would have been a better choice. I
looked and couldn't find much about Hillary's wardrobe expenditures.
It looks like she worked out a deal in advance for her fancy expensive
clothing to be donated. The true costs of her wardrobe may never be
revealed.

Date: 04 Jan 2009 13:39:14
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 3, 10:30=A0am, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
>
> To believe that Sarah Palin cost McCain votes is laughable. She
> "got-out" the Republican women's vote, along with the Republican men's
> vote; the Independent women's vote or cross-over Democrat women's vote
> was long gone because McCain was a terrible candidate; for the reasons
> already mentioned.

The $150,000 clothing budget was a MASSIVE public relations disaster
and could pay a heavy toll on any future run by her. It doesn't matter
whether the clothes were going to be donated or not. What does matter,
is that the RNC allocated the $150,000 and she could easily have said,
"no thanks." But she didn't do that so that just makes her another
Republican hypocrite.

Why didn't she just say NO THANKS?

Date: 06 Jan 2009 19:44:26
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 6, 5:08=A0pm, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com>

>
> I doubt that those regular Americans would find an expenditure of
> $150,000 at all surprising, coming in a political campaign spending
> hundred of millions of dollars.

But regular Americans _did_ respond to this issue. I know it's a
trivial amount of money compared to the total amount of the campaign
just as well as you do, and I looked on in bafflement as _this_ issued
resonated with voters while much more substantive issues did not, but
that's what happened.
>
> That is, if they even thought about it.

I believe it was an emotional reaction, not a logical one.

- Bob T.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 22:32:00
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:44:26 -0800 (PST), "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 6, 5:08�pm, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com>
>
>>
>> I doubt that those regular Americans would find an expenditure of
>> $150,000 at all surprising, coming in a political campaign spending
>> hundred of millions of dollars.
>
>But regular Americans _did_ respond to this issue. I know it's a
>trivial amount of money compared to the total amount of the campaign
>just as well as you do, and I looked on in bafflement as _this_ issued
>resonated with voters while much more substantive issues did not, but
>that's what happened.
>>

So just how do we know that regular Americans _did_ respond to the
issue?

I would be most interested in hearing how you _know_ that.

>> That is, if they even thought about it.
>
>I believe it was an emotional reaction, not a logical one.
>
>- Bob T.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 22:17:35
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Jan 6, 2009, 10:32pm (PST+2)
From: FL Turbo <noemail@notime.com >

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:44:26 -0800 (PST), "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com >
wrote:

On Jan 6, 5:08=EF=BF=BDpm, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com > wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com >

I doubt that those regular Americans would find an expenditure of
$150,000 at all surprising, coming in a political campaign spending
hundred of millions of dollars.

But regular Americans _did_ respond to this issue. I know it's a trivial
amount of money compared to the total amount of the campaign just as
well as you do, and I looked on in bafflement as _this_ issued resonated
with voters while much more substantive issues did not, but that's what
happened.

"So just how do we know that regular Americans _did_ respond to the
issue?
I would be most interested in hearing how you _know_ that."

......................................................................

Oh, don't encourge, lol, BobTard has an endless stream o' bullshit. You
never want to ask this idiot a question.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 04:34:26
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 5, 11:30=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "FL Turbo" <noem...@notime.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bei5m4t22bq6gm220q13l1lu3qs2r46iln@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:08:09 -0800 (PST), Senator Millionaire
> > <moon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Some may consider this $150,000 a non-issue? LOL! I assume we can
> >>agree that there must be some price on the clothing budget that even
> >>Palin would find too extravagant.
>
> >>Let's suppose the RNC offered her a clothing budget of $500,000? Do
> >>you think she would of said, "No thanks, I think that's too much to be
> >>spending on clothes."
>
> > There is no indication that anyone ever asked her about how much money
> > to spend on a new wardrobe.
>
> > The whole kerfuffle is only yet more evidence of how Moonbats like you
> > are a bunch of petty little Ankle Biters.
>
> I saw an interview on this issue. =A0Fact is Palin didn't ask for the clo=
thes,
> didn't pick out the clothes and didn't want the clothes. =A0They were pro=
vided
> by the campaign managers. =A0Funny no one has ever asked where Obama mama=
got
> all the clothes she wore on all those campaign appearances.

