KY and PA--who wins?

[Barnes]

Paul doesn't support Civil Rights. He's toast. You might have been able to get away with it in 1980. No way in 2010.

Stop spreading lies.

He said it himself on the radio today. You think that this being a problem in 2010 is a "lie"?

Really, I want the quote where Paul says he doesn't support civil rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFfpOcEpq4

I started to listen, but then Paul's voice reminded me of Glenn Richardson, our former, batsh*t insane, incredibly controversial, in the pocket of Georgia Power, suicidal, Speaker of the House, so I had to stop it.

[Badger]

Paul doesn't support Civil Rights. He's toast. You might have been able to get away with it in 1980. No way in 2010.

Stop spreading lies.

He said it himself on the radio today. You think that this being a problem in 2010 is a "lie"?

Really, I want the quote where Paul says he doesn't support civil rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFfpOcEpq4

I just watched through that video and Paul did a great job explaining his positions.

However not once did Paul say that he doesn't support civil rights.

I would hate to have to assume that you deliberately lied, so I hope you will just apologize for that erroneous claim.

He didn't say he opposes civil rights, he just opposes making them legally enforcable. He sees it as a "civil option" not a civil "right".

Oh, and he weasels around the politically embarrassing reality that he sees the 1964 Civil Rights Act as more intrusive on the "rights" of whites to bar blacks from public accomodations then the freedom of blacks to sit at a public lunch counter.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Paul doesn't support Civil Rights. He's toast. You might have been able to get away with it in 1980. No way in 2010.

Stop spreading lies.

He said it himself on the radio today. You think that this being a problem in 2010 is a "lie"?

Really, I want the quote where Paul says he doesn't support civil rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFfpOcEpq4

I just watched through that video and Paul did a great job explaining his positions.

However not once did Paul say that he doesn't support civil rights.

I would hate to have to assume that you deliberately lied, so I hope you will just apologize for that erroneous claim.

He didn't say he opposes civil rights, he just opposes making them legally enforcable. He sees it as a "civil option" not a civil "right".

Oh, and he weasels around the politically embarrassing reality that he sees the 1964 Civil Rights Act as more intrusive on the "rights" of whites to bar blacks from public accomodations then the freedom of blacks to sit at a public lunch counter.

Trying to misrepresent the facts as usual.

There is no "right" to force a private business to serve you.

[Smash255]

Conway/Sestak.

Paul's Civil Rights views are inhumane and will hurt him quite a bit (though not as much as elsewhere in the Kentucky.  Toomey gets absolutely obliterated in the Philly suburbs which makes winning virtually impossible.

[Eraserhead]

The new video on Toomey's site almost sounds like an endorsement of Sestak. lol.
http://www.toomeyforsenate.com/

I'm thinking they really wanted Arlen.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Paul doesn't support Civil Rights. He's toast. You might have been able to get away with it in 1980. No way in 2010.

I wish you were right.  Unfortunately, I don't have that level of faith in the voters of Kentucky.

me neither. I think his economic and foreign policy views will be more of a problem, but at this point I expect in him to win narrowly.

[Oakvale]

Conway/Sestak.

I really can't see Paul winning in this day and age given his views on Civil Rights.

[Badger]

Things in Paul's favor:

People who get jazzed up about such things are already likely to vote Democratic anyway.

The economy and distaste of Washington will, sadly, trump many of these concerns and might even, grossly, help reinforce Paul's image as a politician outside the mainstream.

Paul's somambulent tepid speaking style, while not particularly inspiring, will help diffuse his image as an extremist nut to casual TV viewers. Someone who animatedly rants and raves like Glenn Beck is relatively easy to label as a kook. Someone with identical views and positions who talks methodically and slowly in a Kentucky drawl like Paul is harder to effectively label as the casually engaged swing voter will assume such attacks are just typical political mudslinging.

Democrats need to be careful in thinking that attacking Paul's extreme views on some of these issues will be effective beyond fundraising from the base. Even voters who disagree with some of these views will understand there's no real push to curtail the 1964 CRA or the ADA, and will gladly still support Paul if they see him as a better option to "Obama-style socialism".

Now, if a coherent attack can be made on Paul's more radical right wing economic views on issues that are pertinent to 2010 Kentucky (his views on MMA regulation in light of the Massey disaster comes to mind), then he can be effectively exposed as an unacceptable alternative to Conway.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rand Paul and Joe Sestak

[Sam Spade]

Reading the top page of the board before you post is always smarter than just spamming.

[TomC]

Paul/Sestak

[Bo]

Paul/Sestak.

[J. J.]

Toomey came out swinging and Sestak has actually used the words "trickle down," about 25-30 years out of date.

[Niemeyerite]

Jack Conway 49%
Rand Paul 47%

---------

Joe Sestak 53%
Pat Toomey 46%

[nhmagic]

Paul will certainly win - Kentucky put up with Bunning's senility and misstatements for years, they'll do it for Paul too.  Plus everyone forgets that this is Kentucky - something perceived as racist amongst the rest of the country won't be perceived that way in Kentucky or some of the other states.

If Sestak hadn't revealed that the admin offered him a job in exchange for leaving the senate race, I would say that he probably would have won.  That's going to bite him later on because he wont reveal what job and who did it.  It makes him look like he's covering up unethical behavior by the admin.  And if he is subpoenaed (sp?), someone's going to take a fall in the white house for Obama, which would at first glance be a good thing with an anti-Obama electorate showing up, but Obama will find a way to dry up his funding and support for making him do that.  Corbett's coattails will also hurt him.  He is pretty formidable and for a democrat, I like him - though I disagree with him on everything probably.  I like Toomey too and both seem like reasonable and principled men.  You certainly won't see either switching parties or (well, this parts unlikely) either participating in seedy sex scandals.

[Smash255]

Paul will certainly win - Kentucky put up with Bunning's senility and misstatements for years, they'll do it for Paul too.  Plus everyone forgets that this is Kentucky - something perceived as racist amongst the rest of the country won't be perceived that way in Kentucky or some of the other states.

If Sestak hadn't revealed that the admin offered him a job in exchange for leaving the senate race, I would say that he probably would have won.  That's going to bite him later on because he wont reveal what job and who did it.  It makes him look like he's covering up unethical behavior by the admin.  And if he is subpoenaed (sp?), someone's going to take a fall in the white house for Obama, which would at first glance be a good thing with an anti-Obama electorate showing up, but Obama will find a way to dry up his funding and support for making him do that.  Corbett's coattails will also hurt him.  He is pretty formidable and for a democrat, I like him - though I disagree with him on everything probably.  I like Toomey too and both seem like reasonable and principled men.  You certainly won't see either switching parties or (well, this parts unlikely) either participating in seedy sex scandals.

Suburban Philly voters =  Tommey is toast

[King]

I think Paul and Sestak are the guaranteed victors simply by the fact that Conway/Toomey only got two votes in our poll.  Anybody who thinks Conway or Toomey has a chance in hell is voting on blind partisanship in combination with their straight ticket counterpart.

/end internet-based anecdotal evidence

[J. J.]

Suburban Philly voters =  Tommey is toast

Looking at turnout and his margins, I wouldn't rely too heavily on the burbs this year.  The deciders will be the SW and the turnout in the T.