All Polls Point To Big Romney Win In Florida
Posted by Ashish on 01.30.2012
FL turning into blow out...
What started as a close race looks to have turned into a blow out. The latest Florida polls today show Mitt Romney expanding his lead over Newt Gingrich (except an InsiderAdvantage poll which seems to be an outlier since all other polls show different results), once again showing how important debates are to this year's Republican primary field. I'd expect this trend to continue in the general election -- debates will be huge.
Gingrich had all the momentum up until Romney crushed him in both debates last week, leading to a complete 180 in the polls. The upcoming schedule is not favorable to Gingrich, so it's hard to see where he will turn this around, especially now that Romney has sort of figured out how to debate Gingrich (bully him).
I'd expect a solid double digit win for Romney tomorrow night that will really deliver a blow to Gingrich and further feed the perception that Romney is the presumptive nominee. Gingrich has major issues in that he is almost entirely dependent on debate performances, is being outspent, and is going up against Romney and the Republican establishment.
Another green company that got goverment handouts went bankrupt over the weekend. Mitt Romney the next president of the USA!!!
Posted By: Guest#6972 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Another green company that got goverment handouts went bankrupt over the weekend. Mitt Romney the next president of the USA!!!
Posted By: Guest#6972 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Because god knows every single penny put into any company should be 100% successful...because as we all know, every business that ever gets started ALWAYS makes it!
Posted By: Guest#8317 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Look can we just give Romney his little title as Republican nominee already? Obama is just busy right now tidying up his abode for his inevitable re-election.
I'm telling you guys, Obama is the best chance we have right now and he's not that great of a president. Mark my words, Romney will kill this country if he becomes president.
All Republicans are geared for this one unified goal anyway. I just hope to be dead and gone before their plan comes to fruition. Obama is gonna get another 4 year term and do a better job than this joke of a Republican could.
Three cheers for Obama 2012-2016!
Oh and uh...lemme see gotta finish off with some heat. Oh right here we go. If you support Romney or any Republican for that matter then you support domestic terrorism and will help this country fast forward its trek to hell.
Way to go, Right-Wing! You're going to kill us all!
*peace sign* Suckers!
Posted By: Defective14 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM
"Posted By: Guest#8317 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 10:20 PM"
Perfect example of why businesses should not be funded on the taxpayer's dime. If an investor wants to risk his own money, all well and good. The government risking money they forcibly take from everyone's paycheck is another matter.
Posted By: Guest#4245 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM
with private comapnies when they go belly-up, it's the investors and people who lose there jobs that are effected, with all these green companies failing, it means the taxpayer just keeps losing money and the us taxpayer is also never going to get the money back they lost when the government took over citigroup and gm, i mean gm just for the tax payer for it to break even, would have to double it's currnet stock price
Posted By: coby (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 02:09 AM
Look can we just give Romney his little title as Republican nominee already? Obama is just busy right now tidying up his abode for his inevitable re-election.
I'm telling you guys, Obama is the best chance we have right now and he's not that great of a president. Mark my words, Romney will kill this country if he becomes president.
All Republicans are geared for this one unified goal anyway. I just hope to be dead and gone before their plan comes to fruition. Obama is gonna get another 4 year term and do a better job than this joke of a Republican could.
Three cheers for Obama 2012-2016!
Oh and uh...lemme see gotta finish off with some heat. Oh right here we go. If you support Romney or any Republican for that matter then you support domestic terrorism and will help this country fast forward its trek to hell.
Way to go, Right-Wing! You're going to kill us all!
*peace sign* Suckers!
Posted By: Defective14 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Care to enlighten us on your little rant? You think Obama hasn't been bought and paid for? Something like 45 of his major donors received high level administrative jobs. He made sure to hand out a lot of government money to his "green job pals" who have all gone out of business because just like everyone told him, the model isn't viable. But he made his buddies wealthy anyway.
Personally, I believe Romney's not crooked. Probably because there's no evidence he is. But I'm willing to give him a shot.
Posted By: Guest#1888 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 02:27 AM
Not to say debates aren't important because they are, but Romney and his SuperPAC outspent Gingrich and his SuperPAC 6 to 1.
I live in Miami and you could not open a paper, listen to the radio, watch TV, or visit a local website without seeing something praising Romney or destroying Gingrich.
I think money more than anything else decided what happens today.
Posted By: Flamenco (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 03:32 AM
with private comapnies when they go belly-up, it's the investors and people who lose there jobs that are effected, with all these green companies failing, it means the taxpayer just keeps losing money and the us taxpayer is also never going to get the money back they lost when the government took over citigroup and gm, i mean gm just for the tax payer for it to break even, would have to double it's currnet stock price
Posted By: coby (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 02:09 AM
Did you see the CNN article yesterday about $2 billion sent to Iraq in 2004-2005 being unaccounted for?
$2 BILLION is just gone and we have no clue where it went.
And that's not even mentioning the BILLIONS that we can account for.
And what do we have to show for it almost ten years later:
Gas prices are still high.
Iraqi Sunnis hate Iraqi Shiite, Iraqi Shiite hate Iraqi Sunnis...and they all have us.
And your bitching because the government is investing in developing clean and sustainable sources of energy, preparing for the day when either demand for oil is so high it becomes cost prohibitive or when the wells run dry.
Investing in new energy sources is not liberal, it's not conservative, it's just smart.
Your priorities, much like your head, is up your ass.
Posted By: Guest#4389 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 03:42 AM
Perfect example of why businesses should not be funded on the taxpayer's dime. If an investor wants to risk his own money, all well and good. The government risking money they forcibly take from everyone's paycheck is another matter.
Posted By: Guest#4245 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM
But you're cool with the government "forcibly" taking money from our paychecks to waste BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq.
Do you realize how much of the technology you use to post your inane comments derives from government investment in the private sector?
You're a goddamn moron.
Posted By: Guest#9639 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 03:46 AM
Exactly how do any of you defind crooked or corrupt and what gives you the right to judge another
Posted By: Ken (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 06:05 AM
Perfect example of why businesses should not be funded on the taxpayer's dime. If an investor wants to risk his own money, all well and good. The government risking money they forcibly take from everyone's paycheck is another matter.
Posted By: Guest#4245 (Guest) on January 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM
But you're cool with the government "forcibly" taking money from our paychecks to waste BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq.
Do you realize how much of the technology you use to post your inane comments derives from government investment in the private sector?
You're a goddamn moron.
Posted By: Guest#9639 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 03:46 AM
Most of the innovation created by government investments in the private sector are for the military...just a minor point for those who are against military spending.
Posted By: Guest#6442 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 09:50 AM
Most of the innovation created by government investments in the private sector are for the military...just a minor point for those who are against military spending.
Posted By: Guest#6442 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 09:50 AM
Have any data to back that up with? Or is it just your opinion?
They invest in alot more than just 100% defense projects historically, like early computers, the interstate highway system, and of course the GI bill.
More recently the development of biofuels. You could argue that some of these could be used for military purposes but they aren't STRICTLY military projects.
Again anything to back up your claim?
Posted By: Guest#4009 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Most of the innovation created by government investments in the private sector are for the military...just a minor point for those who are against military spending.
Posted By: Guest#6442 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 09:50 AM
Have any data to back that up with? Or is it just your opinion?
They invest in alot more than just 100% defense projects historically, like early computers, the interstate highway system, and of course the GI bill.
More recently the development of biofuels. You could argue that some of these could be used for military purposes but they aren't STRICTLY military projects.
Again anything to back up your claim?
Posted By: Guest#4009 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 10:53 AM
He didn't say they were for strictly military purposes -- he said they were for the military.
Early computers, the interstate highway system, and the internet were all conceived for the military.
Posted By: Guest#0763 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Most of the innovation created by government investments in the private sector are for the military...just a minor point for those who are against military spending.
Posted By: Guest#6442 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 09:50 AM
Actual business owner here.
Every business receives government incentives. I have a 3 person shop and I receive government incentives. Local, state, and federal. Where I live they brought in a new company and it received $3million in incentives. That is what pulled it out of the state it was currently in.
Amonix is laying off employees it is not going bankrupt...yet. Even if it did, are you also aware that Bain went Bankrupt and Solyndra's loan process was actually started under Bush? I'm not condemning G.W either, because believe it or not it may be a good idea to start investing in this area now. The entire investment process started in 2005, and we are starting to see some failures and some success. This is the natural process of business investment.
Posted By: Guest#8799 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Like it actually matters who wins the Republican nod?
If there's one thing we've learned in the seemingly endless GOP debates, it's that ALL of the contenders have problems at the podium... the one place where Obama excels.
Posted By: Guest#3821 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Most of the innovation created by government investments in the private sector are for the military...just a minor point for those who are against military spending.
Posted By: Guest#6442 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 09:50 AM
Have any data to back that up with? Or is it just your opinion?
They invest in alot more than just 100% defense projects historically, like early computers, the interstate highway system, and of course the GI bill.
More recently the development of biofuels. You could argue that some of these could be used for military purposes but they aren't STRICTLY military projects.
Again anything to back up your claim?
Posted By: Guest#4009 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 10:53 AM
He didn't say they were for strictly military purposes -- he said they were for the military.
Early computers, the interstate highway system, and the internet were all conceived for the military.
Posted By: Guest#0763 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Thanks for clarifying my point!
Posted By: Guest#6614 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 05:21 PM
Ron Paul would KO Obama in a debate and you know it, whether you like the man or not.
Posted By: Guest#7420 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 06:33 PM
Personally, I believe Romney's not crooked. Probably because there's no evidence he is. But I'm willing to give him a shot.
Posted By: Guest#1888 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 02:27 AM
Romney's top doners: Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley (Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase are also in the top ten).
