Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?

[bendog]

Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Virginia is a cautionary tale for conservatives this year. And those Republicans who always argue that their party wins when it moves further to the right are going to have a lot of explaining to do after Election Day.

This was written before the election, but I doubt the GOP will learn a lesson. Their call now is, "But the margin wasn't as big as......"

Actually, the GOP should have kept the Governor's mansion from all historical accounts. And they could have if they had nominated Bill Bolling the moderate Lt Gov. But the TP fanatics and the untra-right out of state money pushed for Coooooch.

This is just a small lesson for the national GOP. Will they heed the warning or continue their march to the right?

yea, we learned that the democrats claiming the were a heavy favorite to win barely eeked by. on the other hand, a republican dominated a very liberal state in NJ

A republican who, in all liklihood, won't be able to win the national nomination in 16.

 

[Iceman]

Blame the women. You guys are fikcing (literally) nuts. LOL



Ask yourself: How did Ken Cuccinelli (R) win on the pocketbook issue of the economy (49%-43%) and health care (49%-45%), but lose the race? Ask any political consultant worth his/her salt and that person would tell you, if you win on the economy, you win. That didn’t happen. Cuccinelli lost. And he lost on the issue of abortion by a whopping 59%-34% margin. What’s more, not only did Terry McAuliffe win female voters by nine points (51%-42%), he also won non-married women by 42 points (67%-25%). There’s also this: While just 46% said they supported the health-care law, only 34% said abortion should be ILLEGAL in all or most cases. And Republican pollster Byron Allen said the GOP shortcoming in Virginia wasn’t abortion; it was birth control. “While I’m convinced by data and experience that pro-life candidates can win in swing states, it’s becoming equally clear that we have handed Democrats an issue on a silver platter by arguing over birth-control, whether it’s government funding or mandates in Obamacare.” You can argue if the Obamacare issue tightened the race. But we know why Cuccinelli lost in purple Virginia: abortion and birth control.

First Thoughts: GOP rivals begin dishing on Christie - First Read

You say I am nuts, but your own data proves my point. Women, particularly single moms, divorcees, and other assorted types of single women tipped the scales in favor of McAuliffe.

 

[bendog]

I say you are nuts for favoring nominees who diss mamograms at planned parenthood and insurance covering contraception.

 

[Iceman]

I say you are nuts for favoring nominees who diss mamograms at planned parenthood and insurance covering contraception.

I never supported Cuccinelli, I said women cost him the election and that women on the average are ill informed irrational voters. You further prove my point, they vote on issues(Abortion and Contraception in Obamacare) that are set in stone at the Federal Level, in a state election.

A tip of the cap to the women, especially the unmarried women of Virginia, lol.

 

[bendog]

Why do you say women in Va, esp unmarried women, are uniformed? By doing so you are not only wrong, but that stance dooms you with them .... and you most likely can't win without them.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes. However, just as income is not zero sum, in so far as your neighbor earning income does not mean you have less income,... Just because democrats are pandering to the women, and winning that vote, does not mean if women were not voting the democrats would not pander to pansy men. Nor does it mean women issues had no sway on their husband's vote before women had the vote.

It's just as likely that women are voting democrat because there have been little if any viable republican candidates.

Who in their right mind would vote for these 100year old republicans they keep trotting up? There are only so many old white men to sway the vote for old white men.

You should take it up with this guy, you two seem to be on opposites sides of this academic debate:

Taking a look back in history... We would not have had prohibition. Course that was thrown out.

We would not have had female hiring and promotion quotas. Which led to racial quotas. So we would have had less discrimination against white males. We would have less attempts at woosification of our boys in our school systems and subsequently of our men in politics.

We would not be murdering children in the womb by the tens of millions.

So would there be differences? yes.

You are conflating single issues, with voting decisions. Each voting decision is based on hundreds of factors. You are continuing to make the common mistake of assuming causality in statistics. This is a very common error. People tend to invent reasons for what they see, when they do not have complete understanding.

So no, my statements are not in conflict.

 

[manifold]

Yes. However, just as income is not zero sum, in so far as your neighbor earning income does not mean you have less income,... Just because democrats are pandering to the women, and winning that vote, does not mean if women were not voting the democrats would not pander to pansy men. Nor does it mean women issues had no sway on their husband's vote before women had the vote.

It's just as likely that women are voting democrat because there have been little if any viable republican candidates.

Who in their right mind would vote for these 100year old republicans they keep trotting up? There are only so many old white men to sway the vote for old white men.

You should take it up with this guy, you two seem to be on opposites sides of this academic debate:

Taking a look back in history... We would not have had prohibition. Course that was thrown out.

We would not have had female hiring and promotion quotas. Which led to racial quotas. So we would have had less discrimination against white males. We would have less attempts at woosification of our boys in our school systems and subsequently of our men in politics.

We would not be murdering children in the womb by the tens of millions.

So would there be differences? yes.

