Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Threaded Mode
