Posted on 03/29/2014 4:32:07 PM PDT by don-o
I’ll list ‘em all...
Carly Fiorina (CA-’10), Linda McMahon (CT-’10 & ‘12), Connie Mack IV (FL-’12), Linda Lingle (HI-’12), Charlie Summers (ME-’12), Scott Brown (MA-’12), Denny Rehberg (MT-’12), Joe Kyrillos (NJ-’12), Heather Wilson (NM-’12), Rick Berg (ND-’12), Jim Huffman (OR-’10), George Allen (VA-’12), John Raese (WV-’10 & ‘12) & Tommy Thompson (WI-’12).
15 seats in total (actually, there’s even more if you count desultory opponents that the GOP establishment allowed to run in place of viable opponents). We hear about the Akins and Mourdocks, but nary a peep about the above, the “safe, unscary” establishment candidates, all of whom amassed a disastrous record of losses. All in all one serious reason why that in 34 years, the GOP hasn’t beaten more than TWO incumbents in a cycle. That’s an execrable record of failure.
Are you quite serious?
What evidence to you have to support your implication (other than some vague, visceral dislike for the man)?
Carly Fiorina (CA-’10), Linda McMahon (CT-’10 & ‘12), Connie Mack IV (FL-’12), Linda Lingle (HI-’12), Charlie Summers (ME-’12), Scott Brown (MA-’12), Denny Rehberg (MT-’12), Joe Kyrillos (NJ-’12), Heather Wilson (NM-’12), Rick Berg (ND-’12), Jim Huffman (OR-’10), George Allen (VA-’12), John Raese (WV-’10 & ‘12) & Tommy Thompson (WI-’12).
15 seats in total (actually, there’s even more if you count desultory opponents that the GOP establishment allowed to run in place of viable opponents). We hear about the Akins and Mourdocks, but nary a peep about the above, the “safe, unscary” establishment candidates, all of whom amassed a disastrous record of losses. All in all one serious reason why that in 34 years, the GOP hasn’t beaten more than TWO incumbents in a cycle. That’s an execrable record of failure.
I see that you have included losses in such states as California, Maine, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Massachusetts among your list--as if more right-leaning candidates might have fared better in these (deep blue) states...
...And you couldn’t answer my point.
P.S. Please stop using the Orwellian post-2000 newspeak colors, Red is Red, it ain’t Blue.
In this case, control of the US Senate. And the demotion of Harry Reid to Minority Leader.
And who would be the majority leader to replace him?
In non-presidential elections, anymore, and certainly in presidential ones, if a Republican candidate is a limited government candidate in concept, in leaning, in default posture, ONLY then will that Republican get my vote. NO MORE STRAIGHT TICKET VOTING for me because I know that SIMPLY put, restraint of government is the ONLY solution to fixing social, moral, educational, and financial malaise. That and honest elections, which America lacks at present.
But interestingly, the only reason Harry Reid has power at all is because of imaginary and manipulated votes. The majority -- that would be we the people -- never wanted him. So in a way, all of this is moot. If elections were honest, for the past three decades, Reid would be no more than a pain in the butt HR exec in some average company somewhere. That's the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. Nobody voted for these idiots, or at least not enough to put the in office. They cheated, and it has become increasingly systemic over the decades. Al Franken??? Get serious. Pelosi? PUHLEEZE. You talk about smug and arrogant -- smug and arrogant is thinking that Americans are really that stupid, to have voted for those clowns.
No, those clowns got there because they cheated the system; the majority of Americans either voted "against" them or didn't vote at all. The deception is even worse because the majority thinks it's a minority and the majority thinks most of their fellow Americans are the kinds of stupid idiots that dominate 95 percent of American media and pop culture, who "voted for Obama," etc., when at best, maybe 40 percent of real Americans, legitimate voters, lean that way. It's bizarro world, filled with Magicians' illusions. "Purists" are only one of many. There are no "purists." There are only people who think others are purists.
You are an informed and down-to-the-minute political junkie, which is great. You lose sight of the big picture.
You talk about 80 percent -- speaking in the Presidential, there was no 80 percent, nor 20 percent even. There were words and promises, but an informed view of Romney reveals a one hundred percent functional statist leftist. Granted, that was the presidential.
On other threads, and in other places, it's very clear that Democrats held their noses because they thought Obama stunk, but they were voting "against" Romney. We here know fully that Republicans held their noses in voting for Romney because they knew he stunk to high heaven. They weren't voting for him in their minds; they were voting "against" Obama.
And when it comes to votes, smugness and arrogance entirely aside, there is no voting "against." That is pure pretend, an illusion. Materially and mathematically, completely pretend. You ONLY get to vote FOR, or decline to vote. You only get to switch the light ON, or leave it off. It's a FUNCTION.
It's very simple. That you think it's smug or arrogant is beyond me. It's simple. It's like putting a foot on a gas pedal, or taking it off the gas pedal. It is a FUNCTION. When you vote FOR politicians who work to advance government instrusion, and Romney did that DRASTICALLY in every aspect of life, from using government to force people to accept open homosexuality and promote it to their grade school kids via Gay Youth Pride, to funding abortion to writing the original Obamacare, to stating publicly that he thinks the "carbon" problem needs a world-wide solution, not an American one --
Gas pedal. Push, function, go. Vote for Romney or Schwarzenegger or Meg Whitman or Mitch McConnell or McCain or way too many "Republicans", and you get all the things you just FUNCTIONALLY voted for.
Voting FOR liberalism on the pretense of voting "against" it, is guaranteed to fail. Voting "against" is as imaginary as "purists." In asking me to accept Romney on the LIE that I only had to compromise 20 percent, the entire rationale that you uphold and promote, in your informed and thoughtful posts, indeed -- the SIMPLE truth is that it's getting to the point where there is very little or no compromise at all. Nobody asked or expected me to compromise with Romney. They asked me to abandon my principles so entirely as to vote for an agent with a lifelong political career of acting AGAINST them! SIMPLE TRUTH, if one is honestly informed as to Romney's real record.
And people like you have the gall to call me a "purist" and attribute my motives to want to be noble. Smug? Arrogant? *rolls eyes* Do you even know the meaning of the word "purist"?????
I don't know how old you are or how long you've been voting. I've been voting straight Republican for more than 35 years. Romney was the bridge too far, the eye opener, the wake up call as to the futility. Your "puristst" are unicorns, truly, they are Bigfoot.
And when voters hold their nose in the voting booth -- as all did in this past election -- be assured that America is going to get exceedingly stinky leadership.
Your vote is FUNCTIONAL. I understand now what I didn't understand eight, 10, 20 years ago and which you don't fundamentally grasp now, either. When I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger, I was a functional liberal. When I voted for Meg Whitman, I was a functional liberal. When you voted for Mitt Romney, you were a functional liberal.
Voting for functional liberals when you're a Republican is STUPID. Always.
Actually, I think I did precisely that.
But I really do not expect to convince you...
Presumably, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
But interestingly, the only reason Harry Reid has power at all is because of imaginary and manipulated votes. The majority -- that would be we the people -- never wanted him. So in a way, all of this is moot. If elections were honest, for the past three decades, Reid would be no more than a pain in the butt HR exec in some average company somewhere. That's the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. Nobody voted for these idiots, or at least not enough to put the in office. They cheated, and it has become increasingly systemic over the decades. Al Franken??? Get serious. Pelosi? PUHLEEZE. You talk about smug and arrogant -- smug and arrogant is thinking that Americans are really that stupid, to have voted for those clowns.
I believe it is disingenuous to attribute the elections of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Al Franken to "Americans" in general; or to suggest that these politicians could not have really been elected, legitimately, because of the antipathy of most Americans to their views.
Harry Reid was elected in the purple state of Nevada--where he remains rather unpopular, but was opposed in 2010 by Sharron Angle, who did not endear herself, generally, to Nevada voters.
Nancy Pelosi--for whom I have an exceedingly low regard!--resides in probably the leftmost district in the entire (deep blue) state of California. So it really should not come as any surprise that she continues to get re-elected.
Al Franken, admittedly, is a more difficult case to examine. He does hail from the bluish-purple state of Minnesota, so it should probably not come as any shock that he might have been elected. Still, his extremely narrow victory (which had appeared to be a narrow defeat, until just enough votes were found to overturn an apparent victory by the Republican incumbent, Norm Coleman), struck some of us as, well, just a bit fishy.
No, those clowns got there because they cheated the system; the majority of Americans either voted "against" them or didn't vote at all. The deception is even worse because the majority thinks it's a minority and the majority thinks most of their fellow Americans are the kinds of stupid idiots that dominate 95 percent of American media and pop culture, who "voted for Obama," etc., when at best, maybe 40 percent of real Americans, legitimate voters, lean that way. It's bizarro world, filled with Magicians' illusions. "Purists" are only one of many. There are no "purists." There are only people who think others are purists. You are an informed and down-to-the-minute political junkie, which is great. You lose sight of the big picture. You talk about 80 percent -- speaking in the Presidential, there was no 80 percent, nor 20 percent even. There were words and promises, but an informed view of Romney reveals a one hundred percent functional statist leftist. Granted, that was the presidential. On other threads, and in other places, it's very clear that Democrats held their noses because they thought Obama stunk, but they were voting "against" Romney. We here know fully that Republicans held their noses in voting for Romney because they knew he stunk to high heaven. They weren't voting for him in their minds; they were voting "against" Obama. And when it comes to votes, smugness and arrogance entirely aside, there is no voting "against." That is pure pretend, an illusion. Materially and mathematically, completely pretend. You ONLY get to vote FOR, or decline to vote.
Actually, our system really does not pit two opponents, of opposing worldviews, against each other. At least, not if one of these is the incumbent (which is to say, it is not an open seat).
Rather, our elections typically function as confidence versus no confidence referendums. (Surprisingly, President Obama got re-elected in 2012, despite his abysmal Right Track/Wrong Track numbers for the country. But this was an anomaly.)
I don't know how old you are or how long you've been voting.
For the record, I am 66 years of age. (I have never been especially bashful about fessing up to my actual age.)
Nope, unless your post is missing numerous paragraphs or written in invisible ink. Fill them in and answer the question.
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.