Wingnuts get their asses kicked

[Flopper]

A couple local referendums does not negate Obama's $1,5000,000,000,00 debt, deficits, collapsing Obamacare, feckless foreign policy, inflation, rampant unemployment, support for Marxists and other assorted fruitcakes crapping in the public square, Wall Street & union bailouts, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, etc.

But keep telling yourself he's going win in 2012.

Referendums votes are a much more important indicator of voter opinion than candidate votes. Candidates get elected for a lot of reasons that have nothing to with the issues.

yes you have a point, I don't totally agree as it depends, in any case, so what do we take from the result of the vote which had a higher plurality ala Obamacare and the mandate?

It doesn't matter what the issue is, a vote for or against an issue is the strongest indicator of how those particular voters feel about the issue, much better than a poll. Candidates pay attention to these votes because it helps them construct their campaign to appeal to voters in that state. For example, Obama might downplay healthcare in Ohio and be more likely to voice a pro-choice statement in Mississippi.

 

[bripat9643]

In 2010, Republicans won big -- by gaining the votes of slightly more than 20% of the people. (A slim majority of 41% voter turnout.)

Misinterpreting this result as a mandate for radical change is WHY they got their heads handed to them this week in these elections.

Continuing to misinterpret the 2010 election in the same way will result in similar GOP losses next year.

Obama and the Dims interpreted 52% of the vote as a mandate to plunge this country into socialism. That's why they got their asses handed to them in 2010.

 

[bripat9643]

2006 and 2008 were both mandates and calls for action. The Democrats screwed the pooch because they DIDN'T act in accordance with that call.

I know that right-wingers like to pretend, or perhaps fool themselves, that the Democrats overreached and the public reacted against this in 2010, but that isn't in accord with the facts. Neither part of it is. The Democrats didn't overreach, they under-reached. And the voters didn't switch sides; liberal voters stayed home in disgust.

20+%. That's all ya got. It's not enough, unless the other side doesn't show up.

"Denial" is not a river in Egypt. You're only deluding yourself. Americans reject socialism. The great thing about the Dim overreach is that Americans finally woke up to what Dims are all about: socialism, looting, ever bigger government.

 

[The T]

That's Bush's fault. Besides, it's awesome when Obama does it.

But still viable to blame Bush...

Exactly. Obama deserves the credit and Bush deserves the blame -- for the exact same thing.

This is the liberal mindset.

And clearly illustrates the duplicity of the left...they cannot garner power but to travel two directions at once...they live in an alternate universe of blatent lies.

It's that simple.

 

[Trajan]

Referendums votes are a much more important indicator of voter opinion than candidate votes. Candidates get elected for a lot of reasons that have nothing to with the issues.

yes you have a point, I don't totally agree as it depends, in any case, so what do we take from the result of the vote which had a higher plurality ala Obamacare and the mandate?

It doesn't matter what the issue is, a vote for or against an issue is the strongest indicator of how those particular voters feel about the issue, much better than a poll. Candidates pay attention to these votes because it helps them construct their campaign to appeal to voters in that state. For example, Obama might downplay healthcare in Ohio and be more likely to voice a pro-choice statement in Mississippi.

uhm yes, thats like saying breathing air is a sign of life. viola'.

obamacare is a nation wide issue, and hello, hes not going to run on it anywhere but select townhalls in blue states, so, in effect you are saying that this is a standalone? you attach no negative inference for obama? I'd day it would be better for obama IF the SC ruled against the mandate, they clearly feel very very strongly about it.

and frankly, I don't think obama could get away with anything but a pro choice statement.

 

[Listening]

The "Papers, Please" Arizona Legislator has also been kicked to the curb.

When you are too wingnutty for Arizona, you are a radical fringe extremist.

He was replaced by a conservative who wasn't such a jackass.

If you feel the need to count this one, you are in bigger trouble than I thought.

I think you should enjoy your "victories" because it is going to be a GOP senate in 2012 and more Tea Party types in the house.

I look forward to Obama's bus ride back to Chicago.

 

[daveman]

But still viable to blame Bush...

Exactly. Obama deserves the credit and Bush deserves the blame -- for the exact same thing.

This is the liberal mindset.

And clearly illustrates the duplicity of the left...they cannot garner power but to travel two directions at once...they live in an alternate universe of blatent lies.

It's that simple.

Indeed. Leftists have a remarkable capacity for self-deception.

 

[Flopper]

yes you have a point, I don't totally agree as it depends, in any case, so what do we take from the result of the vote which had a higher plurality ala Obamacare and the mandate?

It doesn't matter what the issue is, a vote for or against an issue is the strongest indicator of how those particular voters feel about the issue, much better than a poll. Candidates pay attention to these votes because it helps them construct their campaign to appeal to voters in that state. For example, Obama might downplay healthcare in Ohio and be more likely to voice a pro-choice statement in Mississippi.

uhm yes, thats like saying breathing air is a sign of life. viola'.

obamacare is a nation wide issue, and hello, hes not going to run on it anywhere but select townhalls in blue states, so, in effect you are saying that this is a standalone? you attach no negative inference for obama? I'd day it would be better for obama IF the SC ruled against the mandate, they clearly feel very very strongly about it.

and frankly, I don't think obama could get away with anything but a pro choice statement.

In Mississippi, it makes no difference. Mississippi has only voted once for a Democratic presidential nominee in 40 years and they're not going to start now. I doubt he will even campaign there.

The healthcare law is not popular with Democrats or Republicans but for very different reasons. Democrats want Obamacare repealed and replaced with a plan run by government not the insurance companies. I suspect both candidates will have a healthcare plan as part of their platform.

 

[Element187]

Good grief. you people are such HACKS. So the PEOPLE voted on a few things in their states. How the **** does that help the Obama..

Why is it that whenever the Dems win something it's just a "few things in their state"?

But when the Reps win something it amounts to a national referendum?

Because a republican winning Anthony Weiner's seat for the first time in 90 years pretty amazing..... Btw who won Ted Kennedy's seat?

 

[Synthaholic]

As far as Kentucky goes, though, is it really all that great to have Steve Beshear kept in office?

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.

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%

 

[Synthaholic]

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...

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.

 

[Dragon]

Obama and the Dims interpreted 52% of the vote as a mandate to plunge this country into socialism. That's why they got their asses handed to them in 2010.

No, they didn't, and no, it isn't. If your first sentence was true, they would have won last year.

 

[Synthaholic]

Why is it that whenever the Dems win something it's just a "few things in their state"?

But when the Reps win something it amounts to a national referendum?

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

Scott Brown....

HA! You answer, and then this wingnut validates your answer!

Good grief. you people are such HACKS. So the PEOPLE voted on a few things in their states. How the **** does that help the Obama..

Why is it that whenever the Dems win something it's just a "few things in their state"?

But when the Reps win something it amounts to a national referendum?

Because a republican winning Anthony Weiner's seat for the first time in 90 years pretty amazing..... Btw who won Ted Kennedy's seat?

Like clockwork!

 

[Listening]

​

Obama and the Dims interpreted 52% of the vote as a mandate to plunge this country into socialism. That's why they got their asses handed to them in 2010.

No, they didn't, and no, it isn't. If your first sentence was true, they would have won last year.

That was good for a laugh.

Thanks.

If they had plunged the country in socialism they would have won in 2010 ? I guess the Tea Party just exists in my brain.

 

[Synthaholic]

​

Obama and the Dims interpreted 52% of the vote as a mandate to plunge this country into socialism. That's why they got their asses handed to them in 2010.

No, they didn't, and no, it isn't. If your first sentence was true, they would have won last year.

That was good for a laugh.

Thanks.

If they had plunged the country in socialism they would have won in 2010 ? I guess the Tea Party just exists in my brain.

And soon, just in your memory.

 

[Dragon]

[
If they had plunged the country in socialism they would have won in 2010 ? I guess the Tea Party just exists in my brain.

No, it exists in about 20% of the real country.

The Republicans won last year because there was an organized on-line movement on the left to sit the election out as a protest against the Democrats tacking to the right. If the Democrats had governed substantially to the left of where they did in 2009-10, that movement would not have existed, and the Democrats would have won.

 

[Conservative]

Why is it that whenever the Dems win something it's just a "few things in their state"?

But when the Reps win something it amounts to a national referendum?

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?

 

[Listening]

[
If they had plunged the country in socialism they would have won in 2010 ? I guess the Tea Party just exists in my brain.

No, it exists in about 20% of the real country.

The Republicans won last year because there was an organized on-line movement on the left to sit the election out as a protest against the Democrats tacking to the right. If the Democrats had governed substantially to the left of where they did in 2009-10, that movement would not have existed, and the Democrats would have won.

You must be high.

First, it does not matter what the total percentage is in the country. It only matters what percentage exists in specific districts. You will see more Tea Party types in congress next year.

Had they governed more to the left, they would have lost what moderate support they had in 2010 (whch wasn't much) and you would be looking at a majority in the senate. As it is, that will happe in 2012 and President Obama is toast.

Get out there and campaign though. You are going to need all you can get because pretty soon your voice will disappear altogether from the relevent public arenas.

 

[Listening]

That was good for a laugh.

Thanks.

If they had plunged the country in socialism they would have won in 2010 ? I guess the Tea Party just exists in my brain.

And soon, just in your memory.[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes.....I know.

Your wet dream in print.

 

[Dragon]

First, it does not matter what the total percentage is in the country. It only matters what percentage exists in specific districts. You will see more Tea Party types in congress next year.

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.

Had they governed more to the left, they would have lost what moderate support they had in 2010 (whch wasn't much) and you would be looking at a majority in the senate.

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.