DescentBB

Well, Virginia elected a governor of the same party as the President for the first time in over 40 years. And, New Jersey, very Democratic, re-elected a Republican. It was an interesting night to watch returns, and wonder what lessons will be learned. I think the establishment GOP wanted to send a real message to the Tea Party wing last night, but might have failed. McCauliffe did win in VA, but only by around 3.5%, which I suspect Tea Party types will construe as lack of support and money from the establishment preventing Cuccinelli's victory. They will overlook the fact that the straight-up race between a true, hardcore TP choice(Jackson for Lt Gov) and a Dem who had actual experience and likeability(both lacked by McCauliffe)resulted in a 14% defeat for them. They will overlook the exit polls that claimed that most people who voted Dem did so because the DIDN'T like the GOP candidate.
The current roll-out issues with Obamacare closened up the race in the last two weeks, but the shutdown stuck around with the voters(Virginia got hit hard, as I've noted before). Given that McCauliffe will expand Medicaid, and help a few hundred thousand people get affordable health insurance, it will be worth seeing down the road how the whole ACA thing plays in VA come 2014.
In New Jersey, Christie rolled, and gave an interesting acceptance speech that was an obvious Presidential campaign kickoff. It will be fascinating to see if the very deep pockets behind him(nicknamed the 'Billionaire's Club) can get him past the GOP rank and file in the primaries. If so, a race between Christie and Clinton would be one for the ages.

A couple of things:

1) If the Dems want to pin their hopes on the baggage ridden Hillary then you will see a Repub. in the Whitehouse. But who knows, maybe the Dems will have another Obama hiding in the wings who decides to run and makes tired elderly looking Hillary look just that, winning the nomination. Whoever in the Dems pick will still have a hard time overcoming 8 years of failure by the preceding President.

2) One of the main reasons people vote anymore is a result of who they dislike more, not necessarily that their party choice is the better person. How the VA (and the country as a whole) electorate vote in 2014 and 2016 will be on how much they dislike one candidate over another. The Dems better fix the AHC and have Obama stop lying about what he said or the blood bath against Dems in 2010 will look like tepid bath water in comparison.

3) Your comment about expanding Medicaid as a means to take care of the un-insured, makes me wonder why this easy a fix was not implemented on the federal level instead of passing a bill that fixes nothing and created more problems than there were before AHC.

woodchip wrote:A couple of things:

1) If the Dems want to pin their hopes on the baggage ridden Hillary then you will see a Repub. in the Whitehouse. But who knows, maybe the Dems will have another Obama hiding in the wings who decides to run and makes tired elderly looking Hillary look just that, winning the nomination. Whoever in the Dems pick will still have a hard time overcoming 8 years of failure by the preceding President.

odd, I heard a long-time REPUBLICAN strategist say, just last night, the Hillary has 'no appreciable baggage', when assessing a race against Christie. I think you are buying the propaganda from the far right that never has stuck yet. Especially telling is that you think the Dem choice is critical. The choice WILL BE Hillary, with the proposition of being the first Woman President on her side. The folks who have to choose carefully are the Republicans,and everyone with a realistic view of politics knows it. Pick Ted Cruz, Rand Paul or the like, and get crushed. Christie, and you have yourself a race, but then have to beware of a lot of extreme right-wingers sitting it out or running a third candidate. 2016, barring any change in the status quo STRONGLY favors the Dems, just due to sheer demographics. Last night in VA, Cuccinelli won white folks by a 2 percent margin, but got absolutely crushed by every immigrant group from South Asians to Hispanics, and Black voters, as well. Further, it can be noted by exit polls, nearly 60% of voters self-describe as moderates. That group is rejecting the GOP right wing VERY strongly, at present.

2) One of the main reasons people vote anymore is a result of who they dislike more, not necessarily that their party choice is the better person. How the VA (and the country as a whole) electorate vote in 2014 and 2016 will be on how much they dislike one candidate over another. The Dems better fix the AHC and have Obama stop lying about what he said or the blood bath against Dems in 2010 will look like tepid bath water in comparison.

can't disagree with much here at all. In fact, I'd add that the voters are not only negative, in general, but possessed of selective and short memory.