Really? Nobody asked? Or is it possible that GOP operatives _asked_
where Michelle Obama got her clothes, but gave up when they discovered
she paid for them herself? "Nobody asked" - you're priceless, Mike.

I think this issue is particularly amusing because the Republicans
were hoist by one of their typical petards. Usually it's a Democrat
who gets caught up in some silly issue of style over substance - John
Edward's expensive haircuts, for example. This time, it was the GOP
who was caught by surprise when regular Americans found the idea of
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on clothes outrageous.

- Bob T.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 19:08:10
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 5, 11:30�pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> "FL Turbo" <noem...@notime.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bei5m4t22bq6gm220q13l1lu3qs2r46iln@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:08:09 -0800 (PST), Senator Millionaire
>> > <moon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Some may consider this $150,000 a non-issue? LOL! I assume we can
>> >>agree that there must be some price on the clothing budget that even
>> >>Palin would find too extravagant.
>>
>> >>Let's suppose the RNC offered her a clothing budget of $500,000? Do
>> >>you think she would of said, "No thanks, I think that's too much to be
>> >>spending on clothes."
>>
>> > There is no indication that anyone ever asked her about how much money
>> > to spend on a new wardrobe.
>>
>> > The whole kerfuffle is only yet more evidence of how Moonbats like you
>> > are a bunch of petty little Ankle Biters.
>>
>> I saw an interview on this issue. �Fact is Palin didn't ask for the clothes,
>> didn't pick out the clothes and didn't want the clothes. �They were provided
>> by the campaign managers. �Funny no one has ever asked where Obama mama got
>> all the clothes she wore on all those campaign appearances.
>
>Really? Nobody asked? Or is it possible that GOP operatives _asked_
>where Michelle Obama got her clothes, but gave up when they discovered
>she paid for them herself? "Nobody asked" - you're priceless, Mike.
>
>I think this issue is particularly amusing because the Republicans
>were hoist by one of their typical petards. Usually it's a Democrat
>who gets caught up in some silly issue of style over substance - John
>Edward's expensive haircuts, for example. This time, it was the GOP
>who was caught by surprise when regular Americans found the idea of
>spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on clothes outrageous.
>
>- Bob T.
>

I doubt that those regular Americans would find an expenditure of
$150,000 at all surprising, coming in a political campaign spending
hundred of millions of dollars.

That is, if they even thought about it.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 22:10:40
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

FL Turbo wrote:

"I doubt that those regular Americans would find an expenditure of
$150,000 at all surprising, coming in a political campaign spending
hundred of millions of dollars.
That is, if they even thought about it."

.............................................................

That's right, but this is BobTard's delusional dream story. Maybe we
should humor him, and post Sarah Palin's approval ratings to him at the
same time and see what happens.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 12:52:42
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 6, 11:31=A0am, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
> BobTard wrote:
>
> "Really? Nobody asked? Or is it possible that GOP operatives _asked_
> where Michelle Obama got her clothes, but gave up when they discovered
> she paid for them herself?"
>
> When petty ankle biters are mentioned, it's time for BobTard to crawl out=
.

I just cast "summon deluded asshole" and poof! Travel showed up! If
only there were a spell to make him go away. Maybe he'll embarass
himself completely in his first paragraph...
>
> No, that's only possible in your mind. It was actually the McCain left
> wing campaign staffers who started the "clothes" smear against Sarah
> Palin. They're not about to go after Obamamama in the same way, and the
> left wing media isn't about to do it, either. =A0

Done!

