Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Like the children of Lake Wobegone, I am above average. So is everybody on this board, I'd wager. Why do you play so dumb? That's the interesting question.

there's an old TV show called Columbo. Go rent a few episodes.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

However they identify, they have been consistent votes for Republicans in recent elections, so it's just a new name for a bloc of voters who don't vote for Democrats. The rise of the Tea Parties is obviously significant for a number of reasons, including that these voters are highly motivated this year and that they are seizing control over the Republican Party in essential respects, but the phenomenom does not reflect that people who have recently voted for Democrats are changing their minds.

The difference between 2008 and 2010 (other than turnout) is that the Indies are breaking hugely towards the Rs, when in 2008 it was the reverse. That is, in large part, why I'm professing what I am. Maybe I'm seeing more overlap than is the case between the Indy break and the Tea Party.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right back at you. Biden and Quayle are nowhere near equivalent, if for no more reason that 37 years in Congress is more than 12. Biden is much more of a gaffey-Bob Dole, although I think that's a mild insult to Dole. I can't really think of a long serving and generally effective R Senator who tends to put his foot in his mouth that is any closer though.

But you seeing false equivalence here is consistent with the rest of your posts today.

I don't know why I even try. So length of time in office equates to less humpness?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The difference between 2008 and 2010 (other than turnout) is that the Indies are breaking hugely towards the Rs, when in 2008 it was the reverse. That is, in large part, why I'm professing what I am. Maybe I'm seeing more overlap than is the case between the Indy break and the Tea Party.

You are right about independents, but (a) there are independents who are not Tea Partiers who are voting GOP because* the economy sucks, and (b) it's not a fixed pool of voters -- a different pool of independents will turn out this time than last.


* If you ask political economists, they will tell you that the economy explains why people are saying what they're saying about how they'll vote next week. Notwithstanding, political reporters and voters are highly committed to the notion that their decisions are much more complicated and dependent on things like messaging and personality and tactics and a lot of other crap that the political scientists say washes out. But the political scientists' version doesn't generate copy to sell newspaper or TV advertising.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I don't know why I even try. So length of time in office equates to less humpness?

Other than achieving recognition as a Serious Person on foreign policy issues, I would like to know what Joe Biden actually accomplished in the Senate. He had more of a national profile than many Senators, but that's partly explained by the fact that he was successful in running for the Senate as a relatively young man in a swing state on the Eastern seaboard. He had a lot of time to spend thinking about what to do next.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Other than achieving recognition as a Serious Person on foreign policy issues, I would like to know what Joe Biden actually accomplished in the Senate. He had more of a national profile than many Senators, but that's partly explained by the fact that he was successful in running for the Senate as a relatively young man in a swing state on the Eastern seaboard. He had a lot of time to spend thinking about what to do next.

Recognition from who?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Recognition from who?

Other Serious People of the Beltway.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Other than achieving recognition as a Serious Person on foreign policy issues, I would like to know what Joe Biden actually accomplished in the Senate. He had more of a national profile than many Senators, but that's partly explained by the fact that he was successful in running for the Senate as a relatively young man in a swing state on the Eastern seaboard. He had a lot of time to spend thinking about what to do next.

i would think you would stand up for someone whose main downfall is he kept cut and pasting others ideas.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I don't know why I even try. So length of time in office equates to less humpness?

Well, I don't know what "humpness" is, so feel free to define. But yeah, actually, you know, having a record accounts for more than being a nothing.

That you are in the position of defending Quayle, much less by arguing that he is no more of an idiot than another idiot really should tell you how skewed your viewpoint is.

ETA: Let's try this another way. You are saying they both say stupid shit, and are equally worthless. I agree that they both say stupid shit, and Biden has little value too, but that he isn't at the same level of uselessness as Quayle. The latter was a nothing Congressman, and then a nothing Senator. So much so that when selected, the main reaction was "who?" Not so for Biden.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i would think you would stand up for someone whose main downfall is he kept cut and pasting others ideas.

Instead of cutting and pasting his own ideas, you mean?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Other Serious People of the Beltway.

Echo chamber

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Well, I don't know what "humpness" is, so feel free to define. But yeah, actually, you know, having a record accounts for more than being a nothing.

That you are in the position of defending Quayle, much less by arguing that he is no more of an idiot than another idiot really should tell you how skewed your viewpoint is.

ETA: Let's try this another way. You are saying they both say stupid shit, and are equally worthless. I agree that they both say stupid shit, and Biden has little value too, but that he isn't at the same level of uselessness as Quayle. The latter was a nothing Congressman, and then a nothing Senator. So much so that when selected, the main reaction was "who?" Not so for Biden.

What is his record, other than being re-elected for 30 years from a tiny, meaningless state with a shallow pool of talent?

They are both humps. The only distinguishing features is that one served longer than the other and is a DEM.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

What is his record, other than being re-elected for 30 years from a tiny, meaningless state with a shallow pool of talent?

They are both humps. The only distinguishing features is that one served longer than the other and is a DEM.

Why do you engage adder as if he has 3 digits in his iq? You appear like the kids who would tease the sped kids as they waited for their little bus.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Why do you engage adder as if he has 3 digits in his iq? You appear like the kids who would tease the sped kids as they waited for their little bus.

I invented bullying.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

What is his record

Principally being known as a Serious Person on foreign policy. The Senate isn't really made for making a list of great accomplishments. Biden's is hardly a history of glory, but it at least can be called a history.

On what issue was Quayle recognized as a Serious Person? None. Exactly.

a tiny, meaningless state

They all count the same in the Senate.

The only distinguishing features is that one served longer than the other and is a DEM.

Whatever. One was a nobody. The other is not a nobody. That might be that same to you, given that the latter also has a problematic mouth, but you are either being obstinate or you have zero perspective.

Let's put it this way, Obama was young and in experienced. If he had Biden's mouth, he would be Quayle.