I've seen this pattern in Arenera before.
It seems appropriate that her (I think, her) name is a palindrome. She just goes back and forth over the same points again and again without assimilating the new info provided or addressing why she disagrees with argument provided.
Why does she think Mitt Romney should win? Insert his resume and appeal to popularity, then follow up by appealing to popularity and inserting his resume. (Even though his resume does not qualify him for the job since it lacks, as pointed out, and understanding of the Constitution. And popularity has nothing to do with being fit for office.)