3) Your comment about expanding Medicaid as a means to take care of the un-insured, makes me wonder why this easy a fix was not implemented on the federal level instead of passing a bill that fixes nothing and created more problems than there were before AHC.

it was, but, due to the nature of Medicaid funding(by law), it HAS to pass through states, individually. Otherwise, along with the ACA, a wholesale rewrite of Medicaid would have to have been passed(logistics there would have been messy, to say the least).

A libertarian took a margin much larger than McCauliff's margin of victory. So you have to rethink your assessment. It wasnt the crushing victory for the anti-tea party you told us was coming. And Christie trounced the competition...I think you also said it would be closer and to take that as a sign of things to come.
Seems like you were off on both counts. It was close in Va. and Christie destroyed the lib.

Will Robinson wrote:A libertarian took a margin much larger than McCauliff's margin of victory.

and, if you see the exit polls, nearly 80% of his support came from Democrats and Independants. That fellow was sort of interesting in that he wasn't your Rand Paul sort of Libertarian. Most of the race, he was running at around 10%, equally split amongst folks who would otherwise vote Dem or Rep.
At the last weeks, though, Cuccinelli was exhorting any conservative to abandon the Libertarian and prevent McA from winning. So, if you understood last night's results, the Dems won DESPITE losing votes to the Independant Sarvis.

Oh, and the woman in Jersey was a mere sacrificial lamb. No major Democrat campaigned for her, few contributed money. Worth noting is that Christie spent millions of taxpayer dollars to AVOID running on the same day as Corey Booker's Senate race. What does that suggest??

Well here is what you had to say: and this was after you knew Booker wasn't on the ballot....

callmeslick wrote:If Christie even comes close to losing, the GOP is absolutely done for.

.....he should, by rights, win re-election by at least a 20% margin. If he doesn't, the GOP, as a party, in the North and Mid-Atlantic, is DONE.

He won by more than 20%

callmeslick wrote:a moderate-right GOP candidate, not linked to any extent with the Tea Party and with great personal charisma, does poorly (defined as not hammering the opponent)in New Jersey, it will show the true extent to which the GOP brand has been done in by this recent radical-Teahadist nonsense.

The 'hammering', according to your own specifications, took place.

callmeslick wrote:Frankly, Virginia in November will be the true test. Those 3 races(Gov, Lt Gov, Atty General) were all considered GOP slam dunks as recently as this past March. Just watch what happens in a few weeks there.

Attny general too close to call

Lt. Gov. The dem won big

Governor the dem barely won with lots of national Party help.

All in all slick your predictions of big sweeping rejection aren't as awesome as you suggested.

As to why Christie chose to not help Bookers opponent, he likes Booker for one and doesn't like the Repubs that much. It makes sense for him to make his own election easier and win the hearts and minds of moderate lefties for his Presidential aspirations.

fair evaluations for the most part, Will, except at the end. Booker's election on the same day would have brought out more Dems, and somewhat fewer crossover Dems, and thus Christie wouldn't have gotten his 24% plurality. Also, your analysis of VA shows that you don't quite understand the state, or the process. Republicans choose candidates at convention, and the Tea Party camp rejected the sitting Lt governor in favor of Cuccinelli. That cost them the election, as McAuliffe isn't all that impressive(no prior office held, and close DC ties). The Tea Party also chose the absolute loon that ran against Ralph for Lt. Governor, and he got his ass handed to him, even in a lot of GOP districts. The Attorney general candidates are both pretty well liked and pretty moderate, so hence the close race. Clearly, the short term signup snafus with Obamacare, as well as the solid GOP turnout(traditional in off-year races) kept the Governor race close, as did the 5% of Dem voters who went with Sarvis(as opposed to 2% likely GOP voters). Still, it was, more than any sort of rout for the Dems, a repudiation of the far-right, which was what I suggested in my quoted post.
The Christie run for the GOP Presidential nod should be fascinating to watch: sort of a battle-royale between the old guard(who, if you remember, wanted Christie to run against Obama in the 2nd term), and the right-wing lunatic fringe. My money is on the old guard, because they have the cash to make a few states competitive even though conservative(think South Carolina), and will romp through New England, the MidAtlantic and California, which make a ton of delegate votes in the convention. Then, the question will become how the Tea Party group reacts. They can: 1)go along for the sake of winning, 2)sit the election out in protest or 3) run an independent conservative extreme candidate. The latter two will be an electoral disaster for the GOP. The first one could make for a hell of a race. It was noted that Christie would, at present, lose his home state to Clinton by around 6%, but that's close enough to suggest that a serious fight could transpire, and Hillary has yet to win a tough campaign.

One overlooked reason the Dems won the VA Gov. office is fairly simple. The Republican party turned their back on the Tea Party choice and offered up no money in support nor any prominant republicans came to offer support. In contrast McCauliff was awash in cash from the Dems and had the support of the big name Libs like the President and Clinton. So here is a thought. If the Republican Party continues to turn their back on any Tea Party candidate you will find more and more the Tea Party members who do get elected will not be working in concert with the Republicans. Thus you will see the birth of a true third party. The end result will only benefit The Dems where close races are in the offing.

What the Dems have to be careful of is the establishment of the Tea Party as a true 3rd party. Not because of the Party itself but what it represents. The fanatic left wingers will see this and start wondering why they cannot do the same. After all, the goofy left wingers are not entirely satisfied with how the party is being run anymore than the true conservatives view the Republican party. So this will be interesting times and good for eating popcorn .

As to Hillary and baggage, you forget White Water, The Whitehouse Travel office, Her meek acceptance of the Lewenski Affair and "What Does It Matter" comments she made over Benghazi. All of which will be delightful fodder for the opposition muckrakers.

woodchip wrote:One overlooked reason the Dems won the VA Gov. office is fairly simple. The Republican party turned their back on the Tea Party choice and offered up no money in support nor any prominant republicans came to offer support.

while correct about the old guard GOP and their money, you apparently failed to see the parade that came to the state, including Cruz(twice), Ryan, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, and others.

In contrast McCauliff was awash in cash from the Dems and had the support of the big name Libs like the President and Clinton. So here is a thought. If the Republican Party continues to turn their back on any Tea Party candidate you will find more and more the Tea Party members who do get elected will not be working in concert with the Republicans. Thus you will see the birth of a true third party. The end result will only benefit The Dems where close races are in the offing.

agreed, which speaks to my point about Christie's candidacy. That should bring that whole matter to a boil. Still, the Tea Party got everything they wanted in VA except big money, and that is another parallel to Christie. He already has the real serious money boys lining up, with the exception of the Koch clan and a dwindling handful of big donors to the extreme right.

What the Dems have to be careful of is the establishment of the Tea Party as a true 3rd party. Not because of the Party itself but what it represents. The fanatic left wingers will see this and start wondering why they cannot do the same. After all, the goofy left wingers are not entirely satisfied with how the party is being run anymore than the true conservatives view the Republican party. So this will be interesting times and good for eating popcorn

I disagree, because the Dem party has always maintained the idea of inclusiveness. From time to time, the far-left types will push the Greens or some other far-left group, but generally, to no real effect.

As to Hillary and baggage, you forget White Water, The Whitehouse Travel office, Her meek acceptance of the Lewenski Affair and "What Does It Matter" comments she made over Benghazi. All of which will be delightful fodder for the opposition muckrakers.

that crap is, first of all, old news, and not likely to sway anyone already not swayed. Second, most of the crap never stuck to her in the first place. The big thing going for her is akin to Obama's first campaign.....the 'first' concept. The First Woman President is a strong persuader, both to women(obviously), but also to all who feel 'left out' of the old guard white boy system. Hence, that umbrella ropes in blacks, latinos, all other immigrants, gays and enough good old white boys to make her candidacy really formidable. Now, as I said, if she faced a serious challenger, with charisma, who had both the finances and the personality to take the fight to her, we'd have to see. The one time that happened, she made enough key missteps to lose. The only GOP figure that fits that description that I can see is Christie, but then you have the whole Tea Party issue. Which would be a damned shame, IMO, as Clinton and Christie might(here's Slick's wishful thinking) engage in a national debate over the role of government and the role of the US in the larger global community.

possibly even STRONGER evidence of the Old Guard putting it to the Tea Party.....in a deep,deep Red State:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... id=up_next

callmeslick wrote:fair evaluations for the most part, Will, except at the end. Booker's election on the same day would have brought out more Dems, and somewhat fewer crossover Dems, and thus Christie wouldn't have gotten his 24% plurality. Also, your analysis of VA shows that you don't quite understand the state, or the process. Republicans choose candidates at convention, and the Tea Party camp rejected the sitting Lt governor in favor of Cuccinelli. That cost them the election, as McAuliffe isn't all that impressive(no prior office held, and close DC ties). The Tea Party also chose the absolute loon that ran against Ralph for Lt. Governor, and he got his ass handed to him, even in a lot of GOP districts. The Attorney general candidates are both pretty well liked and pretty moderate, so hence the close race. Clearly, the short term signup snafus with Obamacare, as well as the solid GOP turnout(traditional in off-year races) kept the Governor race close, as did the 5% of Dem voters who went with Sarvis(as opposed to 2% likely GOP voters). Still, it was, more than any sort of rout for the Dems, a repudiation of the far-right, which was what I suggested in my quoted post.

Christies choice to give Booker a clean run was known to you when you created the 20% margin benchmark so you don't get to now say he only crossed the line you drew after he made that decision...
Sorry, you don't get to move those goal posts....you put them there yourself....they stay put for the duration.

McAuliffe benifitted from those close DC ties, not from Va voters directly choosing a DC insider but certainly for the DNC et al machine that got him the extra votes he needed so that point seems like a wash.
As for the rest, I don't care how bad the TeaParty fares in Va. I simply rejected your predictions of a major failure on the part of conservatives because of the Tea Party and even in state that has a strong liberal insurgency from the inside the beltway the results were far from your prediction of 'the end of the GOP'
You expected the Tea Party to have shot the GOP in the foot and I think you were as wrong about that as I was about people letting Romney win because there weren't enough of them wanting to give Obama another chance to deliver on his lies/promises.

That's all I'm saying.

Who cares which Dem runs? They will be electable. The same, however, cannot be said about the GOP if Christie doesn't make it out of the primaries. Will and woodchip, your side needs to rethink it's strategy. The old guard that you keep clinging can win local / state elections, but it's not going to win a general election.

Right now, Hillary Clinton would destroy ANY candidate you currently have going.

CobGobbler wrote:Who cares which Dem runs? They will be electable. The same, however, cannot be said about the GOP if Christie doesn't make it out of the primaries. Will and woodchip, your side needs to rethink it's strategy. The old guard that you keep clinging can win local / state elections, but it's not going to win a general election.

Right now, Hillary Clinton would destroy ANY candidate you currently have going.

My side is the Libertarian for lack of a better choice. My side is to vote against any national candidate offered by the R or D because they are a cancer.

And the idea that any Dem is electable but Christie is the only Repub that is electable is way off. If the economy and jobs are still crap and ACA proves to be a real disaster then a lot of Repubs will be very electable by simply doing what Obama did when he ran on the I'm not Bush platform.
That's the one thing you can count on these assholes to do now and then....screw up bad enough to make the country vote 'against' the last guy.

Dude, with the state of everything it should have been a cakewalk to beat Obama in 2012. A frigging cakewalk.

Who do you honestly think could win a general election besides a Democrat right now? Whether you all like it or not, the tides are changing in this country--and those tides are not going in woodchip's direction. All I'm saying is allowing an extremely small bunch of staunch conservatives in Iowa choose someone that can't win is a very bad idea. Texas is maybe one or two cycles away from being a blue state, how could the GOP ever win a presidency without that state in its corner?

My point about any Dem being electable is simple. The Dems don't really throw up an extreme left candidate. You all seem to think Obama is, but he's more to the middle than anything else. Does the GOP actually think a guy like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is going to woo anyone but strong conservatives that are already going to vote Republican?

CobGobbler wrote:Dude, with the state of everything it should have been a cakewalk to beat Obama in 2012. A frigging cakewalk.

...

Do you think Romney lost because he was too 'Tea Party'?!?

Will Robinson wrote: Christies choice to give Booker a clean run was known to you when you created the 20% margin benchmark so you don't get to now say he only crossed the line you drew after he made that decision...

oh, I wasn't implying that I was not accepting my numbers for that reason, just pointed out the fact about the Booker thing.
What I am stating is that Tuesday was the start of a serious brawl WITHIN the GOP, and gives some evidence that the public at large is rejecting the Tea Party at an increasing rate(see exit polling). And that is all I am saying.

CobGobbler wrote:Dude, with the state of everything it should have been a cakewalk to beat Obama in 2012. A frigging cakewalk.

Who do you honestly think could win a general election besides a Democrat right now? Whether you all like it or not, the tides are changing in this country--and those tides are not going in woodchip's direction. All I'm saying is allowing an extremely small bunch of staunch conservatives in Iowa choose someone that can't win is a very bad idea. Texas is maybe one or two cycles away from being a blue state, how could the GOP ever win a presidency without that state in its corner?

My point about any Dem being electable is simple. The Dems don't really throw up an extreme left candidate. You all seem to think Obama is, but he's more to the middle than anything else. Does the GOP actually think a guy like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is going to woo anyone but strong conservatives that are already going to vote Republican?

further, the Dems hold together, as a group, far better at the moment, and most of all, the changing demographics strongly favor them. Part of this latter point is directly due to 20 years of the GOP antagonizing women, minorities, immigrants and gay people(and those of us who sympathise with them). I was struck recently by an article in Time magazine, about the exploding growth of the state of Texas. What occurred to me is that Texas will soon have 4 of the 20 largest urban areas in the nation, and all 4 are growing in population. Urban populations have become Democratic strongholds, and thus, you might be close to a sea-change in Texas politics. If Texas were to go into the Democratic Party column in national races, the rest of the nation would almost be meaningless. If a Democrat presidential candidate could count on winning Texas, California, New Jersey and New York, you would have around 225 electoral votes right there, with only 276 needed to win.

further, the Dems hold together, as a group, far better at the moment,

not sounding like it right now with the ACA fiasco. not to mention the next election cycle. you'll soon start seeing the Dems starting to distance themselves from the administration and the Democratic leadership. not to mention that the Republicans will use the fact that they proposed legislation to keep your heath-care policy and EVERY Democrat voted against that. thats going to be a two ton brick around their necks come election time

CUDA wrote:

further, the Dems hold together, as a group, far better at the moment,

not sounding like it right now with the ACA fiasco. not to mention the next election cycle. you'll soon start seeing the Dems starting to distance themselves from the administration and the Democratic leadership

I suspect not, especially with all the IT heavyweights working to fix the website, which is essentially the only major issue(the other stuff around cancelled policies and stuff will prove not to be at all important). By the summer of next year, I think what you'll see is a LOT of the public very happy with the ACA outcome, and the only ones hurting will be those in states where Republican governors and legislatures have put up roadblocks. Believe me, that contrast will be an issue. Worth noting, despite all the bad publicity of the past 6 weeks, the ACA is 4% MORE popular now than it was on Sept 1, according to several polls.

. not to mention that the Republicans will use the fact that they proposed legislation to keep your heath-care policy and EVERY Democrat voted against that. thats going to be a two ton brick around their necks come election time

what would that legislation have done to address any of the issues that brought us the ACA in the first place? The GOP has proposed exactly NOTHING to address the uninsured, the denial of coverage, nor the sale of policies that don't cover hospitalization or place very low limits on coverage. Seriously, CUDA, I don't know what you're deluding yourself with, but the 2014 elections will not find healthcare issues to work for the GOP. Further, it is becoming more and more obvious that GOP governors have produced the least job/wage growth of all the states out there, and that, too will be an issue.

callmeslick wrote:... Urban populations have become Democratic strongholds, and thus, you might be close to a sea-change in Texas politics. If Texas were to go into the Democratic Party column in national races, the rest of the nation would almost be meaningless. If a Democrat presidential candidate could count on winning Texas, California, New Jersey and New York, you would have around 225 electoral votes right there, with only 276 needed to win.

That is fundamentally very wrong. Not that you are incorrect but that it is a very bad way to select representatives.

The electoral college needs to have the votes split up according to popular vote. If you win 65% of a state you win 65% of its electoral college votes.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:... Urban populations have become Democratic strongholds, and thus, you might be close to a sea-change in Texas politics. If Texas were to go into the Democratic Party column in national races, the rest of the nation would almost be meaningless. If a Democrat presidential candidate could count on winning Texas, California, New Jersey and New York, you would have around 225 electoral votes right there, with only 276 needed to win.

That is fundamentally very wrong. Not that you are incorrect but that it is a very bad way to select representatives.

The electoral college needs to have the votes split up according to popular vote. If you win 65% of a state you win 65% of its electoral college votes.

actually, the reason it was designed that way was part of the grand bargain that enabled large and small states to coexist. Now, it is up to the State to determine the selection of electors, and TECHNICALLY, they could ignore the popular vote altogether. It's an odd system, but one that has, in essence, worked pretty well throughout the history of the US.

callmeslick wrote:... It's an odd system, but one that has, in essence, worked pretty well throughout the history of the US.

I think of all the old safes that 'worked pretty well throughout history' that are now useless against the average safe cracker and it makes me think the average political strategist sees the current system as a broken lock.

Your example of a President who only needs to win 10% of the states to cement a victory is proof that he doesn't have to concern himself with most of America's needs or opinion to win the Whitehouse. That isn't a good thing.

woodchip wrote:One overlooked reason the Dems won the VA Gov. office is fairly simple. The Republican party turned their back on the Tea Party choice and offered up no money in support nor any prominant republicans came to offer support. In contrast McCauliff was awash in cash from the Dems and had the support of the big name Libs like the President and Clinton. So here is a thought. If the Republican Party continues to turn their back on any Tea Party candidate you will find more and more the Tea Party members who do get elected will not be working in concert with the Republicans. Thus you will see the birth of a true third party. The end result will only benefit The Dems where close races are in the offing.

The tea party don't get it, do they? It's the women vote that gave McAuliffe his slim win. Cuccinelli would have been even more extreme than the predecessor, McDonnell, and women just plain feared another extreme social conservative in office. He would have won by a larger margin too if the Obamacare roll out hadn't faltered.

FUNNY.
what I read in that article was how McAuliffe set forth on a campaign to PORTRAY Cuccinelli as anti woman. not that he actually WAS anti woman. so your accusation that he was "more extreme" then McDonnell is without merit

The portrayal of Cuccinelli, the state attorney general, as a hard-line social conservative has gained steam in recent months

Last I checked there are a lot of women in the Tea Party...not just men.

CUDA wrote:FUNNY.
what I read in that article was how McAuliffe set forth on a campaign to PORTRAY Cuccinelli as anti woman. not that he actually WAS anti woman. so your accusation that he was "more extreme" then McDonnell is without merit

The portrayal of Cuccinelli, the state attorney general, as a hard-line social conservative has gained steam in recent months

Cuccinelli WAS, in fact, very much anti-women's health, anti-women's choice and essentially trying to take Virginia back to the 19th century in terms of morality laws(sodomy and divorce included). He was focused, as a matter of fact, on moral/social issues and gun rights, to the complete absence of job growth and infrastructure issues, which turned the women voters off. Less a matter of the Tea Party in that respect than the overall package.

woodchip wrote:Last I checked there are a lot of women in the Tea Party...not just men.

and in both cases, they are very conservative and mainly white. The voters of Virginia, at the exit polls, were 20% black, 15% immigrants, and 60% or so self-identified as 'moderates'. Toss in the 20% that self-identified as liberals, and an extreme conservative candidate becomes repellant to the electorate.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Last I checked there are a lot of women in the Tea Party...not just men.

and in both cases, they are very conservative and mainly white. The voters of Virginia, at the exit polls, were 20% black, 15% immigrants, and 60% or so self-identified as 'moderates'. Toss in the 20% that self-identified as liberals, and an extreme conservative candidate becomes repellant to the electorate.

And yet with an electorate like you claimed he was supposed to be a slam dunk just a few months before the election?!?

It seems like your descriptions of the electorate today and their also giving the candidate a "slam dunk" status don't reconcile.

Will Robinson wrote: And yet with an electorate like you claimed he was supposed to be a slam dunk just a few months before the election?!?

he won by 4 1/2 percent, which is a respectable margin, with tens of thousands of 'provisional' ballots not counted, which belong to people that Cuccinelli attempted to purge from the voter rolls(most were, not surprisingly, Democrat registered). The Obamacare mess of the past few weeks cut into the margin, as I noted, as did a real push to have conservative voters reject the Independant Libertarian(which they did). Just look at how big Northam won by and you can readily see the demographics and stark realities facing a Tea Party candidate in Virginia.

]t seems like your descriptions of the electorate today and their also giving the candidate a "slam dunk" status don't reconcile.

the margins will just KEEP GETTING WIDER, Will. Just watch.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:FUNNY.
what I read in that article was how McAuliffe set forth on a campaign to PORTRAY Cuccinelli as anti woman. not that he actually WAS anti woman. so your accusation that he was "more extreme" then McDonnell is without merit

The portrayal of Cuccinelli, the state attorney general, as a hard-line social conservative has gained steam in recent months

Cuccinelli WAS, in fact, very much anti-women's health, anti-women's choice and essentially trying to take Virginia back to the 19th century in terms of morality laws(sodomy and divorce included). He was focused, as a matter of fact, on moral/social issues and gun rights, to the complete absence of job growth and infrastructure issues, which turned the women voters off. Less a matter of the Tea Party in that respect than the overall package.

not to make this an issue about abortion but I think you are being single minded and incorrect by saying he is anti woman. he might be anti liberal women, but he is NOT anti woman. there are millions of women that are not pro-abortion (woman's health) and that agree with him on his stances on those issues. So to blanket statement that he is anti woman is disingenuous and untrue.

Off-cycle elections are not friendly towards Dems. Their demographic doesn't turn up as much as the GOP in those. Look at 2010. Low turnout in off cycle years has been a Democrat problem for a long time, it's nothing new, but they have enough numbers where even a low turnout can still mean a victory.

Woodchip, I have no idea what you mean by "Tea Party". None of these people you talk about have anything but an R after their name. When someone runs, and WINS, with a T next to their name, there could be talk about a different party. But please, right now it's just a waste of my time to even talk about them.

CUDA wrote:FUNNY.
what I read in that article was how McAuliffe set forth on a campaign to PORTRAY Cuccinelli as anti woman. not that he actually WAS anti woman. so your accusation that he was "more extreme" then McDonnell is without merit

The portrayal of Cuccinelli, the state attorney general, as a hard-line social conservative has gained steam in recent months

BS. Between him and McDonnell, women's control over their reproductive health was headed back into the stone age. I wouldn't have voted for either of them if you paid me.

http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/201 ... irfaxTimes

But alas, McDonnell also deserves the lion's share of the blame for Cuccinelli's failure.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crysta ... -ken-show/

Now it comes out that The Cooch was thinking of removing McDonnell by invoking Article V, Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution after McDonnell got into his little gift-gate mess. Tsk, tsk. The Coochi Coup!

