PDA

View Full Version : Tea Party- 2 wins 2 losses 1TBD



BonMallari
11-03-2010, 12:56 AM
Well Tea Party'ers (not me) you won two big races in Rubio (Fla) and Paul (Ky)

but you also lost two big races with very poor candidates in Angle (NV):(:( and O'Donnell (DE)

Alaska will take another day before we find out if its Murkowski or Miller


I will give the Tea Party kudos for getting some people off their butts, but they also showed that in the cases of O'Donnell and Angle the extreme candidate was just too...extreme...Hope they learn that lesson for 2012

dnf777
11-03-2010, 05:54 AM
Well Tea Party'ers (not me) you won two big races in Rubio (Fla) and Paul (Ky)

but you also lost two big races with very poor candidates in Angle (NV):(:( and O'Donnell (DE)

Alaska will take another day before we find out if its Murkowski or Miller


I will give the Tea Party kudos for getting some people off their butts, but they also showed that in the cases of O'Donnell and Angle the extreme candidate was just too...extreme...Hope they learn that lesson for 2012

Twinkie price roll-backs at Wal-Mart does that too. ;-)


Hey Gibson--Boehner made me think of your post. Did you lose respect for him, blowing "snot bubbles" last night??

YardleyLabs
11-03-2010, 06:59 AM
Both of those seats would almost certainly have gone to Republicans had the more moderate (and less stupid) Republican candidates won in their primaries. A fair way to look at them is that the price of the Angle and O'Donnell "victories" was loss of Republican control of the Senate.

road kill
11-03-2010, 07:37 AM
Well Tea Party'ers (not me) you won two big races in Rubio (Fla) and Paul (Ky)

but you also lost two big races with very poor candidates in Angle (NV):(:( and O'Donnell (DE)

Alaska will take another day before we find out if its Murkowski or Miller


I will give the Tea Party kudos for getting some people off their butts, but they also showed that in the cases of O'Donnell and Angle the extreme candidate was just too...extreme...Hope they learn that lesson for 2012


You folks in Nevada should be very proud.
You re-elected Harry Reid!!

Now there is a "quality" candidate!!:rolleyes:


RK

road kill
11-03-2010, 07:38 AM
Both of those seats would almost certainly have gone to Republicans had the more moderate (and less stupid) Republican candidates won in their primaries. A fair way to look at them is that the price of the Angle and O'Donnell "victories" was loss of Republican control of the Senate.

Really?



RK

YardleyLabs
11-03-2010, 07:59 AM
Really?



RK
Yes.......

road kill
11-03-2010, 08:16 AM
Yes.......


I don't think you are in any position to make detrerminations about candidates quality and their intelligience.

Your party got their asses handed to them last night.
You know, all those "SMART" people!!:rolleyes:


Your party would have given anything (and did) to acheive that success rate, but couldn't.........


RK

YardleyLabs
11-03-2010, 08:29 AM
I don't think you are in any position to make detrerminations about candidates quality and their intelligience.

Your party got their asses handed to them last night.
You know, all those "SMART" people!!:rolleyes:


Your party would have given anything (and did) to acheive that success rate, but couldn't.........


RK
You mean results like this - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#S - and this - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#val=H? What a difference two years can make when you overestimate the meaning of a victory.

road kill
11-03-2010, 08:30 AM
You mean results like this - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#S - and this - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#val=H? What a difference two years can make when you overestimate the meaning of a victory.
Neither of your links support your calling candidates "STUPID."


RK

Julie R.
11-03-2010, 08:43 AM
Both of those seats would almost certainly have gone to Republicans had the more moderate (and less stupid) Republican candidates won in their primaries. A fair way to look at them is that the price of the Angle and O'Donnell "victories" was loss of Republican control of the Senate.

Let's not forget many of those Democrat losses, even in reliably liberal strongholds, happened not because of the Tea Party or the ineptitude of the Commander-in-Chump, but because the more moderate (i.e. less stupid) candidates got eaten in the primaries.

BonMallari
11-03-2010, 09:36 AM
Both of those seats would almost certainly have gone to Republicans had the more moderate (and less stupid) Republican candidates won in their primaries. A fair way to look at them is that the price of the Angle and O'Donnell "victories" was loss of Republican control of the Senate.


Jeff is correct...let me repeat that , he is correct....O'Donnell was the weakest candidate in the nation, followed by Angle...and even though the media wont show this fact...Angle,O'Donnell, and eventually Miller in Alaska all had one common thread...they were all backed by Sarah Palin...I sure hope the Republican Party doesnt let her do the same thing in 2012

M&K's Retrievers
11-03-2010, 09:42 AM
Jeff is correct...let me repeat that , he is correct....O'Donnell was the weakest candidate in the nation, followed by Angle...and even though the media wont show this fact...Angle,O'Donnell, and eventually Miller in Alaska all had one common thread...they were all backed by Sarah Palin...I sure hope the Republican Party doesnt let her do the same thing in 2012

Agree. I've about had an ass full of her.

Don Horstman
11-03-2010, 11:15 AM
Like her or not, the majority of the candidates she backed won. Not saying she is solely repsonsible for that...horrible democratic policies and weak candidates certainly helped.

I am also a little tired of hearing how dumb Christine O'Donnel and Sharon Angle are and how they are not qualified. They are too stupid, but an absolute idiot like Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, or thre great man of the cloth from Harlem (who by the way cannot seem to fill out a simple form listing his income and property values) are never called out as being anything but intelligent. Is there any doubt that Barney Frank is a moron, or that the super intelligent Geitner is a tax cheat? There is more than enough stupidity to go around in Washington, which helps explain the huge swing after the election yesterday. Just because you graduated from Harvard and appear to be an intellectual does not qualify you more than any other candidate. I have been around plenty of "intellectuals" who are not smart enough to get in out of the rain. Nice people, smart people, but I wouldn't want them running our local dog pound, let alone making billion dollar decisions for me. They can explain the Theory of Relativity, but couldn't tell you how to balance a check book, and would spend hours in a construction trailer looking for a circle square and board stretcher.

The most important quality in a candidate is common sense, another quality most of our current politicians seem to lack. You do not have to be super intelligent and intellectual to know that you cannot continue to spend more money than you bring in and not have problems. Seems like a pretty simple concept to me, but then again my home finances are not in shambles because of this simple minded philosophy.

(CBS) Most of the candidates Sarah Palin endorsed chalked up victories Tuesday.

And that scorecard leaves pundits wondering whether she'll now train her sights directly on the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

As CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor reports, .the former GOP vice presidential nominee backed 43 candidates for the House. Thirty of them won, with races involving nine others still undecided.
Her record in Senate races was closer: She endorsed 12 candidates. Seven won.

Though it's been 15 months since Palin stepped down as Alaska governor, she was very much in this election, stumping for candidates across the country, skewering President Obama at every turn.

"My observation of Sarah Palin," says CBS News political analyst Nicolle Wallace, "is that she is one of the shrewdest political figures in our country at this moment. She's also one of the most electric."

Hew
11-03-2010, 11:48 AM
Jeff is correct...let me repeat that , he is correct....O'Donnell was the weakest candidate in the nation, followed by Angle...and even though the media wont show this fact...Angle,O'Donnell, and eventually Miller in Alaska all had one common thread...they were all backed by Sarah Palin...I sure hope the Republican Party doesnt let her do the same thing in 2012
LOL, you sure do have a hard-on for Palin and the Tea Party. You made the exact same arguments after the primaries and the facts didn't bear your opinions out with respect to either the Tea Party or Palin's endorsements. I haven't the time at the moment to look into it at the moment, but I've got a feeling that your above assessment isn't any more appropriate this time than it was before.

gman0046
11-03-2010, 11:49 AM
Watch for Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio in the future. He's a Cuban/American, with both the Republican and Hispanic vote he will be a force to be reckoned with.

Hew
11-03-2010, 11:50 AM
Ooops. I should have read a little bit further before responding.


As CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor reports, .the former GOP vice presidential nominee backed 43 candidates for the House. Thirty of them won, with races involving nine others still undecided.
Her record in Senate races was closer: She endorsed 12 candidates. Seven won.


