Wingnuts get their asses kicked

[daveman]

It's the Ben Nelson thing. Better to have a Blue Dog than a Wingnut.

And that's the advantage that Liberals have over wingnuts. We don't demand ideological purity. This is why 'DINO' never caught on.

Then you support Gov Besehear's position that the EPA's actions are illegal, and that the Obama Administration is overstepping its authority.

No, but it does mean that he will take Democratic positions more than 50% of the time.

Then Beshear fails your ideological purity test.

If Kentucky had a wingnut governor, I am sure I would oppose everything he does.

Like I said, ideological purity will doom the wingnuts. It's already happening. Just ask Mr. 23%

I'm sure you would oppose everything a conservative governor does, too.

The difference between us?

I support what Beshear, a Democrat, did. So do many KY conservatives.

So much for your mindless talk about ideological purity.

Furthermore, the election only confirms that KY, a conservative state, is not practicing any sort of ideological purity tests:

http://www.examiner.com/public-poli...for-liberals-kentucky-is-a-conservative-state

In Kentucky, 43% reported being conservative (up from 40% last year), 36% moderate (down from 38%), and only 18% admitted to being liberal (same as last year).​

All you have is projection.

 

[daveman]

And under Reagan aour debt pretty much doubled, and we went from a creditor nation to a debtor one, yet the Republicans still think Reagan is the best thing since cliced bread.

the conversion to a debtor nation is a large part of why we are where we are now.

So, Reagan doubling our debt is bad.

Obama raising the debt at twice the rate Bush did is good.

Maybe you should just post nothing but "Obama can do no wrong". It would save you time.

I can't believe you idiots are still falling for Bubba's accounting tricks. Suckers!

Say, you left Obama off:

 

[Synthaholic]

Then you support Gov Besehear's position that the EPA's actions are illegal, and that the Obama Administration is overstepping its authority.

No, but it does mean that he will take Democratic positions more than 50% of the time.

Then Beshear fails your ideological purity test.

If Kentucky had a wingnut governor, I am sure I would oppose everything he does.

Like I said, ideological purity will doom the wingnuts. It's already happening. Just ask Mr. 23%

I'm sure you would oppose everything a conservative governor does, too.

The difference between us?

I support what Beshear, a Democrat, did. So do many KY conservatives.

So much for your mindless talk about ideological purity.

Furthermore, the election only confirms that KY, a conservative state, is not practicing any sort of ideological purity tests:

Bad news for liberals: Kentucky is a conservative state - Louisville Public Policy | Examiner.com

In Kentucky, 43% reported being conservative (up from 40% last year), 36% moderate (down from 38%), and only 18% admitted to being liberal (same as last year).​

All you have is projection.

I think the slurry in your drinking water is starting to affect you.

I don't care about idological purity. Wingnuts and teabaggers do. That's why they boo a Gay soldier, and boo Rick Perry when he talks positively about immigration, and cheer people dying without health care.

I'll take the Kentucky governor's 50% democratic tendencies (maybe higher - I don't know the man) over a wingnut governor's 0% democratic tendencies.

I hope this spoon feeding has filled your tummy.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, Reagan doubling our debt is bad.

Obama raising the debt at twice the rate Bush did is good.

Maybe you should just post nothing but "Obama can do no wrong". It would save you time.

I can't believe you idiots are still falling for Bubba's accounting tricks. Suckers!

Reality has a strong Liberal bias.

 

[Listening]

As long as we have statewide and national elections, what you say isn't true. Look at what happened in 2010 -- as favorable an election as the movement is EVER going to see -- when Tea Party candidates tried to run for Senate seats. They lost 3 for 4, and every one of those losses was a seat with a weak Democratic candidate that the Republicans should have won. (It's debatable whether the sole winner, Rand Paul, should be considered a Tea Party candidate.)

Moreover, if you have only 20% of the nation supporting the Tea Party's positions, then you have at most 20% of the House seats potentially winnable by Tea Party candidates, and that's only if the support is completely lopsided (i.e., almost all Tea Party supporters concentrated into 20% of the districts), which is almost certainly untrue. So the real figure is surely considerably lower.

EVER ?

More prognostications ? You are too funny.

51% rule the 100%, so by propotion the Tea Party has a reach of 40% at max (as the Tea Party). And it takes but a few to really screw up the works which is just what I want to see happen. And we can analyze each election to death. But when it comes down to it, when someone as lousy and Sharon E. can give a good scare to a die hard liberal like Harry Reid.....I have every reason to feel good about the way things are going. The senate will belong to the GOP in 2012.

I don't belong to the Tea Party, but I am certainly a huge fan of many of their candidates. And while Rand Paul may not be a pure blood, I'd like to see 100 of him in the senate and that would sure mean you would be relocating out of the country.

 

[Listening]

Reality has a strong Liberal bias.

Where is Presdient Obam in your chart ?