- Bob T.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 22:03:08
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Jan 6, 2009, 12:52pm
From: Bob T. <bob@synapse-cs.com >

On Jan 6, 11:31=EF=BF=BDam, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:

BobTard wrote:
"Really? Nobody asked? Or is it possible that GOP operatives _asked_
where Michelle Obama got her clothes, but gave up when they discovered
she paid for them herself?"

When petty ankle biters are mentioned, it's time for BobTard to crawl
out.

I just cast "summon deluded asshole" and poof! Travel showed up! If only
there were a spell to make him go away. Maybe he'll embarass himself
completely in his first paragraph...

No, that's only possible in your mind. It was actually the McCain left
wing campaign staffers who started the "clothes" smear against Sarah
Palin. They're not about to go after Obamamama in the same way, and the
left wing media isn't about to do it, either. =EF=BF=BD

Done!
- Bob T.

.........................................................................=
.

Well, by the lame "comeback", it looks like BobTard knows it's another
snarky post he didn't get away with...

Date: 06 Jan 2009 11:31:03
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

BobTard wrote:

"Really? Nobody asked? Or is it possible that GOP operatives _asked_
where Michelle Obama got her clothes, but gave up when they discovered
she paid for them herself?"

When petty ankle biters are mentioned, it's time for BobTard to crawl
out.

No, that's only possible in your mind. It was actually the McCain left
wing campaign staffers who started the "clothes" smear against Sarah
Palin. They're not about to go after Obamamama in the same way, and the
left wing media isn't about to do it, either.

.................

"This time, it was the GOP who was caught by surprise when regular
Americans found the idea of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on
clothes outrageous"

"Regular Americans didn't care and saw it for what it was. Just another
smear attempt against a legitimate conservative.

"Regular Americans" didn't "find out" anything. The left wing media
promoted this bogus "story". Like the New York Times reporting the
McCain "sexual affair" with a staffer that never happened.

The smear attempt went nowhere, ankle biter, Sarah Palin's approval
rating among regular American Republicans is through the roof.

Ask Obamamama why her salary tripled all at once at her hospital job, as
soon as Obama was elected to the US Senate. Then, you can be delusional
in trying to believe that the DNC didn't pay for her suff for the
campaign. You do know that Obamamama has a list of "off-limits"
questions when she does interviews, right? No one pushed and no one
asked about the Obama expense allowances. What's it cost to fuel those
private jets with the bed rooms, I wonder?

Date: 04 Jan 2009 16:08:09
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Some may consider this $150,000 a non-issue? LOL! I assume we can
agree that there must be some price on the clothing budget that even
Palin would find too extravagant.

Let's suppose the RNC offered her a clothing budget of $500,000? Do
you think she would of said, "No thanks, I think that's too much to be
spending on clothes."

Date: 05 Jan 2009 21:07:44
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:08:09 -0800 (PST), Senator Millionaire
<moone99@gmail.com > wrote:

>Some may consider this $150,000 a non-issue? LOL! I assume we can
>agree that there must be some price on the clothing budget that even
>Palin would find too extravagant.
>
>Let's suppose the RNC offered her a clothing budget of $500,000? Do
>you think she would of said, "No thanks, I think that's too much to be
>spending on clothes."

There is no indication that anyone ever asked her about how much money
to spend on a new wardrobe.

The whole kerfuffle is only yet more evidence of how Moonbats like you
are a bunch of petty little Ankle Biters.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 02:30:21
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message
news:bei5m4t22bq6gm220q13l1lu3qs2r46iln@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:08:09 -0800 (PST), Senator Millionaire
> <moone99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Some may consider this $150,000 a non-issue? LOL! I assume we can
>>agree that there must be some price on the clothing budget that even
>>Palin would find too extravagant.
>>
>>Let's suppose the RNC offered her a clothing budget of $500,000? Do
>>you think she would of said, "No thanks, I think that's too much to be
>>spending on clothes."
>
> There is no indication that anyone ever asked her about how much money
> to spend on a new wardrobe.
>
> The whole kerfuffle is only yet more evidence of how Moonbats like you
> are a bunch of petty little Ankle Biters.