You are conflating single issues, with voting decisions. Each voting decision is based on hundreds of factors. You are continuing to make the common mistake of assuming causality in statistics. This is a very common error. People tend to invent reasons for what they see, when they do not have complete understanding.

So no, my statements are not in conflict.

Oh silly me, I see it now. You think that things today would be wildly different if women were never granted the right to vote, but that all the politicians and especially presidents elected along the way would have been the same.

Wow, I bow to your genius, because I certainly never would have thought of that on my own.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah cause if it wasn't for the tea party blacks would suddenly vote for republicans. ROFL Fakey you are the only person that keeps PMZ from being known as the dumbest man in America.

Christy got 80% of the blacks, son. How many did cooch get?

.

ROFL you are truly an idiot. Chris Christie got 20% of the black vote, not 80%.

You fell for it, Einstein. Christie got 20% of NJ blacks, blue-state blacks, you silly sucker.

I made you come up with figure so that you can see that Christie is viable where as the rest of America along with blacks will piss all over the far right candidates.

We can't win with TeaPoCrapic far right reactionaries, son.

 

[RKMBrown]

You should take it up with this guy, you two seem to be on opposites sides of this academic debate:

You are conflating single issues, with voting decisions. Each voting decision is based on hundreds of factors. You are continuing to make the common mistake of assuming causality in statistics. This is a very common error. People tend to invent reasons for what they see, when they do not have complete understanding.

So no, my statements are not in conflict.

Oh silly me, I see it now. You think that things today would be wildly different if women were never granted the right to vote, but that all the politicians and especially presidents elected along the way would have been the same.

Wow, I bow to your genius, because I certainly never would have thought of that on my own.

Your idea of "wildly" different and mine are completely different. But no, you are correct the world would be different if a butterfly in Africa had lost it's wings 52years ago, on Tuesday afternoon.

 

[RKMBrown]

Christy got 80% of the blacks, son. How many did cooch get?

.

ROFL you are truly an idiot. Chris Christie got 20% of the black vote, not 80%.

You fell for it, Einstein. Christie got 20% of NJ blacks, blue-state blacks, you silly sucker.

I made you come up with figure so that you can see that Christie is viable where as the rest of America along with blacks will piss all over the far right candidates.

We can't win with TeaPoCrapic far right reactionaries, son.

HUH? You lied on purpose, because you think 20% of the black vote is enough to make people who love liberty want to vote for a socialist dirt bag like Chris Christie? I get it that socialists like you like it when the republicans offer up a socialist like Bush, that way you socialist scum can't loose.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What they should learn is that the Democrat candidates back 3rd party candidates in order to get votes away from the Republicans. Not sure what the Republicans can do on this. The green party doesn't run anymore because the DNC placated them enough that there is no incentive.

The problem is Libertarians are fiscal conservatives but often social liberals. Not sure what the Republicans can do to absorb them into the party. Maybe being more socially liberal. That would eliminate the 3rd party vote loss for Republicans but could alienate the social conservatives.

Maybe we can just make it illegal for either major party to financially back any 3rd party candidate but I'm sure the Democrats would work around that law.

Yes, it's all Sarvis's fault that Cuccinelli won. It's not that Cuccinelli was a shit candidate with archaic ideals that mainstream voters wanted nothing to do with, right?

You'll notice Chris Christie won 60% of the vote in Democratic New Jersey, winning a majority of women, Hispanics, and 20% of blacks.

 

[whitehall]

The Tea Party is a powerful pressure group in Republican politics and democrats will use any dirty trick in the book including recruiting and funding fake political candidates to syphon votes in a close race.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If there is anything to be gleaned from the Virginia race it's this:

The GOP has a long way to go, but the failure of Obamacare will be a major cache of weaponry for them in 2014 and 2016.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Tea Party is a powerful pressure group in Republican politics and democrats will use any dirty trick in the book including recruiting and funding fake political candidates to syphon votes in a close race.

Sarvis pulled more from McAuliffe than he did from Cuccinelli, but hey, let's not let facts get in the way of your anti-democratic propaganda.

First off, it ignores data that the Libertarian pulled more votes from the Democratic candidate than he did from the Republican one—an exit poll of Sarvis voters showed that they would have voted for McAuliffe by a two-to-one margin over Cucinelli. Second, and far more important, it presumes that all potential votes somehow really “belong” to either Democrats or Republicans. That’s simply wrong and it does a real disservice to American politics.

Don't Blame Sarvis for the Cuccinelli Loss/McAuliffe Win in Virginia - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[JimH52]

This might be a stupid question but I'm not from Virginia and would like someone from there to answer this. Was it Cuccinelli who was the problem or was it the Lt. Gov. candidate? What's been really turning me off about the TP (besides them being associated with the GOP) lately is all of the loudmouth religious nut jobs who seem to think that the TP is their home.

I'm from Virginia...so is Old School. We come from somewhat different sides of the political spectrum, but I think he would agree with this as well.


1. Both were terrible candidates.


2. The Lt Gov race did not make a difference.


3. This race has very little bearing on anything Nationally...just like New Jersey.


4. To cherry pick Virginia and say this means death and doom for the Republicans, and ignore the outcome in New Jersey is foolish.


5. Christie supersedes party in New Jersey. McAuliffe & Cuccinelli superseded party in Virginia. Both were terrible. The voters picked the guy they found the least offensive.

Cherry Pick? You are right. Cooch is a flaming right wing loon. Christie is a moderate, rational Republican. Ahhhh, what is the lesson here?

 

[JimH52]

If there is anything to be gleaned from the Virginia race it's this:

The GOP has a long way to go, but the failure of Obamacare will be a major cache of weaponry for them in 2014 and 2016.

It is yet to fail....sorry to disappoint.

 

[Intense]

Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Virginia is a cautionary tale for conservatives this year. And those Republicans who always argue that their party wins when it moves further to the right are going to have a lot of explaining to do after Election Day.

This was written before the election, but I doubt the GOP will learn a lesson. Their call now is, "But the margin wasn't as big as......"

Actually, the GOP should have kept the Governor's mansion from all historical accounts. And they could have if they had nominated Bill Bolling the moderate Lt Gov. But the TP fanatics and the untra-right out of state money pushed for Coooooch.

This is just a small lesson for the national GOP. Will they heed the warning or continue their march to the right?

Utter Bullshit. Like Romney was a step to the Right? Like McCain was a step to the Right? Right what? Right Statist Progressive as opposed to Left Statist Progressive? Get a life of your own.

 

[Pheonixops]

Learn what?

That dimocraps out-spent Republicans almost two to one?

That dimocraps brought in dozens of National figures to campaign for McAuliffe?

That Cuccinelli closed a 12 point gap in a matter of days with NO MONEY?

That Cuccinelli only had 2 weeks to campaign against obamacare and the rest of the Republican party has a year until the mid-terms?

That a dimocrap scumbag and MAJOR dimocrap bundler financed a PHONY FUCKING LIBERTARIAN to siphon votes away from Cuccinelli?

From just a few days ago

McAuliffe opens up double-digit lead over Cuccinelli in Virginia governor?s race - The Washington Post



From just a few hours ago

Election Day 2013: Results - CNN.com

dimocraps put everything they had in this race, complete with the usual cheating and lying. McAuliffe is a former Party Chairman and for him to lose in a Purple State would have been crippling to dimocraps.

That he BARELY won speaks volumes. Yeah, we learned a lot.

How'd we do in New Jersey? One of THE bluest of blue States in the Country.....

Excuses, excuses, excuses.............. What's wrong with Sarvis taking votes away from anybody? That's what he's supposed to do when running for office. What's wrong with people choosing Sarvis over Cuccinelli?
What a bunch of candy asses!!!! "Rock ribbed conservatives" my ass!

whats wrong with it is that he was funded by a democrat funding bundler, he was never a real libertarian candidate, he was a paid dem/lib hack who was put in the race to ensure that the clintons suck buddy would win.

I don't care who funded him as long as it's not illegal or an illegal organization. I'm not buying your other claim, because there are plenty of Libertarians or Libertarian leaning people who will not or would not vote for Cuccinelli. The exit polling facts contradict the assertions made by you and other republicans stating that Sarvis allegedly cost Cuccinelli the race.
"Finally, while it didn’t change the outcome, the third-party candidate in the race, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, may have made it closer for McAuliffe than it would have been otherwise. Had he not been on the ballot, a third of his voters said they’d have supported McAuliffe – slightly more than twice as many as said they’d have gone for Cuccinelli."

Virginia Governor Exit Polls - 2013 Election Results - NYTimes.com

The problem is that Cuccinelli didn't have a wide enough appeal to get enough votes. Those excuses blaming Sarvis and the Libertarians are pretty lame. I notice that you guys aren't complaining about the Koch brothers donating to Cuccinelli's campaign now are you?
Koch-backed governors group gives big to Cuccinelli in Virginia | Center for Public Integrity
Cuccinelli's Koch Party - Progress|VA

 

[JakeStarkey]

ROFL you are truly an idiot. Chris Christie got 20% of the black vote, not 80%.

You fell for it, Einstein. Christie got 20% of NJ blacks, blue-state blacks, you silly sucker.

I made you come up with figure so that you can see that Christie is viable where as the rest of America along with blacks will piss all over the far right candidates.

We can't win with TeaPoCrapic far right reactionaries, son.

HUH? You lied on purpose, because you think 20% of the black vote is enough to make people who love liberty want to vote for a socialist dirt bag like Chris Christie? I get it that socialists like you like it when the republicans offer up a socialist like Bush, that way you socialist scum can't loose.

Catching you in your lies is worth it, bub.

CC is not socialist, your are not mainstream American much less Republican, and we are not going to finance TeaPoCraps to run for major office. The word went out this morning.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

probably not.. the takeaway is though that the dems won by a very slim margin even after a 3rd party spoiler, almost total RNC indifference and massive amounts of money from the dem machine...

The dems are on shaky ground... this should have been a landslide, but it was a squeaker.