CUDA wrote:I think you are being single minded and incorrect by saying he is anti woman. he might be anti liberal women, but he is NOT anti woman. there are millions of women that are not pro-abortion (woman's health) and that agree with him on his stances on those issues. So to blanket statement that he is anti woman is disingenuous and untrue.

certainly, I am generalizing, but the abortion thing alone breaks about 70-30, and has for a few decades, among women voters, in favor of allowing abortions. The exit polls in VA showed as follows: 42% felt ALL abortions should be legal, 26% felt most abortions should be legal. Only 18% supported outlawing abortion altogether. Interestingly, the men's numbers were close to those, with over 60% supporting all or most.

"Cucci Coup" Maddow was having fun with that one, during the brief time I saw her show last night.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:FUNNY.
what I read in that article was how McAuliffe set forth on a campaign to PORTRAY Cuccinelli as anti woman. not that he actually WAS anti woman. so your accusation that he was "more extreme" then McDonnell is without merit

The portrayal of Cuccinelli, the state attorney general, as a hard-line social conservative has gained steam in recent months

BS. Between him and McDonnell, women's control over their reproductive health was headed back into the stone age. I wouldn't have voted for either of them if you paid me.

That's your OPINION and your right, but you cited an article that said nothing but the fact that McAuliffe had a campaign to PORTRAY him as anti woman. again if he is or not is purely an opinion base on an ideology that you support. not in the reality of millions of women that live in that state. so your supposition is not based on fact but on your bias for his position.

but, CUDA, as a woman, her opinion is insightful......right?

But her "OPINION" doesn't mean that he hated women, it just means that she doesn't like his stance. that is her right. but it doesn't mean she IS right.

CUDA wrote:But her "OPINION" doesn't mean that he hated women, it just means that she doesn't like his stance. that is her right. but it doesn't mean she IS right.

Well, if you want to hair-split the argument, you're right, "hate" is not the correct word. That's clearly demagoguery if McAuliffe said that. However, and that's a big however, I'm sure Cuccinelli "likes" women like any red blooded American male. But he and his conservative morally repressive ilk sure like to take a heavy hand and "tell" women", what they should be doing with their bodies like little subservient morons, with all sorts of medically invasive laws on the books to enforce it. That's all it take to LOSE an election in this day and age, and I'm RIGHT in Cuccinelli's case. If he hadn't taken so morally extreme of a stand like his predecessor, he might have won against McAuliffe since the margin was so close.

callmeslick wrote:"Cucci Coup" Maddow was having fun with that one, during the brief time I saw her show last night.

That was one of her better jokes. She's really getting under Rand Paul's skin with his speech plagiarisms too.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:But her "OPINION" doesn't mean that he hated women, it just means that she doesn't like his stance. that is her right. but it doesn't mean she IS right.

Well, if you want to hair-split the argument, you're right, "hate" is not the correct word. That's clearly demagoguery if McAuliffe said that. However, and that's a big however, I'm sure Cuccinelli "likes" women like any red blooded American male. But he and his conservative morally repressive ilk sure like to take a heavy hand and "tell" women", what they should be doing with their bodies like little subservient morons, with all sorts of medically invasive laws on the books to enforce it. That's all it take to LOSE an election in this day and age, and I'm RIGHT in Cuccinelli's case. If he hadn't taken so morally extreme of a stand like his predecessor, he might have won against McAuliffe since the margin was so close.

AGAIN it is your right to feel that way, but it doesn't make you right and millions of women disagree with you.

What's more medically invasive than reaching up there and dragging a baby out?