 

[Listening]

No, that's untrue, and I can prove it. Go here for reference: Election 2010 - Exit Poll Results - CBS News

First off, far from moderate support for the Democrats being "not much," the Dems WON the self-labeled "moderate" voters, 55-42.

Secondly, scroll down to where the exit poll asks whether people voted for Obama or McCain in the 2008 election. Note that this is evenly split, 45-45. Yet in 2008, Obama won 52% of the popular vote -- to McCain's 45%. What does this mean? It means that a lot of people who voted for Obama in 2008 DID NOT VOTE in 2010.

That completely explains the outcome. The electorate did not recoil in horror at the "socialist" overreach of the Democrats. What happened is that a lot of voters who supported Obama became disillusioned with him and stayed home two years later. Why did they do this? Not because he overreached but because he UNDER-reached, as did the Democrats in Congress.

Obama campaigned as a militant progressive in 2008, the first such candidate the country had seen since 1972, and he won by a landslide. Then he governed like a moderate Republican, and lost a lot of support. It's that simple.

Yes, yes...and all this assumes you are talking to the same voting population or that the same voting population is disproportionaltely large compared to voters (who are either new or who didn't vote in 2008).

Fewer moderates voted for Obama than they did in 2008 and that means they are changing their minds. He has really lost them now and that spells his political doom in 2012.

But, I certainly am of the opion that he is further doomed by the phenomena you called out with his "he is going to pay my bills" crowd leaving him in 2010. Had he governed more to the left, they might have stuck, but moderates would have vacated.

Either way he is screwed.

In 2008, President Obama has the good fortune to be following a total jackass into office. John McCain, in addition to having a sad campaign and an unprepared (at best) running mate, had to get out from under GWB which he could not do.

The ground was fertile for "anyone but Bush".

So don't kid yourself.

And nothing is that simple.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, yes...and all this assumes you are talking to the same voting population or that the same voting population is disproportionaltely large compared to voters (who are either new or who didn't vote in 2008).

No, it doesn't. We know the answers to these questions. We know that new voters added to the polls in no way explains the outcome, while the difference in voter turnout between 2008 and 2010 does.

Fewer moderates voted for Obama than they did in 2008 and that means they are changing their minds.

I think you mean that few moderates voted Democratic than voted for Obama in '08; as you know, Obama was not on the ballot last year.

Not necessarily, and in this case, plain no. The difference in the moderate vote totals is also explained by voter turnout, in that moderates constituted a smaller percentage of the electorate total than in '08, as did liberals, while conservatives constituted a larger one. What that means is that moderates and liberals stayed home in larger proportions than conservatives. Those moderates who did vote were, compared to the '08 electorate, disproportionately to the right end of the "moderate" range.

Very few voters changed their minds. Very few people who voted for Obama in '08 also voted Republican in 2010.

In 2008, President Obama has the good fortune to be following a total jackass into office. John McCain, in addition to having a sad campaign and an unprepared (at best) running mate, had to get out from under GWB which he could not do.

When the incumbent is not running, for whatever reason, his own record actually doesn't count for much. Bill Clinton, unlike Bush, was very popular when he left office, but that didn't help Al Gore.

McCain did run a sad campaign while Obama ran a highly professional one, but part of that professionalism was a shrewd assessment of what the people wanted to hear. It's clear enough if you look at the issue polls that the people are to the LEFT of where they were in '08, not to the right.

 

[Listening]

Yes, yes...and all this assumes you are talking to the same voting population or that the same voting population is disproportionaltely large compared to voters (who are either new or who didn't vote in 2008).

No, it doesn't. We know the answers to these questions. We know that new voters added to the polls in no way explains the outcome, while the difference in voter turnout between 2008 and 2010 does.

Wrong again...it is only talking about new voters. Not people who just failed to vote in previous elections.

 

[Listening]

McCain did run a sad campaign while Obama ran a highly professional one, but part of that professionalism was a shrewd assessment of what the people wanted to hear. It's clear enough if you look at the issue polls that the people are to the LEFT of where they were in '08, not to the right.

Yes, very clear.

That is why the liberals got their asses kicked in 2010.

Cite all the polls you want. Your polls are not running congress.

Maybe you can get someone from the OWS crowd to run for office...that would be a good counter to the number of Tea Party types who will be there in 2012.

Maybe.

 

[CT9]

the phrase wingnut is retarded, it can be attached to any party, and I'm guessing who started this thread, VD Boop or Jillian? it's especially when it is most applicable to the thread starter....

anybody who refers to anyone who disagrees with them a wingnut is just an immature imbecile

ah a surprise I was wrong, still applies though

 

[daveman]

No, but it does mean that he will take Democratic positions more than 50% of the time.

Then Beshear fails your ideological purity test.

If Kentucky had a wingnut governor, I am sure I would oppose everything he does.

Like I said, ideological purity will doom the wingnuts. It's already happening. Just ask Mr. 23%

I'm sure you would oppose everything a conservative governor does, too.

The difference between us?

I support what Beshear, a Democrat, did. So do many KY conservatives.

So much for your mindless talk about ideological purity.

Furthermore, the election only confirms that KY, a conservative state, is not practicing any sort of ideological purity tests:

Bad news for liberals: Kentucky is a conservative state - Louisville Public Policy | Examiner.com

In Kentucky, 43% reported being conservative (up from 40% last year), 36% moderate (down from 38%), and only 18% admitted to being liberal (same as last year).​

All you have is projection.

I think the slurry in your drinking water is starting to affect you.

I don't care about idological purity. Wingnuts and teabaggers do. That's why they boo a Gay soldier, and boo Rick Perry when he talks positively about immigration, and cheer people dying without health care.

I'll take the Kentucky governor's 50% democratic tendencies (maybe higher - I don't know the man) over a wingnut governor's 0% democratic tendencies.

I hope this spoon feeding has filled your tummy.

You may enjoy the taste of leftist pablum, but it makes normal people ill.

 

[daveman]

I can't believe you idiots are still falling for Bubba's accounting tricks. Suckers!

Reality has a strong Liberal bias.

You misspelled "Leftist delusion".

By the way, pretending this image doesn't exist is not affirming reality:

 

[Conservative]

Please show me a post where a Republican here called a state senate election a 'national referendum'.

Scott Brown....

Nice try.

1... that's a name, not a post.
2... Scott Brown was elected, if I am not mistaken, to the US Senate, as Senator from MA. I specifically asked about 'state senate', as in state level government.. you know... state senator, state assemblyman, etc.... because the elections from Tuesday were all state level.

So.. can you show me a post (not just a name mind you), where a 'rightie' claimed an election result at the state level was a 'national referendum', or not?

cricket... cricket... cricket.....

 

[Dragon]

Wrong again...it is only talking about new voters. Not people who just failed to vote in previous elections.

What is?

 

[Chris]

The tide has turned.

The Republican governors of Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin are going to win the election for Obama.

 

[Chris]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 90% of the National Debt.

Click on this link........

ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[Synthaholic]

Reality has a strong Liberal bias.

Where is Presdient Obam in your chart ?

He's too busy cleaning up the Dubya Disaster.

 

[oreo]

At some point Barack is going to have to stand on a stage and defend his record in a series of debates. So how does one defend 9% unemployment, a deficit that has doubled since he took office, the first credit downgrade in our nation's history, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, and a health care plan that didn't lower the cost of health care?

Good luck with that...

Let's see...Crumbling infrastructure that the GOP doesn't want to pay for, Corrupt banks that won't loan money to small businesses for expansion or startups, Slave labor outsourcing to pad the wallets of the rich elite.... That pretty much covers the 9% unemployment.

A deficit that has doubled when almost a Trillion of it came from Bushie bailing out his Wall Street buddies... let's knock that off the top and see what the deficit is.

The first Credit Downgrade was DIRECTLY caused by Conservative Politicians trying to hold the debt limit hostage to their Draconian demands for cuts on 90% of our citizenry.

Solyndra? 85K documents released to the witch hunters when they asked for them...they found nothing, so they are grasping at straws trying to find something... ANYTHING that makes them feel justified.

Fast and Furious? That was a fuckup... I'll admit it. How much involvement did he have in it though? I mean Reagan wasn't found culpable for Iran/Contra... Ollie North jumped on that Grenade for him and Bush I. Truthfully, I'd like to know what he knew and what his involvement was in Fast and furious... I don't care for shit like that no matter who is in Office.

If you're going back to TARP one (banking bailouts)--Obama was on board for that too--along with many in the democrat party. That money has been paid back with interest over one year ago.

This country already paid out 787 BILLION taxpayer dollars for road and bridge work--and it didn't get done--did it?--

Bush spent 1.6 billion dollars a day--Obama is spending 4.3 BILLION dollars a day.

Moody's has been threatening a downgrade since Obama shoved down our throats a 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.

Solyndra is still under congressional investigation--and all CEO's have pleaded the 5th--this certainly isn't over--it's just begun. 3 other solar companies have also gone backrupt--leaving the American taxpayers holding the bag on 835 million dollars. Another large solar project in Nevada--was given another 735 million taxpayer dollar loan--who's CEO happens to be Nancy Pelosi's brother-in law.

https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&...ved+in+other+energy+department+loan+guarntees

Fast & Furious--in my opinion was a deliberate attempt by Eric Holder and Barack Obama--by giving semi-automatic weapons to violent Mexican drug lords--in their attempt to stop the sale of those guns to Americans in this country. There could be no other reason for that insanity. It just backfired on them--

 

[daveman]

The tide has turned.

The Republican governors of Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin are going to win the election for Obama.

"This has legs! Bush is TOAST!!"