OH: Quinnipiac University: GOP now trails in OH

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

New Poll: Ohio Senator by Quinnipiac University on 2010-04-26

Summary: D: 40%, R: 37%, I: 1%, U: 16%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Eraserhead]

It'd be weird if we actually picked up a seat in the Senate anywhere at this point.

[Lief 🗽]

Nominating Bush's trade representative in Ohio of all places was a terrible decision and should keep this race competitive.

[Badger]

Nominating Bush's trade representative in Ohio of all places was a terrible decision and should keep this race competitive.

After which Portman served a term as Bush's Budget Director, another golden turd on anyone's resume.

I'll say it again: Apparently the Titanic's navigator and Hindenberg's pilot were both busy when the Ohio GOP were candidate shopping.

[SvenssonRS]

Good. I honestly have no problems with the Democrats keeping this one, considering how deep into the Bush administration Portman was.

[Torie]

Do the poll gurus here (Spade, Alcon et al.) lump Quinnipiac in with other "university polls" that attract their dismissive derision? Just asking.

[Sam Spade]

Do the poll gurus here (Spade, Alcon et al.) lump Quinnipiac in with other "university polls" that attract their dismissive derision? Just asking.

No (speaking for Alcon, oc).  That doesn't mean that it's Gospel or *that* much better than the other unis.  But it's definitely not a complete joke.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

All, that I care about is the numbers that show steady improvement on the part of Dems in some of these races not the actuall numbers persay and I think that by Nov, it can be a different set of numbers for the D's by that time.

[Rowan]

All, that I care about is the numbers that show steady improvement on the part of Dems in some of these races not the actuall numbers persay and I think that by Nov, it can be a different set of numbers for the D's by that time.

Uh, no. Check the previous Quinnipiac numbers, the Dems were leading. Quinnipiac has been the only firm to show the Dems up consistently.

[Associate Justice PiT]

All, that I care about is the numbers that show steady improvement on the part of Dems in some of these races not the actuall numbers persay and I think that by Nov, it can be a different set of numbers for the D's by that time.

Uh, no. Check the previous Quinnipiac numbers, the Dems were leading. Quinnipiac has been the only firm to show the Dems up consistently.

     Looking at the other Quinnipiac numbers for Ohio in the database, the last one was D+4, preceded by two R+3 polls. It would seem that Quinnipiac did not consistently have them up, but the notion of there being a "steady improvement" does not really hold water.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

     Looking at the other Quinnipiac numbers for Ohio in the database, the last one was D+4, preceded by two R+3 polls. It would seem that Quinnipiac did not consistently have them up, but the notion of there being a "steady improvement" does not really hold water.
[/quote]

However, if you take Strickland into account and he is a spectacular campaigner and can beat Kasick I think you add a couple of points to the Democratic senate race and you can spell victory of either Brunner or Lee Fisher, and I prefer Brunner.

[Vepres]

All, that I care about is the numbers that show steady improvement on the part of Dems in some of these races not the actuall numbers persay and I think that by Nov, it can be a different set of numbers for the D's by that time.

Or it could be far worse

It's still too early to tell with most of these races.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

OH-05 rejected a Protectionist campaign in 2007. Portman has a lot more talents that are being overlooked. He was endorsed unanimously by the state committee the first time that has happened in decades. He has a history of working with members of all parties, ran ahead of the GOP nationally in his district by 10 points, is well respected and is not a partisan hack. He has a lot of dough and yet some slight movement in the polls and people are declaring it over. This will be one of the closest races in the nation and it won't be decided to till the last minute, but if you only look at OMB and Trade Rep, you are missing the rest of Portman which makes him a stellar candidate.

[Badger]

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull, the other just wonders how stupid people can get when in partisan mode.

Portman is not a "Bush clone". I have made it very clear that I am backing Portman, I can't stand protectionism nor can I stand far left Progressivism espoused by Brunner. I want Kasich and Portman to win in November. Plus I see no reason why a me a year as Trade Rep and a Year as OMB should decide his future considering his extroadinary record beyond that.

Plus in pushing protectionism against Portman you fail to realize what Portman and Bush were working for with regards to trade at that point which was an agreement to get other countries to reduce their protectionism on us. Of course Protectionism isn't about reality but about hysteria.

[Badger]

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull, the other just wonders how stupid people can get when in partisan mode.

Portman is not a "Bush clone". I have made it very clear that I am backing Portman, I can't stand protectionism nor can I stand far left Progressivism espoused by Brunner. I want Kasich and Portman to win in November. Plus I see no reason why a me a year as Trade Rep and a Year as OMB should decide his future considering his extroadinary record beyond that.

