Ace of Spades HQ

May 07, 2014

Conservatives' Baskin-Robbins Effect
— CAC

I've seen a lot of hemming and hawing about how the villainous Karl Rove and his band of toads flooded the zone and dragged "their guy" Tillis across the finish line in yesterday's North Carolina primary. Thom Tillis was the establishment's pick, and he won- just under 46% per the last county updates I've seen. However, the establishment is what it is, and how it has enjoyed wins in important primaries, both Senatorial and Presidential, isn't thanks to their spending or some deal in a smoke-filled room. It is far simpler than that.

How can I say this? Because over 54% of Republican primary voters did not vote for Tillis. Had these other voters consolidated behind a single candidate, as the establishment always does even if they have to switch gears to do so (see the maneuvering to push Christie out and test Bush), Brannon or Harris would be the one facing Senator Hagan.

Conservatives jump from candidate to candidate in a lot of these races, and the more who throw their hat into the ring, the further it dilutes their voice in the primary. When the wife and I go out for ice cream, she's pretty set in her ways. A salted caramel option will always get her eye. If that is unavailable, then butter pecan sounds good. But that's the limit for her.

I am terribly indecisive. I know I want something new, different, interesting, and unfortunately I'm left with almost three dozen choices to pick from. While I'm still trying to figure out what I want, she's already enjoying her ice cream. This isn't a conspiracy between her and the ice cream shop. It's my simple inability to focus on one enjoyable choice.

Part of the problem here is the ego of the various conservative/TP candidates, and I don't mean that in a maligning way. Many of them really believe they (and only they) can really shake things up. After all, you trust your own judgement over others, right? With so many admirably determined individuals vying for attention and desperate to break through, the boring, noxious establishment character sits back and waits for the inevitable: the verbal slip ups, the RINO circular firing squad, the shovels, and the vote splitting on election day.

When conservatives start treating primaries the way the establishment long has, their fortunes can and will change. But until then, they are left fighting over the best flavor while losing their say.

Posted by: CAC at 08:07 AM | Comments (264)
Post contains 414 words, total size 2 kb.

1 frsit

Posted by: Citizen X at May 07, 2014 08:09 AM (7ObY1)

2 CAC, it's time you buy and read "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz. Your life will improve immeasurably once you learn how to limit your options and make quick decisions without looking back.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at May 07, 2014 08:11 AM (xN1DB)

3 The problem is one of simple organization. Conservatives are not organized like the party is.... and if they were that organized, they would be able to take OVER the party.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 07, 2014 08:11 AM (84gbM)

4 Yes, that's all true. The ones we want are always failing our purity tests so it's hop to another candidate. Also, I'm guessing a lot of conservatives didn't even know there was a primary.

Posted by: joncelli at May 07, 2014 08:11 AM (RD7QR)

5 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:13 AM (PYAXX)

6 Exhibit A: The jockeying among "Not Romney" candidates in 2012 was guaranteed to give us Romney as a nominee. That said, there's not much that can be done about this.

Posted by: Andy at May 07, 2014 08:13 AM (2OaXr)

7 Voter turn out in NC sucked too.

Posted by: EC at May 07, 2014 08:13 AM (GQ8sn)

8 Perhaps an unofficial pre-primary primary of conservative candidates will solve the problem.

Posted by: NotCoach at May 07, 2014 08:13 AM (rsudF)

9 Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at May 07, 2014 12:11 PM (xN1DB) There's a sign in a video you need to see up in the last thread.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 07, 2014 08:13 AM (oFCZn)

10 In other words, purity of essence, or, more accurately, essence of purity, is the delusion that prompts so many TrueCons to throw their hats into the ring.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars™ [/i] [/s] [/u] at May 07, 2014 08:14 AM (HsTG8)

11 There's a sign in a video you need to see up in the last thread.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 07, 2014 12:13 PM (oFCZn)

*tosses Masturbatin' Pete into the last thread*

Posted by: EC at May 07, 2014 08:14 AM (GQ8sn)

12 And sometimes, the establishment floods the zone with so-called alternatives to divide the vote and make it difficult for a real alternative to stand out.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 07, 2014 08:14 AM (IN7k+)

13 I like Texas's rule- Majority or there's a run-off. Which is about the only reason David Dewhurst isn't already the R nominee for Lt. Governor. That said- yes. It would be nice if all these "Tea Party" and/or "Grass-Roots" candidates would get together and say, "Look, we have far more in common than we do in conflict, and far more in common with each other than with that Establishment prick. How about we draw straws to pick which of us actually runs, and the others all support that one?"

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:14 AM (PYAXX)

Not every voter who voted for one of the two candidates would have not voted for Tillis if their candidate had not run. Especially if the one left running was Brannon.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2014 08:15 AM (m2CN7)

15 *tosses Masturbatin' Pete into the last thread* Posted by: EC at May 07, 2014 12:14 PM (GQ8sn) http://tinyurl.com/kk6sm9p

Posted by: RWC at May 07, 2014 08:16 AM (fWAjv)

16 Perhaps an unofficial pre-primary primary of conservative candidates will solve the problem. It would be nice to have one challenger to unite the split vote against incumbents or establishment candidates. I have no idea how to do it though.

Posted by: no good deed at May 07, 2014 08:16 AM (ILBCY)

17 Exactly.

As a great woman and dear friend of mine once said " You don't have to fall in love, just fall in line."

Wackobirds.

Posted by: Senator John McCain [/i] [/b] at May 07, 2014 08:17 AM (5ikDv)

18 I remember moving back to the States from Gaeta Italy. The exchange/Commissary there was the size of a large convenience store. Choice? Two types of toilet paper, two of toothpaste and so on. A weeks shopping took thirty minutes,tops. Now go to any Wegmans. No less then two hours to do the same shopping. Sometimes there is such a thing as too many choices.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at May 07, 2014 08:17 AM (Na2P1)

19 Its a long war. It took a long time to nominate Reagan, and the tea party is still in its infancy. Conservatives have had some major wins. Ted Cruz came out of no where to defeat a well funded and well known establishment guy. Rand Paul did the same. Of course, both Cruz and Paul are extremely good politicians. There aren't many of them. We need to find them and encourage them to run when we can. We need to primary establishment types even if we lose. The saying is there are no moral victories, but not all losses are pointless. Incumbents change if they think their job may be in peril, even if only slightly or for a limited time. The next generation of GOP stars are still relatively young, while Rove and his cohorts are still active. In time, they (like all previous generations) will fade away. I agree with CAC, that conservatives need to coalesce behind a single candidate like we did in Texas, to have more success. But there is still a lot of growth and learning to be done. We are making progress. We won't win them all, but we have established a beachhead from which to make further inroads.

Posted by: SH at May 07, 2014 08:17 AM (gmeXX)

20 The magic of purity tests. If you have enough then everybody fails, and then the establishment wins.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 07, 2014 08:17 AM (ZPrif)

21 14 Not every voter who voted for one of the two candidates would have not voted for Tillis if their candidate had not run. Especially if the one left running was Brannon.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2014 12:15 PM (m2CN7)

So some of the voters whose candidate didn't run voted for Tillis rather than the opponents who did run?

Posted by: joncelli at May 07, 2014 08:17 AM (RD7QR)

22 Not every voter who voted for one of the two candidates would have not voted for Tillis if their candidate had not run. Especially if the one left running was Brannon. Maybe not. I guess the real question was whether or not those 54% of voters who didn't vote for Tillis were voting against Tillis or for their favored candidate. Which is why run-offs are useful. When someone gets 46%- would have have won >50% with only one challenger, or would the challenger have won?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:17 AM (PYAXX)

23 When conservatives start treating primaries the way the establishment long has, their fortunes can and will change. But until then, they are left fighting over the best flavor while losing their say. I fail to see how replicating an establishment system will solve the problems that caused the objections to the establishment in the first place. Silly me, I though the entire point of a primary was to get as many people involved as possible and then let them fight it out. You want to win the mantle of the conservative? Then go out there and prove that you can get the most votes. Compete or die. Oh and if that means that establishment candidate wins? Well then that means that you Mr./Miss Conservative Candidate did not do your job in persuading others to vote for you. All that being said, there is nothing wrong with having the more conservative candidates take a strategic view of the primary. That is basic political common sense. But there is something that strikes me as a bit hypocritical to say that we as conservatives do not like how the establishment handles things and then we turn around and do exactly the same thing.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 07, 2014 08:18 AM (mf5HN)

24 How can I say this? Because over 54% of Republican primary voters did not vote for Tillis. Had these other voters consolidated behind a single candidate, as the establishment always does even if they have to switch gears to do so (see the maneuvering to push Christie out and test Bush), Brannon or Harris would be the one facing Senator Hagan.

What you are missing CAC is the "establishment" insures the zone is always flooded with marginal candidates so their gut will get the plurality.

They can't do that in the few States like SC that have runoff. Unfortunately it looks like NC doesn't if the "winner" only got 47% and no runoff.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 07, 2014 08:18 AM (T2V/1)

25 Now I want a scoop of jamocha almond fudge...

Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at May 07, 2014 08:19 AM (+0txR)

26 You know who's going to get a run-off?

Clay Aiken.

It's still too early to tell, unless they found a trunk full of votes in someone's car. He's trying to run against Renee Elmers, where someone DID find a trunk full of ballots at the last minute. Probably their strategic reserve for cheating.

Posted by: EC at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (GQ8sn)

27 How do our asses taste?

Posted by: FOX News Staff at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (thLL8)

28 Which is why run-offs are useful. When someone gets 46%- would have have won >50% with only one challenger, or would the challenger have won?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 12:17 PM (PYAXX

I agree with runoffs .

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (m2CN7)

29 Maybe Truther candidates like Brannon just aren't popular among the Right?

Posted by: Shoot Me at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (EQcfE)

30 No. Let them fight. Let them scramble. Over the course of time the establishment toadies will be rejected.

Posted by: eman at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (EWsrI)

31 so "choice" is bad. Or is that good? I'm confused. Oh, wait, the "D" candidate is supposed to win?

Posted by: anon a mouse at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (gXRIG)

32 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 07, 2014 12:18 PM (mf5HN) I guess it depends on the specific tactic adopted. I really think the major change isn't that we need to adopt all the tactics of the Establishment- primaries should require more than 50% of the votes to declare a winner- other than that there should be a runoff.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (PYAXX)

That party is dead, they just don't know it yet.

Let it burn.

Posted by: Drill_Thrawl at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (H84UO)

34 This post will be stomped in 2 minutes.

Posted by: SH at May 07, 2014 08:20 AM (gmeXX)

35 It's like finding an awesome jukebox with all your favorite albums... But for some reason it always ends up playing Steely Dan.

Posted by: wooga at May 07, 2014 08:21 AM (M18BP)

It's even simpler than you suggest. The problem is not that the Establishment figures out how to coalesce behind a single candidate, and conservatives don't, it's that the Establishment candidate isn't really OF the same party as the conservatives.

Otherwise, it would be perfectly fine for there to be a scrum to secure a nomination. If candidate A has a tenuous lead, but has a gaff that leads to candidate B taking over frontrunner status, so be it. As long as everybody belongs to the same party, when it's all over, everybody goes home happy, and rallies around the nominated candidate.

As it is now though, everybody gets to point fingers at everyone else, because noboby but the minority of voters too stupid to not fall for the Establishment toady's b.s. is happy with the result.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2014 08:21 AM (TOk1P)

37 Now go to any Wegmans. No less then two hours to do the same shopping. Sometimes there is such a thing as too many choices. Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at May 07, 2014 12:17 PM (Na2P1) YOU TAKE THAT BACK ABOUT WEGMANS! YOU TAKE THAT BACK NOW! *adds you to The List*

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 07, 2014 08:21 AM (mf5HN)

38
Nope. Because in the NC primary there was a 40% or more first round gate. The non-Tillis' just needed to keep him below that to force a run-off.