I saw an interview on this issue. Fact is Palin didn't ask for the clothes,
didn't pick out the clothes and didn't want the clothes. They were provided
by the campaign managers. Funny no one has ever asked where Obama mama got
all the clothes she wore on all those campaign appearances.

Irish Mike

Date: 06 Jan 2009 09:40:53
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:YHD8l.8263$8_3.2750@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...

> Funny no one has ever asked where Obama mama got all the clothes she wore
> on all those campaign appearances.

Jay Leno asked her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rDWE9MulJ0

Date: 06 Jan 2009 11:05:00
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Discussrec.gambling.pokerHelp

Group
Previous
Next
Next New
Forward
Respond

Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Jan 6, 2009, 9:40am
From: BillB <bogus@shaw1.ca >

"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:YHD8l.8263$8_3.2750@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...

Funny no one has ever asked where Obama mama got all the clothes she
wore on all those campaign appearances.

Jay Leno asked her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rDWE9MulJ0
..............................................................................................

As if that's for real. The purpose was to blow-off any similar questions
about the Obama's. It's totally meaningless, with zero proof offering.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 23:38:06
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:YHD8l.8263$8_3.2750@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...

<... >

> Funny no one has ever asked where Obama mama got all the clothes she wore
> on all those campaign appearances.

Sounds like y'all got some investigatory journalismin' to do!

Get back to us real soon on that, hmm-kay?

Jim

Date: 05 Jan 2009 08:52:37
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 5, 10:09=A0am, "Susan" <sdbrat...@netscape.net > wrote:
>
> It's my understanding that they got quite a bit back because of duplicate=
s
> in different sizes, etc., and the rest went to charity (I have no clue wh=
ich
> one)

Susan, where's the links? The info is difficult to find. I found only
one page loaded with Palin stuff here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/sarah-palin-style

Date: 05 Jan 2009 10:53:38
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Both parties spend big money in the image department and they do their
best to conceal these costs. Sure, Palin was smeared ....maybe the
question should be why didn't the RNC smear back? Maybe because they
can't find the information on what the Dems spent either?

Despite all of this nonsense it's just a heck of a lot easier to blame
the family from Texas for the downfall of the Republican party.
Because that's the truth!

Date: 05 Jan 2009 09:19:27
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 5, 12:04=A0pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
> How hard have you searched for clothes alllowance costs for Obamamama
> and Hillary Clinton? What did they give back?
>
> And the Huffington Post??? That's a left wing activist site. =A0

Well, I searched on the GOP.com and didn't find anything regarding
Palin. I couldn't find much on Hillary or Obama other than a few
mentions here and there about them wearing $3,000 suits.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 09:42:45
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c9a5b5af-4e91-4455-83b9-12195a8b7975@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 12:04 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
> How hard have you searched for clothes alllowance costs for Obamamama
> and Hillary Clinton? What did they give back?
>
> And the Huffington Post??? That's a left wing activist site.

>Well, I searched on the GOP.com and didn't find anything regarding
>Palin. I couldn't find much on Hillary or Obama other than a few
>mentions here and there about them wearing $3,000 suits.

I thought the issue about Palin's clothing was a total smear-job. Sure, 150k
sounds like a lot to the uninitiated, but it really isn't. The Republicans
and the Democrats both have stylists, make-up artists, image consultants,
hairstylists, etc. etc., trying to make the candidates look their best.
There's a lot at stake. This is the big leagues, not some small town mayoral
race in Alaska, and I am sure Palin was just following good expert advice.
The stylists may have gone a little overboard when she showed up in a parka
and a lumberjacket.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 09:04:01
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

How hard have you searched for clothes alllowance costs for Obamamama
and Hillary Clinton? What did they give back?

And the Huffington Post??? That's a left wing activist site.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 06:58:45
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 4, 11:06=A0pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
> After the election Sarah Palin gave the clothes back.

Did the RNC get back the $150,000?

