Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 08:53:24 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 435 436 437 438 439 [440] 441 442 443 444 445 ... 501
10976  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Wisconsin Assembly Race on: September 21, 2007, 08:10:59 pm
If a State Legislative candidate needed to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006 to win, then that's a significant liability moving forward—a clue that they're just not strong enough candidates to win on their own with a set of real issues; that they don't have a strong enough connection with their district to represent it effectively once they get to the state capitol and have to face issues other than Iraq.

It all comes back to a very pointed statement made by a Republican strategist in 1986 following the loss of a lot of Reagan landslide Senate seats (and I paraphrase)—had we known that we had a chance of winning (in 1980), we'd have run better candidates.

Basically, the lot running for re-election in 1986 just wasn't strong enough to win re-election in a neutral (or worse) environment.  We may see some giveback in 2008 and 2010 of state legislative seats just based on the simple sink/swim notion that a certain number of Democrats who won last year simply do not have the credentials or capabilities of serving effectively.

Most of the 1980 Republican Senate incumbents that lost in 1986 lost because 1986 was a bad year for Republicans and most of them barely lost. 

Most of the 1980 Republican Senate winners were absolute nobodies when they won.  Had they had even some real experience prior, those narrow losses would have easily flipped to narrow wins.
10977  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NJ-3: Adler Announces Against Saxton on: September 21, 2007, 08:07:46 pm
2000 was definitely a "big challenge" for Saxton—he was seriously targeted by the DCCC.  And he handed that superbly, winning re-election by a huge margin.

I don't know how much credit you can give him for "superb handling" when his opponent imploded well before Election Day.

Given how many candidates wind up imploding with very little prodding, it is indeed a feat for a candidate to run an error-free campaign.
10978  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: First Research 2000 Indiana poll shows Daniels (R) ahead of Long-Thompson (D) on: September 21, 2007, 07:25:45 pm
What's wrong with Long-Thompson?

She's going into the Governor's race having lost two consecutive races for lower office.  Please, stay with us!

OK, she barely lost IN-02 in 2002, which was a down year for Democrats.  Then she lost IN-04(now IN-03) in the 1994 tidal wave and keep in mind that this was a heavily Republican district. 

That's all really immaterial.  She's still got the stink of a habitual loser on her.  And she's still a nobody, having been out of office for over 12 years.  I mean, that's LaRocco level stuff.  And whomever that nobody ex-congressman running for U.S. Senate in Kansas is.
10979  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: First Research 2000 Indiana poll shows Daniels (R) ahead of Long-Thompson (D) on: September 21, 2007, 04:48:30 pm
What's wrong with Long-Thompson?

She's going into the Governor's race having lost two consecutive races for lower office.  Please, stay with us!
10980  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NJ-3: Adler Announces Against Saxton on: September 21, 2007, 04:44:55 pm
This is really Saxton's first big challenge. He was a nobody in 1990. If he does lose, it wont be by more than 7-10%. Last year's challenger wasn't well known or even known of before he challenged Saxton. Despite all of the gloom already handed down to Adler here, I think you're underestimating the numbers in the district (it's a swing district, could go either way for pres) and Adler. If I were to say he will lose, i'd say it will be:

Saxton - 52-4%
Adler - 46-8%

2000 was definitely a "big challenge" for Saxton—he was seriously targeted by the DCCC.  And he handed that superbly, winning re-election by a huge margin.  It may be a "swing" district, but no matter—Saxton is an institution here.

If Saxton does lose, it won't be by more than 1 or 2%—but like I said, there's not much chance of him losing here.
10981  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: National Weekly Atlasian Presidential Straw Poll on: September 21, 2007, 02:41:04 am
President
[1] President Colin Wixted
[  ] Lt. Gov. South Park Conservative
[  ] Chief Justice Texasgurl
[  ] Lt. Gov. Sensei
[  ] Former Gov. Polnut
[  ] Gov. Jesus
[2] GPorter
[  ] Write-in:_________

Vice-President
[1] Vice-President Jas
[  ] Former Senator Masterjedi
[  ] Gov. Inks.LWC
[  ] Former SoEA Speed of Sound
[2] Write-in: GPorter

[/quote]
10982  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Lincoln Chafee Leaves The Republican Party on: September 21, 2007, 02:35:30 am
The wrong thing to do was intervene in the primary when Talent, Burns, and Allen needed the money more than Chafee.

The wrong thing to do was for Steve Laffey to run in the primary when we needed to keep the U.S. Senate in Republican hands.   

Could it be that Laffey cared more about reviving the Republican platform than keeping a seat in the hands of someone who is Republican in merely name? While Chafee does deserve respect for voting against the War, he deserves criticism for 80% of his other votes.

(Also don't criticize me for double standard. In retrospect, I wish Lieberman lost.)

