Jump to content

Suppose Cooch had won and Terry refused to call to congratulate him


LisaB
 Share

Recommended Posts

Suppose any Republican had won any race, and the race had been run clean, and the Dem opponent didn't call the Republican winner to congratulate him, that would be okay?

 

You do realize that the loser not congratulating the winner has almost never happened in this country? I get the feeling that civility, which is the glue that holds society together, doesn't mean very much to you guys.

 

Of course the reason this is being posted is that Cuccinelli is refusing to congratulate McAuliffe and I wanted to see what you'd think if it were one of yours whose Dem opponent would insult in the same way.

 

What's next, then, if we just keep on hating and hating and hating some more. Will we see fights break out at every gathering when cons and libs find out they are standing next to one another?

 

If it gets to that, you cons will have won a Pyrrhic victory. That means you've won the battle but lost everything to win it. You will be able to look in the mirror and say "We won!" while outside there is no country left. Is that what you want to see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

HUH? could this be another foray into malapropism? since ignorance is a quality to be proud of in the dim word konism, now you have even more to be proud of.

Well...excuuuuuse the fuck out of me.....Mr. Genius with the big words.... Maybe I should sue my spell auto-correct software company......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

HUH? could this be another foray into malapropism? since ignorance is a quality to be proud of in the dim word konism, now you have even more to be proud of.

Idk... can his mispelling of demonization spell another word?

 

Fùcking grammar nazis....

 

No talking points ...

Just lame attempts at insulting posters...

 

Well...excuuuuuse the fuck out of me.....Mr. Genius with the big words.... Maybe I should sue my spell auto-correct software company......

He mistook your mispelling as another word check this out...

 

mal·a·prop

ˈmaləˌpräp/

noun

noun: malapropism

1.

the mistaken use of a word in place of a similar-sounding one, often with unintentionally amusing effect, as in, for example, dance a flamingo (instead of flamenco ).

synonyms: wrong word, solecism, misuse, misapplication, infelicity, Freudian slip, blunder; More

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably not think much about it. Tons of money was poured in to demonize him.

 

That's how elections are won.

He demonized himself with his sodomy crusade and his views on abortion. People are tired of the same ol republican hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuccinelli's own radical views, especially when it comes to women and sexual behavior came back to bite him.

 

Perhaps. One would think if that was self evident, McAuliffe wouldn't have to outspend him so drastically. McAuliffe won be he may be the last one who will for a while.

 

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/fox-news-special-report-panel-on-white.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericanPower+(American+Power)

 

 

 

....at least the ones who haven't managed to be insulated with their district lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps. One would think if that was self evident, McAuliffe wouldn't have to outspend him so drastically. McAuliffe won be he may be the last one who will for a while.

 

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/fox-news-special-report-panel-on-white.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericanPower+(American+Power)

 

 

 

....at least the ones who haven't managed to be insulated with their district lines.

 

I've seen candidates outspend their competitors 4-to-1 and still lose. Up 'til that time I thought money bought elections, period, but it obviously isn't necessarily so. Advertising cannot force anyone to do anything.

 

 

Lisa, you keep trying to appeal to the cons moral center. Why?

Because they have one. But their fear gets in the way. That's not a slam. We're all afraid of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose any Republican had won any race, and the race had been run clean, and the Dem opponent didn't call the Republican winner to congratulate him, that would be okay?

 

You do realize that the loser not congratulating the winner has almost never happened in this country? I get the feeling that civility, which is the glue that holds society together, doesn't mean very much to you guys.

 

Of course the reason this is being posted is that Cuccinelli is refusing to congratulate McAuliffe and I wanted to see what you'd think if it were one of yours whose Dem opponent would insult in the same way.

 

What's next, then, if we just keep on hating and hating and hating some more. Will we see fights break out at every gathering when cons and libs find out they are standing next to one another?

 

If it gets to that, you cons will have won a Pyrrhic victory. That means you've won the battle but lost everything to win it. You will be able to look in the mirror and say "We won!" while outside there is no country left. Is that what you want to see?

 

But this was not a clean race. Not at all. I live here and followed it closely. Not clean at all.

 

If you and I ran against each other and my entire campaign was based on misinformation, false character assination, funding of a third party candidate designed to take votes away from you would you congratulate me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose Cooch had won and Terry refused to call to congratulate him

 

What would cons here think of that?

 

If Cucc had told as many blatant lies about MCauliffe as MCauliffe did about Cucc, I wouldn't blame him at all.

 

So?

 

Cuccinelli's own radical views, especially when it comes to women and sexual behavior came back to bite him.

 

Speaking of liars, look who shows up. :glare:

 

Here's a hint, troll. A candidate who gets half the vote despite the Repub Establishment cutting off his media funding isn't "radical."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But this was not a clean race. Not at all. I live here and followed it closely. Not clean at all.

 

If you and I ran against each other and my entire campaign was based on misinformation, false character assination, funding of a third party candidate designed to take votes away from you would you congratulate me?

 

Please don't say only one side engaged in nefarious practices. They both did. I saw the ads, read the news stories, saw a debate.

 

People stick with the guy they like or vote against the one they don't, and it's not based on their ads but by their stated positions. I trust news stories before I'll ever trust an ad. The candidates control the ads. They don't control the news stories. People will vote for the guy they like no matter what the other side says in their ads, and even no matter if their guy gets caught in a scandal, if it's not a disgusting one. If it's money or gifts, that doesn't faze their supporters. They just say, in response to the ads, "The other guy is lying about our guy." Cooch lost simply because he's further to the right than Virginians want to go, especially women. His positions were exaggerated by McAuliffe and McAuliffe's by him, yet people aren't nearly so stupid as to take campaign literature without some salt, in this case a bucket.

 

Exit polls showed that if the third party had not been there, voters still preferred McAuliffe by the same margin as the results. From the article below, from Fox, by the way:

 

"Was the Libertarian candidate Sarvis a spoiler? In a word: no. In a straight two-way matchup, voters preferred McAuliffe to Cuccinelli by two points. That’s almost identical to the final outcome. In fact, Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican."

 

And for people who think the Tea Party is still a major player, again from the Fox article,

 

"At the same time, by a 42-28 percent margin, Virginia voters said they oppose the tea party movement, with which Cuccinelli is often identified."

 

 

Here's why Cuccinelli lost:

 

128x128-dana-blanton.jpg?ve=1

By Dana Blanton

Published November 06, 2013
FoxNews.com

Virginia voters today elected a governor from the same party as the sitting president -- breaking a more than three-decade trend.

Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s win over Republican Ken Cuccinelli came mainly from strong support among women -- unmarried women in particular -- as well as a sense that the Republican was too conservative.

 

Voters today were more likely to say Cuccinelli is “too conservative” (50 percent) than McAuliffe is “too liberal” (41 percent).

 

Overall, 37 percent say the Republican’s positions on the issues are “about right,” while 48 percent say the same of the Democrat.

Meanwhile, only three percent of Democrats said McAuliffe is “too liberal,” while 22 percent of Republicans said Cuccinelli’s positions on the issues are “too conservative.”

 

Cuccinelli’s strongly conservative views on issues like abortion hurt him with female voters. Women backed McAuliffe by a nine percentage-point margin. In 2009, women preferred Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell (who is also pro-life, but less conservative) by eight points.

Unmarried women went for McAuliffe by a wide 67-25 percent margin.

 

Today’s vote among men was split: 45 percent McAuliffe to Cuccinelli’s 48 percent.

 

Each candidate received strong backing from their party faithful. Yet, McAuliffe did a bit better here too: 95 percent of Democrats backed him, while 92 percent of Republicans supported Cuccinelli. Four percent of Republicans voted for McAuliffe.

 

Independents split their vote three ways: 47 percent for Cuccinelli, 38 percent for McAuliffe and 15 percent for third-party candidate Robert Sarvis.

While 46 percent of Virginia voters support Obamacare, a 53-percent majority oppose it. That includes 41 percent who said they “strongly” oppose the law. Cuccinelli tried to make the race a referendum on the health care law and President Obama, who campaigned with McAuliffe over the weekend. That wasn’t successful, despite a 53-percent majority disapproving of the job Obama’s doing as president. Just 46 percent approve. That’s down from the 51 percent of the vote Obama received in Virginia in 2012.

 

By a slim three-point margin Virginians blamed the shutdown on Republicans in Congress over percent President Obama (48-45 percent). Among the 32 percent saying they were affected by the shutdown, McAuliffe topped the Republican by 56-37 percent.

 

At the same time, by a 42-28 percent margin, Virginia voters said they oppose the tea party movement, with which Cuccinelli is often identified. Another 28 percent said they are neutral.

 

Nearly half of voters -- 45 percent -- said the economy was the top issue to their vote for governor, followed by health care (27 percent) and abortion (20 percent). Cuccinelli had the edge among economy voters (+6) and health care voters (+4), while McAuliffe had a whopping 25-point advantage among abortion voters.

Both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli were tainted by questionable business deals and voters took note: majorities said McAuliffe (57 percent) and Cuccinelli (54 percent) lack high ethical standards.

 

Was the Libertarian candidate Sarvis a spoiler? In a word: no. In a straight two-way matchup, voters preferred McAuliffe to Cuccinelli by two points. That’s almost identical to the final outcome. In fact, Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican.

 

Cuccinelli can’t blame outgoing Governor Bob McDonnell for his loss, as more Virginia voters approve than disapprove of his job performance (52-41 percent).

Finally, more voters today identified as Democrat than Republican by five points. In 2009, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by four points (and Republican Bob McDonnell won by 18 points). In last year’s presidential election, more Virginia voters considered themselves Democrats by seven points (and Democrat Barack Obama won by 3 points).

 

The number of independents -- about 30 percent -- has mostly held steady over the last four years.

 

Methodology: Edison Research conducted this exit poll for Fox News and interviewed 2,376 voters as they left randomly selected polling places in Virginia.

 

 

 

 

 

What happened to the time in this country when candidates and their supporters knew how to lose gracefully instead of automatically asserting they were cheated, that their ideas were superior and they would have won if the other side hadn't dirty tricked them out of it?

 

Things have gone so far to the bottom that the loser in this race wouldn't even call the winner to congratulate him. Have you ever seen that happen? Not me, brother.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/06/mcauliffe-wins-virginia-governor-race/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please don't say only one side engaged in nefarious practices. They both did. I saw the ads, read the news stories, saw a debate.

 

People stick with the guy they like or vote against the one they don't, and it's not based on their ads but by their stated positions. I trust news stories before I'll ever trust an ad. The candidates control the ads. They don't control the news stories. People will vote for the guy they like no matter what the other side says in their ads, and even no matter if their guy gets caught in a scandal, if it's not a disgusting one. If it's money or gifts, that doesn't faze their supporters. They just say, in response to the ads, "The other guy is lying about our guy." Cooch lost simply because he's further to the right than Virginians want to go, especially women. His positions were exaggerated by McAuliffe and McAuliffe's by him, yet people aren't nearly so stupid as to take campaign literature without some salt, in this case a bucket.

 

Exit polls showed that if the third party had not been there, voters still preferred McAuliffe by the same margin as the results. From the article below, from Fox, by the way:

 

"Was the Libertarian candidate Sarvis a spoiler? In a word: no. In a straight two-way matchup, voters preferred McAuliffe to Cuccinelli by two points. That’s almost identical to the final outcome. In fact, Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican."

 

And for people who think the Tea Party is still a major player, again from the Fox article,

 

"At the same time, by a 42-28 percent margin, Virginia voters said they oppose the tea party movement, with which Cuccinelli is often identified."

 

 

Here's why Cuccinelli lost:

 

128x128-dana-blanton.jpg?ve=1

 

By Dana Blanton

Published November 06, 2013

FoxNews.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia voters today elected a governor from the same party as the sitting president -- breaking a more than three-decade trend.

 

 

 

Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s win over Republican Ken Cuccinelli came mainly from strong support among women -- unmarried women in particular -- as well as a sense that the Republican was too conservative.

 

Voters today were more likely to say Cuccinelli is “too conservative” (50 percent) than McAuliffe is “too liberal” (41 percent).

 

Overall, 37 percent say the Republican’s positions on the issues are “about right,” while 48 percent say the same of the Democrat.

Meanwhile, only three percent of Democrats said McAuliffe is “too liberal,” while 22 percent of Republicans said Cuccinelli’s positions on the issues are “too conservative.”

 

Cuccinelli’s strongly conservative views on issues like abortion hurt him with female voters. Women backed McAuliffe by a nine percentage-point margin. In 2009, women preferred Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell (who is also pro-life, but less conservative) by eight points.

Unmarried women went for McAuliffe by a wide 67-25 percent margin.

 

Today’s vote among men was split: 45 percent McAuliffe to Cuccinelli’s 48 percent.

 

Each candidate received strong backing from their party faithful. Yet, McAuliffe did a bit better here too: 95 percent of Democrats backed him, while 92 percent of Republicans supported Cuccinelli. Four percent of Republicans voted for McAuliffe.

 

Independents split their vote three ways: 47 percent for Cuccinelli, 38 percent for McAuliffe and 15 percent for third-party candidate Robert Sarvis.

While 46 percent of Virginia voters support Obamacare, a 53-percent majority oppose it. That includes 41 percent who said they “strongly” oppose the law. Cuccinelli tried to make the race a referendum on the health care law and President Obama, who campaigned with McAuliffe over the weekend. That wasn’t successful, despite a 53-percent majority disapproving of the job Obama’s doing as president. Just 46 percent approve. That’s down from the 51 percent of the vote Obama received in Virginia in 2012.

 

By a slim three-point margin Virginians blamed the shutdown on Republicans in Congress over percent President Obama (48-45 percent). Among the 32 percent saying they were affected by the shutdown, McAuliffe topped the Republican by 56-37 percent.

 

At the same time, by a 42-28 percent margin, Virginia voters said they oppose the tea party movement, with which Cuccinelli is often identified. Another 28 percent said they are neutral.

 

Nearly half of voters -- 45 percent -- said the economy was the top issue to their vote for governor, followed by health care (27 percent) and abortion (20 percent). Cuccinelli had the edge among economy voters (+6) and health care voters (+4), while McAuliffe had a whopping 25-point advantage among abortion voters.

Both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli were tainted by questionable business deals and voters took note: majorities said McAuliffe (57 percent) and Cuccinelli (54 percent) lack high ethical standards.

 

Was the Libertarian candidate Sarvis a spoiler? In a word: no. In a straight two-way matchup, voters preferred McAuliffe to Cuccinelli by two points. That’s almost identical to the final outcome. In fact, Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican.

 

Cuccinelli can’t blame outgoing Governor Bob McDonnell for his loss, as more Virginia voters approve than disapprove of his job performance (52-41 percent).

Finally, more voters today identified as Democrat than Republican by five points. In 2009, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by four points (and Republican Bob McDonnell won by 18 points). In last year’s presidential election, more Virginia voters considered themselves Democrats by seven points (and Democrat Barack Obama won by 3 points).

The number of independents -- about 30 percent -- has mostly held steady over the last four years.

Methodology: Edison Research conducted this exit poll for Fox News and interviewed 2,376 voters as they left randomly selected polling places in Virginia.

 

 

What happened to the when candidates and their supporters knew how to lose gracefully instead of automatically asserting they were cheated, that their ideas were superior and they would have won if the other side hadn't cheated them out of it?

 

Things have gone so far to the bottom that the loser in this race wouldn't even call the winner to congratulate him. Have you ever seen that happen? Not me, brother.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/06/mcauliffe-wins-virginia-governor-race/

I know why he lost. Remember, I live here.

 

1. The race was framed on social issues with misinformation on his stance. Cuccinelli tried like hell to run on the economy and jobs but the money funneled to the state for Mac was unreal. not a complaint, just a statement of fact.

 

2. Northern VA, Hampton Roads and Richmond turned this for Mac.

 

3. The third party candidate who's spot on the ballot was funded by the opposition took 7% of the vote. That is the biggest reason why he lost.

 

4. Cuccinelli did not receive much help fromt he republicans. The last election the republicans spent 3 times as much.

 

5. The political make up of the state did not change. The state legislature proves this. The state is to the right. Again the supermajority in the House of Delegates proves this. Again, Northern VA, Richmond, and Hampton roads are the difference makers. Outside of those areas it is pretty red.

 

6. I don't read or watch fox so using them as a source because you think I respect them is, well, poor tactics. Wink.

 

 

PS. As usual you did not answer my question.

 

If you and I ran against each other and my entire campaign was based on misinformation, false character assination, funding of a third party candidate designed to take votes away from you would you congratulate me?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would cons here think of that?

What has happened is done, what is going on is doing, what if never amounts to real results, just planned obsolescence and plausible deniability leading humanity forever ignoring this moment is physical eternity.

 

You just created a diversion of what real is and reality remains dark to understanding how and why this type of debate rules reality and loses meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has happened is done, what is going on is doing, what if never amounts to real results, just planned obsolescence and plausible deniability leading humanity forever ignoring this moment is physical eternity.

 

You just created a diversion of what real is and reality remains dark to understanding how and why this type of debate rules reality and loses meaning.

In simpler terms it is what it is and I accept that.

 

But it never hurts to critque what happened in the hope of a better result in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In simpler terms it is what it is and I accept that.

 

But it never hurts to critque what happened in the hope of a better result in the future.

No, because that leaves reality in charge of the real moemnt using metaphors and metaphysical potential what ifs directing what is taking place socially.

 

True and truth have little to do with what real remains in plain sight. Legal justice system isn't designed to give genders liberty, but save character performances rights to deny what real is in plain sight.

 

Remember, the future is now being made all the time and that is why every event is history making and recorded breaking..

 

what does "The ends justify the means, mean for real."?

 

If one cannot win fair, cheat. If cheating doesn't win, destroy the opposition symbolically or for real..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idea that if the contest is rough, there's no need for congratulations, is typical nujob logic. Toughen up wussys. In your world, there'd be no handshakes after NHL game 7's. Fight rough and have some class.



If you and I ran against each other and my entire campaign was based on misinformation, false character assination, funding of a third party candidate designed to take votes away from you would you congratulate me?

 

I followed the race and ads from Michigan. There's no question that both sides battled hard. You're strawman argument is very weak. Pathetically weak actually. I could easily say the same type of comments about Cuccinelli's team. The "your side is mean" argument is never a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idea that if the contest is rough, there's no need for congratulations, is typical nujob logic. Toughen up wussys. In your world, there'd be no handshakes after NHL game 7's. Fight rough and have some class.

The problem for liberals is that "fighting rough" includes fighting dirty, and lying.

You approve of Democrats using robo calls to claim Cuccinelli was pro-abortion and pro-Obamacare?

Democratic Robo-Calls Claim Cuccinelli Supports Obamacare, Abortion

 

Rule #1: Liberals lie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idea that if the contest is rough, there's no need for congratulations, is typical nujob logic. Toughen up wussys. In your world, there'd be no handshakes after NHL game 7's. Fight rough and have some class.

Class warfare? What is middle class between ruling elites and ruled classifications of character role playing saving societal evolution governing the hearts, minds, bodies, and spirit of ancestry's ancestors each addition of a lifetime within this atmosphere now?

 

Church, state, economics, academia ruled by arts and entertainment supporting what if policies real doesn't exist in plain sight?

 

4 corner triangulation of pitting one side against another. Orchestrated conspiring using theory and theology to teach doubt and make life so miserable now everybody wants out of the moment emotionally.

 

this is what academia teaches in higher education. That is why politics educates life came from beyond this atmosphere, spirituality educates life came from beyiond the moment, and economics teaches symbolism counts and genetics doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idea that if the contest is rough, there's no need for congratulations, is typical nujob logic. Toughen up wussys. In your world, there'd be no handshakes after NHL game 7's. Fight rough and have some class.

 

 

 

I followed the race and ads from Michigan. There's no question that both sides battled hard. You're strawman argument is very weak. Pathetically weak actually. I could easily say the same type of comments about Cuccinelli's team. The "your side is mean" argument is never a good one.

 

You don't even understand the term strawman. I live here in VA. I saw the ads. I know that Mac had a hell of a lot more ads than Cucinelli did. I saw what the ads contained. I know that the republicans did not spend very much money here. Hell, if you had a lick of comprehension skills you would also realize I am not playing the your side game. You would also understand that I have no issue with the results. They are what they are.

 

You would also see that I never said cuccinelli did not practice the same thing as Mac. But you don't care what I really said. You are a provactuer who is only interested in starting on line battles.

 

And please, looking at what you support you call me a nutjob. That is hilarious.

 

 

 

The problem for liberals is that "fighting rough" includes fighting dirty, and lying.

You approve of Democrats using robo calls to claim Cuccinelli was pro-abortion and pro-Obamacare?

Democratic Robo-Calls Claim Cuccinelli Supports Obamacare, Abortion

 

Rule #1: Liberals lie

Of course he does. He is only interested in the end result. The ends justify the means. It is an alinsky tactic that is practiced to perfection by today's progressive left. They are interested in control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...