Donks lose Weiner's Seat in Special Election

[89Hen]

Grumpy, Sneezy, Dopey, Huey, Dewey, Luey, Curly and The Cunt:

I don't disagree, but they will still be enough to beat Obama. The rats are jumping the Dem ship faster than you jump an underage Chinese girl with a six pack and tin of Grizzly.

[CitadelGrad]

If Turner is smart, he'll wipe that seat down with Lysol and bleach before he sits in it. There's no telling what Weiner left behind.

[D1B]

Grumpy, Sneezy, Dopey, Huey, Dewey, Luey, Curly and The Cunt:

I don't disagree, but they will still be enough to beat Obama. The rats are jumping the Dem ship faster than you jump an underage Chinese girl with a six pack and tin of Grizzly.

Wanna bet?

[JohnStOnge]

To me it means very little. Basically, you have a majority of the population that knows what it wants in terms of the basic long term direction of the country. That majority is split between those who like to see the country go in a "leftward" direction and those who would like to see the country go in a "rightward" direction.

Then you have a minority of people who really have no idea as to what they want in terms of the long term direction. And they flip back and forth with the wind. The wind is blowing against the left at this moment. In 2008 it was blowing against the right.

What gets me is that these people who have no idea as to what they really want in terms of governmental approach are lauded as the thoughtful and smart ones.

And if you're somebody who voted for Weiner last time then this guy this time you have no idea. You really don't.

[BlueHen86]

To me it means very little. Basically, you have a majority of the population that knows what it wants in terms of the basic long term direction of the country. That majority is split between those who like to see the country go in a "leftward" direction and those who would like to see the country go in a "rightward" direction.

Then you have a minority of people who really have no idea as to what they want in terms of the long term direction. And they flip back and forth with the wind. The wind is blowing against the left at this moment. In 2008 it was blowing against the right.

What gets me is that these people who have no idea as to what they really want in terms of governmental approach are lauded as the thoughtful and smart ones.

And if you're somebody who voted for Weiner last time then this guy this time you have no idea. You really don't.

Compared to the people who vote strictly along party lines they are the thoughtful and smart ones. Are you saying that you will vote for the GOP candidate for President no matter who it is? Not just in 2012 but in any year? It's one thing to agree with the majority of a parties platform, it's another to recognize that the candidate they nominate may not be the best person to promote it.

You also disregard the fact that maybe people aren't in lock step with all of a parties platform. For example, there are some donk things I like and some conk things I like. If a candidate runs on a platform that I don't like I don't vote for him but I have to listen to what he says to know where he stands.

[JohnStOnge]

Compared to the people who vote strictly along party lines they are the thoughtful and smart ones.

I don't think that they are, particularly with respect to Congressional elections. Which party has a majority in each house of Congress is critically important to the direction that house of Congress will take. It's obsolete now but what I used to say was something like, "If you vote for a Democrat in your State's Senatorial election, you are voting for Ted Kennedy to be Chair of the Judiciary Committee."

If you think that the individual merits of the two candidates involved are the most important factor with respect to the direction of the country in any particular Senate or Congressional election, you are mistaken. What party holds the majority is the most important factor.

[BlueHen86]

Compared to the people who vote strictly along party lines they are the thoughtful and smart ones.

I don't think that they are, particularly with respect to Congressional elections. Which party has a majority in each house of Congress is critically important to the direction that house of Congress will take. It's obsolete now but what I used to say was something like, "If you vote for a Democrat in your State's Senatorial election, you are voting for Ted Kennedy to be Chair of the Judiciary Committee."

If you think that the individual merits of the two candidates involved are the most important factor with respect to the direction of the country in any particular Senate or Congressional election, you are mistaken. What party holds the majority is the most important factor.

So, if candidate A is clearly superior to candidate B you don't care. All you care about is which party they represent. Yeah, that's really thoughtful and smart.

Holding the majority only matters if people vote along party lines. That doesn't always happen, you need to listen to the candidates when they campaign.

[free7694]

Wasn't it just a couple month ago that KY, Cat and Hound were saying the GOP was in trouble?

What? You think they aren't?????

Look at all those assholes lined up at Republican debates!!!!






Grumpy, Sneezy, Dopey, Huey, Dewey, Luey, Curly and The Cunt:

All eight people in that photo would be better presidents than Barack Obama. Granted, that's like lining up 8 FCS football teams and saying they're all better than UNC, but still...

[BlueHen86]

What? You think they aren't?????

Look at all those assholes lined up at Republican debates!!!!






Grumpy, Sneezy, Dopey, Huey, Dewey, Luey, Curly and The Cunt:

All eight people in that photo would be better presidents than Barack Obama. Granted, that's like lining up 8 FCS football teams and saying they're all better than UNC, but still...

No. There are at least three that I don't think would be better than Obama. Even if you think Perry and Bachman are okay, Santorum is just nuts.

Why is he even there?

[JohnStOnge]

So, if candidate A is clearly superior to candidate B you don't care. All you care about is which party they represent.

Under most circumstances, if it's a congressional election, yes. That's if "superior" means they appear to be a more capable person, etc. Again, the individual is not as important to the direction of the country as which Party is in control. Surely you can see that.

Of course, in the overwhelming majority of the cases, I am more in line with the Republican's overall set of positions anyway. For instance: If I"m voting in a Senate election chances are the Republican's view of how a Supreme Court Justice should approach the Constitution is more in line with what I favor than the Democrat's view will be.

Holding the majority only matters if people vote along party lines. That doesn't always happen, you need to listen to the candidates when they campaign.

People may not vote entirely along Party lines but the Party in the majority is going to control the committees and the chairmanships. Also, in general, the overwhelming majority of members of each Party will vote in a manner consistent with the Party leaders' positions.

For example: If the Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate right now, that would impact how far Obama could go if he has another opportunity to make a Supreme Court Justice nomination. The fact that the Democrats would hold a filibuster proof majority would mean he could go farther left.

I think it's ironic that people think one is being more "thoughtful" by ignoring the forest for the trees. They are apparently blind to the big picture. And it's not that I love the Repulbican Party. It's a lesser of two evils thing. It just happens that the Republican Party is the only thing in position to at least slow the degradation precipitated by the Democratic Party.

[BlueHen86]

So, if candidate A is clearly superior to candidate B you don't care. All you care about is which party they represent.

Under most circumstances, if it's a congressional election, yes. That's if "superior" means they appear to be a more capable person, etc. Again, the individual is not as important to the direction of the country as which Party is in control. Surely you can see that.

Of course, in the overwhelming majority of the cases, I am more in line with the Republican's overall set of positions anyway. For instance: If I"m voting in a Senate election chances are the Republican's view of how a Supreme Court Justice should approach the Constitution is more in line with what I favor than the Democrat's view will be.

Holding the majority only matters if people vote along party lines. That doesn't always happen, you need to listen to the candidates when they campaign.

People may not vote entirely along Party lines but the Party in the majority is going to control the committees and the chairmanships. Also, in general, the overwhelming majority of members of each Party will vote in a manner consistent with the Party leaders' positions.

For example: If the Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate right now, that would impact how far Obama could go if he has another opportunity to make a Supreme Court Justice nomination. The fact that the Democrats would hold a filibuster proof majority would mean he could go farther left.

I think it's ironic that people think one is being more "thoughtful" by ignoring the forest for the trees. They are apparently blind to the big picture. And it's not that I love the Repulbican Party. It's a lesser of two evils thing. It just happens that the Republican Party is the only thing in position to at least slow the degradation precipitated by the Democratic Party.

Okay, so you vote strictly along party lines and that makes you "thoughtful".

If you agree with all the of GOP platform, then vote GOP, if you agree with all of the Dem platform then vote Dem. But not everyone agrees with all of either parties platform, sometimes they have to see which issues are more important to a specific candidate.

I don't believe that the Dems are responsible for slow degradtion, I think both parties have done a great job contributing to that problem and I don't think either party can or will fix all of our problems. I rather try and send good people to DC instead of blindly following party lines.

[native]

Palin may have been a mistake but not the reason he lost. Republicans had no shot to win the presidency in 2008.

It was extremely doubtful originally. With the banking issues (leading to more issues) popping up 2 months before the election, that sealed the deal.

Well stated.

[native]

...

I don't believe that the Dems are responsible for slow degration, I think both parties have done a great job contributing to that problem and I don't think either party can or will fix all of our problems. I rather try and send good people to DC instead of blindly following party lines.

Precisely correct problem analysis!

Wrong problem resolution, however.

The solution is approximately:
10% Democrat policies
40% Republican policies
50% Libertarian policies
0% "Progressive/Socialist/Communist" policies

[native]

Grumpy, Sneezy, Dopey, Huey, Dewey, Luey, Curly and The kitty:

I don't disagree, but they will still be enough to beat Obama. The rats are jumping the Dem ship faster than you jump an underage Chinese girl with a six pack and tin of Grizzly.

[native]

DNC Chief Wasserman Schultz On Dem Loss Of Weiner’s NY Seat:

“It’s a Very Difficult District For Democrats”

Reality: Seat Has Been In Dem Hands Since 1922…