Date: 05 Jan 2009 09:09:42
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:5a11c34f-d846-4202-a3c4-b47fb89af2a8@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 11:06 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
>> After the election Sarah Palin gave the clothes back.

>Did the RNC get back the $150,000?

It's my understanding that they got quite a bit back because of duplicates
in different sizes, etc., and the rest went to charity (I have no clue which
one)

Date: 04 Jan 2009 20:06:27
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

After the election Sarah Palin gave the clothes back.

Date: 04 Jan 2009 15:42:41
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Well, there ya go Senator Millionaire. You're anti Republican bias is
wagging your thought process. The "dress thing" had zero effect.
politically. In fact, it was just one of countless smear attemps that
added up to the usual Democrat dirty tricks that went nowhere.

A left wing McCain staffer, some broad named Wallace, did most of the
ordering of the clothes. Plus, most of the total cost of the clothes
included multiple sizes/duplicates of the same item intended to be
returned upon choosing the right size.

The whole ridiculous non-issue isn't even worthy of discussion, never
mind asserting that it was of any political importance. Your ilk tried
to give her the Imelda Marcos treatment, but it didn't work. In fact,
you're the only one who's still talking about it.

What was Obamamama and thelittleObama's clothing cost? Funny you're not
on top of that one...

Date: 03 Jan 2009 07:30:29
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2009, 11:46am
From: Senator Millionaire <moone99@gmail.com >

Travel did bring up some good points. But I disagree with the last
paragraph:
"It's estimated that McCain would have lost over 40 states without Sarah
Palin. That's why he picked her; his otherwise huge loss would have
looked too suspicious and embarrassing."

Obama received 56% of women votes. This indicates that Palin hurt the
McCain ticket.
..............................................................

You don't understand, it had little to do with the "women's vote", it
had to do with the Republican base. I.e., because Sarah Palin was on the
ticket, the Republicans turned-out on election day and voted. Without
Sarah Palin on the ticket, the Republican turn-out on election day would
have been abysmal, and it's estimated that McCain would have lost over
40 states. (45 states, possibly)

Just the fact that a candidate is a woman, has traditionally attracted
relatively few extra votes, anyway. The women's vote, in general, in
this election was largely unaffected one way or the other by the gender
of the candidates. Obama lost nothing by dumping Hillary from VP
consideration, for example; some squawking, but not votes.

To believe that Sarah Palin cost McCain votes is laughable. She
"got-out" the Republican women's vote, along with the Republican men's
vote; the Independent women's vote or cross-over Democrat women's vote
was long gone because McCain was a terrible candidate; for the reasons
already mentioned.

In fact, McCain took the lead in the polls after the Republican
convention and Sara Palin's outstanding speech. The "bounce" shake-out,
combined with the financial crisis timing, put McCain way behind for
good. But, if anything, the "bounce" showed that Sarah Palin "had them"
(Independents/cross-overs) for a while. If she was at the top of the
ticket, it might have been interesting.

Women, as men, were voting Democrat in this election (including the
generic congressional stats of +10 for the Democrats) by a majority and
nothing was changing that outcome including the McCain campaign's (lol)
"dress budget".

Date: 03 Jan 2009 07:59:45
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

In short, what you think happened with regard to the final vote, is
wrongly predicated on the belief that Sarah Palin cost McCain the 56%
women's vote total going to Obama. She didn't.

It had nothing to do with Sarah Palin being "the wrong woman" woman
candidate. The women's vote was going Democrat, anyway. Without Sarah
Palin, it would have been a humiliating vote total for McCain; rather
than just an ordinary, losing campaign.

So, my last paragraph is also correct, PP.

Date: 02 Jan 2009 12:00:56
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:4b3c1c96-0803-4614-b0c8-
>
> Obama received 56% of women votes. This indicates that Palin hurt the
> McCain ticket.

Of course, this demonstrates how fickle women are and actually indicates why
they should not be voting in the first place. They're stupid.

Date: 02 Jan 2009 14:30:02
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:zou7l.13119$c45.8964@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b3c1c96-0803-4614-b0c8-
>>
>> Obama received 56% of women votes. This indicates that Palin hurt the
>> McCain ticket.
>
>
> Of course, this demonstrates how fickle women are and actually indicates
> why they should not be voting in the first place. They're stupid.

It's a good thing I'm not reading RGP today.

Date: 02 Jan 2009 11:56:05
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:4b3c1c96-0803-4614-b0c8-92564cde255a@l37g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Travel did bring up some good points. But I disagree with the last
> paragraph:
>
> "It's estimated that McCain would have lost over 40 states without
> Sarah
> Palin. That's why he picked her; his otherwise huge loss would have
> looked too suspicious and embarrassing."
>
> Obama received 56% of women votes. This indicates that Palin hurt the
> McCain ticket. Perhaps Romney would have been a better choice. I
> looked and couldn't find much about Hillary's wardrobe expenditures.
> It looks like she worked out a deal in advance for her fancy expensive
> clothing to be donated. The true costs of her wardrobe may never be
> revealed.

Ok then, I guess you're going to be a hard customer to bluff. Maybe I
better dot my tees and cross my eyes before debating with YOU. Anyway, I
can't really disagree with what you said. But the parts of what Travel
said, BEFORE that last paragraph, I agree with!

Btw, who the fuck's sockpuppet are you anyway?

-PP

Date: 02 Jan 2009 21:18:57
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:56:05 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4b3c1c96-0803-4614-b0c8-92564cde255a@l37g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> Travel did bring up some good points. But I disagree with the last
>> paragraph:
>>
>> "It's estimated that McCain would have lost over 40 states without
>> Sarah
>> Palin. That's why he picked her; his otherwise huge loss would have
>> looked too suspicious and embarrassing."
>>
>> Obama received 56% of women votes. This indicates that Palin hurt the
>> McCain ticket. Perhaps Romney would have been a better choice. I
>> looked and couldn't find much about Hillary's wardrobe expenditures.
>> It looks like she worked out a deal in advance for her fancy expensive
>> clothing to be donated. The true costs of her wardrobe may never be
>> revealed.
>
>
>Ok then, I guess you're going to be a hard customer to bluff. Maybe I
>better dot my tees and cross my eyes before debating with YOU. Anyway, I
>can't really disagree with what you said. But the parts of what Travel
>said, BEFORE that last paragraph, I agree with!

You agree with:

"1) McCain took a dive. He never intended to win in the first place.
It was a bag job for Obama." ?

Seriously?

Date: 02 Jan 2009 21:25:12
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid > wrote in message
>
> You agree with:
>
> "1) McCain took a dive. He never intended to win in the first place.
> It was a bag job for Obama." ?
>
> Seriously?
>

Absolutely. It's done all the time. Even as it was happening, I obviously
still didn't believe Obama could win. Remember, I bet cash on this
newsgroup. I don't expect you to agree with me, because I know you lack the
understanding that I have. But suffice it to say, it didn't matter which of
the two candidates won. The fix was in, America loses either way. Both
represent and are backed by the New World Order king makers.

-PP

Date: 02 Jan 2009 21:52:14
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:25:12 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

> you lack the
>understanding that I have.

Yes, and I thank my lucky stars for that.

Date: 02 Jan 2009 22:32:47
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:t5vtl4lkdj8t1fjashs60nr1o8q3b5c261@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:25:12 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
> <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> you lack the
>>understanding that I have.
>
> Yes, and I thank my lucky stars for that.

Don't think that your annoying sarcasm is going to taunt me into explaining
further or listing examples. Popinjay can lead horses to water,..... but
some of them just have to stay thirsty.

