Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:23 pm

assateague wrote:I thought the argument has always been "independents don't want these Tea Party guys because they're too extreme". But apparently that's not the case.


And what is it about Cuccinelli that you feel is "wacko"?

The sex stuff. Including the pill, which is where the right to life folks really jump the shark
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am


Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby slowshooter » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:42 pm

cartervj wrote:It seemed to have shocked some strong D's, he closed a double digit gap thanks to ObamaCare :lol3: said a few more days and it would have been different. :welcome:


LOL. He lost. That's it.

If you want a real comeback story... The Dems lost that election by 17 points last time.

A few days more and the McAuliffe's winning gap would have just widened. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby slowshooter » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:44 pm

cartervj wrote:
CNN's Candy Crowley: Virginia Results 'Not Some Huge Rejection of the Tea Party'
By: Tim Graham | November 6, 2013, 15:43 ET

CNN’s Candy Crowley, the worst debate moderator of 2012, disappointed liberals on Tuesday night by failing to see the Virginia election returns as proof that the Tea Party is fading away.

“This is clearly not some huge rejection of the Tea Party,” Crowley told Anderson Cooper shortly after 10 pm. (Transcript and video below.)



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2jutO0LcS


I though you said the mainstream media were nothing but tools.... Until you agree with them that is.... :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby slowshooter » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:47 pm

assateague wrote:I thought the argument has always been "independents don't want these Tea Party guys because they're too extreme". But apparently that's not the case.


And what is it about Cuccinelli that you feel is "wacko"?



Apparently independent women don't want Tea Party guys. Because that's who voted Cuchinelli into Siberia.

LOL! No dates for for the Tea Party guys forevermore. Because women have long memories.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby cartervj » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:24 pm

slowshooter wrote:
cartervj wrote:
CNN's Candy Crowley: Virginia Results 'Not Some Huge Rejection of the Tea Party'
By: Tim Graham | November 6, 2013, 15:43 ET

CNN’s Candy Crowley, the worst debate moderator of 2012, disappointed liberals on Tuesday night by failing to see the Virginia election returns as proof that the Tea Party is fading away.

“This is clearly not some huge rejection of the Tea Party,” Crowley told Anderson Cooper shortly after 10 pm. (Transcript and video below.)



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2jutO0LcS


I though you said the mainstream media were nothing but tools.... Until you agree with them that is…. :lol3:






the MSM is in on the admin, they are tools of the left, considering they are all liberals disguised as so called journalist AKA Journolisto :hammer:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby cartervj » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:25 pm

slowshooter wrote:
cartervj wrote:It seemed to have shocked some strong D's, he closed a double digit gap thanks to ObamaCare :lol3: said a few more days and it would have been different. :welcome:


LOL. He lost. That's it.

If you want a real comeback story... The Dems lost that election by 17 points last time.

A few days more and the McAuliffe's winning gap would have just widened. :lol3:



really, disingenuous as usual
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby DuckinFool » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:58 am

A year from now there will be millions more people pissed off about Obamacare than there are today and they will vote.
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby slowshooter » Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:08 am

cartervj wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
cartervj wrote:It seemed to have shocked some strong D's, he closed a double digit gap thanks to ObamaCare :lol3: said a few more days and it would have been different. :welcome:


LOL. He lost. That's it.

If you want a real comeback story... The Dems lost that election by 17 points last time.

A few days more and the McAuliffe's winning gap would have just widened. :lol3:



really, disingenuous as usual



LOL. All I did was repeat what you said from the other side of the compass - and added the fact that not only did the Dems come from behind.... They won... But now it's "disingenuous"...? Haaaa haaaa! :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:28 am

slowshooter wrote:
assateague wrote:I thought the argument has always been "independents don't want these Tea Party guys because they're too extreme". But apparently that's not the case.


And what is it about Cuccinelli that you feel is "wacko"?



Apparently independent women don't want Tea Party guys. Because that's who voted Cuchinelli into Siberia.

LOL! No dates for for the Tea Party guys forevermore. Because women have long memories.



That's OK. You still don't have a chance with any of those aggrieved women.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7756
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:35 am

assateague wrote:I thought the argument has always been "independents don't want these Tea Party guys because they're too extreme". But apparently that's not the case.


And what is it about Cuccinelli that you feel is "wacko"?


Many of these independents are really ex-Republicans unhappy with the party. In addition, losses among Independents has been offset and overcome by large victories among single women, who are a majority of women vote. The "War on Women" strategy worked again.

Cuccinelli was a bad candidate. He was crippled by external factors and yet he almost won. That spells bad news for the Democrats in the midterms where the War on Women strategy is not as effective.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7756
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:37 am

Apparently it just demonstrates that women probably aren't smart enough to vote. Time to repeal the 19th amendment.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:49 am

assateague wrote:Apparently it just demonstrates that women probably aren't smart enough to vote. Time to repeal the 19th amendment.


