..."Sen. Lisa Murkowski was officially named the winner of Alaska's U.S. Senate race Thursday...Murkowski waged her longshot write-in bid after losing the August GOP .primary to Miller, a Sarah Palin-backed tea party favorite making his first statewide run for public office..."
Tea Party smackdown
- Thread starter Cancel8
- Start date
..."Joseph (Joe) W. Miller has conceded the Alaska U.S. Senate election after withdrawing his objection to his opponent’s certification.
Miller, a Republican, opposed Democratic nominee Scott McAdams. Miller defeated incumbent U.S. Sen. Linda Murkowski in the Republican primaries.
Despite losing the primary, Murkowski decided to enter the race as a write-in candidate, making it a highly unusual election. Miller, who had the backing of the Republican party and was the favored son of the Alaskan Tea Party, lost the race to write-in candidate Murkowski..."
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/48330/
Miller, a Republican, opposed Democratic nominee Scott McAdams. Miller defeated incumbent U.S. Sen. Linda Murkowski in the Republican primaries.
Despite losing the primary, Murkowski decided to enter the race as a write-in candidate, making it a highly unusual election. Miller, who had the backing of the Republican party and was the favored son of the Alaskan Tea Party, lost the race to write-in candidate Murkowski..."
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/48330/
The WSJ had this to say:
..."In re-electing Ms. Murkowski, Alaska's voters join Nevadans in opting for a traditional Senate candidate with a track record of attracting federal funds over a tea-party outsider who questioned government's role in society. Some also saw her win as a repudiation of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who endorsed Mr. Miller and criticized Ms. Murkowski..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620843677187322.html
..."In re-electing Ms. Murkowski, Alaska's voters join Nevadans in opting for a traditional Senate candidate with a track record of attracting federal funds over a tea-party outsider who questioned government's role in society. Some also saw her win as a repudiation of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who endorsed Mr. Miller and criticized Ms. Murkowski..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620843677187322.html
"...during Mr. Miller's general-election campaign, some voters were turned off by some of his policy positions, including his challenge of the constitutionality of unemployment insurance, his suggestion to privatize social security, and his idea to wean Alaska off federal help by reclaiming ownership of the state's federally owned land.
Mr. Miller was also dogged by personal issues. In October, his security guard handcuffed a reporter who followed the candidate to ask a question. Mr. Miller's camp said at the time that the reporter had made "threatening gestures and movements" toward Mr. Miller, which the reporter denied.
Later, Mr. Miller admitted he was punished two years ago, while working as a government lawyer, for using co-workers' computers for politicking. Mr. Miller said in a debate that he expected voters to have "empathy" regarding his past challenges...
...Mr. Miller's loss comes as Ms. Palin's approval rating has been declining in her home state. About 90% of Alaskans approved of Ms. Palin early in her governorship, but that figure declined when she later quit the job, pollsters said. By late October, just 33% of Alaska voters rated her favorably.
"We've gotten past Sarah in this state," said Mike Dunton of Fairbanks, who said he voted for Mr. Miller despite Ms. Palin's endorsement and not because of it..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620843677187322.html
Mr. Miller was also dogged by personal issues. In October, his security guard handcuffed a reporter who followed the candidate to ask a question. Mr. Miller's camp said at the time that the reporter had made "threatening gestures and movements" toward Mr. Miller, which the reporter denied.
Later, Mr. Miller admitted he was punished two years ago, while working as a government lawyer, for using co-workers' computers for politicking. Mr. Miller said in a debate that he expected voters to have "empathy" regarding his past challenges...
...Mr. Miller's loss comes as Ms. Palin's approval rating has been declining in her home state. About 90% of Alaskans approved of Ms. Palin early in her governorship, but that figure declined when she later quit the job, pollsters said. By late October, just 33% of Alaska voters rated her favorably.
"We've gotten past Sarah in this state," said Mike Dunton of Fairbanks, who said he voted for Mr. Miller despite Ms. Palin's endorsement and not because of it..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620843677187322.html
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
thank you so much for cutting and pasting the entire interwebs on jpp...i'm really glad we have a news bot named mojo
Good Luck
New member
ie: incumbency and S.O.S. trumps all.
evince
Truthmatters
Good Luck
New member
Democracry? Are you assholes such whiners you have to restructure the word?
Anyway, fuck you back, asswipe. How is objecting to the phenomenon of incumbency being against democracy? Do you deny that incumbents are far more likely to be reelected simply because of name recognition? Is that REALLY democracy, when an official is elected because more people are aware their name?
And while name recognition was not the big factor in this election (since they had to write the name in), I also object that people were deliberately choosing the same old shit (ie: pork barrel spending, bring those bucks home).
Have you never objected to the results of an election? Does that mean you hate democracy? (I mean "democracry")
Brain dead whiny hypocritical twit.
Good Luck
New member
WHERE did I say we need to limit the people's choice, you goddamned twat? So shove your "gotcha" bullshit brain dead assumptions up your uselss fucking ass.
Not once did I say Murkowski should not have run, did I? I didn't even say that no one should have voted for her, did I?
fucking asswipe.
What I DID say is that the election results were likely as much a matter of incumbency factors and SOS as it was a "smackdown" of the TEA party movement.
..."The clues came in Nevada and Delaware, where Palin-backed ‘commonsense conservative’ mama grizzly candidates cost Republicans two Senate seats.
In Delaware, Palin and the far right endorsed Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle, a moderate and the most popular Republican in the state. In recent times, Castle is the only Republican to win statewide office in deep blue Delaware.
Polls indicated Castle would have easily won election to the Senate. He was an early and forceful opponent of the Obama health scam, despite his moderate reputation. That’s about as conservative as you can be in Biden country.
But Palin and the tea party used Castle’s ‘yea’ vote on the House cap-and-trade bill – which died in the Senate and never became law – to denounce him as ideologically impure and push O’Donnell, who predictably lost to Obama Democrat Chris Coons.
They ignored Delaware’s concerns with O’Donnell’s alleged fudged credentials and thin qualifications. Voters never took her seriously – to them, she never demonstrated Senatorial gravitas.
Since her inevitable loss, O’Donnell supporters have desperately pushed an exit poll saying Caste would have lost to Coons by a percentage point. Of course the context of that exit poll is that Castle has not been able to run a campaign for months. If he had, he would have easily topped Coons.
Republicans Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer repeatedly denounced O'Donnell's candidacy and the endorements that enabled it as destructive and unpractical. This column echoed those concerns and easily predicted O’Donnell’s loss as a failure of ideological purity.
It does not portend well for Palin 2012. Voter perceptions of O‘Donnell as lacking gravitas are echoed in their perceptions of Palin, who would not flip a single blue state against Obama. But since Presidential elections are won in purple swing states, the tea party’s Nevada disaster is even more instructive.
The last two elected Democrat Presidents picking off Nevada. Despite conservative leanings, Nevada has a formidable Democratic machine headed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has held elected office there for forty-two years, representing the state to the US Senate since 1986.
Reid became hated over the past two years as one of the chief architects of the Obama agenda. Even as voters reelected him yesterday, they told exit pollsters that they still disapproved of Reid 55% to 44%. Given that and the state’s 14% unemployment, Reid should have lost to any generic Republican.
But Reid won, because Republicans declined to nominate a generic Republican. Instead, they let him face a divisive, unpopular, controversial right-winger prone to extreme statements.
Post-Partisan Examiner wrote on eve of the GOP primary that Sharron Angle’s impending nomination was a glaring mistake. Angle’s primary opponent Danny Tarkanian would have been the safer choice for conservatives. No matter, the mama grizzly got the nod, endorsed by Palin and the tea party.
Tarkanian went on to work for Angle’s election, but even he had to acknowledge the Angle nomination error meant a Reid win:
"Reid had no chance to win before. He has a shot to win now. He could still lose, but I have to say he is favored."
Instead of being a referendum on Reid’s unpopularity, the contest morphed into a referendum on Angle’s flaws. A Palin nomination will play out in similar terms.
In 2012, Obama’s approval rating will be in the tank. Voters will be looking for a reason to boot him from office. Republicans, if they want the White House, should nominate a sound, reasonable, affable, generic conservative.
If they do so, the election will be a referendum on Obama, one he will not win. If they nominate Palin, it will be a referendum on her, one she will not win.
The charges leveled against Palin – divisiveness, unpopularity, extremeness – were also leveled against Ronald Reagan, both Clintons, and George Bush. Crucially though, voters believed those people were at least qualified for the Presidency.
Most voters, including a majority of independents, don’t see Palin as qualified and can’t see her as President – the sentiment that sunk the tea party candidates in Nevada and Delaware. If Palin cannot change that statistic in the next year, a Palin nomination will surely ensure Obama’s reelection..."
http://www.examiner.com/post-partis...osses-nevada-delaware-bad-news-for-palin-2012
In Delaware, Palin and the far right endorsed Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle, a moderate and the most popular Republican in the state. In recent times, Castle is the only Republican to win statewide office in deep blue Delaware.
Polls indicated Castle would have easily won election to the Senate. He was an early and forceful opponent of the Obama health scam, despite his moderate reputation. That’s about as conservative as you can be in Biden country.
But Palin and the tea party used Castle’s ‘yea’ vote on the House cap-and-trade bill – which died in the Senate and never became law – to denounce him as ideologically impure and push O’Donnell, who predictably lost to Obama Democrat Chris Coons.
