• 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!

Election night 2013

poweRob said:
I know the thread title doesn't match but it's two seperate elections that I wanted to address...

NBC News projects Chris Christie will win New Jersey Governor's race

BREAKING: NBC News projects Democrat Terry McAuliffe to win Virginia governor’s race​

Second story isn't linked because its so new that the headline is all there is. No story yet.
Click to expand...

Hey guy, I was listening to Larry Sabato of the Univeristy of Virginia and politico analyst awhile ago. It seems the voters of Virginia went for a Democrat for Governor and then elected 67 republicans out of a 100 to their house of delegates. That definatelly sends mix signals as to what the election of McAuliffe means. McAuliffe will have to work with a legislature that is 2-1 republican. That maybe a real hard task or maybe he will develope into another Christie and learn to work with the oppisite party. If McAuliffe doesn't work with them, the republican house of delegates he will be for a very rough time.

The Virginia senate wasn't for election this year and is tied at 20-20. Should be interesting times for McAuliffe.
 
Fisher said:
You need to find better talking points sources. Since 1977, Virginia elected as Governor Doug Wilder, Chuck Robb, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine all democrats that I can recall just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

My bad, was quoting ABC news online, said first time a governor from the president's party was elected in Virginia since 1977.
 
Conservative said:
McAuliffe didn't get 50% of the vote thus more people voted against him than voted for him. It took a third party candidate to assure his election and the fact remains the Republican was outspent 3 to 1 and still he wins by 2%. Keep re-writing history, Pb
Click to expand...

Per Larry Sabato, University of Virginia the people of Virginia elected McAuliffe and turn around and elected 67 republican state legislatures to their house of delegates which total 100. The democrats will be outnumbered their by 2-1. I think this election for governor speaks more of the dislike of Cuccinelli than the like of McAullife.

But in two pre election polls, both showed Sarvis taking more votes from McAullife than Cuccinelli. Virginia is in for some interesting times. Either he leans to work with the other party like Christie has or he accomplishes nothing.
 
poweRob said:
I know the thread title doesn't match but it's two seperate elections that I wanted to address...

NBC News projects Chris Christie will win New Jersey Governor's race

BREAKING: NBC News projects Democrat Terry McAuliffe to win Virginia governor’s race​

Second story isn't linked because its so new that the headline is all there is. No story yet.
Click to expand...

This says a lot about today's small r party when someone/McAuliffe who rented out the Lincoln bedroom during the Clinton administration for fundraising can win over their, candidate/Cuccinelli.:lamo
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion but I doubt that anyone who served our country would classify themselves as a "progressive" but if you did, thank you for your service. I know a lot of military men and women turning over in their graves with your attitude now. The economy didn't fall apart. How were you hurt by this recession? You bought the media spin and the Obama rhetoric and the question is why? Those that bought homes they couldn't afford on interest rates that were variable and then were forced to sell were indeed hurt. over 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers TODAY are still in a recession due to poor economic policies of Obama. I forgot nothing TARP was pushed by Bush and supported by Obama. TARP was a loan most of which was paid back, TARP was used by Obama to take over GM/Chrysler and still hasn't been paid back. TARP repayments were recycled by Obama into other feel good liberal social programs and we have the worst recovery on record due to liberal economic policies as the results show. You see you measure success by results, something you and others want to ignore. My stats do indeed tell all the facts, you want to ignore them. Suggest you learn how to research and to think. Tell me what facts today don't tell all the facts? tell me what Obama economic policy was a success? Tell me why we still have so many unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers 5 years after Obama took office? Tell me why the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth? Tell me how Obamacare benefits job creation? You served our country, but what country did you serve, the entitlement country or the freedom of choice country?
Click to expand...

That you don't think a veteran with scars from service can be anything but radical right is on you... I can't control that. Vets are always spinning in their graves according to some... :roll:

Oh the CON game continues... IF ONLY the hit was taken by those who over-extended themselves buying a home... No Sir, the True CON game was those mortgages were bundled up and sold around the world as grade AAA bonds when they were crap sandwiches. The fallout shook the financial world and collapsed the stock market. The implosion in the financial world threw many Americans out of work as secondary businesses lost businesses.

