• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cochran wins

Sherman123 said:
Thank goodness. Aside form Cantor this primary season has been a series of defeats for the Tea Party and I couldn't be more pleased for our party.
Click to expand...

not that i'm a fan of the TP.. but they are less "dangerous" than the establishment Republicans... especially those massive spenders like Thad.

if runaway spending is something you support, the mainstream GOP is the place to be... and Thad tops that particular chart.
 
Ockham said:
Big spending GOP members who never saw an ear mark they didn't like is what I call a Republican acting like a liberal.
Click to expand...

Then I would offer that you have a minimal understanding of the American political system. However, nothing pleases me more that watching those on the Right attack each other, so go for it!
 
NIMBY said:
Apparently a lot of people from all political persuasions think Sen. Cochran is a moderate Republican.
We've heard him called much worse by McDaniel's people, who could care less about the Gov't largesse Cochran brings home.

And let's not forget Sen. Trent Lott, who was certainly no TEA-partier.
South of the 40th parallel these days, you can't tell the difference between Mississippi, Illinois or Missouri--just to name a few .
Click to expand...

Which is one more reason why I never venture south of the 40th parallel, unless it's to some civilized, non right wing place.
 
Did you notice the timing a day after the "Cochran Democrats" won out--Boehner trying to soothe TEA-feelings by suing Obama.
Wiggen said:
Which is one more reason why I never venture south of the 40th parallel, unless it's to some civilized, non right wing place.
Click to expand...

As for the 40th, on my way home from OKC in March, I took US-60 from W>E across lower MO--awesome ride.
The South has many places where I still want to go .
 
SocialDemocrat said:
True. I find it extremely troubling that there is a worse candidate for MS senate than Cochran.
Click to expand...
And if Democrats actually knew what they were doing, they would have voted for him.
1. What will the 84,000 DEM voters do that voted the first time, so not yesterday?
2. Will McDaniel's voters come out in big numbers for Cochran?
3. Can Childers capitalize on Cochran bragging about being a part of the total accumulated debt?
4. Will Dems who voted for Cochran yesterday switch back to Childers? ?
 
Ockham said:
Big spending GOP members who never saw an ear mark they didn't like is what I call a Republican acting like a liberal.
Click to expand...
I guess you don't realize that earmarks are a fraction of 1% of federal spending. Moreover, the period of time when Republicans controlled the White House, the House and the Senate was the highest period of earmark spending, debunking the idea that liberals are big spenders as a myth.
Thrilla said:
not that i'm a fan of the TP.. but they are less "dangerous" than the establishment Republicans... especially those massive spenders like Thad.

if runaway spending is something you support, the mainstream GOP is the place to be... and Thad tops that particular chart.
Click to expand...

Where exactly is this "massive runaway spending?"

usgs_line.php


I am sure you were silent about spending during the previous administration:

usgs_line.php
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
And if Democrats actually knew what they were doing, they would have voted for him.
1. What will the 84,000 DEM voters do that voted the first time, so not yesterday?
Click to expand...

I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase it?

2. Will McDaniel's voters come out in big numbers for Cochran?
Click to expand...

Not likely, since there won't be enthusiasm among Tea Party voters about Cochran.

3. Can Childers capitalize on Cochran bragging about being a part of the total accumulated debt?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd say so. He should, but it doesn't guarantee anything.

4. Will Dems who voted for Cochran yesterday switch back to Childers? ?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the conservative southern Democrats. Childers is a blue dog, so most democrats will likely support him in the general.
 
 
I like the heading - "Cochran Campaign Illegally robocalls black democrats..."

'Illegal,' in an open primary state.....

Maybe instead of complaining about how the other guy legally got more votes, the sore losers might want to think about how the plan to send poll watchers motivated those black democratic voters to show up?
 
Wiggen said:
Then I would offer that you have a minimal understanding of the American political system. However, nothing pleases me more that watching those on the Right attack each other, so go for it!
Click to expand...

We disagree all the time - so do liberals disagree with each other all the time. You who claim such broad understanding of politics don't know that? :lamo
In actuality I see you have very little political acumen - you make a rookie mistake by viewing disagreement within a political party as a fracture. That's naive at best.
 
Excon said:
Click to expand...


I don't hear anything illegal in that video. The caller encouraged the callee to vote for Senator Thad Cochran and say NO to the Tea Party. That seems to me to be a free exercise of free speech, something the Tea Party says they support.
 
MTAtech said:
I don't hear anything illegal in that video. The caller encouraged the callee to vote for Senator Thad Cochran and say NO to the Tea Party. That seems to me to be a free exercise of free speech, something the Tea Party says they support.
Click to expand...

Here are some comments from McDaniel.

"If our party and our conservative movement are to coexist, it is paramount that we ensure the sanctity of the election process is upheld," McDaniel's statement said. "We must be absolutely certain that our Republican primary was won by Republican voters.

"In the coming days, our team will look into the irregularities to determine whether a challenge is warranted," the statement said. "After we've examined the data, we will make a decision about whether and how to [proceed]."

I guess they haven't looked up the rules for open primaries, where the rules anticipate and encourage people to cross party lines.