What a dunce and a loser that Palin is. A cancer on the party I tell ya. :rolleyes:

david gibson
11-03-2010, 11:54 AM
Ooops. I should have read a little bit further before responding.


What a dunce and a loser that Palin is. A cancer on the party I tell ya. :rolleyes:

can you compare that record to those endorsed by obama and pelosi........? could be interesting, even though most dems avoided their help

gman0046
11-03-2010, 12:07 PM
Obama went to Ohio 16 times stumping for Dems and the entire state went RED. Not to mention Obogolos trip to Virginia to stump for a Dem Congressman who was defeated. How about his trips to Wisconsin including those by Michele My Belle? They failed there as well as it also went RED. Last but not least, how about all their trips to Illinois to stump for Giannoulias who was running for Obongolos Senate seat? He lost as well. America is on to this clown as evidenced by the Blow Out. Two years and he'll be gone as well.

BonMallari
11-03-2010, 01:28 PM
LOL, you sure do have a hard-on for Palin and the Tea Party. You made the exact same arguments after the primaries and the facts didn't bear your opinions out with respect to either the Tea Party or Palin's endorsements. I haven't the time at the moment to look into it at the moment, but I've got a feeling that your above assessment isn't any more appropriate this time than it was before.

You are correct, because unlike many of the people on here,I actually live in the state where the Tea Party was the difference in the election...I too WAS a Palin supporter (voted for McCain/Palin) but then I started to listen on what she was actually saying and how the Tea Party divided the republican party in my home state...The Tea Party has done some very good work, it woke up a certain faction of the Republican party, IMHO it woke up the conservative libertarian faction of the party ( of which I think I fall into) but politically speaking they overplayed their hand here in Nevada...we had Harry on the ropes and they went for overkill with a candidate that wasnt qualified and didnt know when to stop making stupid remarks that would come back to haunt her...I think her campaign was poorly managed, and she wasnt up to the task

Marvin S
11-03-2010, 01:30 PM
Jeff is correct...let me repeat that , he is correct....O'Donnell was the weakest candidate in the nation, followed by Angle...and even though the media wont show this fact...Angle,O'Donnell, and eventually Miller in Alaska all had one common thread...they were all backed by Sarah Palin...I sure hope the Republican Party doesnt let her do the same thing in 2012

As a voter, if I have the choice between a right wing kook & a moderate RINO who is going to take the safe vote every time, I will vote for the kook every time unless they are a social kook. That is because I believe the politcal establishment is to established, & needs to be shaken up. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize areas of government that are too fat & complacent, that would be all of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for Palin, I could never vote for her as she has shown me she's not ready for primetime. But I would vote for someone who would find her a cabinet position to prove if she has the moxie to really do a job on a large scale. Secretary of Interior might be a thought, she couldn't be much worse than some of our recent SOI's.

Gerry Clinchy
11-03-2010, 01:40 PM
Two years and he'll be gone as well.

The Rs will actually have to do something constructive to have that happen. They have control of the House, and even with 2 I's caucusing with the Ds, the Senate is close to a dead heat; and there are probably some D "wild cards" in the deck.

If the Rs are as ineffective as the D Congress was, and don't listen to what the voters have told them ... then O can just blame everything on the R Congress he had to work with.

If the Rs don't come up with someone to run against O who really can generate some excitement as a leader, O will win in 2012 ... and depending on the R candidate it could be a landslide for O.

The Rs have the ball in their court now ... which is what they say they wanted ... but will they know what to do with it?

Like the Presidential "honeymoon", they will have to make the hard decisions on cutting spending quickly while they have the popular support to do it. They won't have much time to prove that they can do better than the Ds have done with Congress.

Hew
11-03-2010, 03:28 PM
The Tea Party has done some very good work, it woke up a certain faction of the Republican party, IMHO it woke up the conservative libertarian faction of the party ( of which I think I fall into) but politically speaking they overplayed their hand here in Nevada...I guess that's what I find kind of irksome...that having read your posts for quite awhile it seems to me that a lot of what the Tea Party espouses are nearly identical to what you claim to support, yet you seem to have some kind of vendetta against the whole movement. I'm sorry Angle was a bad candidate, but how's that an indictment of the entire Tea Party movement? IMO you're throwing the baby and the entire tub out with the bathwater. I guess I expect the Usual Suspects on this site to parrott the lefty moonbat pablum about the Tea Party and Palin, but it does kinda puts me off my oats to see some conservatives doing it, too. we had Harry on the ropes and they went for overkill with a candidate that wasnt qualified and didnt know when to stop making stupid remarks that would come back to haunt her...I think her campaign was poorly managed, and she wasnt up to the task
....................

BonMallari
11-03-2010, 03:43 PM
I am Not against the entire Tea Party, just what they did in my current home state...in the long term I don't like what they MAY do to the republican party...in all honesty can the Tea party beat BHO in 2012...

Nate_C
11-03-2010, 04:13 PM
I don't know if she is stupid but ODonnell is not the smartest cookie and she is extremely dishonest if not an out-right criminal. Angle has said some really wacky things too. I cannot believe that either of these people were even in the running for seats.

gman0046
11-03-2010, 05:44 PM
I don't think Obongolo could run for dog catcher in 2012 if yesterday was any indication. The Blow Out was the largest in over 60 years.

road kill
11-03-2010, 08:02 PM
I don't think Obongolo could run for dog catcher in 2012 if yesterday was any indication. The Blow Out was the largest in over 60 years.


Foolish statement.

What percentage of black voters participated yesterday??

Yardley, tell him..........think they will turn out for Obama in '12????



RK

Cody Covey
11-03-2010, 08:13 PM
Foolish statement.

What percentage of black voters participated yesterday??

Yardley, tell him..........think they will turn out for Obama in '12????



RKOn a national scale Black voters don't really matter. At least not in the sense of throwing an election one way or another. They are about 12% of the population last I saw and I would be surprised if 1% made up the voting population...

depittydawg
11-03-2010, 08:53 PM
Foolish statement.

What percentage of black voters participated yesterday??

Yardley, tell him..........think they will turn out for Obama in '12????



RK

Many Presidents look very vulnerable after the congressional elections at their two year point. Almost all have rebounded and won handily in their own re-election. Two years is an eternity in Washington politics.

YardleyLabs
11-03-2010, 10:17 PM
On a national scale Black voters don't really matter. At least not in the sense of throwing an election one way or another. They are about 12% of the population last I saw and I would be surprised if 1% made up the voting population...
I think you have overstated the case, but I also agree with your statement. Obama was elected by white, brown and black voters, with majority support from all age, income, color and gender groups except white males. To be elected in 2012, he will need comparable support. However, history suggests that a mid-term blowout tells you little about what will happen in the following election. Control switched in 1946, 1994, and 2006. The incumbent President won in the following election in 1948 and 1996 (Truman and Clinton), and was not eligible to run in 2008. In 1946, the Republicans gained 56 seats in a total blowout to gain control of the House. In 1948 they lost 74 of those seats, returning control to Democrats who then held on for the next 44 years. In 1994, Republicans won 53 seats to take control again, losing in 2006. Switches happen. It is the nature of the game. In the Senate, switches happen more often, and the margins of control and Senate rules combine to act as a brake on what can then be done by the party in power. Arguably, one of the reasons the reasons the Republicans lost so badly in 2008 was because of the extent to which they had gerrymandered congressional districts in an effort to cement their power. The strategy for maximizing seat in redistricting is to create totally safe districts for the opposition by concentrating districts with 80-90% minority party control. This was widely done to blacks and justified as enabling the election of more black candidates. The party in control then spreads its votes around, creating districts with 55-60% support. By doing this, you multiply the number of seats that will be won by a defined number of supporters. In most years, the strategy works well. However, when there is a wide swing in voter preference, the strategy magnifies the impact and there will be a disproportionate number of seats lost. That has been a factor in both 2008 and 2010. From a Democratic perspective, one of the worst effects of this election is the number of state houses that went Republican, giving the R's more control over the redistricting process. It will be interesting to see how they use the power this time.

wayne anderson
11-03-2010, 10:36 PM
When both houses in the state of Minnesota go Republican, you KNOW it was a blow out! And the Gov. race is going to a re-count. Even the Republicans here are astounded.