Want to read a hilarious, pro-McDaniel thread on the MS-Runoff result?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:47:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Want to read a hilarious, pro-McDaniel thread on the MS-Runoff result?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Want to read a hilarious, pro-McDaniel thread on the MS-Runoff result?  (Read 1906 times)
JRP1994
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,045


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 27, 2014, 09:52:52 AM »

Bill Maher used to have a segment called "Dispatches from the Bubble". Well, I guess this is "Dispatches from our "Friends" at The Other Forum"

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/breaking!-there-may-be-enough-invalidated-votes-to-overturn-cochran-victory/

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/cochran-victory-not-a-loss-for-tea-partynormal-americans/

This is like the zoo -- don't feed them, just watch for fun. Smiley
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2014, 12:19:09 PM »

Let's review their logic,

Black people voting in an open primary = Voter Fraud

The mere presence of black voters in the GOP nomination process is considered illegitimate by these people. There will be no end to the race problem the GOP has as long as the Tea Party has a seat at the table.

Also, yes, Thad Cochran is totally a Marxist. He totally hates them bourgeois capitalists, y'all.
Logged
dmmidmi
dmwestmi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2014, 12:31:36 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2014, 01:30:27 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.

Implying that Sue Lowden and Jane Norton were better candidates, or that Todd Akin didn't squeek by in a three-way primary against two tea-party opponents...

Besides, shouldn't the Senate already be 50-50, given that Republicans had such stellar recruits as George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, and Scott Brown running in contested races last cycle?
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2014, 03:50:37 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

LMFAO! Gotta love the dittoheads.
Logged
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2014, 05:06:17 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.

Implying that Sue Lowden and Jane Norton were better candidates, or that Todd Akin didn't squeek by in a three-way primary against two tea-party opponents...

Besides, shouldn't the Senate already be 50-50, given that Republicans had such stellar recruits as George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, and Scott Brown running in contested races last cycle?

Rehberg and Berg weren't stellar candidates, and they lost as a result. But Republicans probably should have won those races anyway and didn't pull it off.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2014, 08:21:43 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.

Implying that Sue Lowden and Jane Norton were better candidates, or that Todd Akin didn't squeek by in a three-way primary against two tea-party opponents...

Besides, shouldn't the Senate already be 50-50, given that Republicans had such stellar recruits as George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, and Scott Brown running in contested races last cycle?

That's the wrong way to look at it. George Allen and Tommy Thompson were never going to win to begin with -- they were running in a presidential election year in what now basically are election year blue states. Denny Rehberg and Rick Berg both ran very close races. Do you think Scott Brown really lost in Massachusetts because he wasn't conservative enough?!?!

Be reasonable. Do you really think Jane Norton would have performed worse than Ken Buck in CO in 2010? Do you really think Michael Castle would have performed worse than Christine O'Donnell in Delaware? You think someone like Ann Wagner or, hell, even John Danforth hastily called out of retirement couldn't have run better against Claire than Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin did?

It makes no sense to compare Tea Partiers who lost to non-TPers who lost in completely different states in different years. The fact is that all of their "establishment" opponents from the primary would have, while not necessarily won, performed better in the general election. And they wouldn't have generated the negative press and punchlines that people like Akin and O'Donnell and others do.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2014, 09:18:26 PM »

On the topic of George Allen.

Firstly, he had his past baggage, which is fairly well documented. But as IndyTexas said, the main obstacle was he was not going to win while Obama was also winning Virginia.

Having said that, look at the alternatives. Would Jamie Radtke have performed better than George Allen? EW Jackson? Bob Marshall? Allen lost by 6 points. I'm certain all of them would have lost by at least 10.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2014, 09:45:02 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.

Implying that Sue Lowden and Jane Norton were better candidates, or that Todd Akin didn't squeek by in a three-way primary against two tea-party opponents...

Besides, shouldn't the Senate already be 50-50, given that Republicans had such stellar recruits as George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, and Scott Brown running in contested races last cycle?

That's the wrong way to look at it. George Allen and Tommy Thompson were never going to win to begin with -- they were running in a presidential election year in what now basically are election year blue states. Denny Rehberg and Rick Berg both ran very close races. Do you think Scott Brown really lost in Massachusetts because he wasn't conservative enough?!?!

Be reasonable. Do you really think Jane Norton would have performed worse than Ken Buck in CO in 2010? Do you really think Michael Castle would have performed worse than Christine O'Donnell in Delaware? You think someone like Ann Wagner or, hell, even John Danforth hastily called out of retirement couldn't have run better against Claire than Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin did?

It makes no sense to compare Tea Partiers who lost to non-TPers who lost in completely different states in different years. The fact is that all of their "establishment" opponents from the primary would have, while not necessarily won, performed better in the general election. And they wouldn't have generated the negative press and punchlines that people like Akin and O'Donnell and others do.

The point is there are more factors at work than whether a candidate is "Tea Party". Buck, O'Donnell, and Akin were clearly bad candidates regardless of their Tea Party affiliation (and, as I mentioned earlier, referring to Akin as the "Tea Party" candidate in the Missouri primary is dubious at best). While it is easy to dismiss Allen and Thompson's chances with 20/20 hindsight, the fact that they were either statistically tied or ahead in public polling a few months before the election makes the idea that "they were never going to win anyway" sound more like sour grapes than a serious argument. Yes, Rehberg and Berg ran close races...in deep red states Montana and North Dakota. Mourdock ran a close race too. Obviously nobody could have performed better than Scott Brown or Mike Castle in Massachusetts and Delaware, respectively. However, I would think the fact that both candidates managed to lose by decent margins despite high approval ratings makes them just as culpable for losing easy races as the canon "Tea Party" examples.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2014, 10:32:19 PM »
« Edited: March 02, 2019, 04:20:37 AM by ModerateVAVoter »

Firstly, how are Massachusetts or Delaware "easy" races?

Despite his personal popularity, Scott Brown lost in Massachusetts, because he was a Republican. People liked him, but Warren basically ran on "a vote for Brown is a vote for a Republican Senate," as Senate control was still very much up in the air. If anything, it is more of a problem with the national brand of the party than Brown himself.

As for Mike Castle, well he never got a chance for the General, now did he? He didn't make it out of the primary because people, largely fueled by right wing talk radio, thought it was a good idea to run "true conservative!!1!!" Christine O'Donnell. She lost badly in 2008, and she came third in the primary in 2006. That seat was gone the second the Tea Party thought it was a smart idea to nominate her.

I don't really see it as an issue with Brown or Castle. Those seats are always uphill battles, and both of them performed/would have performed better than Generic R.

Granted, the bench in Nevada was weak, but would Sue Lowden have really performed worse than Sharron Angle?

How did the Tea Party suddenly decide Jane Norton was a RINO? In all fairness though, I think Tancredo also deserves some blame for Buck's loss, though Buck was largely responsible for that on his own.

As for Indiana, that seat was beyond safe with Lugar, and they still managed to blow that. More and more, I am starting to think Mississippi would have been Indiana 2.0 had Democrats and Independents not bailed out Thad Cochran.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2014, 11:07:26 PM »

Despite his personal popularity, Scott Brown lost in Massachusetts, because he was a Republican. People liked him, but Warren basically ran on "a vote for Brown is a vote for a Republican Senate," as Senate control was still very much up in the air. If anything, it is more of a problem with the national brand of the party than Brown himself.

And you don't think Brown's obsession with Warren's race had anything to do with his loss?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't think his inability to clinch renomination in a state he'd held elected office in for decades may have been indicative of flaws as a candidate? If so, then why is there a double standard where Castle can't be blamed for losing a primary election to a nobody but Buck can be blamed for losing a general election to a sitting senator?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Apparently enough that Harry Reid thought she should be the nominee for Lieutenant Governor.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would the McInnis/Maes/Tancredo circus somehow have been prevented had Jane Norton been nominated? Additionally, for a Tea Party candidate, Buck was sure reluctant to associate with them.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mourdock was twice elected to statewide office by large margins. Predicting that he would make a fatal gaffe would have been a lot more difficult in May than making a similar prediction for Angle, Buck, or O'Donnell.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2014, 02:12:20 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.

Implying that Sue Lowden and Jane Norton were better candidates, or that Todd Akin didn't squeek by in a three-way primary against two tea-party opponents...

Besides, shouldn't the Senate already be 50-50, given that Republicans had such stellar recruits as George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, and Scott Brown running in contested races last cycle?

That's the wrong way to look at it. George Allen and Tommy Thompson were never going to win to begin with -- they were running in a presidential election year in what now basically are election year blue states. Denny Rehberg and Rick Berg both ran very close races. Do you think Scott Brown really lost in Massachusetts because he wasn't conservative enough?!?!

Be reasonable. Do you really think Jane Norton would have performed worse than Ken Buck in CO in 2010? Do you really think Michael Castle would have performed worse than Christine O'Donnell in Delaware? You think someone like Ann Wagner or, hell, even John Danforth hastily called out of retirement couldn't have run better against Claire than Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin did?

It makes no sense to compare Tea Partiers who lost to non-TPers who lost in completely different states in different years. The fact is that all of their "establishment" opponents from the primary would have, while not necessarily won, performed better in the general election. And they wouldn't have generated the negative press and punchlines that people like Akin and O'Donnell and others do.

The point is there are more factors at work than whether a candidate is "Tea Party". Buck, O'Donnell, and Akin were clearly bad candidates regardless of their Tea Party affiliation (and, as I mentioned earlier, referring to Akin as the "Tea Party" candidate in the Missouri primary is dubious at best). While it is easy to dismiss Allen and Thompson's chances with 20/20 hindsight, the fact that they were either statistically tied or ahead in public polling a few months before the election makes the idea that "they were never going to win anyway" sound more like sour grapes than a serious argument. Yes, Rehberg and Berg ran close races...in deep red states Montana and North Dakota. Mourdock ran a close race too. Obviously nobody could have performed better than Scott Brown or Mike Castle in Massachusetts and Delaware, respectively. However, I would think the fact that both candidates managed to lose by decent margins despite high approval ratings makes them just as culpable for losing easy races as the canon "Tea Party" examples.

Neither Montana nor North Dakota are "deep red states" for non-presidential races.

Mourdock ran a close race? Don't even go there. The GOP could have had the guy who had been in office since the Carter Administration win that race in a frickin' cakewalk. Instead, they threw it all away. Was having a guy who votes with the party 80% of the time not enough? In pursuit of someone who'd vote 110% conservative, they ended up with a senator who's going to vote with the GOP maybe 30% of the time at best. The Tea Party pretty much ruined the Indiana senate race that year. I don't see how you can view it as anything other than that.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2014, 02:16:18 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't think his inability to clinch renomination in a state he'd held elected office in for decades may have been indicative of flaws as a candidate? If so, then why is there a double standard where Castle can't be blamed for losing a primary election to a nobody but Buck can be blamed for losing a general election to a sitting senator?

I think his inability to win a Republican primary in 2010 is a function of the fact that he is not an incompetent, hysterical nutjob.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2014, 02:17:02 AM »

MCDANIEL WANTS A RECOUNT! THE (WHITE) PEOPLE'S VOICE WILL BE HEARD!
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2014, 09:20:06 AM »

Neither Montana nor North Dakota are "deep red states" for non-presidential races.

And Indiana, a state where a Democrat was elected governor four of the six previous elections, Pence won by a mere three points, and the congressional delegation was majority Democratic as recently as 2010, qualifies?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then don't use that excuse to defend Rehberg and Berg's losses, unless you genuinely consider a 4 point loss a close race but a 5 point loss a landslide.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would you have predicted in May 2012 that a person twice elected to statewide office (once with >60% of the vote) would lose?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Mourdock seemed favored. Every analyst had the race as Lean Republican after the primary. How was a Republican primary voter at the time supposed to know that Donnelly would run a better than expected campaign and Mourdock would make a fatal gaffe, anymore than they could predict that Heitkamp would run a better than expected campaign and Berg would be a bad candidate? 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This sums up my thoughts:
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2014, 03:15:59 PM »

I think you'll agree that Indiana's "DNA" is considerably more Republican than MT or ND's when taken holistically and looking at the long term rather than simply referring to two very popular governors - Bayh and O'Bannon - who were popular because they were well-liked and respected as individuals, not as Democrats. Their House delegation was mostly Democratic pre-2010? So what? Texas was two seats away from having a Democratic-controlled state house before 2010; that doesn't mean it's a "purple state."

Political parties have one primary goal and one primary goal only - to win elections. Republicans used to understand that. Democrats used to be the ones who wanted to "fall in love" and "stand for principle." What do you call a candidate who loses on principle? You call them a loser.

When you can choose between a ~100% likelihood of winning a race with Dick Lugar even a greater than 50% likelihood of winning a race with Mourdock, it makes no sense to go with Mourdock. Especially in a presidential year.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2014, 11:31:21 PM »

Political parties have one primary goal and one primary goal only - to win elections. Republicans used to understand that. Democrats used to be the ones who wanted to "fall in love" and "stand for principle." What do you call a candidate who loses on principle? You call them a loser.

Sure the parties themselves have that goal, but the people in them, the voters, need a reason to actually go out and vote for the party, campaign for the party, and donate money to the party. If it's just so team Atlas blue can win instead of team Atlas red and you don't see any real difference between the two, why bother? Sure the political junkies of the world who love politics' for politcs' sake and want nothing more than to be in power will always stand by the party no matter what,  but a lot of the people out there, in both parties' political base especially, are dedicated to their party because they really believe in the causes the party is advocating and think they have a real contrast in the two options before them. People need to see a reason to care who wins. For most people the party is a means to an ends and not an ends unto itself.

Now in the case of McDaniel or Murdoch, I don't agree with the means the base chose to try and reach its myriad of ends but in order to understand why they voted how they did you have to realize that they saw the establishment Republicans as functionally no different than Democrats so in their mind, however mistaken they might be, they saw Lugar as a 100% chance of losing and Murdoch as only a 50% chance of losing, weighing a Donnelly win or a Lugar win both as losses.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2014, 03:43:24 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.

This is Mississippi. Even if the Republicans try to lose, they'll still win.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2014, 10:50:21 AM »

This is like the zoo -- don't feed them, just watch for fun. Smiley
One of the best comments I've seen on here to date.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 11 queries.