Plus in pushing protectionism against Portman you fail to realize what Portman and Bush were working for with regards to trade at that point which was an agreement to get other countries to reduce their protectionism on us. Of course Protectionism isn't about reality but about hysteria.

Supporting fair trade/protectionism = "hysteria"

Wanting to eat the eyeballs out of the skull of someone who disagrees with you = ??

Short of Treasury Secretary, there are few positions more central to a president's economic policy than OMB Director and US Trade Rep. Of the thousands of people Bush could've chosen to best reflect and implement his economic policy in those positions he chose Portman. Just a little telling, no?

Of course if you can show a single material policy on which Portman is different than W, that may help.

[Eraserhead]

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull,

Sorry, I'm pretty sure that is against the TOS.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull, the other just wonders how stupid people can get when in partisan mode.

Portman is not a "Bush clone". I have made it very clear that I am backing Portman, I can't stand protectionism nor can I stand far left Progressivism espoused by Brunner. I want Kasich and Portman to win in November. Plus I see no reason why a me a year as Trade Rep and a Year as OMB should decide his future considering his extroadinary record beyond that.

Plus in pushing protectionism against Portman you fail to realize what Portman and Bush were working for with regards to trade at that point which was an agreement to get other countries to reduce their protectionism on us. Of course Protectionism isn't about reality but about hysteria.

Supporting fair trade/protectionism = "hysteria"

Wanting to eat the eyeballs out of the skull of someone who disagrees with you = ??

Short of Treasury Secretary, there are few positions more central to a president's economic policy than OMB Director and US Trade Rep. Of the thousands of people Bush could've chosen to best reflect and implement his economic policy in those positions he chose Portman. Just a little telling, no?

Of course if you can show a single material policy on which Portman is different than W, that may help.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with your insulting me in a condescending manner.

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull,

Sorry, I'm pretty sure that is against the TOS.

The way the TOS is enforced in such an uneven manner, I wouldn't be assertative at all with regards to the document.

Its a statement of anger, its not vulgar, its physically impossible considering we are so far away from each other, and if you read my statement is says a part of me not that I want to do that, a part which is fortunately under control. A statement of my inner demons shouldn't be taken as a threat but as a consideration, especially for someone who knows my past which Badger should either be well aware or he is extremely unattentative and blind.

[Badger]

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull, the other just wonders how stupid people can get when in partisan mode.

Portman is not a "Bush clone". I have made it very clear that I am backing Portman, I can't stand protectionism nor can I stand far left Progressivism espoused by Brunner. I want Kasich and Portman to win in November. Plus I see no reason why a me a year as Trade Rep and a Year as OMB should decide his future considering his extroadinary record beyond that.

Plus in pushing protectionism against Portman you fail to realize what Portman and Bush were working for with regards to trade at that point which was an agreement to get other countries to reduce their protectionism on us. Of course Protectionism isn't about reality but about hysteria.

Supporting fair trade/protectionism = "hysteria"

Wanting to eat the eyeballs out of the skull of someone who disagrees with you = ??

Short of Treasury Secretary, there are few positions more central to a president's economic policy than OMB Director and US Trade Rep. Of the thousands of people Bush could've chosen to best reflect and implement his economic policy in those positions he chose Portman. Just a little telling, no?

Of course if you can show a single material policy on which Portman is different than W, that may help.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with your insulting me in a condescending manner.

Here's a tip: Stating you want to suck someone's eyeballs out of their skull will not decrease the odds of being condenscended to on the forum.

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull,

Sorry, I'm pretty sure that is against the TOS.

The way the TOS is enforced in such an uneven manner, I wouldn't be assertative at all with regards to the document.

Its a statement of anger, its not vulgar, its physically impossible considering we are so far away from each other, and if you read my statement is says a part of me not that I want to do that, a part which is fortunately under control. A statement of my inner demons shouldn't be taken as a threat but as a consideration, especially for someone who knows my past which Badger should either be well aware or he is extremely unattentative and blind.

I have no f'king idea how to respond to that. None.

No wait, yes I do:

Introducing: "The Incredible Yank"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qBvqf4XTI

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull, the other just wonders how stupid people can get when in partisan mode.

Portman is not a "Bush clone". I have made it very clear that I am backing Portman, I can't stand protectionism nor can I stand far left Progressivism espoused by Brunner. I want Kasich and Portman to win in November. Plus I see no reason why a me a year as Trade Rep and a Year as OMB should decide his future considering his extroadinary record beyond that.

Plus in pushing protectionism against Portman you fail to realize what Portman and Bush were working for with regards to trade at that point which was an agreement to get other countries to reduce their protectionism on us. Of course Protectionism isn't about reality but about hysteria.

Supporting fair trade/protectionism = "hysteria"

Wanting to eat the eyeballs out of the skull of someone who disagrees with you = ??

Short of Treasury Secretary, there are few positions more central to a president's economic policy than OMB Director and US Trade Rep. Of the thousands of people Bush could've chosen to best reflect and implement his economic policy in those positions he chose Portman. Just a little telling, no?

Of course if you can show a single material policy on which Portman is different than W, that may help.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with your insulting me in a condescending manner.

Here's a tip: Stating you want to suck someone's eyeballs out of their skull will not decrease the odds of being condenscended to on the forum.

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull,

Sorry, I'm pretty sure that is against the TOS.

The way the TOS is enforced in such an uneven manner, I wouldn't be assertative at all with regards to the document.

Its a statement of anger, its not vulgar, its physically impossible considering we are so far away from each other, and if you read my statement is says a part of me not that I want to do that, a part which is fortunately under control. A statement of my inner demons shouldn't be taken as a threat but as a consideration, especially for someone who knows my past which Badger should either be well aware or he is extremely unattentative and blind.

I have no f'king idea how to respond to that. None.

No wait, yes I do:

Introducing: "The Incredible Yank"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qBvqf4XTI

I can't watch that youtube video (due to a long running software issue) so I have no idea what it is.

All I am asking is for you to extend the amount of reason and independence you have hither too displayed.

I would much rather carry this on via PM then in public. I have always respected you Badger so you should understand why I (who is nothing but consistent in not tolerating such insults and condescending behavior) objected. I told you how I feel and I also told you how I might have responded had I been in a worse mood or flew of the handle with a figurative statement representing how mad I would have been. Thats how you should have regarded that statement.

[Badger]

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull, the other just wonders how stupid people can get when in partisan mode.

Portman is not a "Bush clone". I have made it very clear that I am backing Portman, I can't stand protectionism nor can I stand far left Progressivism espoused by Brunner. I want Kasich and Portman to win in November. Plus I see no reason why a me a year as Trade Rep and a Year as OMB should decide his future considering his extroadinary record beyond that.

Plus in pushing protectionism against Portman you fail to realize what Portman and Bush were working for with regards to trade at that point which was an agreement to get other countries to reduce their protectionism on us. Of course Protectionism isn't about reality but about hysteria.

Supporting fair trade/protectionism = "hysteria"

Wanting to eat the eyeballs out of the skull of someone who disagrees with you = ??

Short of Treasury Secretary, there are few positions more central to a president's economic policy than OMB Director and US Trade Rep. Of the thousands of people Bush could've chosen to best reflect and implement his economic policy in those positions he chose Portman. Just a little telling, no?

Of course if you can show a single material policy on which Portman is different than W, that may help.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with your insulting me in a condescending manner.

Here's a tip: Stating you want to suck someone's eyeballs out of their skull will not decrease the odds of being condenscended to on the forum.

And yet another "don't lump me in with Bush" Republican backs a candidate who's W's clone. What a shocker.

Part of me wants to eat your eyes out of your skull,

Sorry, I'm pretty sure that is against the TOS.

The way the TOS is enforced in such an uneven manner, I wouldn't be assertative at all with regards to the document.

Its a statement of anger, its not vulgar, its physically impossible considering we are so far away from each other, and if you read my statement is says a part of me not that I want to do that, a part which is fortunately under control. A statement of my inner demons shouldn't be taken as a threat but as a consideration, especially for someone who knows my past which Badger should either be well aware or he is extremely unattentative and blind.

I have no f'king idea how to respond to that. None.

No wait, yes I do:

Introducing: "The Incredible Yank"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qBvqf4XTI

I can't watch that youtube video (due to a long running software issue) so I have no idea what it is.

All I am asking is for you to extend the amount of reason and independence you have hither too displayed.

I would much rather carry this on via PM then in public. I have always respected you Badger so you should understand why I (who is nothing but consistent in not tolerating such insults and condescending behavior) objected. I told you how I feel and I also told you how I might have responded had I been in a worse mood or flew of the handle with a figurative statement representing how mad I would have been. Thats how you should have regarded that statement.

Yank.

First off, chillax.

Secondly, it's the trailer from the Incredible Hulk movie. ("I have problems controlling my emotions sometime...." You can guess how it develops from there.

The rest I'll save for PM, but to summarize: "chillax".

Dammit! I totally missed a zinger like: "Yeah? I got something else you can suck on" BOOM! SLAM!