They ignored Delaware’s concerns with O’Donnell’s alleged fudged credentials and thin qualifications. Voters never took her seriously – to them, she never demonstrated Senatorial gravitas.
Since her inevitable loss, O’Donnell supporters have desperately pushed an exit poll saying Caste would have lost to Coons by a percentage point. Of course the context of that exit poll is that Castle has not been able to run a campaign for months. If he had, he would have easily topped Coons.
Republicans Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer repeatedly denounced O'Donnell's candidacy and the endorements that enabled it as destructive and unpractical. This column echoed those concerns and easily predicted O’Donnell’s loss as a failure of ideological purity.
It does not portend well for Palin 2012. Voter perceptions of O‘Donnell as lacking gravitas are echoed in their perceptions of Palin, who would not flip a single blue state against Obama. But since Presidential elections are won in purple swing states, the tea party’s Nevada disaster is even more instructive.
The last two elected Democrat Presidents picking off Nevada. Despite conservative leanings, Nevada has a formidable Democratic machine headed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has held elected office there for forty-two years, representing the state to the US Senate since 1986.
Reid became hated over the past two years as one of the chief architects of the Obama agenda. Even as voters reelected him yesterday, they told exit pollsters that they still disapproved of Reid 55% to 44%. Given that and the state’s 14% unemployment, Reid should have lost to any generic Republican.
But Reid won, because Republicans declined to nominate a generic Republican. Instead, they let him face a divisive, unpopular, controversial right-winger prone to extreme statements.
Post-Partisan Examiner wrote on eve of the GOP primary that Sharron Angle’s impending nomination was a glaring mistake. Angle’s primary opponent Danny Tarkanian would have been the safer choice for conservatives. No matter, the mama grizzly got the nod, endorsed by Palin and the tea party.
Tarkanian went on to work for Angle’s election, but even he had to acknowledge the Angle nomination error meant a Reid win:
"Reid had no chance to win before. He has a shot to win now. He could still lose, but I have to say he is favored."
Instead of being a referendum on Reid’s unpopularity, the contest morphed into a referendum on Angle’s flaws. A Palin nomination will play out in similar terms.
In 2012, Obama’s approval rating will be in the tank. Voters will be looking for a reason to boot him from office. Republicans, if they want the White House, should nominate a sound, reasonable, affable, generic conservative.
If they do so, the election will be a referendum on Obama, one he will not win. If they nominate Palin, it will be a referendum on her, one she will not win.
The charges leveled against Palin – divisiveness, unpopularity, extremeness – were also leveled against Ronald Reagan, both Clintons, and George Bush. Crucially though, voters believed those people were at least qualified for the Presidency.
Most voters, including a majority of independents, don’t see Palin as qualified and can’t see her as President – the sentiment that sunk the tea party candidates in Nevada and Delaware. If Palin cannot change that statistic in the next year, a Palin nomination will surely ensure Obama’s reelection..."
http://www.examiner.com/post-partis...osses-nevada-delaware-bad-news-for-palin-2012
cawacko
Well-known member
LOL... GL, Planet Desh/Evince is a very strange place.
Not quite sure how one connects the power of incumbancy with wanting to limit people's choices.
I'm trying to think of an analogy like stating (making up a number here) home teams when 75% of their games in the NBA and Desh responding with 'fucking asshole are you trying to say teams shouldn't have home games'?
evince
Truthmatters
When you make laws against candidates running you make laws against who the people can choose.
You either believe in the power of the peoples choice or you think the people are too stupid to choose correctly.
Limmiting the incumbant to run is limmiting the people ability to choose who they want to take the office.
It is flat out FACT people.
You either believe in the power of the peoples choice or you think the people are too stupid to choose correctly.
Limmiting the incumbant to run is limmiting the people ability to choose who they want to take the office.
It is flat out FACT people.
Good Luck
New member
Fine argument. I agree that term limits and such are not the way to go. (Do you agree with term limits on the presidency?)
Now, do you care to show where I once even hinted that I want any kind of law which would do as you describe? In short, fuck off, asshole. You pulled out a full-on strawman argument so you could feel like the "superior" American.
Incumbency has, IMO, too much influence, but that is the result of apathy on the part of the people, not a fault in the system. I would that people in general would take the time to educate themselves better on who is running and what they're credentials and background are. The fact that outright convicted criminals are getting reelected tells me people are not paying enough attention. But that is NOT a symptom which can be corrected with any LAW. It has to come from a general change in society's attitudes.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Could you fucking try to LIMIT the amount of "m's" you fucking use in the fucking word?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I think a limmit is when you take lemmons and turn them into political victories rather than lemmonade.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
is that what happened?.....I had just assumed less than one in five Alaskans was a Democrat.....though I expect that might have been some sort of "smackdown".....
