Steelman throws down the motherf**king gauntlet
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:21:52 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)
  Steelman throws down the motherf**king gauntlet
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Steelman throws down the motherf**king gauntlet  (Read 3280 times)
crazy jimmie
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,513


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2009, 01:37:08 PM »

I know why she lost and it proves that that name isn't golden there.

Unqualified widow loses in a bad year for her party by 1 point = name isn't an asset
Qualified incumbent loses in a bad year for his party by 18 points = good candidate for President

I wonder what Phil will do when Robin Carnahan wins in 2010.. maybe throw a temper tantrum?

He believes absolutely NO democrat can win Missouri, in ANY race, because Obama lost the state by 1/10th of 1 point in 2008. Despite the fact Democrats won most other statewide races. Obama lost the state because of race, not party.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2009, 02:28:42 PM »

I know why she lost and it proves that that name isn't golden there.

Unqualified widow loses in a bad year for her party by 1 point = name isn't an asset
Qualified incumbent loses in a bad year for his party by 18 points = good candidate for President

Roll Eyes

Disingenuous as always. I never said the name wasn't an asset. As for the other point you make, get the hell over it, dude. Now go on to tell me that whatever you say to me isn't meant to be personal.



He believes absolutely NO democrat can win Missouri, in ANY race, because Obama lost the state by 1/10th of 1 point in 2008.

Oh...uh...really?
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2009, 03:32:44 PM »

Mmm, well outside from his obvious dig, Bob Casey Jr. might not be a bad example of what a popular name can do.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2009, 03:34:50 PM »

Mmm, well outside from his obvious dig, Bob Casey Jr. might not be a bad example of what a popular name can do.

Yeah, well, that's a beloved name, not Carnahan. I never said the name wasn't an asset. Brittain just strives to be as dishonest as possible and throw in a few Santorum jabs while he's at it. So sad, yet so amusing, that his haters still obsess over him.

Just watch how I get blamed for this flare up, too.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2009, 03:39:21 PM »

How do you know Carnahan isn't somewhat the equivalent if not more so?  Because his unqualified widow barely lost an election in a bad year?  I mean, the fact that he could posthumously defeat Ashcroft at all was impressive.  And there's more to the Carnahan name than just Mel.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2009, 03:44:02 PM »

How do you know Carnahan isn't somewhat the equivalent if not more so?  Because his unqualified widow barely lost an election in a bad year?  I mean, the fact that he could posthumously defeat Ashcroft at all was impressive.  And there's more to the Carnahan name than just Mel.

I still don't get why people go crazy over that result. It was a close race before his death. It really isn't that big that his widow won on sympathy. Sorry if that sounds cold but let's get real, guys.

The Carnahan's aren't the Casey's. They're no where near as entrenched. Mel was a popular Governor but his wife certainly didn't help the name. They have one in Congress (which is great but isn't statewide proof) and Robin in a statewide office. She won a close race in 2004 and won easily in 2008. Good for her. That recording breaking win was an obvious accomplishment but I think some are overestimating it.

All I've been saying is that winning a Secretary of State race and a U.S. Senate race are two very different beasts.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2009, 09:42:14 PM »

Mmm, well outside from his obvious dig, Bob Casey Jr. might not be a bad example of what a popular name can do.

Yeah, well, that's a beloved name, not Carnahan. I never said the name wasn't an asset. Brittain just strives to be as dishonest as possible and throw in a few Santorum jabs while he's at it. So sad, yet so amusing, that his haters still obsess over him.

Just watch how I get blamed for this flare up, too.

If I were striving to be as dishonest as possible, I'd be posting as an 18 year old girl using pics from a porn site.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2009, 09:46:11 PM »

I still don't get why people go crazy over that result. It was a close race before his death. It really isn't that big that his widow won on sympathy. Sorry if that sounds cold but let's get real, guys.

In retrospect, the fact that she lost so very narrowly in 2002 when she was outclassed by Talent in the debates and on the record and Bush and the Republicans were ascendant nationwide is more striking than Carnahan's winning posthumously. Especially because she was the one incumbent Democrats acknowledged was likely to lose heading into the election, when we were expecting to do better than we did.

Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2009, 02:56:02 AM »

I know why she lost and it proves that that name isn't golden there.

Unqualified widow loses in a bad year for her party by 1 point = name isn't an asset
Qualified incumbent loses in a bad year for his party by 18 points = good candidate for President

I wonder what Phil will do when Robin Carnahan wins in 2010.. maybe throw a temper tantrum?

He believes absolutely NO democrat can win Missouri, in ANY race, because Obama lost the state by 1/10th of 1 point in 2008. Despite the fact Democrats won most other statewide races. Obama lost the state because of race, not party.

