Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Eric Cantor was primariedFollow

#79 Jun 13 2014 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
zamwiki wrote:
This country is about to swing far right.
Another fifty on Herman Cain!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#80 Jun 13 2014 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
zamwiki wrote:
We thought
Well, that's a lie.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Jun 13 2014 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
zamwiki wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Someone I was talking to made the amusing observation that, while lots of people were surprised by Cantor losing, no one really sounds like they're upset about it. No "He was a model Republican" or "He was the sort Democrats could work with" or any style of "He was the sort of Congressman we need". It's as though no one liked the guy at all.


We thought he was going to stand up to Obama's radical America destroying agenda. He didn't and now he's gone.


Sounds like the guy whose going to replace him as Majority Leader is more moderate than he was.

I suppose, that would technically be moving the party more to the center (away from your 'far' right).
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#82 Jun 13 2014 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,188 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:

Cross-party voting in the primary?


If that's the terminology, then yes. It's legit, which is why I label it dirty. It's just as dirty within the same party where your candidate is too weak to win (3rd or 4th in the polls), so you vote for the person in 2nd place (assuming that the individual in 1st is the real threat). It's legit, but it doesn't represent what the people want.

The point you are making may be attractive at first glance, but look at it this way - cross-party voting was not something the dems imposed upon the repubs, so if they were OK with it prior to this then they can enjoy the result. If they had no choice for some reason, then a convention would have avoided it - but I imagine the Tea Party constituency would have opposed a convention as a "fait accompli" for Cantor.

And on the issue of cross-over voting being Cantor's downfall, John Dean says he's not ready to accept it but it does deserve some looking into: Smiley: dnpTypical Liberal Tripe!

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#83 Jun 13 2014 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's no evidence that cross-party voting as instrumental in Cantor's defeat anyway. He lost because the Republicans voted for the other guy, not because bored Democrats did so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Jun 13 2014 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There's no evidence that cross-party voting as instrumental in Cantor's defeat anyway.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Jun 13 2014 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
There's no evidence that cross-party voting as instrumental in Cantor's defeat anyway.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

There are known knowns and known unknowns. But also unknown unknowns. Things we don't know that we don't know.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#86 Jun 13 2014 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I know that I don't know that I don't know what you're talking about.

Edited, Jun 13th 2014 9:29am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#87 Jun 13 2014 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts

.

NSFW language.

Edited, Jun 13th 2014 12:33pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#88 Jun 13 2014 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
***
2,188 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There's no evidence that cross-party voting as instrumental in Cantor's defeat anyway. He lost because the Republicans voted for the other guy, not because bored Democrats did so.

Clearly, you are intent on stoking Armageddon. The only real solution to gridlock is to blow it apart! How cynical I am.

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#89 Jun 13 2014 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Someone I was talking to made the amusing observation that, while lots of people were surprised by Cantor losing, no one really sounds like they're upset about it. No "He was a model Republican" or "He was the sort Democrats could work with" or any style of "He was the sort of Congressman we need". It's as though no one liked the guy at all.

Small sample size and all that, but all of the Republicans I know regarded him as kind of a charisma-less douchebag, including some who still live in his district. In all honesty, I don't really see any Republicans in the House worth working with at the moment, but I'm removed enough from the hill these days that I'm sure I'm probably just overlooking some.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#90 Jun 13 2014 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Well, it does in so far as what people want is "not Eric Cantor".


Somewhat so, but misleading, because you're also claiming to support an individual that you don't support. The most accurate way to display not supporting an individual, is simply by not voting for that individual. That is why I continue to support the idea of simply not voting if you don't support either candidate. The lack of support will draw in new and different candidates. The alternative is automatic support that limits choices, i.e., Hillary Clinton in 2016. Contrary to her belief, her automatic support halts others from running. Remove her from the list and the support among the remaining individuals are so low that practically any politician stands a chance in winning the Democratic nomination.

Jophiel wrote:
Likewise, I really don't see an issue with voting in your own party's primary and picking "best potentially electable" over "guy I like the most".


That's not what I meant. I don't fully recall the circumstances, but in 2008, Huckabee won a primary simply because the McCain voters didn't want Mitt Romney to win. So, the McCain voters voted for Huckabee to take away a win from Romney because he was a bigger threat to McCain (Again, I might have the names wrong, but that's the idea). By voting for someone you don't support out of spite, 'tis possible for an election to be skewed, hence the strategy.

It's legit, but it doesn't accurately depict what the people want, especially if it were a close race and Romney needed that particular win to win the nomination.
#91 Jun 13 2014 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There's no evidence that cross-party voting as instrumental in Cantor's defeat anyway. He lost because the Republicans voted for the other guy, not because bored Democrats did so.


Yeah. Even if we assume every single person who voted in this primary but didn't vote in the last one was a Dem party crasher, Cantor should still have won by around 4k votes. And that seems remarkably unlikely. I have no clue how popular Cantor was in his district (among either set of voters), but at least his national persona seemed kind of placeholderish. He was a politician. He hit all the right talking points. Made the right contacts. Got the right endorsements. Etc. But I never saw him as someone who stood out. Now maybe that's just how you build a political career and advance into leadership positions in your party (I submit Boehner, McConnel, Pelosi, and Reid as examples).

Maybe the voters thought that an intelligent, educated, engaged person who actually cares about the issues (or hell, understands them for a start) was appealing. I know that most people like to think just in terms of what is best/worst for a given part, but aren't we always lamenting that our politicians seem to be more interested in playing the political game rather than doing the right thing by the voters? So along comes someone actually doing that, and in the Republican party no less. I don't see this as a loss at all. I don't necessarily interpret this in any sort of "Tea Party Resurgence" way either (Brat got very little support from that group). This was one candidate, who, for whatever reasons, appealed to the voters in the primary. So much so that he was able to unseat a much more powerful established politician.

If there's anything to read into this, it's the possibility that maybe this indicates a shift among voters to actually follow through on the whole "throw the bums out" idea. Not that this is always a good thing, mind you, but it's not always a bad thing either. If it makes politicians who think they are "safe" stop and actually think about their constituents a bit more, then it's a good thing for all of us, no matter what party we support.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#92 Jun 13 2014 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Hmm..Brat's a Randian racist; gbaji's perfect cup of tea.

Edited, Jun 13th 2014 8:20pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#93 Jun 14 2014 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Everything I read said Brat had Tea party backing and he won on hammering Cantor on immigration and charisma / lack of being Jewish.

Coincidentally, his Democratic opponent in the primary works as a Professor at the same College Brat works at, that I've never heard of.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#94 Jun 15 2014 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Maybe the voters thought that an intelligent, educated, engaged person who actually cares about the issues (or hell, understands them for a start) was appealing.

Probably. Doesn't explain why they voted for Dave Brat, though.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 307 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (307)