TARP I was PASSED by BushII, you seem to be CONvoluting history. The collapsed economy worldwide put millions out of work... no 'policy' of Obama's did so... name them if you can! No credit was available for building, business, homes, etc. There was no way to know just what the assets of the bonds was really worth so no one was extending credit as they needed every dime to cover the ongoing losses.

It is stunning that some can sit there and claim the economy was just peachy until Obama took office.... :shock:

When i served i didn't ask which 'country' I was serving. Seems those who didn't serve try and make that point. I served MY country, that was enough. Now I am all for free choice, but that doesn't mean the 'every man for himself' mantra.

The labor force has had a very tough time keeping up with population growth- BushII didn't produce high paying jobs but rather good paying jobs were being lost and low paying jobs substituted. Our economy is changing, no internal policy affects China and India rising in manufacturing and Information services. Your CON 'logic' would lament the loss of buggy whip makers as the nation shifted from man and horse power rural economies to machines and cities.
 
Donc said:
This says a lot about today's small r party when someone/McAuliffe who rented out the Lincoln bedroom during the Clinton administration for fundraising can win over their, candidate/Cuccinelli.:lamo
Click to expand...

Both parties have become smaller over the years. There was a time between 1932-1960 when more than half of the Americans identified/associated themselves with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party stuck at around 26%. But party affiliation is dynamic and ever in flux. By 1980, the year Reagan was elected 42% of Americans identified with the Democrats and 28% with Republicans. When 2000 rolled around those numbers were 32% identifying with the Democrats and the same 28% with the GOP. Almost even.

The latest party identification per Gallup was 3-5 October of 2013 which showed 30% identifying themselves with the Democrats and 20% with the Republicans. Just some history here. What is really interesting was the years between 1932-1960 only 18% of the electorate identified themselves as independent. Today that number is up to 47% as per Gallup in its 3-5 October poll.
 
Perotista said:
Per Larry Sabato, University of Virginia the people of Virginia elected McAuliffe and turn around and elected 67 republican state legislatures to their house of delegates which total 100. The democrats will be outnumbered their by 2-1. I think this election for governor speaks more of the dislike of Cuccinelli than the like of McAullife.

But in two pre election polls, both showed Sarvis taking more votes from McAullife than Cuccinelli. Virginia is in for some interesting times. Either he leans to work with the other party like Christie has or he accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

Since McAullife is a long-time Clinton devotee, we can expect him to follow their guidebook.

It is noteworthy that the voters overwhelmingly chose Republican legislators by a 2-to-1 margin, though. Is this an attempt to have balance in their elected officialdom, or do they trust the Repubs to be more responsible with their tax dollars? Interesting...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
 
Perotista said:
Both parties have become smaller over the years. There was a time between 1932-1960 when more than half of the Americans identified/associated themselves with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party stuck at around 26%. But party affiliation is dynamic and ever in flux. By 1980, the year Reagan was elected 42% of Americans identified with the Democrats and 28% with Republicans. When 2000 rolled around those numbers were 32% identifying with the Democrats and the same 28% with the GOP. Almost even.

The latest party identification per Gallup was 3-5 October of 2013 which showed 30% identifying themselves with the Democrats and 20% with the Republicans. Just some history here. What is really interesting was the years between 1932-1960 only 18% of the electorate identified themselves as independent. Today that number is up to 47% as per Gallup in its 3-5 October poll.
Click to expand...

Thas' alright.....we have history and all those civilizations that Progressed to Extinction.....as a Road Map of what not to do. :lol:....:2razz:

Afternoon Pero. :2wave: Hey we have a thread up on Georgia's SYG Law. Like to get your take on it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...s-stand-your-ground-law-unconstitutional.html
 
notquiteright;1062513264]That you don't think a veteran with scars from service can be anything but radical right is on you... I can't control that. Vets are always spinning in their graves according to some... :roll:
Click to expand...

No, but the military personnel seem to understand freedom a lot more than you do apparently and that includes freedom to fail. The military personnel I know also understand that results matter. That is a concept you seem to not understand.

Oh the CON game continues... IF ONLY the hit was taken by those who over-extended themselves buying a home... No Sir, the True CON game was those mortgages were bundled up and sold around the world as grade AAA bonds when they were crap sandwiches. The fallout shook the financial world and collapsed the stock market. The implosion in the financial world threw many Americans out of work as secondary businesses lost businesses.
Click to expand...

The military personnel I know understand personal responsibility as well. You don't seem to grasp the concept. Still waiting for you to tell me how this recession hurt you and your family?

TARP I was PASSED by BushII, you seem to be CONvoluting history. The collapsed economy worldwide put millions out of work... no 'policy' of Obama's did so... name them if you can! No credit was available for building, business, homes, etc. There was no way to know just what the assets of the bonds was really worth so no one was extending credit as they needed every dime to cover the ongoing losses.
Click to expand...

I see, so never in history have been people lost their jobs during a recession. How old were you during the 81-82 recession? The difference between the two is leadership or in this one the lack of it. What TARP did and Obama promoted was the continuation of rewarding bad behavior. Were it not for the Fed pumping 85 billion dollars a month into the economy this economy would really be tanking and will soon. What economic policy did Obama implement that improved banking behavior?

It is stunning that some can sit there and claim the economy was just peachy until Obama took office.... :shock:
Click to expand...

Please post where I said that? The problem is the recovery or lack of recovery that you want to ignore. I keep asking the question and you keep dodging it, name for me a successful Obama economic policy that helps the private sector?

When i served i didn't ask which 'country' I was serving. Seems those who didn't serve try and make that point. I served MY country, that was enough. Now I am all for free choice, but that doesn't mean the 'every man for himself' mantra.
Click to expand...

You served our country and now want to destroy it by promoting the entitlement society. I found most military people fought for our freedom to choose and that includes choosing the fail.

The labor force has had a very tough time keeping up with population growth- BushII didn't produce high paying jobs but rather good paying jobs were being lost and low paying jobs substituted. Our economy is changing, no internal policy affects China and India rising in manufacturing and Information services. Your CON 'logic' would lament the loss of buggy whip makers as the nation shifted from man and horse power rural economies to machines and cities.
Click to expand...

So here we are 5 years after Bush left office and it is still Bush's fault that Obama hasn't done anything to improve the economy or the labor force? I don't think Bush had a thing to do with all the part time jobs being created under Obama and the fact that there are 7.9 million long term part time jobs now held by people who want full time jobs according to the BLS.

your continued support of the entitlement society and victim mentality is quite telling. Helping people that truly need help is America, but promoting a bigger, massive central govt. never was and will never succeed.
 
American said:
You know Macaulliffe is anti-coal don't you? Just wait and see.
Click to expand...
Feelings aside of the Cooch (inelli), I think McCauliffe is crooked man. He reeks of it. I don't have any evidence for that or anything. I just feel it for some reason. We'll see though. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Feelings aside of the Cooch (inelli), I think McCauliffe is crooked man. He reeks of it. I don't have any evidence for that or anything. I just feel it for some reason. We'll see though. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves it.
Click to expand...

Follow the money.
f_whistle.gif
.
 
polgara said:
Since McAullife is a long-time Clinton devotee, we can expect him to follow their guidebook.

It is noteworthy that the voters overwhelmingly chose Republican legislators by a 2-to-1 margin, though. Is this an attempt to have balance in their elected officialdom, or do they trust the Repubs to be more responsible with their tax dollars? Interesting...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
Click to expand...

i haven't studied Virginia politics, so I do not have the faintest idea. It is just one of those quirks of an election. Governors and presidents get all the attention, but what happens below them in the legislatures and in congress is as important. If McAuliffe does follow Clinton's guidelines, do as he did after 1994 when the GOP took back congress, maybe he won't have that much of a problem. Clinton would be a good man to learn from.
 
Perotista said:
Hey guy, I was listening to Larry Sabato of the Univeristy of Virginia and politico analyst awhile ago. It seems the voters of Virginia went for a Democrat for Governor and then elected 67 republicans out of a 100 to their house of delegates. That definatelly sends mix signals as to what the election of McAuliffe means. McAuliffe will have to work with a legislature that is 2-1 republican. That maybe a real hard task or maybe he will develope into another Christie and learn to work with the oppisite party. If McAuliffe doesn't work with them, the republican house of delegates he will be for a very rough time.