-PP

Date: 03 Jan 2009 13:24:05
From: DaVoice
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:BED7l.4279$jZ1.497@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> "Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:t5vtl4lkdj8t1fjashs60nr1o8q3b5c261@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:25:12 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
>> <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> you lack the
>>>understanding that I have.
>>
>> Yes, and I thank my lucky stars for that.
>
>
> Don't think that your annoying sarcasm is going to taunt me into
> explaining
> further or listing examples. Popinjay can lead horses to water,..... but
> some of them just have to stay thirsty.

Why is it that people don't realize. REASON #1 and ONLY... SYTLE OVER
SUBSTANCE, period. Obama has no real gravitas, but to see his crowds
reminded me of watching footage of the Beatles arriving in the U.S., with
women fainting, and men trying to "touch the robes" of the newly crowned
Messiah.

Mc Cain is old and boring, Obama "excited" people. Time will tell if there
is any SUBSTANCE behind the STYLE.

--
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles

Date: 04 Jan 2009 09:47:02
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

The Democrats engineered the Republican primary election win for McCain
by organizing Democrat voters to vote Republican in the primaries for
McCain (especially New Hampshire and Florida); therefore beating Romney
(or any other "outsider" who happened to end up being the Republican
nominee front runner) and eliminating a legitimate Republican from being
the Republican nominee.

(The Democrats tried to pull this stunt with McCain in 2000; most
notably in the Republican primary elections in Michigan.)

The left wing put their "own guy in" and had it both ways; Obama and
McCain are both left wing backed by the left wing.

The next question would be: Is McCain there as a fall back candidate for
the left wing if Obama loses, or was McCain's role one of a strawman
candidate to take a dive to ensure an Obama win. From McCain's
performance in the general election campaign, it looks like the later.

This strategy deceitful strategy isn't anything new for the left wing;
Ross Perot (who's company contracted the data processing for Welfare)
was a strawman candidate for Clinton in Clinton initial presidential
campaign, and Bob Dole took a dive for Clinton in Clinton's re-election
campaign.

You don't have to look past the left wing Democrat machine to "Skull and
Crossbone" Societies.

Date: 03 Jan 2009 01:12:39
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:32:47 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:t5vtl4lkdj8t1fjashs60nr1o8q3b5c261@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:25:12 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
>> <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> you lack the
>>>understanding that I have.
>>
>> Yes, and I thank my lucky stars for that.
>
>
>Don't think that your annoying sarcasm is going to taunt me into explaining
>further or listing examples. Popinjay can lead horses to water,..... but
>some of them just have to stay thirsty.

What sarcasm?

Date: 03 Jan 2009 01:31:33
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid > wrote in message
>
> What sarcasm?

THAT sarcasm!

Date: 02 Jan 2009 11:26:37
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Travel A" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:9372-495D489D-5892@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
> The reason he lost is that:
>
> 1) McCain took a dive. He never intended to win in the first place. It
> was a bag job for Obama. Although, with the Bush low appoval rating and
> the timing of the financial crisis, McCain didn't have to try too hard
> to lose.
>
> 2) Obama had the media as part of his campaign.
>
> 3) Obama out spent McCain 3, or 4 to 1.
>
>
>
> The Republican base (which didn't vote for McCain in the primaries) was
> not going to turn out to vote for McCain in the general election. This
> would have been number "4" if McCain didn't choose Sarah Palin for a
> running mate.
>
> McCain's left-wing and a big part of the Republican electorate knows it.
>

Right on the money, Travel, as usual. Right on all counts. Why do you and
I continue to read and post in these off-topic political threads on RGP
anyway? Do we get some kind of sick pleasure in watching how utterly
clueless the other people are?

-PP

Date: 03 Jan 2009 06:39:48
From: Travel A
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2009, 11:26am
From: Paul Popinjay <paulpopinjay@sbcglobal.net >

"Travel A" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:9372-495D489D-5892@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...

The reason he lost is that:
1) McCain took a dive. He never intended to win in the first place. It
was a bag job for Obama. Although, with the Bush low appoval rating and
the timing of the financial crisis, McCain didn't have to try too hard
to lose.

2) Obama had the media as part of his campaign.

3) Obama out spent McCain 3, or 4 to 1.

The Republican base (which didn't vote for McCain in the primaries) was
not going to turn out to vote for McCain in the general election. This
would have been number "4" if McCain didn't choose Sarah Palin for a
running mate.

McCain's left-wing and a big part of the Republican electorate knows it.

Right on the money, Travel, as usual. Right on all counts. Why do you
and I continue to read and post in these off-topic political threads on
RGP anyway? Do we get some kind of sick pleasure in watching how utterly
clueless the other people are?
-PP

................................................................................

I know what you mean, Jayster. Especially when you see replies like
Johnny t's or Hankins, who claim that McCain lost because of reasons
from their own, personal bitch list against Bush.

All the bogus crap about Bush torturing, keeping troops in Iraq and
inhumane treatment at Gitmo. etc., directed against Bush, all that
criticism goes away when it's Obama doing exactly the same thing.

Date: 03 Jan 2009 09:50:11
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Travel A" <nine510@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:9372-495F78B4-6431@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...

>
> I know what you mean, Jayster. Especially when you see replies like
> Johnny t's or Hankins, who claim that McCain lost because of reasons
> from their own, personal bitch list against Bush.
>

Oh gosh, both of those individuals are completely clueless. The thing is,
they are both interested in and attracted to political study. If they could
ever somehow get "straightened out", just think how much more fascinating
the subject would become for them. I guess the fun is not ruined for them,
when they just don't know any better.

> All the bogus crap about Bush torturing, keeping troops in Iraq and
> inhumane treatment at Gitmo. etc., directed against Bush, all that
> criticism goes away when it's Obama doing exactly the same thing.
>

Of course. You are correct AGAIN! Just watch the shit Obama does in the
next few years that gets a free pass from these types of people. I would
not be surprised if we start seeing a regular spewing of "butt Bushes" from
them. They're so blind, even to their own pathetic shortcomings.

-PP

Date: 01 Jan 2009 10:45:30
From: bgadams
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

On Jan 1 2009 11:17 AM, Senator Millionaire wrote:

> 1. Bush ruined the economy.
> 2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
> Palin made women jealous and hate her.
> 3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
> 4-1.
>
> What has been overlooked here?

He came across as an arrogant relic who does not make good decisions. In
at least 2 instances of pure honesty, he admitted that he knew little
about the economy in an election in which the economy became issue number
1.

And my feelings are not ideologically based. I voted Repub in the last 2
elections.

----�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 01 Jan 2009 12:56:22
From: NG-USER-777
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

Date: 01 Jan 2009 08:16:31
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

McCain's age may have played a factor and was probably one of the
reasons the media was so heavily biased towards the Obama side. "My
friends" is a figure of speech so that video doesn't really offer
much.

Date: 01 Jan 2009 08:23:21
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:91e59b98-8afa-41c5-aab0-39a5ad6bdff3@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> McCain's age may have played a factor and was probably one of the
> reasons the media was so heavily biased towards the Obama side. "My
> friends" is a figure of speech so that video doesn't really offer
> much.

It's a figure of speech when you say it once...when you say it 500 times
it's a free ride to the looney bin

Date: 01 Jan 2009 07:47:13
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:bb980230-3fd9-4777-b7c8-0ca8a7adeda8@s14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> 1. Bush ruined the economy.
> 2. 56% of women voted for Obama. The $150,000 clothing budget for
> Palin made women jealous and hate her.
> 3. McCain was not a good candidate and was outspent by Obama nearly
> 4-1.
>
> What has been overlooked here?

McCain thought everyone was his friend. Made him seem delusional.

Date: 01 Jan 2009 07:51:46
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Top Three Reasons McCain Lost The Election

"BillB" <bogus@shaw1.ca > wrote in message
news:6A57l.41439$H11.7240@newsfe09.iad...

> McCain thought everyone was his friend. Made him seem delusional.

Judge for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLJZfj0vq5U