My sentiments exactly. Who ever let them out of the kitchen anyway?
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7756
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:35 am

vincentpa wrote:let me explain it to you S-L-O-W-L-Y. This is very troublesome for Democrats. Ole'Terry ran a total smear campaign. He outspent Ricky Boy 2 to 1. Ole-Terry had 10 to 1 more news stories than Ricky Boy. Ricky Boy was an inept candidate damaged by the RECENT government shutdown and a scandal the current VA governor Bobby M. All this, and Ole'Terry just squeeked by after enjoying a double digit lead in the polls until the last few days! Couple that with the roll out of Barrycare and his plummeting poll numbers. This is baaaaaaaad news for the Dems in the 2014 election. It's even worse news for 2016 if the economy turns south in the meantime. Good luck buddy!


vincentpa wrote:I hope so. Americans don't like firebrands anymore. The Republicans, specifically the Tea Party caucus must recognize this. The messenger ends up killing the message.


Yet, if the Republican establishment would have back him, he looks like a winner. :huh:

He already held state wide office, so they liked him when he wasn't outspent 2 to 1.

Your two statements are contradictory.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-02/local/40327529_1_cuccinelli-campaigns-terry-mcauliffe-virginia-public-access-project
Many of the most generous donors to past Virginia Republican campaigns are holding back in the heated race for governor, underscoring Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II’s challenge as he tries to keep financial pace with opponent Terry McAuliffe.


Cuccinelli failed to attract the crony capitalist, cheap foreign labor to displace Americans wing of the Republican party.

Still, several Republicans and industry people said they believe that Cuccinelli’s opposition to the Silver Line rail to Dulles project and this year’s landmark transportation bill — McDonnell’s signature achievement — could affect his fundraising.

“I’ve never seen the business community as united as they were” on the transportation measure, said Clayton Roberts, president of the nonpartisan business group Virginia Free.

One Northern Virginia business executive who donated to Cuccinelli this year said some of his fellow Republicans are wary of the attorney general.


However, they aren't going to come out and say, we oppose him because we want to rape the taxpayers. Their actions seem to speak pretty clear.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16325
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:02 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:let me explain it to you S-L-O-W-L-Y. This is very troublesome for Democrats. Ole'Terry ran a total smear campaign. He outspent Ricky Boy 2 to 1. Ole-Terry had 10 to 1 more news stories than Ricky Boy. Ricky Boy was an inept candidate damaged by the RECENT government shutdown and a scandal the current VA governor Bobby M. All this, and Ole'Terry just squeeked by after enjoying a double digit lead in the polls until the last few days! Couple that with the roll out of Barrycare and his plummeting poll numbers. This is baaaaaaaad news for the Dems in the 2014 election. It's even worse news for 2016 if the economy turns south in the meantime. Good luck buddy!


vincentpa wrote:I hope so. Americans don't like firebrands anymore. The Republicans, specifically the Tea Party caucus must recognize this. The messenger ends up killing the message.


Yet, if the Republican establishment would have back him, he looks like a winner. :huh:

He already held state wide office, so they liked him when he wasn't outspent 2 to 1.

Your two statements are contradictory.


They most certainly are not contradictory. Terry M. used Ricky's firebrand style against him in all his attack ads. The Democrats don't need an agenda. They only have to smear. If the Republicans would've run a more likeable candidate, the smear tactics wouldn't have worked even with all the headwinds the likeable Republican would've faced. It's funny how you can help but hang onto your team. You cannot step back and analyze the losses. You are cherry picking the data to justify the loss for your method or your man. You are not dispassionately analyzing to adjust and refine the methods in order to achieve the final goal. I'm not attacking the message. I'm attacking the methods/messenger. You seem to confuse this too.

SpinnerMan wrote:
WP wrote: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-02/local/40327529_1_cuccinelli-campaigns-terry-mcauliffe-virginia-public-access-project
Many of the most generous donors to past Virginia Republican campaigns are holding back in the heated race for governor, underscoring Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II’s challenge as he tries to keep financial pace with opponent Terry McAuliffe.


SpinnerMan wrote:Cuccinelli failed to attract the crony capitalist, cheap foreign labor to displace Americans wing of the Republican party.


Still, several Republicans and industry people said they believe that Cuccinelli’s opposition to the Silver Line rail to Dulles project and this year’s landmark transportation bill — McDonnell’s signature achievement — could affect his fundraising.

“I’ve never seen the business community as united as they were” on the transportation measure, said Clayton Roberts, president of the nonpartisan business group Virginia Free.

One Northern Virginia business executive who donated to Cuccinelli this year said some of his fellow Republicans are wary of the attorney general.


However, they aren't going to come out and say, we oppose him because we want to rape the taxpayers. Their actions seem to speak pretty clear.


This is just another excuse and another feeble attempt to explain away a loss that should've been a win. A candidate will never win every constituency of a particular party. Part of the candidate's appeal is to be able to win these constituencies over after the primaries in the general election. Ricky was unable to do this for two reasons. There was no primary and he didn't have the talent to do so. You have to have support to make it to office. Complaining about not having it is just another excuse. You have to go out and get it.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7756
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:12 am

vincentpa wrote:Terry M. used Ricky's firebrand style against him in all his attack ads.
And without any money from the Republican establish, name a candidate that can win a governors race in a state like Virginia. It is NOT possible.

vincentpa wrote:If the Republicans would've run a more likeable candidate
And provided him no financial backing he would have lost even bigger because there would have been no grass roots enthusiasm for these so-called "likable" candidates. Romney, McCain, Dole, GHWB, and the long list of likable loser the Republicans have run.