To use the ice cream analogy, there's a reason Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors. More choices, more customers. In this case, the diversity of candidates opposing Tillis gave more voters options to vote against him.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 08:22 AM (kdS6q)

39 It's only a problem if that 54% of the Republicans votes for Tillis in the general. If you choose to think the GOP doesn't represent you, don't keep voting for it to represent you.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at May 07, 2014 08:22 AM (5xmd7)

40 35 It's like finding an awesome jukebox with all your favorite albums... But for some reason it always ends up playing Steely Dan.

Posted by: wooga at May 07, 2014 12:21 PM (M18BP)

And the problem is...?

Posted by: joncelli at May 07, 2014 08:22 AM (RD7QR)

41 OT: Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Slate knows: "[Justice Anthony] Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito relentlessly characterize religion as an essentially peaceful, civilizing, lofty influence that seems to have more to do with social politeness than religious zeal. KennedyÂ’s majority opinion contains the complete text of four prayers, presumably to calm and unify his stressed-out reader, and he writes lovingly of prayer that is Â“solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing.Â” He seems unaware that for every solemn and respectful prayer, America offers up dozens of fiery, judgmental, even violent ones."

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2014 08:22 AM (XUKZU)

42 But CAC, you don't understand. I have to say - and I think Chi-Town Jerry will back me up on this - that if conservatives had all rallied around one candidate and beaten Thom Tillis, then North Carolina would be saddled with some Tea Party wacko who could never, ever possibly have a shot of winning against Kay Hagan.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 08:22 AM (YYJjz)

43 You see an (R) you vote for it.

This sh*t ain't hard , people.

Posted by: Teh JEB! at May 07, 2014 08:22 AM (BmmBm)

44 the old "divide and conquer" routine Well, "conservatives" aren't such old dogs that they can't play the inverse trick as well as the establishment does. After all, it's not even a NEW trick, but the oldest on record.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 07, 2014 08:22 AM (gmrH5)

45 The results wouldn't have changed much if there were fewer candidates, Tillis would have won. Not every voter that didn't originally vote for Tillis would automatically vote for Brannon because many may have been put off by his "scandal". All Tillis would need to get over 50% would be 1 in 5 votes of the voters that voted for the candidates that finished below Brannon.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly the poster MrCaniac at May 07, 2014 08:23 AM (HxSXm)

46 Sometimes there is such a thing as too many choices. And we should just sit back and let our betters in the ruling class decide for us, right? O.o

Posted by: HR at May 07, 2014 08:23 AM (/kI1Q)

@ 16 - "Perhaps an unofficial pre-primary primary of conservative candidates will solve the problem."

I have been saying this for years.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 08:23 AM (YYJjz)

48 Unleash the rabid corgis of the circular firing squad!

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 07, 2014 08:24 AM (6W127)

49 There's a sign in a video you need to see up in the last thread. Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 07, 2014 12:13 PM (oFCZn) *tosses Masturbatin' Pete into the last thread* - Hey kid, I hear your mama calling.

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2014 08:24 AM (XUKZU)

50 After all, it's not even a NEW trick, but the oldest on record. Posted by: panzernashorn at May 07, 2014 12:22 PM (gmrH5) Well, maybe not the *oldest*...

Posted by: Pull My Finger at May 07, 2014 08:24 AM (PYAXX)

51 So, all conservatives aren't the same and don't think in lockstep? Hmmm. I bet all liberals act in the same way. I wonder what independents do?

Posted by: Roy at May 07, 2014 08:24 AM (VndSC)

52 Conservatives often lose because their starting point is how bad the other guy is. That's not a recipe for winning. It's a recipe to mostly get your ass kicked.

What most people loath is the way Congress operates. It is very nice to make that statement. It feels good when you back a candidate who parrots that and some lofty conservative throw away lines. But that's why you end up with five guys in the primary and no "real" winner.

Ultimately, it's the political art which makes that meaningful. A campaign is not a phrase, it's much more than that. It is having a person who is well grounded in the facts, not just someone you believe will be a stooge for your point of view- because they've somehow convinced you.

We complain the Left never transcends facts, but Republicans have their own problems with that when to comes to our primary process. It's a bunch of wishes and pathos appeals.

And we are surprised why we lose or folks sit home. We dissemble into excuses or recriminations against the ethereal Establishment Illuminati.

Negotiation and compromise are a lost art. Until we rediscover them, the outcome will continue to be disappointing.

Posted by: Marcus T at May 07, 2014 08:24 AM (GGCsk)

53 Ah, the joys of first-past-the-post. (I wonder sometimes if that choice of mechanic may not be another large part of the problem...)

Posted by: Brother Cavil at May 07, 2014 08:24 AM (rt3TY)

54 He seems unaware that for every solemn and respectful prayer, America offers up dozens of fiery, judgmental, even violent ones." Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2014 12:22 PM (XUKZU) You're overlooking his directive that no people or beliefs be maligned in the choice of words prayed.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 07, 2014 08:25 AM (gmrH5)

This is true. Gladly we do not have this problem in KY, MS, or OK.

NE and SC I just don't know.

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 08:25 AM (tVTLU)

56 The establishment also runs straw men. Why else would two people run against Boehner?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 07, 2014 08:25 AM (5PkZK)

57 The ones we want are always failing our purity tests so it's hop to another candidate. It's also bad candidate syndrome. They have bad stuff in their pasts, they don't come off as likeable, they don't know how to argue their position. The reason why establishment politicians win is that good politicians tend to have skills that endear them to the establishment. They also like politics. True conservatives hate politics. The deals, the manipulation, the backstabbing... The real key is to become the establishment so that slimy weasels suck up to us rather than to the RINO crowd.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2014 08:25 AM (1UzRc)

58 He seems unaware that for every solemn and respectful prayer, America offers up dozens of fiery, judgmental, even violent ones."

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2014 12:22 PM (XUKZU)

Uh, that's awfully specific. Has he been making a count of fiery prayers given at public occasions? When's the last time you heard a public invocation calling for the Wrath of God to descend on the evildoers?

Posted by: joncelli at May 07, 2014 08:25 AM (RD7QR)

59 Though, I also should point out I have no idea about any of the NC candidates. What (besides the fact the Establishment likes him) is wrong with Tillis? What was wrong with (for instance) Brannon? Obviously *something* was, or more people would have voted for him.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:25 AM (PYAXX)

60 You know, even if the GOPe candidates win and take the Senate and act just like Democrats, they'll still be HATED HATED HATED by the libs, the press, the pop culture producers, etc., etc.

And, like El McCain the media darling, they will try to please the press, the libs, etc., etc.

So, why do some here argue in favor of getting behind these candidates? You want a Senate full of John McCains??

Posted by: Sphynx at May 07, 2014 08:26 AM (OZmbA)

61 13 I like Texas's rule- Majority or there's a run-off. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 12:14 PM (PYAXX) -------------------- THIS. Conservatives should be working hard for run-off rules, not only in primaries, but in general elections. THIS X 1000.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 07, 2014 08:26 AM (dfYL9)

62 Besides this race, from what I saw going through all the news sources this morning ALL the "establishment" candidates won.

And as I said this morning, it helps to have the big money and all the big wigs behind your campaign,

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 07, 2014 08:26 AM (T2V/1)

63 Obviously *something* was, or more people would have voted for him.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 12:25 PM (PYAXX)

According to Nip Sip, Brannon was the devil.

Posted by: EC at May 07, 2014 08:26 AM (GQ8sn)

64 A reminder for morons living in Virginia's 7th congressional district (<spit>Cantor</spit>

. Dave Brat is an conservative economist running against him in the primaries, is anti-amnesty and pro-market (as opposed to pro-handing_favored_companies_taxpayers_money) and needs all the support he can get if we are ever going to get rid of Cantor. The primary is June 10 and the winner of the primary will not face a Democrat in November.

Posted by: AmyH at May 07, 2014 08:26 AM (zmlwq)

65 *adds you to The List* Shit! For Realz, It's Mrs VIA's favorite store on this Continent. And the items are wonderful. Our local one just seems to be full of mouth breathers who insist on parking their carts adjacent to each other in the aisles. Forty seven foot of double wide aisle... and there they are. Every F*ckin' time.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at May 07, 2014 08:27 AM (Na2P1)

66 55 This is true. Gladly we do not have this problem in KY, MS, or OK.

NE and SC I just don't know.

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 12:25 PM (tVTLU)

SC has a runoff is no candidate gets >50%

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 07, 2014 08:28 AM (T2V/1)

67 Maybe the non-establishment conservative candidates just have a messaging problem.

Posted by: Roy at May 07, 2014 08:28 AM (VndSC)

68 So, why do some here argue in favor of getting behind these candidates? You want a Senate full of John McCains?? You have not viewed our programming I see.

Posted by: FOX News Staff at May 07, 2014 08:28 AM (thLL8)

69 53 Ah, the joys of first-past-the-post. (I wonder sometimes if that choice of mechanic may not be another large part of the problem...)

Posted by: Brother Cavil at May 07, 2014 12:24 PM (rt3TY)

I've got to admit, a general, nationwide runoff system might have saved us a lot of headaches down the line.

Posted by: joncelli at May 07, 2014 08:28 AM (RD7QR)

70 I think we just can't abide lying liars. Our tastes aren't changing, we just find out that that mint chocolate chip isn't chocolate chips like they said, but rat turds. Take Rubio - rat turd cluster.

Ronald Reagan for all his faults never completely shifted positions, and you always knew where he stood on an issue whether you agreed or not. We're faced with a new breed of career politicians, and they will do anything to keep the status quo and their little games going regardless of the long term implications. They're all dangerous.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at May 07, 2014 08:28 AM (pgQxn)

Titus, I truly hope that's a joke.

For all the RINO talk, when they run for office they sure talk hard core conservative. But ohhhhhh, you can never win the general with such opinions right??? hahahahaha. President Romney agrees!!!

It's the lying once they're in office that we fucking object to.

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 08:29 AM (tVTLU)

72 It's only the primary season and I'm already tired of the hand-wringing.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 07, 2014 08:29 AM (AbFmZ)

73 Just had an idea for an ice cream shop that specializes in not offering very many choices. This is going to be huge.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at May 07, 2014 08:29 AM (+lsX1)

74
According to Nip Sip, Brannon was the devil.
Posted by: EC

And Tillis was practically perfect in every way.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 08:29 AM (kdS6q)

75 Who it is is beside the point. What they propose and what they've accomplished is the yardstick I use. Do they mention limited government? The Constitution and its principles? Low taxes? Capitalism? Freedom? Strength? Do they mention the Dims dismal record with regards to the economy? Do they "reach across the aisle" to "compromise" with Dims or do they oppose them at every opportunity? Do they speak the truth? Do they stand up to the media? Why is it that no one candidate can seem to do all this?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 07, 2014 08:30 AM (0HooB)

76 Interesting, Ramesh Ponnura's column today on Cruz making the case for a presidential run, says the same thing: "Moderate candidates usually win the Republican primaries, partly because the party's establishment usually settles on a candidate earlier than conservatives do."

Posted by: SH at May 07, 2014 08:30 AM (gmeXX)

77 When's the last time you heard a public invocation calling for the Wrath of God to descend on the evildoers? Phelps/Westboro, about once a week for the past twenty years. Probably the only "prayers" anyone at Slate ever hears.

Posted by: HR at May 07, 2014 08:30 AM (/kI1Q)

78 46 Sometimes there is such a thing as too many choices.

And we should just sit back and let our betters in the ruling class decide for us, right?

O.o

Posted by: HR at May 07, 2014 12:23 PM (/kI1Q)

Yeah I really hate that argument. Its what Romney's supporters kept pushing. "How dare you support another candidate other than the great Romney in the primaries. You must support him now! The decision has already been made, so vote for him in the primaries over all the other options to prove that the decision has already been made"

Posted by: buzzion at May 07, 2014 08:30 AM (LI48c)

79 Just had an idea for an ice cream shop that specializes in not offering very many choices. This is going to be huge. - Their slogan can be "Have it our way."

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2014 08:31 AM (XUKZU)

80 Wegmans is superb. They opened a new one here in Frederick MD and the place is always a mad house. It is putting the local Giant Store out of business.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 07, 2014 08:31 AM (32Ze2)

81 Though, I also should point out I have no idea about any of the NC candidates. What (besides the fact the Establishment likes him) is wrong with Tillis? What was wrong with (for instance) Brannon? Obviously *something* was, or more people would have voted for him. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 12:25 PM (PYAXX) Oh here we go. Re: voter turn out. I mentioned last night that I voted after work. There was only one other person there when I voted and if the vote count thingy was correct on the machine where you fed your ballots, I was number 155 to vote. At nearly 6:00 p.m. Yeah. That's not good.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 07, 2014 08:32 AM (mf5HN)

82 18. And to get those two rolls you had to go up that big ass hill But at the bottom....smash sammies

Posted by: Navycopjoe at May 07, 2014 08:32 AM (jFJtl)

83 The Dems will not save you. The Repubs will not save you. Your vote in the rigged game will not save you.

Rice, beans, water purification, medical supplies, ammo. These can save you.

Posted by: Cassandra of Hoi-Poloi at May 07, 2014 08:32 AM (vmAFq)

84 This isn't just a conservative problem. I notcied that this happened a lot in Philly and other big urban cities. The incumbent would always win in the primaries (despite the fact that the district has been a cesspool for decades) because multiple candidates split the opposition and the incumbent had a strong GOTV that was typically predicated on political patronage.

Posted by: taylork at May 07, 2014 08:32 AM (9bPUR)

85 According to Nip Sip, Brannon was the devil. Posted by: EC at May 07, 2014 12:26 PM (GQ8sn) And wouldn't let us forget it.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 07, 2014 08:32 AM (DrWcr)

86 Anyone know what Clay Aiken is running on? Besides semen?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 07, 2014 08:33 AM (CJjw5)

87 YOU TAKE THAT BACK ABOUT WEGMANS! YOU TAKE THAT BACK NOW!

*adds you to The List*

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 07, 2014 12:21 PM (mf5HN)

I'd rather have my toenails pulled out than go to a Wegmans ever again.

Posted by: TImon at May 07, 2014 08:33 AM (kAniV)

88 23. Compete or die I say AtC takes over the NBA

Posted by: Navycopjoe at May 07, 2014 08:33 AM (jFJtl)

89 Why the concern with voter turnout. In general, don't conservatives do better when voter turnout is lower?

Posted by: SH at May 07, 2014 08:33 AM (gmeXX)

90 but don't F-N listen, what ever you do!

Posted by: Cassandra of Hoi-Poloi at May 07, 2014 08:33 AM (vmAFq)

91 79 Just had an idea for an ice cream shop that specializes in not offering very many choices. This is going to be huge. - Their slogan can be "Have it our way." Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2014 12:31 PM (XUKZU) Those will be the state-run ice cream parlors.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 07, 2014 08:33 AM (DrWcr)

92 "Just had an idea for an ice cream shop that specializes in not offering very many choices. This is going to be huge." I tried that about 130 years ago. Two flavors was all. Didn't go anywhere.

Posted by: Howard Johnson at May 07, 2014 08:33 AM (AbFmZ)

93 Your toasted Shit Sandwich on rye is ready, peon.

Posted by: GOPe Sandwich Artisan at May 07, 2014 08:34 AM (dQoSM)

While discussing these primary results, let's keep something in mind.

If the election had gone the other way and Brannon had won, I can guarantee you that Rove and Co. would already be on the airwaves warning voters about what a wacko-bird the GOP in North Carolina is running. Brannon would receive no official party support, and would be undercut at every juncture.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 08:34 AM (YYJjz)

95 Anyone know what Clay Aiken is running on? - I'm pretty sure it's not free birth control.

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2014 08:34 AM (XUKZU)

96 Keep the choices, just implement a pre-primary primary.

I guess that leads to the next step. An actual party that will eventually replace the GOPe.

Posted by: Sphynx at May 07, 2014 08:34 AM (OZmbA)

97
It will be interesting to see if the GOP ever notices (and maybe they have and don't care) of dem counter operations (sounds spooky right?) in messing in primaries. Both sides probably do it, but dems will promote weaker Repub candidates and are better at it.

Which is why of course the GOP should go to majority or runoff primaries. Which is also of course why they won't.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 07, 2014 08:34 AM (hJauc)

98 95 Anyone know what Clay Aiken is running on? - I'm pretty sure it's not free birth control. Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2014 12:34 PM (XUKZU) Free Astroglide.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 07, 2014 08:34 AM (DrWcr)

99 CAC has it exactly right. This will happen again in 2016. Cruz, Paul, Santorum, et al will eat each other alive while Bush coasts. And then he'll lose to Hillary because most people remember the Clinton era as being the longest period of economic expansion in American historhy, and most people remember the Bush era as ending with the 2008 financial crash.

Posted by: Caiwyn at May 07, 2014 08:34 AM (MmZIj)

100 Thanks Vic.

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 08:34 AM (tVTLU)

101 Would it be gauche to point out that all primary's should be closed?

If we're talking about getting votes around our guys and all that?

Posted by: Chupacabras at May 07, 2014 08:35 AM (5npD/)

102 I supported Tillis because of his track record in the NC House. Period. Folks outside of the state have no idea how butt-hurt the libs are in NC -they lost the both legislative chambers AND the governorship. Thom Tillis had a lot to do with that. Now Kay Hagan is on the ropes. She's hurting so bad that she ran ads attacking Tillis in hopes of forcing a runoff where the two Republican contenders would fight each other while she scampered about collecting money from deep-pocket Dems.

Talking Tea Party is one thing, doing the heavy lifting for conservatives in the House (for the benefit of all North Carolinians) is something else.

Posted by: mrp at May 07, 2014 08:35 AM (JBggj)

103 73 Just had an idea for an ice cream shop that specializes in not offering very many choices. This is going to be huge.

Wasn't a great move for us.

http://tinyurl.com/asvzca6

Posted by: 'Whites Only' Laundry at May 07, 2014 08:35 AM (BmmBm)

104

@ 83 - "The Dems will not save you. The Repubs will not save you. Your vote in the rigged game will not save you.

Rice, beans, water purification, medical supplies, ammo. These can save you."

Only Jesus can save you.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 08:35 AM (YYJjz)

105

Brain Bleach! Aisle 86.

STAT!

Posted by: Drill_Thrawl at May 07, 2014 08:35 AM (H84UO)

106 "And wouldn't let us forget it."

I recall a bunch of idiots ganging up on Nip Sip because AMNESTY!!!!!!, but hey, bullies love to cast themselves as the victim.

Posted by: Shoot Me at May 07, 2014 08:35 AM (EQcfE)

107 I had this whole comment typed out 5 minutes ago but then I hit the bandned phone IP and had to reboot my whole phone which is a real pain in the ass. Anyway, I don't want to remove choices from the primary, that's what the primary is for. What I would like to see, is all states adopt a an election law like Texas has where you either get 50 percent of the vote or there is a run off. And I know 15 other people have posted this already...too bad.

Posted by: DangerGirl at May 07, 2014 08:36 AM (LP0Fj)

108 Tillis got about 45%, Harris and Brannon combined got about 44%, the remaining 11% was split between 5 non-entities, one of whom was a woman who actually showed up at the debate, the other four were total non-entities, running novelty or vanity campaigns. If that 11% had split equally for Tillis and Brannon-Harris, Tillis still wins a squeaker. Would have been interesting if either Harris or Brannon hadn't run.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 07, 2014 08:36 AM (ZshNr)

109 The Agency that can't shoot straight - the FBI.

FBI agent in Pakistan to conduct training is arrested on a local flight for having live ammo in his carry-on. In jail on anti-terrorism charges.

http://tinyurl.com/noc53n8

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 07, 2014 08:36 AM (6W127)

110 "Moderate candidates usually win the Republican primaries, partly because the party's establishment usually settles on a candidate earlier than conservatives do." May have a point. How long have we already been hearing about Christie and Jeb for 2016 and we're still 2 years away. Haven't really heard anyone to the right begin to narrow down the "conservative" Republican options.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 07, 2014 08:36 AM (AbFmZ)

111 You're getting Jeb. It'll be easier if you just accept it now.

Posted by: GOP Big Money Donors at May 07, 2014 08:36 AM (M2qTM)

112 Only Jesus can save you. Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 12:35 PM (YYJjz) Your soul, yes. Your ass, well, I wouldn't count on it.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 07, 2014 08:36 AM (DrWcr)

113 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 07, 2014 12:32 PM (mf5HN) I'm being serious here. Well, serious-ish. Low voter turn-out is indeed bad, but isn't that an indictment of the challengers? I would think that low turnout is good for the Establishment in primaries the way it tends to be good for Democrats in the General (though, theoretically with less vote fraud). But what specific positions does Tillis hold that are bad? What specific positions did (again- as an example) Brannon hold that were bad?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:36 AM (PYAXX)

114
I was number 155 to vote. At nearly 6:00 p.m. Yeah. That's not good.
Posted by: alexthechick

Hmmm.. it's almost as if having a party boss pick steamrolled onto the ballot depresses voter enthusiasm. Ought to bode well for the Fall, in an off year election when winning is all about turning out your base.

Hagen in Nov, by 4%.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 08:37 AM (kdS6q)

115 How is this a problem? I just eat one scoop of each, wingnuts.

Posted by: Moochzilla at May 07, 2014 08:37 AM (un0yB)

116 Allen G. Tillis has a dodgy record on amnesty. Supporting drivers licenses for illegals. A work program that allows employers to skip the E Verify process. Support from the CoCommerce and All the Rove alphabets. What got me though, while cutting teachers he decided to give his staff raises after about 3 months on the job. While I'm no great fan of the NCAE, that was a pretty tone deaf move. Just another hack to me. But less hacky than Hagan. He'll get my vote in Nov regardless.

Posted by: Golfman in NC at May 07, 2014 08:37 AM (XACYf)

117 "FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulations - like PAC's.

Yeah, a good conservative has nothing to talk about really, do they? I don't think the public would really understand a lot of their talking points about things like, oh I don' know, FASCISM for instance.

A real conservative could tear a hole in the time space continuum after what's happened to this country in the last 5 years. Land. Slide. But no-o-o-o. We gotta fight the dems on their talking points.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at May 07, 2014 08:37 AM (pgQxn)

118

Clay Aiken is the perfect candidate for our times. Like the music industry, politics is pablum for the masses.

You can be a little bit country, you can be a little bit urban, you can be young and cool, or you can be old and cool once more, but you WILL churn out that pop the kids love so much these days (and fits quite nicely with the Big Money types who really run it all). Anything outside the norm, you will not be allowed on the stage.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2014 08:37 AM (TOk1P)

119 Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 12:37 PM
====
Not a chance.

Posted by: mrp at May 07, 2014 08:38 AM (JBggj)

120 You guys should pick them the way we do it in Chicago Your wards man comes over and tells you who to vote for If not your garage burns down

Posted by: Navycopjoe at May 07, 2014 08:38 AM (jFJtl)

121 Its always easy for the Establishment (or their backers) to put up a 'non-Establishment' candidate to split the non-Establishment vote.

