Cheers!
Posted on 10/30/2012 5:35:48 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
Edited on 10/30/2012 5:45:59 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
With Republican enthusiasm very high across the nation and the majority voting straight party ticket, I have high hopes to take the senate.
I’m not sure that the Akin or Mourdock stories can be called PR or communication problems.
I think both men stated their true opinions about abortion in the case of rape, and most people in their state disagree with those opinions. That’s not a misstatement, or clumsy phrasing, that’s being too far out from the center to get elected.
That’s excellent news all around!!
Congrats.
I’ll check out both links.
These analysis-es, and I use that term loosely, that act like incumbent Senators should just lose by default drive me nuts.
So, that one issue does them both in?
>>> If the Democrat lose their majoprity we are still no better off if we do not have a leader with a pair.
THIS! ^^^^^^ ABSOLUTELY!
I agree there, Romney +6 (As economic model suggests) does a lot more than +2. My less exuberant self thinks the -$4500 median family income decline will be the determinant. But if Tyrone Woods' father's story is getting some traction below the radar or actually comes to the surface, I think the margin could grow; hence the effort to suppress it/confine it to Fox.
The RINO-Dem coalition will still run the show
We shall see. What we do know is that each of them was ahead in the polls until they were asked about that issue, and rather than lying, they stated their honest opinions and fell sharply in the polls.
They were asked about that issue because it was a trap, a set up.
The media wanted them to lose.
They really have no power to do anything about abortion, and the ones asking them know that.
They fell into the trap.
You say they answered truthfully and it caused them political problems.
I say, they didn’t need to say things like “legitimate rape”, or, “a woman’s body shuts down during rape so she’s unlikely to get pregnant”, or, “if a pregnancy results from a rape, I have to believe the pregnancy was God’s will”.
They could have stated their views on abortion in cases of rape, without saying incredible stuff such as they said. Just say, my personal view is that life begins at conception, and even if the result of rape, my view is that the human life conceived has rights and should not be aborted because of those circumstances.
And they could add, again that’s my personal view...I don’t have the power to do anything about the way the abortion law is. I can vote on things like no federal funding for abortion, but that’s about it. I can vote for Supreme Court justices who might, and I stress might because I don’t know, eventually want to overturn Roe V Wade, but if that were to happen, each state would once again get to decide about abortion.
I think the Republicans have to have 61 in the Senate to get rid of Obamacare. The Democrats will probably filibuster anything the Republicans might try to do, especially repeal of Obamacare.
No, they just have to have a majority for a budget resolution, the same way Obamacare passed in the first place.
Your home page pretty much explains your rino complaints against republican primary winners that you find “too far to the right”.
There aren’t a lot of freepers that complain that the current GOP is too far to the right for their tastes, especially since FR is so pro-God and conservative.
It has nothing to do with my tastes. When a congressman in a safe, gerrymandered district steps up to the state level, sometimes his views on a particular issue are too conservative for him to be elected.
In Tennessee we almost did the same thing a few years back nominating a “true conservative” named Ed Bryant, whose nomination would have resulted in a Senate victory for Harold Ford, Jr.
Some peoples views are just too far from the wide part of the bell curve to be electable. Akin and Mourdock appear to be proof of that.
It isn’t as though these are weirdo, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, libertarian pervert types, these are mainstream people, republicans that won the party primaries.
If you want to move the party even farther left, then you need to figure out how to eliminate the primary system.
Mainstream? So mainstream that they are going to lose to, in one case a very unpopular incumbent in Claire McCaskill, and in the other, losing a seat that had been held by a Republican for several decades, in a very Republican state.
I think if you poll on abortion you find being pro-life is mainstream, but being pro-life in the case of rape, being not mainstream. It’s a clear dividing line. On the left you could have the same phenomenon with being “pro-Choice” being mainstream, but partial-birth abortion being horrifying to a majority.
Like I said, if you think that normal republicans winning republican senate primaries are too right wing for you, then you need to figure out a way to cut out the republican primary voters.
Cheers!
Alternatively, primary voters could take into account the prospective electability of the candidates in the primary and not only their ideology. Doing that in Missouri would have been wise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.