First of all, Democrats CAN and did win in Missouri in 2008. Jay Nixon (D) was elected Governor by a whopping 19 points. Democrats held the Attorney General's office (which was vacated by Nixon to run for Governor) with Chris Koster (D) winning, and Democrats picked up the State Treasurer's office (which was vacated by Sarah Steelman [R] to run for Governor) with Clint Zweifel (D). Now, all but one of our statewide offices are controlled by Democrats (Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder is a Republican and he just narrowly won reelection in 2008 over Sam Page). Democrats also picked up three seats in the Missouri House of Representatives, but to put that in perspective, Republicans also picked up three seats in the Missouri Senate. What this prove is that Missouri is neither a red state or a blue state; we are what we always have been, a purple/battleground/bellwether state.

Secondly, Obama lost Missouri not because of race or party; it was because of turnout. First, look to the Democratic Primary. Hillary Rodham Clinton (who should be our President but alas that's opening another can of worms) won 109 out of 114 counties in Missouri and she still just narrowly lost the popular vote to Obama. Why? St. Louis County and City had an enormous turnout by the African American community which offset Clinton's margins in the rural areas and propelled Obama to victory (they still split the 72 delegates). Now, looking to the general election in Missouri, almost every single county in Missouri swung Democratic in 2008; as for the handful of counties that swung Republican, I guess one can argue that this is where racists are more prevalent (there may be some merit in that looking to Pemiscot County in the Bootheel, the county that swung the most Republican in a Democratic year but also voted for Jay Nixon and other statewide Democrats and also was the only county in Missouri to vote for the pro-segregationist candidate George Wallace in 1968). However, these are largely rural counties and the numbers could have easily been offset by the huge turnout in Kansas City and St. Louis, the Democratic strongholds in Missouri. To win Missouri, a Democrat also has to get at least 40 percent in Greene County (Springfield) in Southwest Missouri. Springfield is the third largest city in Missouri and is the largest "red" city in the state. This was the case up until this election. John Kerry only received 37.25 percent in Greene County in 2004 and lost the state by 7.2 points to George W. Bush; Al Gore got 39.92 percent in 2000 and lost to Bush by 3.34 points. Obama received 41.26 percent in Greene County and even managed to pick up two rural counties (Washington and Iron) in Southeast Missouri and he still just narrowly lost the state to John McCain. Why? If you go to the Secretary of State's website (http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrmaps/20081104/) you will see the counties that had the largest turnout. St. Charles County, which consists of the exurbs of St. Louis, has been a Republican stronghold in the state for a while and had the largest voter turnout in the state. That, coupled with the fact that Greene County had a larger turnout than St. Louis County, inevitably led to Obama's narrow defeat. Now, some may make the argument that Jackson County (which consists of Kansas City) also had a large turnout. That's true. However, Obama only won Kansas City and lost the rest of the county, so it really depends on where more of the vote got out in Jackson County (i.e. the city, or the county).

To sum it all up, Obama did not lose because of his race or his party; the turnout was just a tad bit stronger in the Republican strongholds of St. Charles and Greene County. Some may want to make the argument that Jay Nixon won a lot of the rural counties that also voted for John McCain. It's not because Jay Nixon is white and Obama is half black; it's because voters in the state are more familiar with Nixon than Obama. I guarantee you that if Hillary were the nominee, she would have lost close to the same amount of counties as Obama, although I don't think the margins of victory would have been quite as strong because voters in Missouri know Hillary better than Obama (yes I do think she would have carried the state over John McCain). It's just the rural/urban divide that is so strong in Missouri like it is in almost every other state. Claire McCaskill (D) won some of the rural counties throughout Missouri when she ran for the U.S. Senate seat in 2006 against Jim Talent (R). Robin Carnahan should and will win a significant number of rural counties throughout Missouri when she runs in 2010, why? Voters in Missouri know her better than they did Obama in 2008. However, I am confident that now that voters in Missouri are getting to see Obama, if the nation votes for him, the Show-Me State will surely deliver for him in 2012 and will regain our bellwether status (unless he does something stupid or the winds change and Republicans get things going their away again, which I don't see happening). After all, "As Missouri goes, so goes the nation."
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2009, 06:35:12 AM »

How do you know Carnahan isn't somewhat the equivalent if not more so?  Because his unqualified widow barely lost an election in a bad year?  I mean, the fact that he could posthumously defeat Ashcroft at all was impressive.  And there's more to the Carnahan name than just Mel.
That was, well, John Ashcroft. A man quite as obviously out of his league in the Senate as Jean Carnahan.
Logged
Aizen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,511


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2009, 01:02:02 PM »


After all, "As Missouri goes, so goes the nation."


Not anymore. Missouri blew it this election. In fact, the media claimed that Missouri "lost their status as a bellwether" because they went with the wrong candidate. A shame too.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« 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 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.