Laffey could have—and I know this is a wild idea—chased after one of the other seats in Rhode Island held by Democrats such as, perhaps—again, wild idea—the Rhode Island Senate seat not held by a Republican?

He got wrapped up in his own hype, and ruined what could have been a solid career.

While I think it was absurd to challenge Chafee its not like Laffey had many options in the state.  He is WAYYY to conservative to win statewide.  On top of that to go up against Reed who has one of the highest approval ratings (if not the highest) of the entire Senate, in a Presidential year in a heavily Democratic state, when he won his last election by almost 60 points in a heavily Republican year is well.....

Laffey was finished in the Senate regardless, but losing in a Primary to Chafee probably did less damage to his career than getting absolutely pulverized by Reed in 08.

Oh, I don't think that Laffey would have made a good U.S. Senate candidate—I know what happened to a top-flight candidate like Rep. Claudine Schnieder in 1990.

Laffey would have been FAR better suited for one of Rhode Island's constitutional offices.  He'd have been a stellar candidate for Lt. Governor in 2006.

After all, given what a rough year it was for Republicans, they still came within seven points of picking up the Secretary of State's office.  And don't give me this "too conservative to win" stuff—Gov. Carcieri is no moderate.
10983  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: remember when roy barnes was a rising star? on: September 21, 2007, 02:20:19 am
The good times started the morning after, when he was supposed to announce for president.

Remember when George Allen was a rising star? The good times started the morning after his loss to Jim Webb.

Allen was taken out of contention for President well before he actually lost the race.
10984  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Do Democrats really control Congress? on: September 21, 2007, 02:03:27 am
Yeah, it is annoying that the Republican filibuster everything. We should bring back the nuclear option. Just the threat of it got the Dems to compromise on judges. Turnabout is fairplay.

Oh, please, there's no filibuster in the House and it's not like they're doing anything meaningful with their time.
10985  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Jena 6 on: September 21, 2007, 02:01:28 am
Did you read the article?  Most of it was not mentioned on CBS tonight (such as the racist remarks that caused the beating or that he went to a social function that night).  The problem at hand is the double standard in the justice system.

Contrary to what you clearly believe, saying something racially insensitive is not justification for aggravated assault.

There's also the part where Bailey got beaten by white people, to whom nothing was done, and when he was threatened by a white guy and took the gun away in self-defense, resulting in him being charged with theft of a firearm while the white guy, obviously intending to threaten him with the gun, had, again, nothing done to him.  Both whites and blacks did equally bad things here, but the black people get criminal charges while nobody seems to care about the white people.

If the events described in this article are fully accurate, I don't think it can really be argued that there isn't some sort of double-standard going on.

I think I started my discussion off by stating that it's clear there's a double standard going on.  But the double standard is not correctly resolved by letting the black kids off the hook too.
10986  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Say something to spook the previous poster on: September 20, 2007, 11:18:26 pm
Th' negroids in Louisian-y are uprisin'!
10987  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Jena 6 on: September 20, 2007, 11:13:00 pm
Did you read the article?  Most of it was not mentioned on CBS tonight (such as the racist remarks that caused the beating or that he went to a social function that night).  The problem at hand is the double standard in the justice system.

Contrary to what you clearly believe, saying something racially insensitive is not justification for aggravated assault.
10988  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Lincoln Chafee Leaves The Republican Party on: September 20, 2007, 10:26:27 pm
The wrong thing to do was intervene in the primary when Talent, Burns, and Allen needed the money more than Chafee.

The wrong thing to do was for Steve Laffey to run in the primary when we needed to keep the U.S. Senate in Republican hands.

Could it be that Laffey cared more about reviving the Republican platform than keeping a seat in the hands of someone who is Republican in merely name? While Chafee does deserve respect for voting against the War, he deserves criticism for 80% of his other votes.

(Also don't criticize me for double standard. In retrospect, I wish Lieberman lost.)

Laffey could have—and I know this is a wild idea—chased after one of the other seats in Rhode Island held by Democrats such as, perhaps—again, wild idea—the Rhode Island Senate seat not held by a Republican?

He got wrapped up in his own hype, and ruined what could have been a solid career.
10989  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NJ-3: Adler Announces Against Saxton on: September 20, 2007, 10:13:32 pm
The "sad" thing for rank-and-file NJ Democrats is that, so far as the moneyed interests are concerned, Congressional seats aren't worth chasing after the same way State Senate seats or Freeholder (county gov't) seats are.

The reason, of course, is that Congressmen are subject to much stricter rules regarding the funneling of contracts.  They're not cash cows; Freeholder Boards are.

I guarantee you that there will be more than one State Senate candidate this year that raises more money than John Adler does for his 2008 race.
10990  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: National Weekly Atlasian Presidential Straw Poll on: September 20, 2007, 09:48:23 pm
Edit: Not yet midnight.