I also wonder if the Tea Party has asked McDaniel if he voted for the democratic nominee for Gov. in 2003. If he didn't, he 'broke the law' because McDaniel voted in the democratic primary in 2003. For some reason the campaign has been tight lipped about this. Weird.
 
Thrilla said:
not that i'm a fan of the TP.. but they are less "dangerous" than the establishment Republicans... especially those massive spenders like Thad.

if runaway spending is something you support, the mainstream GOP is the place to be... and Thad tops that particular chart.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with your characterization and I'd also say that I'm definitely an 'establishment' Republican if that is the dichotomy we're presented with.
 
Ockham said:
We disagree all the time - so do liberals disagree with each other all the time. You who claim such broad understanding of politics don't know that? :lamo
In actuality I see you have very little political acumen - you make a rookie mistake by viewing disagreement within a political party as a fracture. That's naive at best.
Click to expand...

No, it's a fracture. Hell you have Queen Sarah talking about starting a new political party. Hope she succeeds.
 
JasperL said:
Here are some comments from McDaniel.

"If our party and our conservative movement are to coexist, it is paramount that we ensure the sanctity of the election process is upheld," McDaniel's statement said. "We must be absolutely certain that our Republican primary was won by Republican voters.

"In the coming days, our team will look into the irregularities to determine whether a challenge is warranted," the statement said. "After we've examined the data, we will make a decision about whether and how to [proceed]."

I guess they haven't looked up the rules for open primaries, where the rules anticipate and encourage people to cross party lines.

I also wonder if the Tea Party has asked McDaniel if he voted for the democratic nominee for Gov. in 2003. If he didn't, he 'broke the law' because McDaniel voted in the democratic primary in 2003. For some reason the campaign has been tight lipped about this. Weird.
Click to expand...
I also think that a political party should be choosing candidates exclusively by their registered party members. But the rules are the rules. If Republicans, who control Mississippi, don't like it, get rid of open primaries -- don't 8itch about it after it doesn't go your way.
 
MTAtech said:
I also think that a political party should be choosing candidates exclusively by their registered party members. But the rules are the rules. If Republicans, who control Mississippi, don't like it, get rid of open primaries -- don't 8itch about it after it doesn't go your way.
Click to expand...

I'm also fine with closed primaries. I'm all for parties being able to decide on the rules for selecting their nominee.

But Tennessee is also an open primary state, and I like that it is. I often cross parties and vote for Republicans because I know the GOPer who is nominated will win. So sometimes I vote in the democratic primary, other times in the GOP, depending on the election. And there is nothing illegitimate about that, IMO, even though if forced to register with one party, I'd probably register as a democrat.

Besides, I've read but cannot confirm that open primaries expanded as the South was transitioning from yellow dog democratic to solid republican. During the transition, GOP candidates wanted to appeal to registered democrats, especially during the period when local races continued to be dominated by democrats long after national allegiances changed. Back then there was a ton of cross party voting (in my state anyway) depending on the election.
 
JasperL said:
I'm also fine with closed primaries. I'm all for parties being able to decide on the rules for selecting their nominee.

But Tennessee is also an open primary state, and I like that it is. I often cross parties and vote for Republicans because I know the GOPer who is nominated will win. So sometimes I vote in the democratic primary, other times in the GOP, depending on the election. And there is nothing illegitimate about that, IMO, even though if forced to register with one party, I'd probably register as a democrat.

Besides, I've read but cannot confirm that open primaries expanded as the South was transitioning from yellow dog democratic to solid republican. During the transition, GOP candidates wanted to appeal to registered democrats, especially during the period when local races continued to be dominated by democrats long after national allegiances changed. Back then there was a ton of cross party voting (in my state anyway) depending on the election.
Click to expand...

Open primaries did originate in the south a long time ago. They originated because back in the day who ever won the Democratic primary was tantamount to election. The general was a mere formality. Georgia has always had an open primary for as long as I can remember.
 
Perotista said:
Open primaries did originate in the south a long time ago.
They originated because back in the day who ever won the Democratic primary was tantamount to election.
The general was a mere formality. Georgia has always had an open primary for as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...
So what's the next step for Reince Priebus?
This open/closed primary system will surely raise its head again in the Presidential primaries.
Not to mention each state's parties trying to rewrite their own primary rules after this term.
Gotta love them state's rights .
 
Perotista said:
Open primaries did originate in the south a long time ago. They originated because back in the day who ever won the Democratic primary was tantamount to election. The general was a mere formality. Georgia has always had an open primary for as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...

That does make sense as well. My dad used to tell about when he was growing up in W. Tennessee they often didn't have local general elections, because there was no one running on the GOP side.
 
NIMBY said:
So what's the next step for Reince Priebus?
This open/closed primary system will surely raise its head again in the Presidential primaries.
Not to mention each state's parties trying to rewrite their own primary rules after this term.
Gotta love them state's rights .
Click to expand...

What ever the states decide or what ever the parties within any state decide.
 
JasperL said:
That does make sense as well. My dad used to tell about when he was growing up in W. Tennessee they often didn't have local general elections, because there was no one running on the GOP side.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
I', glad that Cochran won, but I sure think that the idea of open primaries is nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom