Terry Mcauliffe Wins Virginia

[boyst]

my point is obviously in regard to the nomination process. that's the danger zone for the party. of course the nonpragmatic R's would vote fro him if he gets nominated. the question is whether there are enough pragmatic R's left to make that happen

 

 

because the entire country does better when are leaders are pragmatists and not ideologues.

Why wouldn't there be? If it is Clinton as the Democratic nomination I do not see enough Republicans wanting to vote Clinton to make a different. The swing voters would, but they would for all the right reasons - they like Clinton and her viewpoint/opinions/politics. That's how it is suppose to be.

 

The pragmatic Democrats voting for Clinton would be less likely. There will be enough old fashioned Democrats that will not like her - just like in 08. There will be enough hip and young Democrats that are not moved enough to vote for her like they did for Obama. Hillary cannot generate rockstar hype.

[Azalin]

because the entire country does better when are leaders are pragmatists and not ideologues.

I don't know about that. Reagan was very popular and the country did rather well with him in office, and he was no pragmnatist. the country did pretty well under Clinton, but his pragmatism was a by-product of his ego - his desire to be popular both with voters and historically. Clinton was a hard-left idealist until the dems got slaughtered in the '94 elections. that put an end to Hillarycare and gave way to Dick Morris and his 'triangulism', making Clinton position himself as a centrist and making him much more popular with the moderate american middle.

[TheMadCap]

know what would be AWESOME? Some old, dusty, far right doofus gets the nomination (yet again) for the GOP in 2016, and Christie goes rogue and gets an Independant nomination from some other party! Can you say fireworks?

[IDBillzFan]

because the entire country does better when are leaders are pragmatists and not ideologues.

 

So you would vote for Chris Christie if he ran for president.

 

Interesting.

[TheMadCap]

Why wouldn't there be? If it is Clinton as the Democratic nomination I do not see enough Republicans wanting to vote Clinton to make a different. The swing voters would, but they would for all the right reasons - they like Clinton and her viewpoint/opinions/politics. That's how it is suppose to be.

 

The pragmatic Democrats voting for Clinton would be less likely. There will be enough old fashioned Democrats that will not like her - just like in 08. There will be enough hip and young Democrats that are not moved enough to vote for her like they did for Obama. Hillary cannot generate rockstar hype.

 

Not anymore. She's an old battleax these days, the glamour is way gone for her...

[boyst]

I agree. Jeb would help offset Christie's perceived centrism, but I can't see the voting middle being too thrilled at another Bush in high office.

The VP seat is different. You do not anymore vote the VP in office. He is the businessman. He is the Cheney. He is the one who knows the system and can get things done when delegated to them. Biden was a fluke, an insurance policy for the rest of the Democrats not on Obama's side. A strong enough candidate to have notable name power with a tenured political background that it made Obama appear as if he is taking it seriously and wanting to be a politician. Obama could not come off as the American Idol pop sensation rock star organizer he actually is. Biden helped reduce that in 08 and by the time 12 came - well, this country is what Tom says.

 

Bush is the best VP because he can do more then shake hands and appear like a prop. He'll spend time in the trenches and he will work and that's what will strengthen Christie's ticket. His ticket will be along the lines of "we got a lot of work to do." Bush is a worker, a common sense problem solver that makes George Jr look like a simple man, and his father look like - well, his father. This is not his daddy's election process anymore.

 

Christie/Bush is the best ticket.

Christie/Rubio is going to pander too much and futhermore draw too flak for Rubio's history.

Bush/Rubio ain't happening.

Bush/Christie ain't happening.

Bush/??? would be laughed at.

 

I don't know about that. Reagan was very popular and the country did rather well with him in office, and he was no pragmnatist. the country did pretty well under Clinton, but his pragmatism was a by-product of his ego - his desire to be popular both with voters and historically. Clinton was a hard-left idealist until the dems got slaughtered in the '94 elections. that put an end to Hillarycare and gave way to Dick Morris and his 'triangulism', making Clinton position himself as a centrist and making him much more popular with the moderate american middle.

YouTube and the internet won't let that happen. They cannot just talk anymore and expect no one to listen. They'll be called out and when Clinton tries to center herself she will have a lot of explaining to do on how she changed her mind on different issues. She has a double sided sword in her hand. One side has seen a lot of blood through the process, the other side still has that blood sitting on it. She'll have to answer for a lot of the blood when she decides to swing that knife back another way.

 

She is not her husband who was just a mull. He would blast whatever way he wanted and when it was put back on him he'd cut right through it.

 

 

Not anymore. She's an old battleax these days, the glamour is way gone for her...

She has been vetted and that will strike a big favor for her in the womens vote. They'll see that she has hung in there and wants to keep beating the boys at their game. Every dyke in this country will throw their panties at her.

[B-Man]

know what would be AWESOME? Some old, dusty, far right doofus gets the nomination (yet again) for the GOP in 2016,

 

This made me laugh out loud.

 

G.H.W. Bush, Dole, George W. Bush, McCain, Romney....................not a conservative in the bunch, but hey, stick with the narrative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Wake of Narrow Cuccinelli Loss, Democrats Panic.

 

“Democratic alarm over the fortunes of the Affordable Care Act is becoming more and more visible every day. The last sign of panic is that Hill Democrats have acquiesced to the conservative narrative about Tuesday’s Virginia governor’s race. In the fight between GOP candidate Ken Cuccinelli and Democratic victor Terry McAuliffe, nearly everyone expected Cuccinelli to lose big, given his socially conservative stances and lack of money and establishment support. Instead, the race turned out to be incredibly close: thanks to a last-minute, eight-point swing, he only lost by two points. Cuccinelli himself, as well as many on the right, interpreted the narrow margin as a rebuke of Obamacare. . . .

 

A Democratic party confident in Obamacare would brush off what the right is saying about Cuccinelli with a narrative of its own: polls often narrow near the end of the race; Virginia is an historically red state; McAuliffe was an uninspiring and otherwise problematic candidate.

 

Instead, they’re worried that they’ll be the next victims of anger over Obamacare.”

 

.

[Doc]

I don't know about that. Reagan was very popular and the country did rather well with him in office, and he was no pragmnatist. the country did pretty well under Clinton, but his pragmatism was a by-product of his ego - his desire to be popular both with voters and historically. Clinton was a hard-left idealist until the dems got slaughtered in the '94 elections. that put an end to Hillarycare and gave way to Dick Morris and his 'triangulism', making Clinton position himself as a centrist and making him much more popular with the moderate american middle.

The country did well under Clinton because of the internet and emerging cell phone industries.

[birdog1960]

This made me laugh out loud.

 

G.H.W. Bush, Dole, George W. Bush, McCain, Romney....................not a conservative in the bunch, but hey, stick with the narrative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Wake of Narrow Cuccinelli Loss, Democrats Panic.

 

“Democratic alarm over the fortunes of the Affordable Care Act is becoming more and more visible every day. The last sign of panic is that Hill Democrats have acquiesced to the conservative narrative about Tuesday’s Virginia governor’s race. In the fight between GOP candidate Ken Cuccinelli and Democratic victor Terry McAuliffe, nearly everyone expected Cuccinelli to lose big, given his socially conservative stances and lack of money and establishment support. Instead, the race turned out to be incredibly close: thanks to a last-minute, eight-point swing, he only lost by two points. Cuccinelli himself, as well as many on the right, interpreted the narrow margin as a rebuke of Obamacare. . . .

 

A Democratic party confident in Obamacare would brush off what the right is saying about Cuccinelli with a narrative of its own: polls often narrow near the end of the race; Virginia is an historically red state; McAuliffe was an uninspiring and otherwise problematic candidate.

 

Instead, they’re worried that they’ll be the next victims of anger over Obamacare.”

 

.

pretty narrow definition of conservative, huh? everything is relative...but it's this kind of thought that makes liberals confident.virginia has been a purple state since at least 2008 so i guess one needs to define "historical". yup, we expected better in va gov race and better from the aca rollout. it needs fixing and it will happen. when 30 million people, many of whom don't currently vote, get health insurance, things will change. they might well be inspired to start voting.

 

YouTube and the internet won't let that happen. They cannot just talk anymore and expect no one to listen. They'll be called out and when Clinton tries to center herself she will have a lot of explaining to do on how she changed her mind on different issues. She has a double sided sword in her hand. One side has seen a lot of blood through the process, the other side still has that blood sitting on it. She'll have to answer for a lot of the blood when she decides to swing that knife back another way.

 

if this is true, how did romney manage almost 49% of the vote despite obvious inconsistencies in positions?

 

So you would vote for Chris Christie if he ran for president.

 

Interesting.

if it were between christie and hillary (and i hope it is), i would have a difficult decision. i'd listen closely to their debates and campaigns and look closely at how congress was constructed. all other things being equal, i'd likely vote for the one with the most ability to effect real needed change: ie the one with a majority in congress.

[boyst]

 

pretty narrow definition of conservative, huh? everything is relative...but it's this kind of thought that makes liberals confident.virginia has been a purple state since at least 2008 so i guess one needs to define "historical". yup, we expected better in va gov race and better from the aca rollout. it needs fixing and it will happen. when 30 million people, many of whom don't currently vote, get health insurance, things will change. they might well be inspired to start voting.

 

 

if this is true, how did romney manage almost 49% of the vote despite obvious inconsistencies in positions?

 

 

if it were between christie and hillary (and i hope it is), i would have a difficult decision. i'd listen closely to their debates and campaigns and look closely at how congress was constructed. all other things being equal, i'd likely vote for the one with the most ability to effect real needed change: ie the one with a majority in congress.

Obama was and is a terrible president.

[birdog1960]

Obama was and is a terrible president.

fortunatley, in 2012, a majority of the country still disagreed with you.

 

but the point is that flip flopping is acceptable to many voters and we haven't seen the last of it especially when it's obvious that one set of "principles" is needed to win the primaries and another to win a general election.

Edited November 8, 2013 by birdog1960

[IDBillzFan]

if it were between christie and hillary (and i hope it is), i would have a difficult decision. i'd listen closely to their debates and campaigns and look closely at how congress was constructed. all other things being equal, i'd likely vote for the one with the most ability to effect real needed change: ie the one with a majority in congress.

 

Except we have someone now with a majority in congress who effected real change, and end-to-end this country is in the worst shape it's been in since the 70s. An economy on hold, a quarter million people dropping out of the workforce JUST LAST MONTH, millions losing health insurance, and a president who today stands in Louisiana and blames it all on "manufactured crises."

 

So I'm not so sure the best plan is to see who can effect the most change.

[boyst]

fortunatley, in 2012, a majority of the country still disagreed with you.

I do not think of the presidential elections as choosing one guy over another. I think to many it is about choosing the lesser of two evils and taking the guy who can make them feel better about themselves. I believe Obama is a bad President because what I learned in grade school. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. Judicial determines if the laws are Constitutional. Legislative makes laws based upon the will of the people. Executive carries out the actions of those laws. Barrack Obama is an executive officer of this country and he has no business making laws for this country that go against the principles of this country and its constitution - much less having the part of making any law. If this was the will of the people then there would not have been a government shut down.

 

Now, shirley, you could argue that we reelected Obama in the midst of this ACA mumbo jumbo... but can you actually say that Obama would be reelected tomorrow with what has happened in the last two months? I cannot. Of course, it depends who he is running against but that is not necessarily my point. Obama is failing the people of this country as a majority. It is clear in every poll.

 

I think Obama was doomed to fail since he began his White House run. He promised more then anyone else, ever. The national debt was sure to be more then it was before. When all is said and done there was no way half of what he said would be put in action. Sadly, the one point he did get in action is his little gem of the ACA.

 

but the point is that flip flopping is acceptable to many voters and we haven't seen the last of it especially when it's obvious that one set of "principles" is needed to win the primaries and another to win a general election.

That we, the people, tolerate this is inexcusable.

[Rob's House]

Where is this theory that a GOP candidate needs to appease the "far right" coming from?

 

I don't know if you guys forgot, but the last two Republican presidential nominees were John McCain and Mitt Romney - Pretty much the two most "moderate" candidates in either primary.

 

Oh yeah, and they both lost, which tells me that all these d-bags that say "I'd vote for a Republican if they'd nominate someone more moderate" are all full of ****. They're a bunch of libs that are too f'n pu$$y to admit they're libs because they want to front like they're objective when the truth is they just lack integrity. I prefer a straight up commie to this crowd. Say what you will about Birdog. he may be ridiculous but at least he's not afraid to tell you who he is, and there's a lot to be said for that.

 

So you would vote for Chris Christie if he ran for president.

 

Interesting.

I'm not sure about his chances. Do we know if he has a horse?

[Koko78]

Where is this theory that a GOP candidate needs to appease the "far right" coming from?

 

I don't know if you guys forgot, but the last two Republican presidential nominees were John McCain and Mitt Romney - Pretty much the two most "moderate" candidates in either primary.

 

Oh yeah, and they both lost, which tells me that all these d-bags that say "I'd vote for a Republican if they'd nominate someone more moderate" are all full of ****. They're a bunch of libs that are too f'n pu$$y to admit they're libs because they want to front like they're objective when the truth is they just lack integrity. I prefer a straight up commie to this crowd. Say what you will about Birdog. he may be ridiculous but at least he's not afraid to tell you who he is, and there's a lot to be said for that.

 

 

I'm not sure about his chances. Do we know if he has a horse?

 

It will also need to be known whether or not he ever strapped a dog to his car roof, whether or not he bullied a kid 50 years ago or how many women he gave cancer to.

[Doc]

fortunatley, in 2012, a majority of the country still disagreed with you.

Yeah fortunately, because he's doing such a great job, right? And just a scant year later, people are realizing what a mistake they made judging by his 39% approval rating. By the time 2016 rolls around, he'll be seeing historic low approval ratings.

 

but the point is that flip flopping is acceptable to many voters and we haven't seen the last of it especially when it's obvious that one set of "principles" is needed to win the primaries and another to win a general election.

It's acceptable...when you have the media covering for your flip-flopping, not to mention blasting the other guy for flip-flopping.

[boyst]

Where is this theory that a GOP candidate needs to appease the "far right" coming from?

 

I don't know if you guys forgot, but the last two Republican presidential nominees were John McCain and Mitt Romney - Pretty much the two most "moderate" candidates in either primary.

 

Oh yeah, and they both lost, which tells me that all these d-bags that say "I'd vote for a Republican if they'd nominate someone more moderate" are all full of ****. They're a bunch of libs that are too f'n pu$$y to admit they're libs because they want to front like they're objective when the truth is they just lack integrity. I prefer a straight up commie to this crowd. Say what you will about Birdog. he may be ridiculous but at least he's not afraid to tell you who he is, and there's a lot to be said for that.

For the initial start in the primaries the hard core conservative stuff is key. The initial start can give a lot of momentum. It's how Godfather Pizza man got his longevity in to the primaries, though it got him no where. The conservative line to toe is only important in the beginning. Once you get a little bit of traction there you'll get more. Rational thinkers do not spend much time on primaries. Idiots who vote for the brightest crayon spend time on primaries and they're the ones who help shape the initial narratives of any candidate.

 

It will also need to be known whether or not he ever strapped a dog to his car roof, whether or not he bullied a kid 50 years ago or how many women he gave cancer to.

I'm sure all of that information will be kept in binders...

[Alaska Darin]

The country did well under Clinton because of the internet and emerging cell phone industries.

Oil prices at <$18 a BBL, the dawn of the new investor class, speculative investing, venture capital, cheap money, loose lending regulations, the housing boom and resulting HELOC explosion, etc.

 

No one in history gets more undeserved credit

[IDBillzFan]

Oil prices at <$18 a BBL, the dawn of the new investor class, speculative investing, venture capital, cheap money, loose lending regulations, the housing boom and resulting HELOC explosion, etc.

 

No one in history gets more undeserved credit

 

Don't forget the budget surplus!