Posted by: --- at May 07, 2014 08:38 AM (MMC8r)

122 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 12:14 PM (PYAXX) Yes, well that requires an establishment of some sort now doesn't it

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) [/b] [/i] [/s] at May 07, 2014 08:38 AM (HDwDg)

123

OT, Rush today is showcasing how shallow and dumb he can be even while pulling the oar in the right direction. The idiotic wag the dog shit about the attack on the Sudan facility under Billy Joe Bob - a (not uncommon) case of failed intelligence estimates, but a very important and interesting one. A tiny handful of countries have ever mastered production of the most sophisticated nerve agents, one of them (astoundingly, and importantly) being Ba'athist Iraq. And the father of that program - inexplicably - spent time in Khartoum at the same time AQ was HQ'd there. And on-site physical intel seemed to point to the strong possibility of VX precursors being present at the Khartoum facility. While wrong, the assessment of an Iraqi VX/AQ connection in Khartoum was very well founded, and it would have been idiotically irresponsible to ignore (pretty much an analogue of the entire Iraqi WMD problem post-9/11). Which doesn't make the cruise missile strike - or its timing - the only good option, but completely removes it from the idiotic "distraction" category.

Still recall almost throwing something at the TV (wow, back then I still watched TV "news") when that slimy idiot Trent Lott came on camera and made some typically dumb comment about wag the dog in the first few moments of the story - long before any merits/results were known. The US unsheathes the sword against its most important enemy (AQ), and in 2 min. the GOP "leader" is out making back-stabbing comments. Pretty much the equivalent of that vermin Reid and his "war is lost" infamy.

Back to you regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by: outlier at May 07, 2014 08:38 AM (afQnV)

124 CAC does have a point though, just look at what's going on with the Dem primary in PA right now: they're all tripping over themselves trying to be the biggest O-Care BMOC while calling each other racist.

Which, in itself, is a lot of fun.

Posted by: Chupacabras at May 07, 2014 08:38 AM (sPO/s)

125 99 CAC has it exactly right. This will happen again in 2016. Cruz, Paul, Santorum, et al will eat each other alive while Bush coasts. And then he'll lose to Hillary because most people remember the Clinton era as being the longest period of economic expansion in American historhy, and most people remember the Bush era as ending with the 2008 financial crash. Posted by: Caiwyn at May 07, 2014 12:34 PM (MmZIj) --------------------------------- No, Hillary will win because there are more Free Shitters than there are of us. DOOMographics.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (CJjw5)

126 CAC has it exactly right. This will happen again in 2016. Cruz, Paul, Santorum, et al will eat each other alive while Bush coasts. And then he'll lose to Hillary because most people remember the Clinton era as being the longest period of economic expansion in American historhy, and most people remember the Bush era as ending with the 2008 financial crash. ---- The future tends to be different than we envision.

Posted by: SH at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (gmeXX)

127 94 While discussing these primary results, let's keep something in mind.

If the election had gone the other way and Brannon had won, I can guarantee you that Rove and Co. would already be on the airwaves warning voters about what a wacko-bird the GOP in North Carolina is running. Brannon would receive no official party support, and would be undercut at every juncture.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 12:34 PM (YYJjz)

I will say that I don't think I've seen a single person here who is from NC declare that they won't be voting for Tillis against Hagan. I get the feeling that had Brannon somehow won Nip Sip would still be throwing a whiny hissy fit and declaring that he would not vote for him.

And I say that as someone who is currently 99% certainly going to be holding his nose and voting for a D for congress.

Posted by: buzzion at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (LI48c)

128
[How liberals choose] Ok guys who are we all supposed to vote for? I don't want to make the wrong choice.

[How LIVs choose] Crap, its the election today already? Well guess I should vote. Who the hell is running? Oh well I'll just look for names I've seen before.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (78TbK)

129 You're getting Jeb. It'll be easier if you just accept it now. GOP Big Money Donors at May 07, 2014 12:36 PM (M2qTM) Huzzzzah!

Posted by: FOX News Staff at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (thLL8)

130 The Tea Party is a fool's errand because the Tea Party was successfully, and utterly Alinskied - by both sides. It didn't just get Alinskied - it got Palined. Anybody here think that Palin will ever have success again at running nationally? Because one of the reasons the Tea Party enjoyed its initial success is because it was so undefined and loosely defined, and because of that, the people who had the resources to do it were able to define it as anomalous. The next cool sounding poorly focused, upstart of an ad hoc alternative to the establishment parties will enjoy the same success. That wouldn't happen, in my weak minded opinion, if people could find within themselves to get behind an already well defined alternative like Libertarianism. I already know all of the arguments against Libertarianism, but there are no rules out there that says that a Libertarian has to be an absolutist. Libertarianism, though reasonably defined, enjoys an attractively loose othordoxy (again, my idiotic opinion) and naturally takes the heart out of the middle because its underlying principal is liberty. Have at Ã©r. My armor is donned.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (BZAd3)

131 Wegmans = overrated. And overcrowded by the illiterate of Fairfax County. And my husband started with one flavor, damnit!

Posted by: Harriott Johnson at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (gXRIG)

132 I'm really upset that the tea party conservative candidates that lost this republican primary immediately turned around and endorsed the democrat in the race...... oh....they didn't?? Wha?? How can this be?

Posted by: Some Guy in Wisconsin at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (Ffkvr)

133
But what specific positions does Tillis hold that are bad?
Posted by: AllenG

Pro-Amnesty, although Nips had a conniption about calling it that.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 08:39 AM (kdS6q)

134

Titus, indeed.

In fact, Ken C in VA had to fight PR attacks on THIS VERY FUCKING BLOG which parroted dem attack ads against him for, I don't know, doing HIS FUCKING JOB.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?!

Because a dispute about buttfucking means PERSONA NON GRATA. Do what I say not what I do. Listen to endless lectures about how someone I agree with 80% of the time is an ally even though they love big govt, expand obamacare and hate guns.

But if somebody doesn't love them some BUTTFUCKING that, my friends, is the scarlet letter. That one issue is the critical question of our day. That one issue allows us to attack them as a wackobird and the national party to deny them funding in A SWING FUCKING STATE and let a CLINTON OPERATIVE run the fucking joint.

The GOP is at a breaking point. They allow amnesty to go through or any immigration deal with this fucking guy in the WH, they truly might fade away.

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 08:40 AM (tVTLU)

135 Seems to me that the differences between Brannon and Tillis aren't so gigantic though. Tillis seems a bit wobbly on amnesty since he supported weakening the E-Verify law in NC, and I agree that is troubling, but other than that, what is the major difference between the two?

Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 08:41 AM (9GG/0)

136 So in this case the difference isn't really between butter pecan and almond supreme ice cream, it's more like between "vanilla" and "french vanilla".

Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 08:42 AM (9GG/0)

137 "FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulations - like PAC's.
***
If you want to get the left to stop pulling crap like this you have to make the same sort of arguments against the state media.

Hell, the House should hire someone like Lott to put together the cash equivalency of the elements of the Infotainment complex to each party and then start talking about regulating it.

The left will not stop trying newer and more authoritarian tactics until they honestly feel said tactics will be used on them as well.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2014 08:42 AM (78TbK)

138 I'm BAAAcK!!!

Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at May 07, 2014 08:42 AM (gXRIG)

139 And Tillis was practically perfect in every way.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 12:29 PM (kdS6q)

He and Tillis sound like longtime friends. Nip Sip also admitted once that he was an elected official of some sort.

Posted by: EC at May 07, 2014 08:42 AM (GQ8sn)

140 Rush talking about Lewinski. Not going near the primary results.

Posted by: Agenda 21 Refugee at May 07, 2014 08:42 AM (thLL8)

141 56 The establishment also runs straw men. Why else would two people run against Boehner? Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 07, 2014 12:25 PM (5PkZK) Because everyone who runs for office has an ego. Those two running against Boehner each thought they were the only ones that can be the true conservative champion.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly the poster MrCaniac at May 07, 2014 08:42 AM (HxSXm)

142 How LIVs vote: Facebook friend Renae says Hillary is running for president. Who knew? Go girl! I'm voting for you!

Posted by: Sphynx at May 07, 2014 08:42 AM (OZmbA)

143 Clay Aiken is running on education, creating jobs, cutting taxes, stopping gridlock in Congress and buttfucking.

Posted by: DangerGirl at May 07, 2014 08:43 AM (LP0Fj)

144

@ 135 - "Seems to me that the differences between Brannon and Tillis aren't so gigantic though. Tillis seems a bit wobbly on amnesty since he supported weakening the E-Verify law in NC, and I agree that is troubling, but other than that, what is the major difference between the two?"

Brannon is for deleting ObamaCare, Tillis is for "fixing" it.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 08:43 AM (YYJjz)

145 Republican voters, and voters in general I believe, like experience. The GOPe foljs have that, by definition. Voters also like the familiar, hence the family dynasties and campaigns that paint their candidate as "one of you." The key is to get conservatives into offices and give them time to develop records of accomplishment. Accept that part of being a politician is compromise, ergo some deviation from purity is to be expected. And get off your ass and vote.

Posted by: Y-not at May 07, 2014 08:43 AM (zDsvJ)

146 And I do think it is a stretch to say Tillis is "pro-amnesty". Wanting to weaken E-Verify is not the same as wanting to legalize all of the illegals.

Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 08:43 AM (9GG/0)

147 The GOP is at a breaking point. They allow amnesty to go through or any immigration deal with this fucking guy in the WH, they truly might fade away. ------------------------------ Bones: "They're dying, Jim." Kirk: "LET them die!"

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 07, 2014 08:43 AM (CJjw5)

148

MRP:

Yes, and that's why I said I would support Tillis in general. Isn't this how it's supposed to be done. Everyone rowing together. We fight it out in the primary but then pull same direction in general.

However, if GOP betrays on amnesty, they are dead. And Tillis and the rest can go fuck themselves.

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 08:44 AM (tVTLU)

149 I am not sure why Tillis engenders such angst among the morons. I am from NC, have met Tillis a couple times, and he is a pretty solid candidate. I wouldn't expect him to rate out Ted Cruz level, but I don't think he will be part of any Gang of Six type activity either. A very business oriented politician, focused on less government. I don't see him as a crusader, but I also don't see him as a RINO.

I get the concern over some of the squishes continuing to get Establishment backing, just not sure why Tillis is considered one of these...and I do believe he will hammer Hagan. Not certain how Brannon would have done, he's not as tested. Almost no one is as tested in NC as Tillis, at this point.

I sure would like to erase the one major Dem position left in my State's government.

Posted by: BetaPhi at May 07, 2014 08:44 AM (CbMU0)

150 51 So, all conservatives aren't the same and don't think in lockstep? Hmmm.

I bet all liberals act in the same way.

I wonder what independents do? >

They're off masterbatin with Pete until election day?

Posted by: Big Old Fat Guy at May 07, 2014 08:44 AM (OeLsu)

151 136 - C'est marque "French Roast".

Posted by: anon a mouse at May 07, 2014 08:44 AM (gXRIG)

152 Much of the problem is that so many Tea Party/TruCon candidates are usually delusional.

Who tries to run for Senator with ZERO elected experience? Why is that appealing to some conservatives? I find it absolutely disgusting. It's like a kid who just graduates from college and demands to be the CEO of the company he's applying to.

How about running for city council or as a state rep, etc and then running for Senator? Oh, those offices are just not big enough for your awesomeness. Some of these clowns don't even have a record of voting at all.

There's always exceptions to the rule, but most of the time, candidates like this fall flat on their face. Running a statewide election is not for amateurs.

We tend to look at every race as Gerald Ford vs Reagan. the difference was Reagan was a former Governor of the largest state in the US. He was a CREDIBLE, conservative alternative to the liberal Gerald Ford. He was not some guy in his mom's basement that decided he was going to run for President.

Field CREDIBLE candidates and many of these issues will go away.

