The end of the rabid right and the tea partiers?

[Meister]

This week showed that teabaggers are a millstone around the republicans neck.

Democrats just ridicule and laugh at them and use them to portray republicans as radical wingnuts out of touch with mainstream America

republicans have to listen to these Bozo's. republican power brokers like Steele and Boehner cower befor the teabaggers.

The Tea Party movement will lead to a larger margin of victory for Democrats in 2010 and 2012

Rightwinger....I know your not that stupid, have you been smoking some whacky tabacky?

Tea Baggers do more harm to republicans than they do to Democrats. look at the NY23 results. They forced out a perfectly electable republican for an unelectable conservative. The result was a Democratic win

Democrats use teabaggers and their wild rants as evidence that the right wingnuts are out of touch with mainstream America. Teabaggers claim they are mainstream America, but most Americans don't want those whacko's speaking for them

I thought it was the whacky tabacky, but I now know that your just stupid. carry on...
Everyone knows that "NY23" was a unique election...and no...no matter how many times you tell yourself, the republican was no an electable representative from the right.

 

[rightwinger]

This week showed that teabaggers are a millstone around the republicans neck.

Democrats just ridicule and laugh at them and use them to portray republicans as radical wingnuts out of touch with mainstream America

republicans have to listen to these Bozo's. republican power brokers like Steele and Boehner cower befor the teabaggers.

The Tea Party movement will lead to a larger margin of victory for Democrats in 2010 and 2012

there will be no more dums after 10. political suicide. and you are the minority now.

Far from it.

republicans currently have an approval rating of 39%. With an ever shrinking tent of willing republicans, 2010 will be another beat down for the republicans.

With Obama running again in 2012, republicans will see themselves relegated to minor party status.

 

[namvet]

more minority tripe

 

[saveliberty]

Pretty tough talk from the majority party who can't muster enough votes in their own party to get the health care bill passed. You say the Republicans suffer from too narrow a voter base. The Democrats have the oppoite problem. Too wide a group to make happy in a bill like health care. Some group is going to walk away from this and be very disappointed. It could be Hispanics, far left liberals, blue dogs or a combination. It will cause fractures.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sampling has never been a far rightoid wingnut strength, for they have always loved to smear groups they don't like with single incidents.

The reason is the wingnuts fear that Sawah is going away with the Owens' victory. The 23d revealed just how hollow the tealagger strength truly is. All huffnpuff but no stuff.

Hoffman was a Third party Candidate and loss by less than the lonely white guy in the picture in the Very Blue State of NJ

Hoffman, the Third Party Candidate.

Not a Republican.

Not a Democrat like the 2 men shown above

Third Party Candidate

Well if that's something to cheer about then I wish you all sorts of luck in garnering many more conservative third party second place finishes in 2010.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sampling has never been a far rightoid wingnut strength, for they have always loved to smear groups they don't like with single incidents.

The reason is the wingnuts fear that Sawah is going away with the Owens' victory. The 23d revealed just how hollow the tealagger strength truly is. All huffnpuff but no stuff.

Hoffman was a Third party Candidate and loss by less than the lonely white guy in the picture in the Very Blue State of NJ

Hoffman, the Third Party Candidate.

Not a Republican.

Not a Democrat like the 2 men shown above

Third Party Candidate

Well if that's something to cheer about then I wish you all sorts of luck in garnering many more conservative third party second place finishes in 2010.

Did you read my Other NY Electiuon thread?

3 term Dem incumbent Andy Spano was booted in Westcehster County which voted 65% for the Marxist Muslim! That's in a year!

The Country is saying: We can no longer afford Democrats!

 

[ayiakri]

3 term Dem incumbent Andy Spano was booted in Westcehster County which voted 65% for the Marxist Muslim! That's in a year!

The Country is saying: We can no longer afford Democrats!

Um... sounds more like Westchester County was saying, "we can no longer support Andy Spano".

And seriously, who gives a crap? I mean, really? That's your best retort? That some Democratic guy nobody's ever heard of lost a county-level election?



Your magic is weak, man... meanwhile, in other news, the Democrats just increased their majority in Congress by two, going from 256 to 258, with Republicans at 177.

Even knowing that the Democrats will lose some seat next year (they have far more to lose, and historically, the party in power loses seats in the off-years), it won't be enough, with people like you representing the views of Republicans.

Every time you open your mouth, or write a post, somewhere, a unicorn dies (and yet another wavering independent thinks, "if THAT'S the GOP, I'll hold my nose and vote Democrat again").

By all means, keep up the great work for our side!

 

[California Girl]

45% of the vote in NY23 went to an underfunded, late entry that was unsupported by either major party. As an indicator, to anyone with a political brain, that is not good for either the DNC or the GOP. While the droolers may scream about who won etc, those who actually get it, will still be looking at NY23 as a 'holy fuck' for both major parties.

Whether you like it or not, the political animals are asking how that would play on a national level.

 

[ayiakri]

45% of the vote in NY23 went to an underfunded, late entry that was unsupported by either major party. As an indicator, to anyone with a political brain, that is not good for either the DNC or the GOP. While the droolers may scream about who won etc, those who actually get it, will still be looking at NY23 as a 'holy fuck' for both major parties.

Whether you like it or not, the political animals are asking how that would play on a national level.

I think I've demonstrated in my posts that I've got as much of a brain as you do, and my analysis is a bit different (and more in line with that in this week's Economist).

Winning NY's 23rd district wasn't any kind of endorsement of the Democratic party - but it was a clear screw-up by the GOP, which - lacking any actual leaders with clout - split their support between the Republican, and the Conservative-party candidate. And so, a district that went to the GOP last election with 65% of the vote was picked up by the Democrats, giving them one more vote for the Health Care bill (which will possibly pass today, with the help of Owens, who is voting for it).

So to the Democrats - who have watched the Republican party control that House seat since 1852, this was just a chance at getting a momentary, tactical win from the confusion and intra-party squabbles in the GOP.

It wasn't any kind of shot across the bow that Hoffman managed to do as well as he did - at least, not a shot across the bow to the Democrats, who lose by a wide margin to the Republican there year, after year, after year. It *was* a clear signal that the GOP is potentially fracturing along the moderate/extreme conservatism fault-line that the party was able to straddle for so long.

It's also a sign of what could happen in other districts, if the far-right conservatives start mounting serious primary challenges to other "moderate" Republicans next fall - they could end up splitting the vote, and handing what would have been a clean win to a Democrat. Whether that really happens or not - most districts don't have a strong third-party, unlike D23 - remains to be seen.

At the end of the day, the GOP had one meaningful win, and that was in Virginia, which Democratic strategists are no doubt concerned about. New Jersey was sort of expected - Corzine was very unpopular, and even Obama's personal visits could only do so much, and it wasn't enough to save him from a the Republican, who actually ran a pretty good campaign (and hopefully will clean up some of the massive corruption in the state).

The Dems had one tactical win - NY 23 - but it was only "meaningful" in the sense that they're hoping Sarah Palin and company duplicate that "kill the RINOs" pattern next fall, to minimize losses in the House and Senate.

Right now, it's 258 - 177 in the House, and 60 - 38 (+2 Dem-leaning indies) in the Senate. It's hard to imagine the GOP losing any more seats, since they really don't have that many to lose, but it's equally hard to imagine that they'll retake either house (it's virtually impossible for them to take the Senate, only 1/3 of members are up for re-election).

It's frustrating, even for me, as a moderate Democrat, because I don't really like to see any party enjoy unfettered power for too long (although it's better when Dems do, they're so disorganized, it takes longer for them to really abuse the power), but I think it's good that the GOP is going thru this "battle for the soul of the GOP", because ultimately, the moderates will win that battle: not only do the moderates outnumber the hard-right conservatives (witness McCain's nomination over less moderate candidates), but a hard-right platform is one that will never win a majority of American votes - and so it's a recipe for permanent "minority party" status.

Eventually, when they're tired of losing elections and having a smaller and smaller say in government, the moderate Republicans will re-take control of the party, and shift it back to the center. Anyone with a political brain (as you put it) can see that this is almost inevitable, including Republicans like Newt Gingrich (who I can't stand, but he's no idiot), and Huckabee (who has recently said that the GOP can accommodate "moderate" republicans like Scozzafava).

In the meantime, both sides are spinning the story, but the bottom line is that the GOP handed the seat to the Dems as a result of their intra-party battle between the "establishment" GOP and this uprising by the tea-baggers and Palinites.

 

[Ravi]

The sad fact of the matter is that no candidate can win on the national stage without the support of one of the major parties. No money, no win.

 

[Si modo]

The sad fact of the matter is that no candidate can win on the national stage without the support of one of the major parties. No money, no win.

Too true and it is sad.

 

[California Girl]

45% of the vote in NY23 went to an underfunded, late entry that was unsupported by either major party. As an indicator, to anyone with a political brain, that is not good for either the DNC or the GOP. While the droolers may scream about who won etc, those who actually get it, will still be looking at NY23 as a 'holy fuck' for both major parties.

Whether you like it or not, the political animals are asking how that would play on a national level.

I think I've demonstrated in my posts that I've got as much of a brain as you do, and my analysis is a bit different (and more in line with that in this week's Economist).

Winning NY's 23rd district wasn't any kind of endorsement of the Democratic party - but it was a clear screw-up by the GOP, which - lacking any actual leaders with clout - split their support between the Republican, and the Conservative-party candidate. And so, a district that went to the GOP last election with 65% of the vote was picked up by the Democrats, giving them one more vote for the Health Care bill (which will possibly pass today, with the help of Owens, who is voting for it).

So to the Democrats - who have watched the Republican party control that House seat since 1852, this was just a chance at getting a momentary, tactical win from the confusion and intra-party squabbles in the GOP.

It wasn't any kind of shot across the bow that Hoffman managed to do as well as he did - at least, not a shot across the bow to the Democrats, who lose by a wide margin to the Republican there year, after year, after year. It *was* a clear signal that the GOP is potentially fracturing along the moderate/extreme conservatism fault-line that the party was able to straddle for so long.

It's also a sign of what could happen in other districts, if the far-right conservatives start mounting serious primary challenges to other "moderate" Republicans next fall - they could end up splitting the vote, and handing what would have been a clean win to a Democrat. Whether that really happens or not - most districts don't have a strong third-party, unlike D23 - remains to be seen.

At the end of the day, the GOP had one meaningful win, and that was in Virginia, which Democratic strategists are no doubt concerned about. New Jersey was sort of expected - Corzine was very unpopular, and even Obama's personal visits could only do so much, and it wasn't enough to save him from a the Republican, who actually ran a pretty good campaign (and hopefully will clean up some of the massive corruption in the state).

The Dems had one tactical win - NY 23 - but it was only "meaningful" in the sense that they're hoping Sarah Palin and company duplicate that "kill the RINOs" pattern next fall, to minimize losses in the House and Senate.

Right now, it's 258 - 177 in the House, and 60 - 38 (+2 Dem-leaning indies) in the Senate. It's hard to imagine the GOP losing any more seats, since they really don't have that many to lose, but it's equally hard to imagine that they'll retake either house (it's virtually impossible for them to take the Senate, only 1/3 of members are up for re-election).

It's frustrating, even for me, as a moderate Democrat, because I don't really like to see any party enjoy unfettered power for too long (although it's better when Dems do, they're so disorganized, it takes longer for them to really abuse the power), but I think it's good that the GOP is going thru this "battle for the soul of the GOP", because ultimately, the moderates will win that battle: not only do the moderates outnumber the hard-right conservatives (witness McCain's nomination over less moderate candidates), but a hard-right platform is one that will never win a majority of American votes - and so it's a recipe for permanent "minority party" status.

Eventually, when they're tired of losing elections and having a smaller and smaller say in government, the moderate Republicans will re-take control of the party, and shift it back to the center. Anyone with a political brain (as you put it) can see that this is almost inevitable, including Republicans like Newt Gingrich (who I can't stand, but he's no idiot), and Huckabee (who has recently said that the GOP can accommodate "moderate" republicans like Scozzafava).

In the meantime, both sides are spinning the story, but the bottom line is that the GOP handed the seat to the Dems as a result of their intra-party battle between the "establishment" GOP and this uprising by the tea-baggers and Palinites.

With lesss than 40 posts, I doubt you've demonstrated much at all.

However, when I talk about those with 'political brains', I mean the politicians - not the followers on either side.

Bottom line, 45% of the vote went to someone unsupported by either party. Whatever we say, our politicians will be looking at that 45% as a rather troubling statistic.

 

[ayiakri]

With lesss than 40 posts, I doubt you've demonstrated much at all.

Nice ad hominem attack there, rather than either addressing the quality of the posts I've made, or the points I made in this particular post. Nice try at deflection, but you've now demonstrated that you'll resort to irrelevant post-counts as if they're meaningful. Very very weak on your part.

However, when I talk about those with 'political brains', I mean the politicians - not the followers on either side.

So, your assertion is that only politicians have "political brains", then. That would rule out Sarah Palin, Al Gore, Newt Gingrinch, Mike Huckabee, and most of the rest of the pundits and strategists analyzing the elections, unless you're using your own made-up definition of "politician". And if we assume for a moment that you are just making it up as you go along, the idea that only politicians have "political brains" still doesn't follow.

Great non sequiter, though!

Bottom line, 45% of the vote went to someone unsupported by either party. Whatever we say, our politicians will be looking at that 45% as a rather troubling statistic.

What bull$hit. "unsupported by either party" - WTF are you talking about? With major GOP figures, including Palin, Dick Army, and just about every elected Republican in the district (and much of the country) endorsing Hoffman, he absolutely was supported by the Republican party.

To pretend that Hoffman's candidacy was akin to Ross Perot's (an actual 3rd-party candidate, unsupported by either major party, however nutty he turned out to be), is just you being this:

 

[California Girl]

With lesss than 40 posts, I doubt you've demonstrated much at all.

Nice ad hominem attack there, rather than either addressing the quality of the posts I've made, or the points I made in this particular post. Nice try at deflection, but you've now demonstrated that you'll resort to irrelevant post-counts as if they're meaningful. Very very weak on your part.

However, when I talk about those with 'political brains', I mean the politicians - not the followers on either side.

So, your assertion is that only politicians have "political brains", then. That would rule out Sarah Palin, Al Gore, Newt Gingrinch, Mike Huckabee, and most of the rest of the pundits and strategists analyzing the elections, unless you're using your own made-up definition of "politician". And if we assume for a moment that you are just making it up as you go along, the idea that only politicians have "political brains" still doesn't follow.

Great non sequiter, though!

Bottom line, 45% of the vote went to someone unsupported by either party. Whatever we say, our politicians will be looking at that 45% as a rather troubling statistic.

What bull$hit. "unsupported by either party" - WTF are you talking about? With major GOP figures, including Palin, Dick Army, and just about every elected Republican in the district (and much of the country) endorsing Hoffman, he absolutely was supported by the Republican party.

To pretend that Hoffman's candidacy was akin to Ross Perot's (an actual 3rd-party candidate, unsupported by either major party, however nutty he turned out to be), is just you being this:

Do you assume everything is an attack. A comment about your post count wasn't meant to 'attack' you, it was an observation. Who can really tell much about someone from 40 posts? I try not to judge on first impressions - and I sometimes agree with someone of a completely different poltiical perspective to me.

What I can now say about you is that you're an idiot and a whiner. Carry on.

 

[Si modo]

45% of the vote in NY23 went to an underfunded, late entry that was unsupported by either major party. As an indicator, to anyone with a political brain, that is not good for either the DNC or the GOP. While the droolers may scream about who won etc, those who actually get it, will still be looking at NY23 as a 'holy fuck' for both major parties.

Whether you like it or not, the political animals are asking how that would play on a national level.

I think I've demonstrated in my posts that I've got as much of a brain as you do, and my analysis is a bit different (and more in line with that in this week's Economist).

Winning NY's 23rd district wasn't any kind of endorsement of the Democratic party - but it was a clear screw-up by the GOP, which - lacking any actual leaders with clout - split their support between the Republican, and the Conservative-party candidate. And so, a district that went to the GOP last election with 65% of the vote was picked up by the Democrats, giving them one more vote for the Health Care bill (which will possibly pass today, with the help of Owens, who is voting for it).

So to the Democrats - who have watched the Republican party control that House seat since 1852, this was just a chance at getting a momentary, tactical win from the confusion and intra-party squabbles in the GOP.

It wasn't any kind of shot across the bow that Hoffman managed to do as well as he did - at least, not a shot across the bow to the Democrats, who lose by a wide margin to the Republican there year, after year, after year. It *was* a clear signal that the GOP is potentially fracturing along the moderate/extreme conservatism fault-line that the party was able to straddle for so long.

It's also a sign of what could happen in other districts, if the far-right conservatives start mounting serious primary challenges to other "moderate" Republicans next fall - they could end up splitting the vote, and handing what would have been a clean win to a Democrat. Whether that really happens or not - most districts don't have a strong third-party, unlike D23 - remains to be seen.

At the end of the day, the GOP had one meaningful win, and that was in Virginia, which Democratic strategists are no doubt concerned about. New Jersey was sort of expected - Corzine was very unpopular, and even Obama's personal visits could only do so much, and it wasn't enough to save him from a the Republican, who actually ran a pretty good campaign (and hopefully will clean up some of the massive corruption in the state).

The Dems had one tactical win - NY 23 - but it was only "meaningful" in the sense that they're hoping Sarah Palin and company duplicate that "kill the RINOs" pattern next fall, to minimize losses in the House and Senate.

Right now, it's 258 - 177 in the House, and 60 - 38 (+2 Dem-leaning indies) in the Senate. It's hard to imagine the GOP losing any more seats, since they really don't have that many to lose, but it's equally hard to imagine that they'll retake either house (it's virtually impossible for them to take the Senate, only 1/3 of members are up for re-election).

It's frustrating, even for me, as a moderate Democrat, because I don't really like to see any party enjoy unfettered power for too long (although it's better when Dems do, they're so disorganized, it takes longer for them to really abuse the power), but I think it's good that the GOP is going thru this "battle for the soul of the GOP", because ultimately, the moderates will win that battle: not only do the moderates outnumber the hard-right conservatives (witness McCain's nomination over less moderate candidates), but a hard-right platform is one that will never win a majority of American votes - and so it's a recipe for permanent "minority party" status.

Eventually, when they're tired of losing elections and having a smaller and smaller say in government, the moderate Republicans will re-take control of the party, and shift it back to the center. Anyone with a political brain (as you put it) can see that this is almost inevitable, including Republicans like Newt Gingrich (who I can't stand, but he's no idiot), and Huckabee (who has recently said that the GOP can accommodate "moderate" republicans like Scozzafava).

In the meantime, both sides are spinning the story, but the bottom line is that the GOP handed the seat to the Dems as a result of their intra-party battle between the "establishment" GOP and this uprising by the tea-baggers and Palinites.

With lesss than 40 posts, I doubt you've demonstrated much at all.

However, when I talk about those with 'political brains', I mean the politicians - not the followers on either side.

Bottom line, 45% of the vote went to someone unsupported by either party. Whatever we say, our politicians will be looking at that 45% as a rather troubling statistic.

As well they should. Both parties need some serious reality checks.

 

[ayiakri]

Do you assume everything is an attack. A comment about your post count wasn't meant to 'attack' you, it was an observation. Who can really tell much about someone from 40 posts? I try not to judge on first impressions - and I sometimes agree with someone of a completely different poltiical perspective to me.

What I can now say about you is that you're an idiot and a whiner. Carry on.

So, again, rather than refute a single thing I said - you resort to ad hominem attacks, accusing me of being an "idiot" and a "whiner", when I think most people here would acknowledge that I'm neither. Not that my being an idiot or not has any bearing at all on the points I've made.

Maybe you should look up the meaning of "ad hominem", so you can see what a total fuc&tard you are being? Do you know what "reasoned debate" is, or should we all just assume that you'll attack the messenger on the basis of post-counts in a seriously-weak attempt to "discredit the messenger"?

I really expected more, but I maybe I hope for too much in the way of opposition. When you're ready to debate the merits of an argument vs. my IQ, or post-count, or height in mm, or some other irrelevant bullshit, please let me know, so I'll know to bother replying again.


Are there any sane conservatives out there, or is it all "smear the messenger, ignore the message" types? How pathetic if that's the best you've got, LOL.