Top aides include Susan Molinari - former lobbiest for Freddy Mac. Vin Weber, former lobbiest for Freddy Mac. Cofer Black, Blackwater lobbiest (and the idiot behind the failed 1999 - 2001 Al-Qaeda strategy). Glenn Hubbard, who designed the Bush tax cuts. Greg Mankiw, former Bush economic advisor...
How do you believe he is not crooked when he is a continuation of the same broken system?
Posted By: Guest#8099 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 07:15 PM
Im voting Paul. But I would vote Obama before I'd vote for Romney.
Posted By: Guest#0899 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 07:20 PM
He didn't say they were for strictly military purposes -- he said they were for the military.
Early computers, the interstate highway system, and the internet were all conceived for the military.
Posted By: Guest#0763 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 11:14 AM
That's TOTAL semantics.
he said "Most of the innovation created by government investments in the private sector are for the military"
and that is TOTAL BS. the money is given to the private sector to create technology even if it DOESN'T have a military application.
If it happens to have one it is a byproduct of the investment not the reason for the investment
Posted By: Guest#7324 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 08:53 PM
He didn't say they were for strictly military purposes -- he said they were for the military.
Early computers, the interstate highway system, and the internet were all conceived for the military.
Posted By: Guest#0763 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 11:14 AM
That's TOTAL semantics.
he said "Most of the innovation created by government investments in the private sector are for the military"
and that is TOTAL BS. the money is given to the private sector to create technology even if it DOESN'T have a military application.
If it happens to have one it is a byproduct of the investment not the reason for the investment
Posted By: Guest#7324 (Guest) on January 31, 2012 at 08:53 PM
That is completely incorrect...Of course the government has invested in technology that was not related to the military... HOWEVER... Read this very carefully please... Most innovation...MOST M-O-S-T (as in not all) MOST...Were created for the military AND almost all (as in not all)of the major innovation.
Atomic energy, Anesthesia, Computers, The highway system, The internet, Global Positioning Systems, Satelite Technology, Penicillin, Rubber and The jet engine are just SOME of the innovation created FOR THE MILITARY!!! There are hundreds more....
You have lost this point now stop being a numb skull and go learn something
Posted By: Guest#7296 (Guest) on February 01, 2012 at 12:34 PM
That is completely incorrect...Of course the government has invested in technology that was not related to the military... HOWEVER... Read this very carefully please... Most innovation...MOST M-O-S-T (as in not all) MOST...Were created for the military AND almost all (as in not all)of the major innovation.
Atomic energy, Anesthesia, Computers, The highway system, The internet, Global Positioning Systems, Satelite Technology, Penicillin, Rubber and The jet engine are just SOME of the innovation created FOR THE MILITARY!!! There are hundreds more....
You have lost this point now stop being a numb skull and go learn something
Posted By: Guest#7296 (Guest) on February 01, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Again you can keep repeating yourself all you want, it won't change the fact that you are just falt out wrong, both currently and historicall (IE penicillin, the internet, and highway system to name just 3).
Again you are wrong, go read a history book, go get educated on the subject, then maybe we can have an actual discussion. Or, go ahead and revert to namecalling, whatever your mentakl accument allows.
Posted By: Guest#1601 (Guest) on February 01, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Again you can keep repeating yourself all you want, it won't change the fact that you are just falt out wrong, both currently and historicall (IE penicillin, the internet, and highway system to name just 3).
Again you are wrong, go read a history book, go get educated on the subject, then maybe we can have an actual discussion. Or, go ahead and revert to namecalling, whatever your mentakl accument allows.
Posted By: Guest#1601 (Guest) on February 01, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Dude stop trolling:
Penicillin - Discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928 while working in the Royal ARMY Medical Corps (For someone like you I would recommend the Modern Marvels - Inventions of War - Penicillin episode, clearly books are not your thing)
The internet - Conceived and designed in the late 1970’s during the height of the cold war as a defense against nuclear war. The thought was that if vital government information could be stored in a virtual environment, it would be impossible to take out communications at one location.
Prior to that The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of DEFENSE for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US.
Interstate Highway System - Initial federal planning for a nationwide highway system began in 1921 when the Bureau of Public Roads asked the ARMY to provide a list of roads it considered necessary for national defense. This resulted in the Pershing Map.[3] Later that decade, highways such as the New York parkway system were built as part of local or state highway systems.
When President Eisenhower went to Kansas to announce the interstate highway system, he announced it as "the National Defense Highway System." In 1956 President Eisenhower signed legislation establishing the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (about 41,000 miles of roads). Since then, DOD has continued to identify and update defense-important highway routes. The National Defense Highway system was designed to move military equipment and personnel efficiently
I trust at this point your are done getting tooled if not, then you are nothing more than a troll. Either way I am done with you. I trust you will enjoy your blissful life because you clearly have the ignorant part covered.
By the way it’s ACUMEN dumbass
Posted By: Guest#6097 (Guest) on February 03, 2012 at 09:14 AM
STAY CURRENT