The Virginia senate wasn't for election this year and is tied at 20-20. Should be interesting times for McAuliffe.
Click to expand...

I think mccauiffe will fail. First the GOP even at state level is appearing to solidify itself into a monolithic org like they are at the fed level and mccauliffe is a jerk. That combination IMO spells disaster for him. Hopefully he will surprise me.
 
Donc said:
This says a lot about today's small r party when someone/McAuliffe who rented out the Lincoln bedroom during the Clinton administration for fundraising can win over their, candidate/Cuccinelli.:lamo
Click to expand...

I remember that. Didn't know that was his baby. He's such a phony. The dems could've done so much better than him. I think he built up some political chips that he cashed in to get the establishment behind him early.
 
poweRob said:
I think mccauiffe will fail. First the GOP even at state level is appearing to solidify itself into a monolithic org like they are at the fed level and mccauliffe is a jerk. That combination IMO spells disaster for him. Hopefully he will surprise me.
Click to expand...

At first sight, I thought that too. It may depend on how much Bill Clinton rubbed off on him as suggested by Polgara. Clinton was able to get a lot of thing accomplishes after the GOP took over congress in 1994. But Bill was willing to work with them and compromise. But if he is going to try to govern Virginia much like Reid and McConnell do the senate, my way or the highway. I would say you are right.
 
poweRob said:
I remember that. Didn't know that was his baby. He's such a phony. The dems could've done so much better than him. I think he built up some political chips that he cashed in to get the establishment behind him early.
Click to expand...

It's called raising M O N E Y.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Feelings aside of the Cooch (inelli), I think McCauliffe is crooked man. He reeks of it. I don't have any evidence for that or anything. I just feel it for some reason. We'll see though. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves it.
Click to expand...

 
notquiteright said:
What is telling is there was only one other real nationally important elections this go-round. This begs the question why didn't the TPs and RNC pour in massive amounts of money like they did when Northern TP governors were facing recalls and referendums? Where is the massive funding Californians received to defeat SSM?

Seems some of the shine has worn off the TP movement
Click to expand...

LOL. You and Obama and the IRS know why "massive amounts" of money didn't flow there. But those criminal type activities won't last forever. Maybe in three years somebody with at least a shred of honesty will occupy the White House.
 
Perotista said:
i haven't studied Virginia politics, so I do not have the faintest idea. It is just one of those quirks of an election. Governors and presidents get all the attention, but what happens below them in the legislatures and in congress is as important. If McAuliffe does follow Clinton's guidelines, do as he did after 1994 when the GOP took back congress, maybe he won't have that much of a problem. Clinton would be a good man to learn from.
Click to expand...

He already did. Lie after lie after lie is what he campaigned on.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
He already did. Lie after lie after lie is what he campaigned on.
Click to expand...

Okay, that brought out a smile on my part. But that wasn't what I was referring to. Clinton actually worked with Republicans in congress. McAuliffe will have to do the same but with the House of Delegates.
 
American said:
It's that aroma you're smelling out of Chicago. Virginia isn't close, they must not teach geography up there.
Click to expand...

That air of desperation is coming from inside Virginia, where Bolling rightly refused to endorse or campaign for the govt. TEAt coochie coo..
 
MarineTpartier said:
Feelings aside of the Cooch (inelli), I think McCauliffe is crooked man. He reeks of it. I don't have any evidence for that or anything. I just feel it for some reason. We'll see though. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves it.
Click to expand...

So you say you think TM is crooked, that he reeks of it, you say you don't have evidence but feel it--this is known as Obama Derangement Syndrome on steroids--and right on cue a day after an election--then you say you'll give him the benefit of the doubt--
 
NIMBY said:
Back to Citizens Divided and the SCOTUS Corruptu s
Click to expand...


Well you should have figured that out with those attorneys.....no one ever said they were too smart. Not to mention you already knew they feed from the bottom of the barrel. Surely you can't say you didn't understand that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom