The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Dem's lost a big election
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7144		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:21 am ]
Post subject:  Dem's lost a big election
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/14/ ... index.html

3-1 majority of the voters and they still lost the seat big time. The comments on CNN do entertain, almost as fun as Daily Kos
Author:  Mookhow [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:56 am ]
Post subject: 
The phrases 'lose a big one' vs 'loose a big one' bring to mind completely different things for me.
Author:  shuyung [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:02 am ]
Post subject: 
And that would be "bring to mind".
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:05 am ]
Post subject: 
will apologize, worked last night, and had to stay awake for the roofer. 24+ without sleep is making my usually poor grammar worse.
Author:  Müs [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Mookhow wrote:
The phrases 'lose a big one' vs 'loose a big one' bring to mind completely different things for me.


So just fix the title :p
Author:  Nitefox [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Dem's loose a big one
Ok this was funny...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/14/r ... um=twitter

Quote:
Democratic party leaders insisted the loss wasn’t a harbinger of things to come. “It’s a very difficult district for Democrats,” said Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, noting its Democratic margins there tend to be the second lowest of all the districts in New York City.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%2 ... l_district

Last time someone other than a Democrat won that district? 1922
Author:  Hannibal [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:50 am ]
Post subject: 
I feel bad for the Republican. He even spits on the sidewalk and the DNC will have a protest.
Author:  Lex Luthor [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:06 am ]
Post subject: 
I wouldn't say it's a big election, but it's a notable one.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:30 am ]
Post subject:  Dem's lost a big election
Party switches on disgraced candidates are rather common I think. Not knowing anything about the guy I don't know how great this is. The last blue state republican elected via special election didn't turn out to be that great
Author:  Hannibal [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Dem's lost a big election
Rorinthas wrote:
Party switches on disgraced candidates are rather common I think. Not knowing anything about the guy I don't know how great this is. The last blue state republican elected via special election didn't turn out to be that great


I think his public stances on national issues should be noted. Like Scott Brown he opposes obamacare- publicly. He remarked he would cut the department of education down. He also suggested- in public- to UT the federal government (or budget) by 35%.

I think its notable that he got elected where he did stating what he stated.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Dem's lost a big election
Hannibal wrote:
Rorinthas wrote:
Party switches on disgraced candidates are rather common I think. Not knowing anything about the guy I don't know how great this is. The last blue state republican elected via special election didn't turn out to be that great


I think his public stances on national issues should be noted. Like Scott Brown he opposes obamacare- publicly. He remarked he would cut the department of education down. He also suggested- in public- to UT the federal government (or budget) by 35%.

I think its notable that he got elected where he did stating what he stated.


I agree, but it's still tough to say whether people were voting FOR him and his policies, AGAINST Weiner, or hell, even AGAINST Obama.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Dem's lost a big election
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
Rorinthas wrote:
Party switches on disgraced candidates are rather common I think. Not knowing anything about the guy I don't know how great this is. The last blue state republican elected via special election didn't turn out to be that great


I think his public stances on national issues should be noted. Like Scott Brown he opposes obamacare- publicly. He remarked he would cut the department of education down. He also suggested- in public- to UT the federal government (or budget) by 35%.

I think its notable that he got elected where he did stating what he stated.


I agree, but it's still tough to say whether people were voting FOR him and his policies, AGAINST Weiner, or hell, even AGAINST Obama.


Exactly. A lot of people voted for Obama because he's not bush. It's possible a lot of people voted for this guy because he's not Weiner and the other guy wasn't not Weiner enough. While he sounds like a good guy it might be disingenuous to play this up as a good political barometer.
Author:  Hannibal [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Would it be safe to say that two conservatives winning by large margins in deep blue strongholds is? Consider the commonalities between the two platforms. Did Brown win by not being Ted Kennedy? Or did he win on his stated ideas?

Really I think it speaks more to running on clear principals rather than the wishy washyness of regular pols.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Hannibal wrote:
Would it be safe to say that two conservatives winning by large margins in deep blue strongholds is? Consider the commonalities between the two platforms. Did Brown win by not being Ted Kennedy? Or did he win on his stated ideas?

Really I think it speaks more to running on clear principals rather than the wishy washyness of regular pols.


I think it's tough to make the argument that Brown was elected for anything other than his stated policies. But when you're replacing a guy that resigned from scandal, it does make that less clear. I'd need to see some exit polls or something.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/