It's not like these likable candidates have a better win-loss record.

You take away the money from these crony-capitalist, cheap foreign labor, establishment Republicans and they would lose far worse.

Got to do an apples-to-apples comparison.

No money or no enthusiasm. You can't artificially create enthusiasm for "likable" candidates, but you can spend money for name recognition and negative adds against your opponent. However, if you have the enthusiasm and the money, then look out. Of course, the money people, don't like that the people that have the enthusiasm don't want to use the power of government to line their pockets. Go figure. The average person doesn't want to get taken for the benefit of the politically connected.

And if you have the principles to oppose these things, you also have the principles to be a "firebrand" social conservative. You can't pick and choose the rights of others you are willing to fight for. These unprincipled "likable" Republicans are why we have the runaway government we have. If we had elected even 20% of the House and Senate Republicans full of Cuchinelli's we would have smaller government and much greater prosperity.

The only people that like these likable Republicans are Democrats and crony capitalist, cheap foreign labor, self-centered Republicans.

vincentpa wrote:It's funny how you can help but hang onto your team.
What is my team? It is the American team. That team suffers horribly under team Obama. It suffers less under your big spending so-called likable team. I don't want it to suffer at all. That's the team I support. The Tea Party/Liberatarian, small decentralized government focused on the essential functions of government team is the team I support.

I will support your team if they win the Republican primary. Your team will not support any other team if they win the Republican primary, which is why they used to annoy me, but now I just hate those pricks.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16325
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby Gunnysway » Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:52 am

It was close enough, and the Dems were worried enough, to ask President Clinton to come back... again...and try to gain more momentum...

It, plus the $$$, worked just enough...
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby slowshooter » Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:52 pm

vincentpa wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
assateague wrote:I thought the argument has always been "independents don't want these Tea Party guys because they're too extreme". But apparently that's not the case.


And what is it about Cuccinelli that you feel is "wacko"?



Apparently independent women don't want Tea Party guys. Because that's who voted Cuchinelli into Siberia.

LOL! No dates for for the Tea Party guys forevermore. Because women have long memories.



That's OK. You still don't have a chance with any of those aggrieved women.



Hey, why don't you just say "I know you are but what am I?" :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby cartervj » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:46 pm

slowshooter wrote:
cartervj wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
cartervj wrote:It seemed to have shocked some strong D's, he closed a double digit gap thanks to ObamaCare :lol3: said a few more days and it would have been different. :welcome:


LOL. He lost. That's it.

If you want a real comeback story... The Dems lost that election by 17 points last time.

A few days more and the McAuliffe's winning gap would have just widened. :lol3:



really, disingenuous as usual



LOL. All I did was repeat what you said from the other side of the compass - and added the fact that not only did the Dems come from behind.... They won... But now it's "disingenuous"...? Haaaa haaaa! :lol3:




ok, so each race has a prior history that is a part of the new election :huh:

I simply stated that Cuchinelle closed the gap in a significant manner with way fewer funds. A lib talker tells another lib talker it was not a strike against the Tea Party and you dance a jig. :loll: :loll: :loll: Crowley wan't the only one to do so, and the MSM is unbiased.

I guess you caught where Detroit elected a mayor that is a caucasian, the first since the early 70's. Any meaning to that, wake that giant brain of yours and riddle me diddle. :hi: I guess thinking along your rationale Detroit is now RACIST. :lol3:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby cartervj » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:48 pm

slowshooter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
assateague wrote:I thought the argument has always been "independents don't want these Tea Party guys because they're too extreme". But apparently that's not the case.


And what is it about Cuccinelli that you feel is "wacko"?



Apparently independent women don't want Tea Party guys. Because that's who voted Cuchinelli into Siberia.

LOL! No dates for for the Tea Party guys forevermore. Because women have long memories.



That's OK. You still don't have a chance with any of those aggrieved women.



Hey, why don't you just say "I know you are but what am I?" :lol3:



that's your signature line :welcome:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby wanapasaki » Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:02 pm

Image
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2508
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:43 pm

DuckinFool wrote:A year from now there will be millions more people pissed off about Obamacare than there are today and they will vote.

So we can't count on Obama winning the election a year from now? Dammit!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Cuchinelli loses to McAuliffe.

Postby slowshooter » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:48 pm

cartervj wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
assateague wrote:I thought the argument has always been "independents don't want these Tea Party guys because they're too extreme". But apparently that's not the case.


And what is it about Cuccinelli that you feel is "wacko"?



Apparently independent women don't want Tea Party guys. Because that's who voted Cuchinelli into Siberia.

LOL! No dates for for the Tea Party guys forevermore. Because women have long memories.



That's OK. You still don't have a chance with any of those aggrieved women.



Hey, why don't you just say "I know you are but what am I?" :lol3:



that's your signature line :welcome:


Back up cub. You hit a rubber fence. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests