Close win for MaCauliff in Virginia

[Nitehawk013]

Imagine that. The Obama/liberal supporting black man doesn't like conservatism. What a surprise right?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Imagine that. The Obama/liberal supporting black man doesn't like conservatism. What a surprise right?

I have a problem with some conservatives-- their sometimes racially-charged words and their political tactics.

Who said I don't like conservatism?
I am conservative!

I like common-sense conservatism. I like Christie.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Too bad most GOP'ers will never "forgive" Christie for helping President Obama win re-election.

I've long said Christie would have my support and he would-- but now I add, "as long as he's not paired with an idiot."

The "average American" is politically moderate.

A "Christie-Perry" ticket wouldn't make sense.
A "Christie-Rand Paul" ticket MIGHT be appealing.
A "Christie-West" ticket would be even more appealing, but wouldn't energize enough of "idiotic" GOP'ers, so they would lose.

Christie-Perry: Out of your three suggestions, this is the closest possibility.

Christie-Paul: Laughable. They really don't like each other and are diametrically opposed to each other.

Christie-West: Are you talking about Allen West? He's almost as nutty as Bachmann.

BTW, every time the GOP candidate is a moderate, they lose. McCain and Romney were GOP moderates....they lost. Reagan and Bush campaigned on conservative values. They were not moderates in the GOP party...oh, and they won.

A moderate GOP'er like Christie will do what the last two moderate GOP'ers did: he will lose.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Please provide proof of:

1) union manipulation-- of who or what;

I don't believe there was "manipulation" so to speak, but unions did spend a ton of money to make sure their guy was elected.

• $536,549 Service Employees International Union
  $390,106 United Steelworkers of America
  $343,530 American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
  $250,000 Firefighters – International Assn
  $250,000 Laborers’ International Union of North America
  $200,000 United Food & Commercial Workers
  $150,000 Communication Workers of America
  $125,000 American Federation of Teachers
  $100,000 National Education Assn
  $50,000 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry
  $50,000 United Steelworkers of America Dist 8
  $25,000 Machinists Non-Partisan Political League
  $25,000 Office and Professional Employees International Union Voice of Electorate PAC
  $20,000 Intl Brotherhood of Teamsters
  $20,000 Va AFL-CIO
  $15,000 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
  $10,000 Intl Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen
  $10,000 Service Employees International Union – Local 32BJ
  $5,173 Va Education Assn
  $5,000 American Fed State County Mun Employees – Maryland Council 2
  $5,000 Firefighters – Local 2068
  $5,000 Intl Longshoremen’s Assn
  $5,000 National Rural Letter Carriers Assn
  $5,000 United Mineworkers of America (UMW)
  $5,000 Va Governmental Employees Assn
  $4,298 AFL-CIO
  $3,000 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

And that doesn't include the close to a million dollars or more in tv and print ads. The NEA alone paid $519K on just ads.

Source Link

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

3) and a phony Libertarian-- especially in light that the GOP would NEVER put up phony candidates or purposely gerrymander their state districts to ensure political domination.

I haven't heard of the GOP running a phony candidate -- post your source on this, please. Also, BOTH parties realign state districts to achieve the maximum votes for their party. Stop whining about the GOP doing this, as though they're the only ones who do it. You have a habit of only highlighting the GOP on stuff like this, while you blatantly ignore the Dem's who do the same thing.

A top bundler for obama was the biggest contributor to this "Libertarian." The Libertarian raised $229K...$150K was from obama's bundler.

Source Link

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So the GOP takes a loss for Governor-ship, but still wants to spin it as a win for them!

It was a win. Had the "Libertarian" candidate not been in the race, the GOP would likely have won. Here's why it was a win: McAuliffe was up by 12 points before bummercare started completely imploding and people started seeing that obama lied about being able to keep insurance. He ended up winning by less than 2%...and only because obama's bundler helped get a candidate in the race who siphoned 6.5% of the votes -- most of which would arguably have gone to the GOP.

obama, and the West Wing better hope something happens to take voters minds off bummercare, because if not, the 2014 midterms will not be good to the Democrats.

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I have a problem with some conservatives-- their sometimes racially-charged words and their political tactics.

Who said I don't like conservatism?
I am conservative!

I like common-sense conservatism. I like Christie.

Except Christie isn't conservative.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Christie-Perry: Out of your three suggestions, this is the closest possibility.

No way bro! These two are NOT a possibility. Period.

Originally Posted by n david

Christie-Paul: Laughable. They really don't like each other and are diametrically opposed to each other.

They may not like each other, but Christie and Rand Paul both have Libertarian leanings.

Originally Posted by n david

Christie-West: Are you talking about Allen West? He's almost as nutty as Bachmann.

I don't have that impression of West, but again, his presence would not help Christie enough. I changed my mind on why though-- both are east coast guys and Christie should have a partner from the midwest, south or southwest.

I come back to Rand Paul.


I didn't mention Jindal because Jindal and Christie are virtually the same-- common sense Republicans, but Jindal isn't as electable as Christie is.

I think Christie should run for Pres and that he should pick someone that will energize the base without appearing to be a nut-case-- someone like Palin, only smart.

Originally Posted by n david

BTW, every time the GOP candidate is a moderate, they lose. McCain and Romney were GOP moderates....they lost. Reagan and Bush campaigned on conservative values. They were not moderates in the GOP party...oh, and they won.

A moderate GOP'er like Christie will do what the last two moderate GOP'ers did: he will lose.

Christie is a Reagan-esque Republican. Reagan would be considered a Moderate today!

McCain was able to be painted as a war hungry tyrant in the image of GWB-- which is why he lost. America was tired of the two wars.

Romney-- dude Romney never had a chance, never had NATIONAL appeal, never was able to motivate the base of his party nationally and failed to appear to be able to identify with the common man! He was the WORST candidate we could have put forward nationally and said so repeatedly before and after it was clear that he would be the one.

Given the situation of our country at the time that Romney ran, it was the opposition party's race to lose-- and they did, but it wasn't because he was a moderate.

Originally Posted by n david

I don't believe there was "manipulation" so to speak, but unions did spend a ton of money to make sure their guy was elected.

• $536,549 Service Employees International Union
  $390,106 United Steelworkers of America
  $343,530 American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
  $250,000 Firefighters – International Assn
  $250,000 Laborers’ International Union of North America
  $200,000 United Food & Commercial Workers
  $150,000 Communication Workers of America
  $125,000 American Federation of Teachers
  $100,000 National Education Assn
  $50,000 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry
  $50,000 United Steelworkers of America Dist 8
  $25,000 Machinists Non-Partisan Political League
  $25,000 Office and Professional Employees International Union Voice of Electorate PAC
  $20,000 Intl Brotherhood of Teamsters
  $20,000 Va AFL-CIO
  $15,000 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
  $10,000 Intl Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen
  $10,000 Service Employees International Union – Local 32BJ
  $5,173 Va Education Assn
  $5,000 American Fed State County Mun Employees – Maryland Council 2
  $5,000 Firefighters – Local 2068
  $5,000 Intl Longshoremen’s Assn
  $5,000 National Rural Letter Carriers Assn
  $5,000 United Mineworkers of America (UMW)
  $5,000 Va Governmental Employees Assn
  $4,298 AFL-CIO
  $3,000 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

And that doesn't include the close to a million dollars or more in tv and print ads. The NEA alone paid $519K on just ads.

Source Link


I haven't heard of the GOP running a phony candidate -- post your source on this, please. Also, BOTH parties realign state districts to achieve the maximum votes for their party. Stop whining about the GOP doing this, as though they're the only ones who do it. You have a habit of only highlighting the GOP on stuff like this, while you blatantly ignore the Dem's who do the same thing.

Phony candidate in SC. Will look for it later.
Is there a state as purposefully and recently gerrymandered as Texas to specifically place one party at a steep disadvantage?

Originally Posted by n david

A top bundler for obama was the biggest contributor to this "Libertarian." The Libertarian raised $229K...$150K was from obama's bundler.

Source Link


It was a win. Had the "Libertarian" candidate not been in the race, the GOP would likely have won. Here's why it was a win: McAuliffe was up by 12 points before bummercare started completely imploding and people started seeing that obama lied about being able to keep insurance. He ended up winning by less than 2%...and only because obama's bundler helped get a candidate in the race who siphoned 6.5% of the votes -- most of which would arguably have gone to the GOP.

obama, and the West Wing better hope something happens to take voters minds off bummercare, because if not, the 2014 midterms will not be good to the Democrats.

The Libertarian spoiler strikes again!
Wasn't Nader a Libertarian?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

No way bro! These two are NOT a possibility. Period.

I said of the three you listed. Speaking of which, if you're sure they're not a possibility...why would you list them?

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

They may not like each other, but Christie and Rand Paul both have Libertarian leanings.

No. Christie does not have Libertarian leanings. In fact, Christie loathes Libertarians. He recently went on a rant against Rand Paul and Libertarians. Christie is more Blue-Dog Democrat than Libertarian.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I don't have that impression of West, but again, his presence would not help Christie enough. I changed my mind on why though-- both are east coast guys and Christie should have a partner from the midwest, south or southwest.

Did you know West considered any obama supporter a threat to the gene pool. He made the statement in 2011. He also said the media should be censored to protect the government from leaks.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I didn't mention Jindal because Jindal and Christie are virtually the same-- common sense Republicans, but Jindal isn't as electable as Christie is.

Jindal is far more conservative than Christie. Those two aren't even in the same class.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Christie is a Reagan-esque Republican. Reagan would be considered a Moderate today!

That's a Democrat talking point, and it's not true.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

McCain was able to be painted as a war hungry tyrant in the image of GWB-- which is why he lost. America was tired of the two wars.

That's part of it. He was also very negative in his campaigning, whereas obama offered up a bunch of hope and change lies that the sheeple wanted to hear. Then you factor in the race issue and how historic a thing it was to elect the first black man. No GOP candidate had a chance against obama that year.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Romney-- dude Romney never had a chance, never had NATIONAL appeal, never was able to motivate the base of his party nationally and failed to appear to be able to identify with the common man! He was the WORST candidate we could have put forward nationally and said so repeatedly before and after it was clear that he would be the one.

obama's class warfare paid off. All the speeches about the 1%'ers and how evil those rich people were helped to turn public opinion against Romney.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Phony candidate in SC. Will look for it later. Is there a state as purposefully and recently gerrymandered as Texas to specifically place one party at a steep disadvantage?

Again, BOTH parties do this. Can you at least acknowledge that? Or are you so biased against the GOP (while yet claiming to be one) that you can't even acknowledge the fact that both parties do this kind of stuff. And they have a word for it...

It's called "politics."




The Libertarian spoiler strikes again!
Wasn't Nader a Libertarian?[/QUOTE]
Nader was Green Party. During Clinton's elections, Ross Perot ran as an Independent Party candidate and siphoned enough votes to help Clinton win.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Listen.
In my first post that I mentioned Christie-Perry, I said that the combination wouldn't make sense.

Reagan would indeed be considered a Moderate today and it was Reagan that helped to grant amnesty to the illegals that were already here. The truth of the matter is that many in our GOP are pretty far to the right-- far enough to make the average American not able to identify with them.

Why isn't the GOP winning elections?

Just to establish it, America will have 8 more years of Democrat leadership in the White House. Why? Because the GOP will not put Christie forward and they'll put some other guy who is unable to identify with the Joe America and they will lose against Hillary Clinton-- a centrist, MODERATE Democrat.


Christie and Jindal are both common sense GOP'ers. Your T-girls ('cuz I've long since disowned any connection to them) are destroying the party's ability to relate and to win. Christie and Jindal are both very popular Republicans in their home states, but will not have the national support they need.

Christie doesn't loathe Libertarians. The gay marriage issue in NJ boiled down to libertarian ideas and has his support based on that school of thought. Rand Paul would also support gay marriage. It's a libertarian issue for the conservatives who decide it's ok for the government to sanction it.


A Christie-Rand Paul ticket will stop the GOP from becoming non-influential and could very well beat a Hillary-XXX ticket.

As for West, I have never heard West say the gene pool thing but there could be a strong argument for a small amount of censorship for government secrets that help protect the strength of our nation.

Still, West is not a crook and he doesn't have the FBI doing ethics investigations on him and his staff. As far as I know, he doesn't just say stupid stuff that he knows isn't true just to be in the news. Bachman and West are not a good comparison. Bachman is far more nuttier than West will ever be.

There are some things that I don't need to know.
There are other things that if I did need to know about them, I shouldn't be reading about it in the newspaper or online.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Listen.
In my first post that I mentioned Christie-Perry, I said that the combination wouldn't make sense.

Fair enough, you did mention it didn't make sense, but still had the pairing listed.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Reagan would indeed be considered a Moderate today and it was Reagan that helped to grant amnesty to the illegals that were already here. The truth of the matter is that many in our GOP are pretty far to the right-- far enough to make the average American not able to identify with them.

Again, this is a Democrat lie. This is what obama tries to say. But it's not true. Ed Meese was Reagan's friend and US Atty General, and he has stated several times that Reagan expressed regret for signing the amensty deal. He was not happy with it. So let's be honest about that. Yes, he signed what he thought would be a good bill which would strengthen enforcement and border security, while allowing amnesty to a very small percentage. Unfortunately, Congress tweaked it and changed it and the result was a huge mess. Reagan regretted it later. And no matter how often the Democrats say it, Reagan would not be a moderate. He was fiercly conservative.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Just to establish it, America will have 8 more years of Democrat leadership in the White House. Why? Because the GOP will not put Christie forward and they'll put some other guy who is unable to identify with the Joe America and they will lose against Hillary Clinton-- a centrist, MODERATE Democrat.

The only reason Christie identifies with Joe America is because the majority of Americans are overweight. Seriously, if given the choice between Democrat and Democrat-"light," Republicans will stay home, Independents will vote Democrat and Hillary will win anyway.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Christie and Jindal are both common sense GOP'ers. Your T[ea Party] ('cuz I've long since disowned any connection to them) are destroying the party's ability to relate and to win. Christie and Jindal are both very popular Republicans in their home states, but will not have the national support they need.

I read a piece in the summer of 2012, when the VP speculation was going around. I doubt you read the same, because it stated that Bobby Jindal was conservative enough to be accepted by the Tea Party. I'll write it again, Jindal is far more conservative than Christie.

And BTW, it's not my Tea Party. I don't consider myself a part of the Tea Party. I agree with some things and disagree with others. I believe Democrats and obama have lied about the party and made it into something it's not. Then again, Democrats forget civil rights history and their role against it as well, so it's not surprising.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Christie doesn't loathe Libertarians. The gay marriage issue in NJ boiled down to libertarian ideas and has his support based on that school of thought. Rand Paul would also support gay marriage. It's a libertarian issue for the conservatives who decide it's ok for the government to sanction it.

You should read more. Christie went full on rant mode a month or two ago, saying that Libertarians were dangerous for the security of the country. Also, based on your writing here, I'm inclined that you don't know what Libertarians or Rand Paul believe on SSM. One thing is absolutely certain: Rand Paul does not support SSM; neither do any Libertarians. Not sure where you got that he did, but he doesn't.

Libertarians believe government should be out of marriage period, end of story. They neither support SSM nor are they against it. They believe government should stay out of it.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

As for West, I have never heard West say the gene pool thing but there could be a strong argument for a small amount of censorship for government secrets that help protect the strength of our nation.

And this is more reason I don't believe you're a conservative. Sorry. You can write over and over that you are one. You can put it in big, bold, italicized and underlined words. But in reality, you're really not.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Still, West is not a crook and he doesn't have the FBI doing ethics investigations on him and his staff. As far as I know, he doesn't just say stupid stuff that he knows isn't true just to be in the news. Bachman and West are not a good comparison. Bachman is far more nuttier than West will ever be.

I'm surprised you're supporting Allen West. You do know he's one of those "T-girls," as you call them, right?

[Jermyn Davidson]

There aren't many GOP'ers that are scummier than Bachman.

In the context of this comparison, West is not as nutty as Bachman.


Maybe my idea of libertarian-ism is off, given my explanation and your explanation of SSM within the context of Christie and Rand Paul politics.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I've long said Christie would have my support and he would-- but now I add, "as long as he's not paired with an idiot."

But you voted for Obama/Biden????? ROFLMBO!!!!!!