Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs - Page 106

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2010, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How often do you vote for Democrats?

you of all people have no standing to ask the question. fuck voting, how often have you said 1 good word about an R, or 1 bad word about a Dem.

no ? cuz i aint asking

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-26-2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yea, don't think so. But this is what the conventional wisdom is saying and I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.

Where's the evidence that significant numbers of Tea Partiers have voted for Democrats in prior years? I suspect that, like you, most of them don't feel a particular love for the Republican Party as such, but also wouldn't ordinarily vote for a Democrat unless, e.g., they found themselves stuck with only more extreme lefties to vote for instead.

Because if they haven't, you're seeing a bunch of conservatives who are energized because they don't have to support Bush and can oppose Obama. Meanwhile, Democrats and independents are disappointed by the economy.

10-26-2010, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Anyone complainer-X disagrees with more than 50% of the time.

I suppose I'd call FOX the main-est of main-street mainstreamism, so QED.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-26-2010, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you of all people have no standing to ask the question. fuck voting, how often have you said 1 good word about an R, or 1 bad word about a Dem.

I'm not pretending to be Joe Average Voter.

eta: That said, I have voted for Republicans on multiple occasions since 1992, and only in one of those cases because the choice was an even more extreme Republican.

Adder · 10-26-2010, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub

But this is what the conventional wisdom is saying and I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.

Weird. My sense is that the conventional wisdom if much more along the lines of what you are saying.

sgtclub · 10-26-2010, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

It sort of depends on what particular district he's voting in. There are more than a couple of districts in Illinois where a straight anti-incumbent ticket (from local, thru county and every state office) would lead to an over-all improvement of the governing process. And that would include if a LaRouchie were the only non-incumbent choice.

Why are you raining on his parade? Anti-incumbency is bad, bad, bad. Didn't you know?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-26-2010, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you of all people have no standing to ask the question. fuck voting, how often have you said 1 good word about an R, or 1 bad word about a Dem.

no ? cuz i aint asking

I thought Ty used to be a Republican. I don't think you've been paying attention.

Adder · 10-26-2010, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Why are you raining on his parade? Anti-incumbency is bad, bad, bad. Didn't you know?

It's bad, and beyond stupid, when it is the only criteria. It's the abdication of judgment, which I abhor.

Cletus has a good point, though, for an individual voter it could be the reasoned choice, but I interpreted you are advocating anti-incumbency as a blanket policy.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-26-2010, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub

My point was that the mainstream media has been behind the curve on this since day one, so I don't really looked to them to have their finger on the pulse.

There is certainly a lot wrong with the movement. However, for the last year, the left and MSM have attempted to demonize it (e.g., they are all racist, which is a common tactic on the left*), so forgive me if I don't put much stock into your link.

*The left uses one of three tactics - the opposition is either (1) mean, (2) stupid, or (3) racist. The right has its own tactics.

Question: among those non-incumbent's you are voting for, are there any actual tea-partiers?

You're in California, right? I mean, your Sen. and Gov candidate are traditional conservative self-funders - and rich conservatives buying themselves a seat is a tradition as old as the Republic. There's nothing transformative about them or their candidacies, or any reason to think they'll be "different" in any way other than preferring conservative policies over liberal ones. I'm not sure voting for either of them is a particularly grand statement on the incumbents.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-26-2010, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub

*The left uses one of three tactics - the opposition is either (1) mean, (2) stupid, or (3) racist. The right has its own tactics.

Sometimes, we just repeat the words they use. Or ask them questions, like Rachel Maddow did to poor Rand Paul. That's really dirty pool, I know.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-26-2010, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Question: among those non-incumbent's you are voting for, are there any actual tea-partiers?

You're in California, right? I mean, your Sen. and Gov candidate are traditional conservative self-funders - and rich conservatives buying themselves a seat is a tradition as old as the Republic. There's nothing transformative about them or their candidacies, or any reason to think they'll be "different" in any way other than preferring conservative policies over liberal ones. I'm not sure voting for either of them is a particularly grand statement on the incumbents.

It's not like Feinstein or Boxer is all that. Were I going to vote there next week, I would seriously consider voting against Boxer if it didn't mean voting for Fiorina, who is loathsome.

sgtclub · 10-26-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Question: among those non-incumbent's you are voting for, are there any actual tea-partiers?

You're in California, right? I mean, your Sen. and Gov candidate are traditional conservative self-funders - and rich conservatives buying themselves a seat is a tradition as old as the Republic. There's nothing transformative about them or their candidacies, or any reason to think they'll be "different" in any way other than preferring conservative policies over liberal ones. I'm not sure voting for either of them is a particularly grand statement on the incumbents.

Probably not, but I haven't opened by ballot yet. Agree with you on the Gov and Sen race, but there are a lot of other races here at the local level.

sgtclub · 10-26-2010, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Sometimes, we just repeat the words they use. Or ask them questions, like Rachel Maddow did to poor Rand Paul. That's really dirty pool, I know.

Yes, but you don't repeat the stupid words that, say, a Joe Biden seems to spout off every 2 days.

Question, why was Dan Quayle an idiot and Biden is not?

sgtclub · 10-26-2010, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Where's the evidence that significant numbers of Tea Partiers have voted for Democrats in prior years? I suspect that, like you, most of them don't feel a particular love for the Republican Party as such, but also wouldn't ordinarily vote for a Democrat unless, e.g., they found themselves stuck with only more extreme lefties to vote for instead.

Because if they haven't, you're seeing a bunch of conservatives who are energized because they don't have to support Bush and can oppose Obama. Meanwhile, Democrats and independents are disappointed by the economy.

Where's the evidence that they haven't? (did I just get sandbagged?)

I suspect that the Tea Party is 10% DEM, 30% GOP, and 60% Indy.

sgtclub · 10-26-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not like Feinstein or Boxer is all that. Were I going to vote there next week, I would seriously consider voting against Boxer if it didn't mean voting for Fiorina, who is loathsome.

I actually could vote for Diane if she didn't cast the deciding vote against term limits way back when. Never could forgive her for that.