The difference between a winner (Pike) and a loser (Winningham)

From their respective campaign web sites.

From Bully's page:

Her lies about this result being "unprecedented" notwithstanding, notice the difference in the "likes?"

This from a woman who scammed in the first two days her facebook page was up?






15?

Seriously?

That's just one of the differences between a winner... and a loser.

Bully Loserham can't even tell the truth about how many votes she scammed.

It's a problem when you're a pathological liar and you're running for office.

First of all, I appreciate the rounding abilities of Maureen Winningham, also known as Bully Loserham.

Her percentage of the vote at this point is as high as it's going to get: 43.59%, which is not, of course, the 44% she claims.  Further, by the time the votes are counted, the late breaking right vote ought to drop her somewhere below 42%.

Next, I appreciate her desire to lie even when doing so makes no sense and gains her no advantage.

Like this beaut: like most of her "facts," Bully lied about the numbers being "unprecedented for this district."

In 2008, Jon Haugen picked up 44.87% of the vote against Joe Zarelli in the Primary.

In 2006, Jonathan Fant Picked up 48.59% (8184) vs Richard Curtis 51.61% (8693) and Julie McChord picked up 49.39% (8483) against Ed Orcutt at 50.61% (8693).  There are, of course, several others.

This, then, is right up there with Bully's lies about Bangalore, about Our Liz and now... about her own election results.

All lies that show a pattern of lying.  All unnecessary lies that serve to build her up while, in fact, tearing her down.

And all lies that will show the same outcome: defeat for her.  Thank God.