Posted by: McAdams at May 07, 2014 08:44 AM (CIIco)

153 You said, in part, "Because over 54% of Republican primary voters did not vote for Tillis."
I think its worth noting that there were something like 8 candidates running in the GOP Primary, had Tillis received the votes of the last one candidate, he would have been over 50%.
And unlike a lot of "RINO" types, Breitbart said of Tillis:

""Despite being the Establishment candidate in the race, Tillis is loathed by Democrats in his home state because he helped enact a series of conservative reforms in the state legislature, including tax reform, eliminating regulations, and a new voter identification law."

Part of the problem Republicans seem to have (that the Progressives (f/k/a Democrats) don't have, is that we look for total and complete ideological purity in a candidate. I live in N.C. and am looking forward to Tillis taking away Kay Hagan's U.S. Senate seat in November. As far as I know, Dr. Brannon is a fine person but he's NEVER HELD any sort of public office and therefore can say whatever he wants to and he has no record to check against those statements.
I firmly believe That Tom Tillis is a Conservative Republican, that he will beat Hagan and we'll have one more seat - be one step closer - to making Harry Reid the Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate.

Posted by: Realwest at May 07, 2014 08:45 AM (30LIS)

154 True story, the last time our unpopular mayor ran for reelecction, he faced 4 opponents and finished 2nd highest with 32% of the vote. I figured he was a goner since 6 out of 10 voters didn't want him and I thought they would go the leading challenger in the run off. Nope. 58% reelection. It was their guy, or the status quo.

Posted by: toby928© at May 07, 2014 08:45 AM (QupBk)

155 All I know is the MSM is heralding this victory by the establishment GOP, which tells me all I need to know. I am also predisposed to voting for someone who has actual business experience and knows what an impediment the government is to business formation like Brannon. It looks like the deck was stacked against him.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 07, 2014 08:45 AM (8tAEF)

156 "Clay Aiken is running on education, creating jobs, cutting taxes, stopping gridlock in Congress and buttfucking." Clay, I've already got a special office picked out for you, buddy.

Posted by: Big Harry at May 07, 2014 08:45 AM (AbFmZ)

157 Brannon is for deleting ObamaCare, Tillis is for "fixing" it.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 12:43 PM (YYJjz)

Could you provide some evidence for your assertion?

Not saying it isn't necessarily true. I would just like to see for myself what Tillis actually said.

Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 08:45 AM (9GG/0)

158 The GOP is at a breaking point. They allow amnesty to go through or any immigration deal with this fucking guy in the WH, they truly might fade away.
***
Amazingly we have two parties that basically stand for the same thing now. Oh a Romney is certainly a more competent technocrat then an Obama...but they both want essentially the same things out of government.

As long as the Republican party continues to be an echo of the Democrat party, there is *no* advantage to conservatives to support it.

In fact, the only way to reform the R party is to make it clear that "...but but but the Democrats are worse!" is not enough. If you aren't going to advance conservative goals you aren't going to get conservative votes...

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2014 08:45 AM (78TbK)

159 "The Tea Party is a fool's errand because the Tea Party was successfully, and utterly Alinskied - by both sides."

Or... the Tea Party is made up of nitwits which are ruining its early success.

I know, crazy, right? I mean, don't Republicans know that the Establishment is worst than Hitler?!?!? The fact that the Tea Party is putting up some bad candidates and may be turning off potential GOP voters is not allowed to ever be talked about. That's a rule or something.

Posted by: Shoot Me at May 07, 2014 08:45 AM (EQcfE)

160 In PA the Dems run fake Tea Party candidates in GOP primaries all the time. Hell, would it surprise you to find out the GOPe is running fake Tea Party candidates to dilute the power of conservatives? Funny how there's all this money for these wildcat campaigns, isn't it?

Posted by: jeannebodine at May 07, 2014 08:46 AM (2LJqa)

161 I have a few problems with runoffs though. 1) they create a cost barrier to running for any office. 2) They cost the state money to solve what is effectively a party problem (or if they're for an actual election as opposed to the primary, they just cost money.) 3) Related to 1: they encourage the other party to push candidates into our primary to drain the war chest before the general election. And while 3 plays both ways, let's face it, only the Dems will succeed in doing that. Does this mean run offs are de facto bad? No, it just means I don't know how to balance all these issues.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) [/b] [/i] [/s] at May 07, 2014 08:46 AM (HDwDg)

162 52. Posted by: Marcus T at May 07, 2014 12:24 PM (GGCsk) Well stated. I've always held that GIVEN A PLATFORM, an articulated agenda, then deciding on who best will fulfill that set of expectations is the subsequent goal. It's one thing for every candidate to have his/her own website. What is yet needed long before primary elections is for the job descriptions be posted with easy online access on government websites; and for the local to national party websites to post the names/links per candidate campaigning for office. Given the written campaign platform of party and candidate, then its time to narrow down the list of candidates contesting the incumbents' re-election, LONG BEFORE THE PRIMARY. Were conservatives to organize series of local to regional townhalls, not inviting the incumbent, but instead featuring the incumbent's primary contenders, that would make the personal contact between voters and incumbent alternatives. Incumbents have their record. And they've had their government websites and their featured editorial news articles published in local to national news outlets, and often they've even appeared on television or been guests on talk radio. Voters already heard from the incumbent. And the incumbent is being financed by interests that are by no means "local". Yes, a lot of work and effort. But then, if the preparation proves a successful electoral result, WELL WORTH proving "how to". Not to mention, the benefit of better representation of your concerns. And it isn't as if the other major party hasn't already put this procedure into motion decades ago.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 07, 2014 08:46 AM (gmrH5)

163

Yes McAdams, we need more career politicians in DC. Please MOAR.

lol

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 08:46 AM (tVTLU)

164 All I want for Christmas this year is control of both Houses of Congress. I don't mind holding my nose to vote for a RINO to get that, either. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING to stall the JEF's agenda. I live in the real world.

Posted by: ALH at May 07, 2014 08:46 AM (yAPdC)

165 Those two running against Boehner each thought they were the only ones that can be the true conservative champion. Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly the poster MrCaniac at May 07, 2014 12:42 PM (HxSXm) Also, didn't matter. Boehner ran away with it.

Posted by: AMDG at May 07, 2014 08:46 AM (eFytx)

166 Who tries to run for Senator with ZERO elected experience? Why is that appealing to some conservatives? I find it absolutely disgusting. It's like a kid who just graduates from college and demands to be the CEO of the company he's applying to. How about running for city council or as a state rep, etc and then running for Senator? Oh, those offices are just not big enough for your awesomeness. Some of these clowns don't even have a record of voting at all. --------------------------------- Say my name, say my name...

Posted by: Paul Ryan at May 07, 2014 08:47 AM (CJjw5)

167 Running a statewide election is not for amateurs.

MOAR PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS

yeah, go with that.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at May 07, 2014 08:47 AM (BmmBm)

168

Who tries to run for Senator with ZERO elected experience?

The Senator from Wisconsin.

Posted by: buzzion at May 07, 2014 08:47 AM (LI48c)

169 Part of the problem Republicans seem to have (that the Progressives (f/k/a Democrats) don't have, is that we look for total and complete ideological purity in a candidate.
***
I disagree.

D candidates often talk about how moderate they are, but vote in lock step with what the leftmost elements of their party wants.

R candidates talk about how conservative they are, but sadly often vote in lock step with what the leftmost elements of their party wants.

Occasionally a D will be given permission to vote against the left...but only when it would not matter.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2014 08:48 AM (78TbK)

170 >>164 All I want for Christmas this year is control of both Houses of Congress. I don't mind holding my nose to vote for a RINO to get that, either. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING to stall the JEF's agenda. I live in the real world.

Posted by: ALH at May 07, 2014 12:46 PM (yAPdC)<<

Don't worry, we're right there with you and we're working real hard to implement, I mean obstruct, the President's agenda.

Posted by: John Boner at May 07, 2014 08:48 AM (OZmbA)

171 But what specific positions does Tillis hold that are bad? What specific positions did (again- as an example) Brannon hold that were bad? Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 12:36 PM (PYAXX) I'm not the best person to ask because I don't have a problem with Tillis. He made a few comments about Obamacare that were kinda positive and he may not be the most hard core conservative out there. But as mrp noted, he has done an excellent job cat herding in the NC House. I think a lot of the anti-Tillis stuff is coming from an anti-Establishment, anti-it's his turn mindset. There was definitely an air of well it's his turn so vote for him. On the other hand, that did used to be the path. Get elected to state house, move up in state house leadership, run for Congress, run for Senate. I think many of those who would be deemed Establishment are so confused by the hostility because that is how it was always done and they do not comprehend why the anger now. Tillis does have some minor issues involving lobbyists and the banging thereof by people he knew but those accusations have always seemed to be overblown (heh) to me. Brannon and Harris were running as the hard core conservatives. Brannon's major negative was the civil judgment against him for misrepresentation involving a failed business deal. I can tell you for a fact that the Brannon campaign's refusal to deal with that directly caused them to lose my father's vote. I was standing there when he got into it on the phone with a campaign volunteer who would not answer basic questions about it. When he hung up, I explained the situation and he understood but he flatly refused to consider Brannon after that because of how it was handled. Harris' major problem was name recognition.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 07, 2014 08:49 AM (mf5HN)

172 Hey, it's good to be the incumbent. And orange.

Posted by: Johnny Boner at May 07, 2014 08:49 AM (AbFmZ)

173 I want ice cream.

Posted by: easily influenced at May 07, 2014 08:49 AM (9Zci/)

174 How about running for city council or as a state rep, etc and then running for Senator? Oh, those offices are just not big enough for your awesomeness. Some of these clowns don't even have a record of voting at all. OR... It could be that they really believe that "we don't like career politicians" stuff. Because, face it, that's what that would be. First, city council for X years, then some State office (State rep maybe) for Y years, then US Congress for Z years... pretty quick, we're talking a 20+ year career in "politics" which has a decent chance of turning otherwise Conservative politicians into establishment hacks. Now, frankly, I don't have a problem with "career politician" in itself. As long as what you're accomplishing in politics aligns with my values, why should I care that the skills you have mastered are "Getting Elected" and "collecting votes?" However, once someone has mastered those two skills, it is very, very hard to beat them in an election- especially if they *also* have the advantage of being the incumbent in a given office.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:49 AM (PYAXX)

175

@ 149 - " I don't see him as a crusader, but I also don't see him as a RINO."

I typically divide GOP politicians into three classes. You have the two that people tend to think of: the True Cons and the RINOs. But there's a third one that hangs out in the middle between these two: the squishes. Squishes aren't necessarily genuine "moderates" (read: liberals). They aren't pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, pro-illegal, anti-gun, etc. They may even be philosophically pretty conservative on a personal basis. But they also have a compulsive need to "reach across the aisle" and be seen as "reasonable" and "able to get things done." Hence, they will still tend to go with the flow, and if the flow is to the Left, they go that way on big-issue votes. I can easily see Thom Tillis being that.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 08:49 AM (YYJjz)

176
And I do think it is a stretch to say Tillis is "pro-amnesty". Wanting to weaken E-Verify is not the same as wanting to legalize all of the illegals.
Posted by: chemjeff

In the discussion* in last night's results thread, there was a lot of back and forth over what he said to what audience, and nuances and all that. I'd summarize it as. "Possible yes on La Amnesty Grande, definite not no".

*giggling sissy slap-fight

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 08:49 AM (kdS6q)

177

18-1:

THIS!!! 1000 times THIS!!!

I love how hardcore conservative talking points are good enough to win elections, but somehow fighting for those principles once elected is CRAZY....

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 08:49 AM (tVTLU)

178 172 Hey, it's good to be the incumbent. And orange.
Posted by: Johnny Boner at May 07, 2014 12:49 PM (AbFmZ)

What time is cocktail time?

Posted by: ALH at May 07, 2014 08:50 AM (yAPdC)

179 Also, didn't matter. Boehner ran away with it. It's almost like we have as many if not more LIV's on our side then the donks.

Posted by: Agenda 21 Refugee at May 07, 2014 08:50 AM (thLL8)

180 Anybody come up with an answer for how we're going to get more voters to the polls than the Free Shitters in any presidential election from 2016 until, oh... the Burning Times begin? Thought not. Continue with your thought exercise.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 07, 2014 08:50 AM (CJjw5)

181 172 Hey, it's good to be the incumbent. And orange.

Racist

Posted by: Charlie Crist (R) [/i] [/b] at May 07, 2014 08:50 AM (BmmBm)

182 Uh, that's awfully specific. Has he been making a count of fiery prayers given at public occasions? When's the last time you heard a public invocation calling for the Wrath of God to descend on the evildoers?

Posted by: joncelli at May 07, 2014 12:25 PM (RD7QR)

Every Friday at the mosque?

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at May 07, 2014 08:51 AM (TKUw7)

183 #173 - You need the other Johnson. Over there. With the orange outhouse.

Posted by: Dr. Samuel Johnson at May 07, 2014 08:51 AM (gXRIG)

184 Also, didn't matter. Boehner ran away with it.

Posted by: AMDG at May 07, 2014 12:46 PM (eFytx)

By making more of an effort than he ever has before, even for a general election in November. He bombarded the airwaves and mailboxes to achieve 69% where he usually does nothing to get into the mid to high 80%'s.

Posted by: buzzion at May 07, 2014 08:51 AM (LI48c)

185

@ 159 - "I know, crazy, right? I mean, don't Republicans know that the Establishment is worst than Hitler?!?!? The fact that the Tea Party is putting up some bad candidates and may be turning off potential GOP voters is not allowed to ever be talked about. That's a rule or something."

You mean Tea Party candidates like Todd Akin?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 08:52 AM (YYJjz)

186

146 -

Sure. This is N. Carolina, right? The state that is importing thousands of Mexicans to work their chicken factories?

Yeah, no. Loosening E-Verify is amnesty. In spades.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2014 08:52 AM (TOk1P)

187 Posted by: Realwest at May 07, 2014 12:45 PM (30LIS) 153. "Breitbart said of Tillis:" Before or after he was killed? Andrew Breitbart said of Tillis? Or his staffer?

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 07, 2014 08:52 AM (gmrH5)

188 #182 - er, that's a lie. Or something. We think, but we no comprende.

Posted by: Progressives at Rutgers at May 07, 2014 08:53 AM (gXRIG)

189 Thought not. Continue with your thought exercise. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 07, 2014 12:50 PM (CJjw5) The only plan I got is to paint the dems as ineffective obstructionists by winning in 2014, then ramming jobs bill after jobs bill after jobs bill down the throat of Obama (especially ones he finds unpalatable, which less face it, would be any that are likely to work.) Granted the continued failure of the economy may mean we hit the burning times prior to 2016.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) [/b] [/i] [/s] at May 07, 2014 08:53 AM (HDwDg)

190 Tillis wanted drivers' licenses for illegals in NC. That's enough for me!

Posted by: Me & Julio down by the schoolyard at May 07, 2014 08:53 AM (2LJqa)

191 That's a rule or something. Posted by: Shoot Me at May 07, 2014 12:45 PM (EQcfE) Are they bad candidates because the lose, or are they bad candidates because they're Tea Party? For many people now all they have to do is see Tea Party and that is enough for them to vote no. Romney wasn't a bad candidate because he would have been a bad president. He was a bad candidate because he was Mormon. He already started out with strikes against him from the religious right, but then, because practically nobody knows anything about Mormonism, by the time the left was done for him, Mormon meant 'ok to murder. Sounds almost analogous to racist, I know.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 07, 2014 08:53 AM (BZAd3)

192 "What time is cocktail time?" It's always cocktail time, baby.

Posted by: Johnny Boner at May 07, 2014 08:54 AM (AbFmZ)

193 City councils and many state legislatures are not full- time jobs. Also time as say a disruct atty or other public sector job can be a useful way to see how a poyl candidate manages public resources. Although I have switched from being against term limits to being for them, I am not a fan of someone going straight from private sector into a position like Senator or POTUS.

Posted by: Y-not at May 07, 2014 08:54 AM (zDsvJ)

194 Todd and Clay Achin' "No. We are not relations."

Posted by: Forrest Gump at May 07, 2014 08:54 AM (gmrH5)

195 Is that like "$hit Lincoln Said on The Internet, Volume One"?

Posted by: Breitbart said of Tillis at May 07, 2014 08:54 AM (gXRIG)

196 "Romney wasn't a bad candidate because he would have been a bad president. He was a bad candidate because he was Mormon. " I don't know that he was a Mormon, since I only have Mitt Romney's word for it. For now. At the time.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at May 07, 2014 08:55 AM (5xmd7)

197 Who tries to run for Senator with ZERO elected experience? The Senator from Wisconsin. Posted by: buzzion at May 07, 2014 12:47 PM (LI48c) Also the Jr. Senator from Texas. Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at May 07, 2014 12:46 PM (HDwDg) I don't have to "balance" those issues. I have to balance unknown, speculative negatives against the quantifiable benefits (see: David Dewhurst is *NOT* a Senator) of runoffs. They create a "barrier to entry?" Okay- overcome that barrier. That alone might thin the crowd enough (in some races) to make said runoff unnecessary. They cost money? Yeah. And? Elections are at least as important as our elected official's BJs. Enemy action? A runoff makes such *less* likely, because it actually lowers the chance of the one the enemy likes (see also: David Dewhurst v Ted Cruz) being the one to come out on top.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:55 AM (PYAXX)

198 Rush now on the Rice riot at Rutgers. No mention of the primaries.

Posted by: Agenda 21 Refugee at May 07, 2014 08:55 AM (thLL8)

199 Posted by: Y-not at May 07, 2014 12:54 PM (zDsvJ Say 2 terms each House and Senate. That'd still give someone 16 years to be a national politician. Figure a couple of years before that in a state house, you could be rapidaly hitting 2 decades (more if they do a governorship in the middle there.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) [/b] [/i] [/s] at May 07, 2014 08:56 AM (HDwDg)

200 It is odd to think that so many people expect, nay demand, that their candidates have zero prior political experience. In what other field would we want to hire someone who had zero prior experience in his/her field?

Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 08:56 AM (9GG/0)

201 "He was a bad candidate because he was Mormon." pfft LoneStarHeeb, grow up. And in the meantime, grow up.

Posted by: Forrest Gump at May 07, 2014 08:56 AM (gmrH5)

202 The whole meme about "we don't need career politicians" is what losers say with no resume that really want to be a career politicians themselves. Do you really think any of these Tea Party candidates have any intention of not trying to stay in Washington as long as possible? That they were going to serve a single term and then retire and go back to their former lives? Grow up.

I want to nominate people that can actually win, and people that have been through races before and have shown they can win is called valuable experience. I don't have any delusions that we can change a politicians DNA. They want to remain in power as long as possible.

Keep fielding "citizen candidates" like Christine O'Donnell for Senator that can't even figure out how to pay their rent when they're not running for something and you'll keep having the same results.

Posted by: McAdams at May 07, 2014 08:56 AM (CIIco)

203 #200...

Posted by: Climate Doom Spokesperson at May 07, 2014 08:57 AM (gXRIG)

204 Anybody come up with an answer for how we're going to get more voters to the polls than the Free Shitters in any presidential election from 2016 until, oh... the Burning Times begin? Efficient application of $100 bills?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 08:57 AM (PYAXX)

205 Another thing that hurt Brannon et al. was the free publicity that Tillis and Governor McCrory receive on the front page of the News and Observer. Being portrayed daily on the N and O with a complete set of devil's horns and hooves is like the gold standard for conservative politicians. Tillis was strong on Voter ID, abortion restrictions, tax reform, and cuts in the education budget. Just mentioning the name "Pat McCrory" is a hazardous undertaking amongst strangers, too.

Posted by: mrp at May 07, 2014 08:57 AM (JBggj)

206

@ 200 - "It is odd to think that so many people expect, nay demand, that their candidates have zero prior political experience. In what other field would we want to hire someone who had zero prior experience in his/her field?"

Not necessarily a legitimate analogy. In most other fields, experience makes you a better employee. In politics, it seems to be just the opposite.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 08:57 AM (YYJjz)

207 137 "FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulations - like PAC's. *** Bang on Puffho, mediamatters, politico, msnbc, etc.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2014 08:58 AM (ltXvY)

208 "In what other field would we want to hire someone who had zero prior experience in his/her field?" I think people want to think they can find someone who isn't already corrupted by years of political hand-jobbing. Someone who hasn't been wholly and totally bought might be more liable to do what they say they will.

Posted by: Johnny Boner at May 07, 2014 08:58 AM (AbFmZ)

209 200 It is odd to think that so many people expect, nay demand, that their candidates have zero prior political experience. In what other field would we want to hire someone who had zero prior experience in his/her field? Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 12:56 PM (9GG/0) Almost as odd as to think that people expect lawyers to make "good" lawmakers, or judges, or presidents.

Posted by: Forrest Gump at May 07, 2014 08:58 AM (gmrH5)

210 One of the interesting things I've seen is the argument that tea party candidates have been costing the R's elections overall.

Now there are strong arguments for some elections, say O'Donnell, and there are many BS arguments as well, Akin was an establishment R after all.

But the crazy thing here is that it ignores the larger picture where two of the most establishment Rs the party has - McCain and Romney - have run and lost for the highest office. And frankly, in the latter case Romney's loss was absolutely shocking.

If the Rs are worried about running terrible candidates, let's focus on the real issues at hand and talk about how we prevent the next Romney candidacy...

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2014 08:59 AM (78TbK)

211
"Anybody come up with an answer for how we're going to get more voters to the polls than the Free Shitters in any presidential election from 2016 until, oh... the Burning Times begin? "

ORCA XP.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 08:59 AM (kdS6q)

212

This seems off-topic but isn't: John Boehner's last two primary opponents lost their jobs prior to the election directly because they were John Boehner's primary opponents, presumably to discourage future primary opposition. The GOP Establishment doesn't screw around. If an insurgent candidate goes against them, he or she needs to be ready to play some serious hardball. Lightweights need not apply.

That said, I disagree with CAC's argument that opposition to an incumbent from within the same party must be unified in a single candidate beforehand. First, such unity will likely never happen given the disparate nature of the various blocs within the GOP: Tea Party, libertarian-leaning, social-issue driven, and old-school conservatives. Secondly, a successful primary challenge largely depends on the political capabilities of the incumbent one seeks to unseat. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell may be unprincipled sellouts but they are also extraordinarily good politicians. You'd have to catch them hanging out at playgrounds with Harry Reid to pull it off.

Posted by: troyriser at May 07, 2014 09:00 AM (gNlvW)

213

@ 202 - "The whole meme about "we don't need career politicians" is what losers say with no resume that really want to be a career politicians themselves."

Something of a pointless point. Keep in mind that every single establishment career politician out there started out with zero experience at holding off, too.

The question, really, is not whether political experience makes you a better representative. The question isregards your ideology and native sense of serving those who elected you versus using your position to enrich yourself in one or more ways.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 09:00 AM (YYJjz)

214 I agree with you, chemjeff. And I denounce both of us.

Posted by: Y-not at May 07, 2014 09:00 AM (zDsvJ)

215 "let's focus on the real issues at hand and talk about how we prevent the next Romney candidacy..." Ain't gonna happen, baby.

Posted by: Jeb B. at May 07, 2014 09:00 AM (AbFmZ)

216 Todd Aiken - drink
Christine O'Donnell - drink

How come I can't remember the names of all the senate candidates funded by Rove et. al., mainstream GOP, that lost? Oh yeah, Tommy Thompson, the guy from VA, hell there were dozens. And yet their names aren't familiar at all but we're still talking about O'Donnell.

Posted by: jeannebodine at May 07, 2014 09:01 AM (2LJqa)

217 I believe that one of Boehner's opponents who lost their job was a democrat challenger. Not his primary challenger.

Posted by: buzzion at May 07, 2014 09:01 AM (LI48c)

218 Posted by: McAdams at May 07, 2014 12:56 PM (CIIco) Who was that senator recently who retired from Congress because he'd promised only to sit two terms? And you are aware that one of the reasons Kay Barely-a-Republican didn't do better against Perry several years ago was her broken promise to serve only 2 terms, right? Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 12:56 PM (9GG/0) Because, unlike the vast majority of other professions, Politicians are not required to have expertise in anything they might be doing except getting votes. A politician with no knowledge of economics gets to make economic policy. A politician with no knowledge of war/defense gets to make war policy. And so on. So being a "professional politician" *just* means knowing how to get votes. Being *not* a career politician means you probably at least know how to function in the Private Sector (where they expect results).

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 09:01 AM (PYAXX)

219 "In what other field would we want to hire someone who had zero prior experience in his/her field?" Because people reject the premise that being a politician should be a career. That's the split. That's why people aren't even talking past each other, they are talking two completely separate issues.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 07, 2014 09:01 AM (mf5HN)

220 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 12:55 PM (PYAXX) As for the money issue, speaking strictly at a party level (as I think at the level of actual election the argument is less persuasive.) Anyway, at a party level: while elections are important, I'm not 100% comfortable with having the state foot the bill for party indecisiveness. As for the barrier, I am leery about adding expense that merely makes kissing donor's asses more valuable. Finally as for enemy action. You're right, sometimes it works out. But keep in mind your anecdote is in Texas. Once Cruz won the primary he was going to be the Junior Senator from Texas. In other states (say like Missouri) the goal may not be to get your plant across the finish line, or even into the runoff, but rather just to trigger the runoff to make sure your opponent has to spend more money just to make it to the election itself.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) [/b] [/i] [/s] at May 07, 2014 09:02 AM (HDwDg)

221 "Romney wasn't a bad candidate because he would have been a bad president. He was a bad candidate because he was Mormon. "
***
How about he was a bad candidate because he ran the worst political campaign since Dukakis?

Of course more disturbingly the left knew Romney couldn't win, and convinced the R base to nominate him anyway.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2014 09:02 AM (78TbK)

222 GOP wants more control over picking 2016 nominee WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican National Committee wants to take more control over how the party picks a White House nominee. The RNC was to meet Wednesday in Memphis, Tennessee, to choose members who will effectively set the calendar for 2016's long list of potential presidential contenders. If the party's chairman, Reince Priebus gets his way, the GOP will pick its nominee more quickly than during past contests and have fewer debates in which candidates could criticize each other. -American Pravda

Posted by: Agenda 21 Refugee at May 07, 2014 09:02 AM (thLL8)

223 NOOD Make a choice. Here, or there

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at May 07, 2014 09:02 AM (Na2P1)

224 Well, I disagree with you there Titus. Tillis may play politics and horse trade, but that's as it should be. If there is no horse trading, nothing gets done without absolute complete control of all levers of government. That rarely happens, and it's a good thing to my mind that it rarely happens. The less the government does, the better!

But the little government SHOULD get done should be with an eye toward a consensus. A squish is willing to give away core principles to get very little, other than being seen as "reasonable" and invited to cocktail parties. That's my definition, anyway. A RINO belongs in the other party, and sometimes they go ahead and switch and saves us the trouble (looking at you, Orange Charlie).

Tillis is neither of those, in my opinion. He will be willing to compromise, but not core values. Smaller government, less regulation, stronger State and weaker Federal action. That's what I expect of him. Not as good as Cruzing down Boxer at a committee hearing, but a solid R Senator.

Anyway, hopefully time will tell us if I am right, because that means Hagan is out come November.

Posted by: BetaPhi at May 07, 2014 09:03 AM (becpp)

225
"let's focus on the real issues at hand and talk about how we prevent the next Romney candidacy..."

Mittbot 2.0 or Tagg the Inevitable?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 07, 2014 09:03 AM (kdS6q)

226 "GOP wants more control over picking 2016 nominee " You think you hate me now, but, just wait until I'm nominated.

Posted by: Jeb B. at May 07, 2014 09:04 AM (gOoFi)

227 I want a public record that I can examine, not speeches. I want to see how someone managed public money, not their private wealth. They do not have to do that for a lifetime, but I want some time in public office before making someone a Senator, Governor, or esp POTUS.

Posted by: Y-not at May 07, 2014 09:05 AM (zDsvJ)

228 Yep. This is why conservatives need to settle around one or two at most conservatives in the Presidential primaries. Otherwise, they'll all get serially knocked out by the big money surrounding Jeb or whoever. And we'll lose to the Dims again or be stuck with Dim-lite Jeb or whoever.

Posted by: naturalfake at May 07, 2014 09:05 AM (0cMkb)

229 LoneStarHeeb, grow up. And in the meantime, grow up. Posted by: Forrest Gump at May 07, 2014 12:56 PM (gmrH5) So your contention is that the left wasn't successful in defining Romney, and that definition wasn't largely based on his religious beliefs? I think you need to open your eyes and let some light shine in. If he had been regarded fairly, based on only his success and failure, he would have won. But he wasn't. Even all of the good that he did was viewed through the prism of his religion. I supported Romney and I would actually vote for him again because I thought of everything else that was exposed about him, he was a person of unusual and impressive character. But in the end, he was redefined. And the opening that the left was given was subtly and subliminally Mormon.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 07, 2014 09:05 AM (BZAd3)

230 "The whole meme about "we don't need career politicians" is what losers say with no resume that really want to be a career politicians themselves."
***
The fundamental question is, if you want a politician who can represent the productive class (aka conservatives) is a better option an insulated member of the political class or...a member of the productive class.

I'm being a bit flip as being a politician does give you experience in how to be a politician, but it comes at the expense of remembering why you are there in the first place.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2014 09:05 AM (78TbK)

231 I'm with Vic because I've seen it too many times now. Whichever candidate gets the gigantic stash of cash that the elites in DC give, is usually the candidate that wins. Cruz, Lee, etc., were anomalies. And they're going to become even more rare in the future. DC has control of the of the election process now. We should start thinking in terms of state independence from now on. The individual states retain the keys of freedom now.

Posted by: Soona at May 07, 2014 09:07 AM (+dFar)

232 Tea Party candidates vs. GOPe.

I strongly recommend a reading of Sean Trende's (realclearpolitics.com) piece on the impact of the Tea Party revolt on Republican and national politics from 2009 to the present. Excellent work.. He covers the GOPe's problem candidates, too.

LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ou2am37

Posted by: mrp at May 07, 2014 09:07 AM (JBggj)

233 "When conservatives start treating primaries the way the establishment long has, their fortunes can and will change. But until then, they are left fighting over the best flavor while losing their say."

A bad plan immediately acted upon beats a perfect plan that never gets off the table.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Wash and Wax Your Wroth at the Outrage Outlet! at May 07, 2014 09:07 AM (hLRSq)

234

@ 224 - "Tillis is neither of those, in my opinion. He will be willing to compromise, but not core values. Smaller government, less regulation, stronger State and weaker Federal action. That's what I expect of him. Not as good as Cruzing down Boxer at a committee hearing, but a solid R Senator."

I don't really believe that. Let's look at it this way - Tillis was able to build up the "cred" that he has because he had a GOP governour and a GOP statehouse to work with. He didn't have the opportunity to sell conservatives down the river because he had a GOP statehouse (controlled by healthy margins) that did the heavy lifting for him. If he'd been the minority leader in a Dem-controlled Senate, we'd have probably seen a lot more aisle-crossing and "reasonableness" out of him.

Regardless, I'm planning on voting for him, stenchful as he may be. At least we can probably get him to vote the right way 60% of the time, as opposed to Hagan's 0%.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 07, 2014 09:09 AM (YYJjz)

235 "A bad plan immediately acted upon beats a perfect plan that never gets off the table."

Posted by: Shih Tzu? at May 07, 2014 09:11 AM (gXRIG)

236 I'm from NC, and here's what I saw leading up to the election: fliers from Tillis, literature from Tillis, lots of campaign stuff from Tillis. I didn't even know there was another option until someone on FB mentioned the other candidate. Tillis may be establishment, I've heard bad things concerning his actions regarding Common Core and comments he made about Obama Care- so he may even be a squish. But he ran as a strong, pro- 2A candidate and completely outspent his opponent. Sadly enough, there is no fundraising machine for Tea Partiers. Being completely grassroots with no leader has it's drawbacks. There's no direction, no way to funnel money, no way to draw attention to your candidate. Libertarian leaning folks who identify as Tea Party need to find a solution here.

Posted by: Book at May 07, 2014 09:11 AM (ujDl9)

237 Because, unlike the vast majority of other professions, Politicians are not required to have expertise in anything they might be doing except getting votes.

That's the expertise that a "career politician" ought to have, yes. How to run a campaign to get votes.

Posted by: chemjeff at May 07, 2014 09:11 AM (9GG/0)

238 134 Titus, indeed. In fact, Ken C in VA had to fight PR attacks on THIS VERY FUCKING BLOG which parroted dem attack ads against him for, I don't know, doing HIS FUCKING JOB. With friends like that, who needs enemies?! Because a dispute about buttfucking means PERSONA NON GRATA. Do what I say not what I do. Listen to endless lectures about how someone I agree with 80% of the time is an ally even though they love big govt, expand obamacare and hate guns. But if somebody doesn't love them some BUTTFUCKING that, my friends, is the scarlet letter. That one issue is the critical question of our day. That one issue allows us to attack them as a wackobird and the national party to deny them funding in A SWING FUCKING STATE and let a CLINTON OPERATIVE run the fucking joint. The GOP is at a breaking point. They allow amnesty to go through or any immigration deal with this fucking guy in the WH, they truly might fade away. Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 12:40 PM (tVTLU) Sorry to have say this, but bullshit. Cuccinelli sucked as a candidate, period. His campaign was anemic, and he didn't do himself any favors by taking gifts from Star Scientific. If the "GOP Establishment" didn't support Cuccinelli, how come he raised the same amount of money that McDonnell did? In 2009, McDonnell outspent Deeds by 3 to 1, 4 years later McAuliffe outspent Cuccinelli by 2 to 1, not because the "establishment" didn't step up but because McAuliffe got all the longtime Clinton donors to step up.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly the poster MrCaniac at May 07, 2014 09:11 AM (HxSXm)

239 Posted by: Shih Tzu? at May 07, 2014 01:11 PM (gXRIG) I knew your brother, Sun.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 07, 2014 09:12 AM (BZAd3)

240 Would you want an effective conservative that got elected to retire early in order to discourage "career politicians". I wouldn't. And do you really think someone like Ted Cruz is going to serve out a few terms and then retire? The man will be like Jesse Helms. Guaranteed

My point is, the bumper sticker slogan of "we don't need a career politician" is a dumb line that unfortunately snares way too many conservatives, and I guarantee you the people running on this platform have EVERY intention of being a career politician.

Posted by: McAdams at May 07, 2014 09:20 AM (CIIco)

241 judd, research the facts. your quote on support is wrong.

Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 09:22 AM (tVTLU)

242 "Todd Aiken - drink
Christine O'Donnell - drink

How come I can't remember the names of all the senate candidates funded by Rove et. al., mainstream GOP, that lost? Oh yeah, Tommy Thompson, the guy from VA, hell there were dozens. And yet their names aren't familiar at all but we're still talking about O'Donnell."

We're still talking about O'Donnell because the Tea Party, at least the dumber pockets of it, refuses to admit it ever makes mistakes. So when it backs a bad candidate, it blames everything but the lousy candidate. Us "RINOs" are using Christine O'Donnell disastrous run as a point.

Until the Tea Party backers can admit it makes mistakes, AND starts to fix those mistakes, it won't be trusted by certain Republicans. And those numbers are growing as the Tea Party proves itself to be too goofy to win elections.

By the way:

Karl Rove - drink. Want to throw in a McCain?

Posted by: Shoot Me at May 07, 2014 09:23 AM (EQcfE)

243 CAC

Sorry for my crappy post last night re ballots in the NC Senate race.

Posted by: NCwoof at May 07, 2014 09:23 AM (aUQgu)

244 "In what other field would we want to hire someone who had zero prior experience in his/her field?" Some of our finest actors were WWII veterans, having been grunts and sailors loading the torpedoes, certainly not the PR primped officers whose "tours" consisted of public appearances at fundraisers. As for freshman Congressional Members with no prior public office? Prior to being elected Senator from Tennessee (1994-2003), Fred Thompson hadn't run for political office. But he was no stranger to politics, both as a prosecuting attorney, various appointments (Watergate), and as a lobbyist. During his Senate tenure, he lobbied for his bill requiring government employees to prove their competent skills utilizing the latest technology and to actually fulfill their job descriptions. He also fought against MediCare fraud, "the single most profitable business in America." And he exercised careful judgment to consider long term effects prior to supporting any military "interventions" aka invasions beginning wars with no end. /...Aside from Mittens' stupid belly fire rant, and the selfish "what has he done for ME?" BuyDanish rebuttle, I remember readers here criticized his tenure for not having passed a lot of laws -- as if more laws are what conservatives need or want, esp. when current laws are of no regard. /And there are the ne'er do well grandchildren whining that he endorses grandma's right to reverse mortgage her home rather than depend on grandchildren in no position or attitude to take care of her needs. "What has he done for ME?"! meh

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 07, 2014 09:25 AM (gmrH5)

245 Not quite true on what Tillis had to work with, Titus. He was the driving force that got the GOP the House for the first time since Reconstruction, and he then worked even harder to get a veto-proof supermajority in the following election, and got it done. He worked that hard because he had Bev Perdue, a Democrat, as Governor. As it turns out, he got a Republican chief of state in the following election, but maintained the supermajority.

Anyway, as I say, I hope you and I get to revisit this question in six years. I will be disappointed if you get to say "I told you so" at that point. Of course, so will you...so let's both hope that I am right!

Posted by: BetaPhi at May 07, 2014 09:29 AM (CbMU0)

246 OR... It could be that they really believe that "we don't like career politicians" stuff. Because, face it, that's what that would be. First, city council for X years, then some State office (State rep maybe) for Y years, then US Congress for Z years... pretty quick, we're talking a 20+ year career in "politics" which has a decent chance of turning otherwise Conservative politicians into establishment hacks. Now, frankly, I don't have a problem with "career politician" in itself. As long as what you're accomplishing in politics aligns with my values, why should I care that the skills you have mastered are "Getting Elected" and "collecting votes?" However, once someone has mastered those two skills, it is very, very hard to beat them in an election- especially if they *also* have the advantage of being the incumbent in a given office. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 07, 2014 12:49 PM (PYAXX) Remember, Tillis actually has a voting record, Brannon did not. It's easy to attack someone that has actually had to vote on issues, but when his/her opponent has nothing more than a position on the issue, it's easier to say that the opponent is preferable. This would be known as the "Obama Principle". When he ran on 08, he had no record, none in the US Senate, and none in the Ill State Senate. He could stake out the "popular" positions because he never had a "rubber meets the road" moment. Of course he could vote against the war in Iraq from the safety of the State Senate because that vote was symbolic. Try that in the US Senate, he would have been toast.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly the poster MrCaniac at May 07, 2014 09:31 AM (HxSXm)

247 We're still talking about O'Donnell because the Tea Party, at least the dumber pockets of it, refuses to admit it ever makes mistakes. -- Shootme pfft YOU are still talking about her because (?) you can't help yourself. Like a dog returning to its vomit. Or kicking a dead horse.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 07, 2014 09:31 AM (gmrH5)

248 241 judd, research the facts. your quote on support is wrong. Posted by: prescient11 at May 07, 2014 01:22 PM (tVTLU) Sure, whatever. 2013 http://tinyurl.com/l348ee2 2009 http://tinyurl.com/msgxge2 Oh wait, I'm right.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly the poster MrCaniac at May 07, 2014 09:35 AM (HxSXm)

249 "We're still talking about O'Donnell because the Tea Party, at least the dumber pockets of it, refuses to admit it ever makes mistakes. -- Shootme

pfft

YOU are still talking about her because (?) you can't help yourself.

Like a dog returning to its vomit.

Or kicking a dead horse."

Dude, Romney lost the election almost two years ago!

Posted by: Shoot Me at May 07, 2014 09:41 AM (EQcfE)

250 'bout damn time, CAC. . Keep hitting this point. The only time in history the conservative has won in Iowa is Reagan, and .. he only did it because he started running four years before the rest of the field. . Mew

Posted by: acat at May 07, 2014 09:46 AM (4UkCP)

251 YOU are still talking about her because (?) you can't help yourself.

Like a dog returning to its vomit.

Or kicking a dead horse.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 07, 2014 01:31 PM (gmrH5)

Everybody wants to piss on Sharron Angle without pointing out all the GOPe all stars who previously lost to Reid in his lengthy career in the Senate. As if beating an incumbent was easy-peasy. Oh but this time he was really really vulnerable.

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 07, 2014 09:47 AM (qiiIB)

252 Career politicians are suspect, not verboten. Too many years in politics almost always leads to detachment, self-importance and entitlement. If someone can resist the sirens' song, we need to keep them in office. It takes constant vigilance to make that judgment, though - trying to determine who's for real is something the pols deliberately make difficult. Is a no vote on the motion to table the yes vote on the resolution to consider a pro-small-government vote or not ? A small group of determined bloggers and researchers can make a big difference by uncovering electoral kabuki. Information disseminated by the internet is the most cost-effective use of the Anti-Establishment Right's more limited funds. The various Tea Party groups should work together to organize and fund watchdog teams specifically tasked to vet our own candidates and keep those in office honest. This kind of effort won't happen until they coalesce rather than leading in different directions under different banners. Pretty much every other idea I've had or supported relies on this sort of alliance, if not outright unification. We need to start seriously discussing how to come together under some sort of actual party structure while not losing our souls in the process.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 07, 2014 09:58 AM (7i0fA)

253 It doesn't matter how many flavors are offered, if all but one is repugnant to the voters. Try B-R if their flavors were vanilla, dog poop, cat poop, cow poop, etc. Vanilla would see renewed popularity. When the top contender from the "Tea Party" (phonies, I mean) is a nut case like Brannon who would lose the election, don't complain when voters pick vanilla. Look at the flawed phony TP candidates over the last four years - O'Donnell, Angle, Buck, Maese, Miller, Akin, Mourdock, Brannon, Bevan, Wolf - and scratch your heard and wonder why they lost. If it isn't obvious, then you are as dumb as those losers.

Posted by: Adjoran at May 07, 2014 11:44 AM (QIQ6j)

254 "Too many years in politics almost always leads to detachment, self-importance and entitlement."

You know who says stuff like this? Conservative pundits and bloggers who are detached, self-important, and entitled.

I can get behind term limits, but I can't get behind "throw them all out because my ego demands it!"

Posted by: Shoot Me at May 07, 2014 11:50 AM (EQcfE)

255 Who tries to run for Senator with ZERO elected experience

I voted for Brannon (superior pro-gun stance) but I thought he was stupid for running for Senator with zero experience. He would have done MUCH better in trying for knocking out strident PRO-Amnesty Ellmers in the house. There the differences were very stark. Running for Ellmers seat was only a handful of counties versus the whole F'ing 100 counties of the entire state. That was a very poor strategic decision.

Posted by: james Doesky at May 07, 2014 11:59 AM (X2kv4)

256 " "Too many years in politics almost always leads to detachment, self-importance and entitlement." You know who says stuff like this? Conservative pundits and bloggers who are detached, self-important, and entitled." Your point would be stronger made if you had listed all the really great balanced, energetic and honest career politicians.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at May 07, 2014 12:04 PM (5xmd7)

257 "Look at the flawed phony TP candidates over the last four years - O'Donnell, Angle, Buck, Maese, Miller, Akin, Mourdock, Brannon, Bevan, Wolf - and scratch your heard and wonder why they lost. If it isn't obvious, then you are as dumb as those losers. Posted by: Adjoran at May 07, 2014 03:44 PM (QIQ6j)" You forgot the most "Severely Conservative" loser of them all. Oh wait, right, right, he was MARTYRED.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at May 07, 2014 12:05 PM (5xmd7)

258 (insert Conservative here) was an obvious brain dead loser who had no chance, and really all his supporters knew he had no chance, and they only ran him through to the point he would lose against a Democrat, because they are insane stupid ugly losers. Mitt Romney was a really great guy who was one of several people that year who didn't get a majority of votes.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at May 07, 2014 01:34 PM (5xmd7)

259

I know what you're saying, CAC.

The thing to remember is...Divided We Lose.

The idea of having a lot of choices is appealing. Seductive, even.

But in politics, it usually results in the winner being someone that the majority didn't want!

Even when someone wins by 45%...that means that 55% didn't vote for them.

Posted by: wheatie at May 07, 2014 02:43 PM (l/M30)

260 Santorum was an obvious brain dead loser who had no chance, and really all his supporters knew he had no chance, and they only ran him through to the point he would lose against a Democrat, because they are insane stupid ugly losers.

Hey, that works!

Bachmann was an obvious brain dead loser who had no chance, and really all her supporters knew he had no chance, and they only ran her through to the point she would lose against a Democrat, because they are insane stupid ugly losers.

I had to change a few words, but still works!

Herman Cain was an obvious brain dead loser who had no chance, and really all his supporters knew he had no chance, and they only ran him through to the point he would lose against a Democrat, because they are insane stupid ugly losers.

Three. For. Three.

Posted by: Shoot Me at May 07, 2014 05:00 PM (EQcfE)

261 This is encouraging...egos are preventing Tea Party candidates from cogent election strategies. And yet I'm to believe they can effectively govern?

Posted by: Coleridge at May 07, 2014 05:30 PM (BglJL)

262 @ Shoot Me Somehow it's true of every loser, and all their supporters -- except one.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 08, 2014 10:35 AM (5xmd7)

263 CAC is just wrong about this. The TEA party requires an active engaged electorate and we do that by encouraging participation in the process. Not Tillis will win by denying Tillis the 40% necessary to avoid runoff, not by coalescing behind a single candidate. Another voice/choice with 7% of the primary would have forced a runoff and given the electorate a chance to unite to defeat Tillis. We will win by storming the Bastille.

Posted by: AcaJoe at May 09, 2014 12:29 AM (n6r73)

264 CAC,

Sorry for the late comment, but here in conservative Tennessee we have two of the worst US Senators in the Repub party.

Two years ago Corker was up for re-election. He had seven or eight primary opponents. They were obviously plants because not one of them spent a dime on advertising. That's what the establishment does, they flood the zone with nobodies.

This year it's Lamar's turn. There is one clear primary opponent. However, today during Rush's show, a new guy has come on the scene. He will spend just enough money to drag votes away from Carr and give Alexander another victory.

The East Tennessee Republican Mafia has run the party since Lincoln. Democrats ran the state until just ten or so years ago. They (East Tenn Repub Mafia) have all the marbles, eventhough Middle Tennessee is where most of the Repubs, conservatives and money are located.

Posted by: Clyde Dagenthorp at May 09, 2014 12:33 PM (7O/R+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled.

239kb generated in CPU 0.094, elapsed 0.3234 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2868 seconds, 392 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.