I informally object to putting people's political titles on there because it makes gporter look woefully unqualified to run for president!
10991  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Primary for Atlas Progressives - offical thread on: September 20, 2007, 09:45:13 pm
Regardless of political ideology, I am steadfastly opposed to removing anyone from the ballot for the reasons of "not being progressive enough."  If they're not progressive enough, then simply don't support them at the ballot box.

We may as well include John McCain and Fred Thompson on the 2008 Democratic primary ballot...

If John McCain and Fred Thompson wanted to run as Democrats in 2008, who are you to say they can't?  I mean, they won't win, so what's the problem?
10992  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Justice for OJ Simpson may come after all... on: September 20, 2007, 09:36:08 pm
the glove did not fit

From my understanding the glove didn't fit because OJ spread his fingers out when putting it on at trial and the prosecution was too stupid to point that out.

Also, you can't try a bra on over a sweater.
10993  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Do Democrats really control Congress? on: September 20, 2007, 09:35:07 pm
Of course Democrats control Congress.  They just brutally suck at getting anything done beyond passing symbolic garbage.
10994  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Jena 6 on: September 20, 2007, 09:34:15 pm
The kid they beat up attended a social function that night, so he obviously wasn't that hurt.

And the Jena 6 are indeed lucky that he was able to withstand being kicked in the head.  It's what makes this a brutal assault instead of a brutal murder.

I don't think this was "attempted murder," but I don't have too much of a problem letting a jury decide that.  It's easily a racially motivated aggravated assault (though I doubt the south is a haven for hate crime laws).  This most definitely deserves jail time, IMO.
10995  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NJ-3: Adler Announces Against Saxton on: September 20, 2007, 09:22:09 pm
http://www.nj.com/newsflash/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-27/119031896985290.xml&storylist=jersey

That means there can possibly be a second exciting race her in NJ for Congress. The other, obviously is the Stender-Ferguson rematch. Adler is a top tier candidate. If he is able to raise near what Saxton has, I'd say there's a great chance he will win. The district is about half GOP and half dem. The dem nominee will do better than Kerry in 08 so I'd says it's not far off to say the democrat nominee for pres will carry this district.

Adler has $200,000
Saxton has $1,200,000

Possibly, but not probably.  I heard loads of promises about this district before.

Adler can probably win Camden (read: Cherry Hill), but will struggle in parts east.
10996  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: North Carolina Senate 2008: Dole Leads Rivals on: September 20, 2007, 09:20:36 pm
Mike Easley has ruled out a run, I presume?

He needs to be strong-armed into running anyway.

How do you strong-arm someone who has incredibly limited ambition for higher office?
10997  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: First Research 2000 Indiana poll shows Daniels (R) ahead of Long-Thompson (D on: September 20, 2007, 08:56:21 pm
Because the only person genuinely excited about Jill Long Thompson's candidacy is Jill Long Thompson?

And me!  And probably Mitch Daniels!

I stand corrected!

Because the only person ^Democrat genuinely excited about Jill Long Thompson's candidacy is Jill Long Thompson?
10998  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Do you approve... on: September 20, 2007, 07:57:32 pm
Fun fact: I knew the answer to this question before I even saw the ad!
10999  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Jena 6 on: September 20, 2007, 07:12:33 pm
The real problem here doesn't seem to be that the black students were charged with a crime, but that the white students weren't.  Is that accurate?

That's accurate, but I fully support the Jena 6 in their actions of beating tolerance into the racist's skull.  From what it sounds like, they are double-standard, seeing as they equated schoolyard bullying to attempted murder.

Kicking someone who is unconcious several times in the head goes a little bit beyond "schoolyard bullying."
11000  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Tightening the belt: Nassau bans trans fats on: September 20, 2007, 07:08:23 pm
it's entirely unnecessary, has no health benefits whatsoever, and can be directly correlated to increased risk of coronary heart disease.

Which of these three will stop applying to eating at McDonalds once they make the switch away from trans fat?  (Hint: None.)

Alright, Mr. Devil's Advocate, let's put trans fats in everything, since their effect is so negligible.  The food's unhealthy anyway, so let's not bother trying to improve it...

The biggest problem here is more the fact that transfats are a "red herring" in the debate about the health problems associated with fast food.  Banning transfats sends a message that "McDonald's food is heatlhier now—eat up!"—of course, a very dangerously inaccurate message.

Changing the usage of transfats really does nothing to address the obesity epidemic—which is honestly the REAL problem here—while giving the impression that food that is very bad for you is all of a sudden good for you.  Certainly I'm not the only one who's seen unhealthy snack foods plastered with "TRANS FAT FREE!" advertising?
Pages: 1 ... 435 436 437 438 439 [440] 441 442 443 444 445 ... 501


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines