November 6, 2013

"The Republican Party would not mind at all if the takeaway in Virginia was it was a Terry McAuliffe landslide against the Tea Party."

"I'm not exaggerating," says Rush Limbaugh.

142 comments:

rhhardin said...

The important thing about Obama’s “2+2=5″ is not that it is a lie, but that it is a lie uttered in your face.

Belmont Club

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pm317 said...

Instead of that meme Limbaugh could have talked about how the race got so close that Terry M just eked out a win and all because of Obamacare. Isn't that a better strategy?

YoungHegelian said...

The takeaway for both the NJ & VA governor elections is that they are both so unique & weird that they have actually no bearing on the future political map of the country.

ddh said...

Rush is letting his frustrations talk for him. Speaking as someone who voted for Cuccinelli, I think almost everybody had a hand in Cuccinelli's narrow loss.

Cuccinelli did not campaign full time until late in the race, did not do well in raising money, and did not excite many people as a speaker, Worst of all, he spent most of his time pointing out MacAuliffe's many shortcomings instead of the need to have a governor who would do something for the people, such as blocking Obamacare or keeping government spending under control.

The establishment didn't want to spend money on a candidate who always looked as if he was about to be buried in a landslide.

The Tea Party contribution to Cuccinelli's loss was the government shutdown, which played worse in Virginia than just about any other state. Here in Virginia, we didn't start hearing about Cuccinelli's opposition to Obamacare until after the shutdown was over, even though Cuccinelli as Attorney General filed suit against Obamacare.

gadfly said...

Mark Levin began the attack on the Republican leadership.

"If the apparatchiks in the Republican Party, if the leadership in the Republican Party, if the Republican mouthpieces in the pseudo-conservative media continue to attack constitutional tea party conservatives, Reagan conservatives, them I’m leaving.

They think this is a joke? Let me tell you something folks. Obamacare is no joke. The fiscal disaster this nation faces is no joke.

And I’ll be damned if I’m going to be part of a party that stands for nothing and is always trying to avoid confrontation, whose leaders are not conservative and yet they turn on conservatives.

If this keeps up, I’m out."

somefeller said...

McAuliffe won among voters with postgrad educations and incomes over $100,000. I wonder why.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/virginia/exit-polls.html

rcocean said...

Rush is absolutely correct. Christie refused to campaign for Cuccinelli as did quite a few Republican Senators and Congressmen - who did campaign for Christie.

Erik Cantor's House Majority Leader's Chief of staff quit Congress and went to work for Cuccinelli's opponent - with Cantor's blessing.

The Chamber of Congress gave Cucci zero dollars.

ddh said...

So, getting beyond Cuccinelli's loss, Virginia just elected Max Bialystock governor.

gadfly said...

@ddh:

So the Republicans shut down the government? What government shutdown occurred - other than the one that Obama orchestrated ("I will not negotiate!") to beat up on American citizens? Only about 15% of the government closed and the risk-less "furloughed" government employees were paid not to attend while contractors were punished by the regime.

Michael K said...

"Blogger somefeller said...
McAuliffe won among voters with postgrad educations and incomes over $100,000. I wonder why.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/virginia/exit-polls.html"

Have you never heard of rent seeking ? Who gives jobs to Virginia residents with PhD s?

Come on. Even you are not that dumb.

YoungHegelian said...

@somefeller,

McAuliffe won among voters with postgrad educations and incomes over $100,000. I wonder why.

Because, in Virginia, those folks are concentrated in the DC suburbs, which always go blue anyway. McAuliffe no doubt also won the votes of those who can't find their butt cheeks with both hands from among the DC suburbs.

Oh, yes, somefeller, Repubs are stupid & uneducated. Is that what passes for political analysis in your febrile brain?

somefeller said...

Who gives jobs to Virginia residents with PhD s?

Employers that value, or at least require, an educated workforce. Not the sort of people drawn to social conservatism, even if they are promised a tax cut.

YoungHegelian said...

Not the sort of people drawn to social conservatism, even if they are promised a tax cut.

Clearly, it is what passes for political analysis in your brain.

somefeller said...

Oh, yes, somefeller, Repubs are stupid & uneducated. Is that what passes for political analysis in your febrile brain?

No, there are plenty of smart, educated Republicans, particularly in the finance or energy industries. They aren't drawn to anti-sodomy crusaders, though. And neither are affluent, educated voters in general. But hey, keep on claiming its all makers and takers, with the former primarily going for the GOP. Whatever gets you to rest easy.

somefeller said...

Well YoungHegelian, if you have some evidence to show that affluent and educated voters love them some Pat Robertson, please show it to us. Otherwise, please continue with the sophomore philosophy major musings.

pm317 said...

I feel sorry for somefeller. It must difficult to be somefeller at some level. So which government trough are you sucking at, somefeller?

pm317 said...

Two elections won with the help of somefeller and his ilk and what did they get? OBAMACARE.. LOL!

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

Well, pm, like all Americans, I pay into and receive benefits from federal, state and local governments. It's called being part of society. And it's actually pretty easy being me. But I don't take those blessings for granted and try to do my bit to enlighten the benighted.

pm317 said...

The other senator from my state (my senator is that fucking nitwit Ben Cardin), Mukulski at least had the nerve to call it a crisis of confidence. Good for her.

Marshal said...

somefeller said...
Who gives jobs to Virginia residents with PhD s?

Employers that value, or at least require, an educated workforce. Not the sort of people drawn to social conservatism, even if they are promised a tax cut.


It's funny how government workers support taxes. It's like they understand that's how they get paid.

When you see the left grasping at such weak evidence ask yourself: if there was better evidence of their beliefs, wouldn't they be citing it?

El Pollo Raylan said...

somefeller said...
McAuliffe won among voters with postgrad educations and incomes over $100,000. I wonder why.

Because they are the mostly childless MF, MM, and FF suburban power couples who populate "The Capitol" in your "Hunger Games" vision of the American future. They are your ilk; they are not a majority nationwide.

Bob Ellison said...

Rush's statement is important. Until yesterday, it was mostly lefties saying there was a civil war on the right. Rush saying so will make righties take it seriously.

somefeller said...

It's funny how government workers support taxes. It's like they understand that's how they get paid.

Plenty of private sector workers voted for McAuliffe (simple voter numbers show that) and judging by the exit poll I cited, a lot of them are quite affluent. But like I said, whatever lets you rest easy.

El Pollo Raylan said...

somefeller said...
Who gives jobs to Virginia residents with PhD s?

John McCain gave one to a woman who only claimed she had a PhD.

pm317 said...

People like somefeller capitalize on the toothless hillybilly image of republican in the hinterlands, a propaganda amplified exponentially by the lapdog media we have in this country. What should be done? I hate the kind of demonization that somefeller and his ilk spread.

somefeller, would you demonize your mother if she were a republican?

somefeller said...

Because they are the mostly childless MF, MM, and FF suburban power couples who populate "The Capitol" in your "Hunger Games" vision of the American future. They are your ilk; they are not a majority nationwide.

Another look into Chickie's fascinating inner life. Sci-fi fantasies aside, while obviously highly educated and affluent people aren't a majority, they are a rather important voting bloc that used to be reliably Republican. Not so anymore, and those that are Republicans aren't drawn to social conservatism. They often like to call themselves libertarians, so as not to be confused with the icky wing of the party.

Seeing Red said...

The real action seems to be in VA's House of Delegates. There are some recounts coming but if the republicans can hang on, they're very close to a supermajority.

pm317 said...

You know who these people with post-graduate degrees and $100K salaries that somefeller is talking about? Why? They are the contractors and their employers who suck at the government trough, the contractors who built that fucking Obamacare website, LOL. They would not bite the hand that feeds them. Why would anybody expect that?

El Pollo Raylan said...

Stop channeling ritmo, somefehler. Just stop it.

somefeller said...

Do you need a hankie or something, Chickie? Just laying out some electoral facts for you. And facts are stubborn things, as someone once said.

YoungHegelian said...

@somefeller,

if you have some evidence to show that affluent and educated voters love them some Pat Robertson, please show it to us. Otherwise, please continue with the sophomore philosophy major musings.

Speaking of musings, dear somefeller, you in your lily-white lefty cocoon fail to recognize the obvious fact that 97% of the black vote went for McAuliffe. Tell me, what's the view among the blacks for your "sodomites"? Do the black churches preach a theology that differs from Pat Robertson by a hair, like, you know, on evolution? And these religious troglodytes are all on your side! It seems that there really isn't much of a relationship between religious belief & politics at all!

How about that? I may be sophomoric, but you're still in fucking grade school, somefeller.

ddh said...

Gadfly,

I agree with you, but the Tea Party still bears some responsibiltiy for Cuccinelli's loss even if everything it did and said about the shutdown was justified and correct. For the shutdown to occur, the Democrats and the Republicans both had to dig in their heels.

But in Northern Virginia and Norfolk-Newport News where several hundred thousand federal workers and contractors live, the Tea Party got the blame for the shutdown. Even Virginians who hate Obamacare blamed the Tea Party for the shutdown, which they thought was stupid because almost no one thought the shutdown would get Obama to bend. Did you think he was going to abandon Obamacare?

Now, why would they think that? Well, there's always the media--but did you expect the media to blame Obama or the Democrats? Did you expect the local media to ignore the layoffs of several hundred thousand Virginians in order to focus more attention on the Obamacare rollout? And didn't Senators Cruz and Lee argue for blocking a continuing resolution without a concession from Obama? And didn't Mark Levin and other people associated with the Tea Party threaten that Republicans who broke ranks on the resolution would face primary opponents?

The shutdown will be forgotten by next year as an election issue, and it is possible--even probable--that the shutdown cemented the public perception that the Republicans oppose Obamacare, which could pay big dividends next year and in 2016. But in a state like Virginia, the shutdown was a bigger story for a month than the Obamacare disaster. I am absolutedly certain that the shutdown cost Cuccinelli votes, maybe enough to have swung the election. Of course, several other factors could have swung the election as well.

somefeller said...

I suspect a lot of them are social conservatives, YH. But they don't emphasize that when they vote. Politics is all about priorities after all. And I am simply pointing out some inconvenient truths about the popularity of social conservatism as one moves up the income and education ladder. Your example isn't a counterpoint on that score.

rcocean said...

Now I remember why I stopped posting on Althouse political threads.

Adios.

somefeller said...

Also, I live in Houston. It's a Democratic city (inside the city limits at least) but hardly a lily-white lefty cocoon. My observations about social conservatism and its diminishing popularity among affluent, educated Republicans comes from first-hand observation, including from friends who are pretty active in GOP politics.

Michael K said...

"somefeller said...
Well, pm, like all Americans, I pay into and receive benefits from federal, state and local governments. It's called being part of society. And it's actually pretty easy being me. But I don't take those blessings for granted and try to do my bit to enlighten the benighted."

Gosh, what a treasure you are for the Democratic Party ! Or is it the Green Party ?

Some of us make our own way in the world. Believe it or not.

YoungHegelian said...

@somefeller,

Your example isn't a counterpoint on that score

Oh yes it is. You're trying to say that uneducated, religious folks go Republican. I pointed out that a huge swath of loyal Democratic voters are religious & uneducated, matter of fact, more so than white, conservative voters. Others have pointed out to you socio-political & geographic reasons why higher income voters in VA went Democratic, but you doubled down on how stupid the Repubs were.

You know well that there is study after study showing that the average Tea Partier is actually quite well educated & of high income. But yet you come here & paint your opponents with such a broad & insulting brush, and then wonder why you get called on it. It's just bad faith on your part, somefeller. Do better.

30yearProf said...

The Republicans ARE really the Stupid Party.

Michael K said...

"Blogger somefeller said...
Do you need a hankie or something, Chickie? Just laying out some electoral facts for you. And facts are stubborn things, as someone once said."

Well at least you don't have to worry about your health insurance. I understand government employees are safe.

I love the arrogance and self worship of lefties. Which Mensa chapter do you belong to ?

somefeller said...

No, YH, I'm saying educated, affluent people don't go in for social conservatism. Isn't that what a lot of social cons complain about - how the dreaded country club Republicans aren't with them? And the members of the Democratic coalition who are socons don't act on it politically, so it's no concern of mine.

And Michael, I'm not a Mensa member, nor is anyone I know, to my knowledge. My impression is that Mensa is a group for people who did well on IQ tests but never accomplished much academically, socially or professionally, so they join Mensa to compensate. Why join a group like that?

William said...

I live in NYC. The electorate here, some 73% of them, voted for DeBlasio. He volunteered for the Sandinistas, wooed and wed a militant lesbian, and honeymooned in Cuba. I wish him luck, but you'd think that more than 27% of the electorate would have some misgivings about that kind of a record. But that's the way it goes. If the dogs don't eat the food, as they say. Maybe the dogs prefer horsemeat to rib steak or, anyway, chopped chuck,

PeterK said...

“The lesson is that a party divided is going to lose,” said Pete Snyder, a Northern Virginia technology entrepreneur who served as Cuccinelli’s finance chairman. “The Democrats weren’t happy with their candidate, but they were united. Ken Cuccinelli had to deal with Melrose Place.”
from the Washingto Post. as long as the Rs attack each other instead of standing behind their candidate no matter what they will continue to lose. Bolling didn't help by refusing to support Cuccinelli. he acted like a petulant child

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

My, the garrulous conservative crowd in here has suddenly fallen quiet. Was it something I said?

Illuninati said...

somefeller said...
"My observations about social conservatism and its diminishing popularity among affluent, educated Republicans comes from first-hand observation, including from friends who are pretty active in GOP politics."

Somefeller has a point about the affluent. The Republican base is mostly middle class. They are socially conservative. The affluent are not their friends. The affluent band together to exploit the very poor in order to shaft the middle class.

It is the middle class who are hurting the most under the present administration. The affluent who have large stock portfolios are doing just fine thank-you. Why would they want to change anything?


Titus said...

Chickie is just sad again, poor thing, because the Christianist teabaggers lost again. Even losing in fucking southern Alabama!

Chickie will make his list, which no one really gives a shit about, and be vewy vewy sad, in 2016, when the demographics change even mo in favo of the hated secular Lena Dunham singles (horror), fag peeps. who chick secretly want to blow and get his fat pig ass fucked by-which will never ever happen christianist chick....because you are extremely ugly (fags to have standards).

Chick really needs to get a job....other than catergorizing every commenter and "chibirting" but he is a wonderful example of the losing Christianist party. Old, fat, white and unemployed....a perfect teabagger. Chick, how are you actually living? You are looking for "consulting gigs" so is the fat wife supporting you? How are the "consulting gigs" going chick?

BTB the republican governor of Virginia, McDonnell, won by 20 points in the last election.

And while Cooch only lost by a morning after pill or condom, to a loser carpetbagger democrat, it says quite a bit.

Now chick, try to get that limp wimpy extremely small hog to get a hardon.....I think you can, I think you can. Come on Mary raise up that hog-we know ejaculation is impossible but a boner is a good first start!

Now chick has his next day ready...chirbiting, posting on blogs and making a real impact in the world......lol.

tits.

Illuninati said...

Titus said:
"Chickie is just sad again, poor thing, because the Christianist teabaggers lost again. Even losing in fucking southern Alabama!"

If anyone questions whether the left is pagan, Titus' post should answer that question.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Titus said...
Chickie is just sad again, poor thing, because the Christianist teabaggers lost again. Even losing in fucking southern Alabama!

Chickie will make his list, which no one really gives a shit about, and be vewy vewy sad, in 2016, when the demographics change even mo in favo of the hated secular Lena Dunham singles (horror), fag peeps. who chick secretly want to blow and get his fat pig ass fucked by-which will never ever happen christianist chick....because you are extremely ugly (fags to have standards).

Chick really needs to get a job....other than catergorizing every commenter and "chibirting" but he is a wonderful example of the losing Christianist party. Old, fat, white and unemployed....a perfect teabagger. Chick, how are you actually living? You are looking for "consulting gigs" so is the fat wife supporting you? How are the "consulting gigs" going chick?

BTB the republican governor of Virginia, McDonnell, won by 20 points in the last election.

And while Cooch only lost by a morning after pill or condom, to a loser carpetbagger democrat, it says quite a bit.

Now chick, try to get that limp wimpy extremely small hog to get a hardon.....I think you can, I think you can. Come on Mary raise up that hog-we know ejaculation is impossible but a boner is a good first start!

Now chick has his next day ready...chirbiting, posting on blogs and making a real impact in the world......lol.


What is most interesting about your response Titus is the incorrect personal information -- in, fact, it reveals where you get your misinformation. This of course was planned all along.

El Pollo Raylan said...

If anyone questions whether the left is pagan, Titus' post should answer that question.

Titus happens to be someone whom Althouse adores and would defend to death.

Illuninati said...

I have called the modern Western pagans - neo-pagans - because they do not come from an established cultural tradition. I'm not sure if that term is ideal, perhaps I should call them modern pagans, but whatever the term, pagan is the most accurate description of the mind set exhibited by the left.

One of the hallmarks of the pagan mind is animosity against the Christian God and against all traditional moral standards based on the teachings of that God. Since new pagans have abandoned traditional morality and do not have any basis for an absolute standard of morality, what passes as morality among them is arrived at by a mimetic process. In essence the mimetic process on the left is no different from the mentality of any other mob including lynch mobs. This lack of moral mooring makes new pagans very dangerous since like any mob they can burst out in violence at any time. The death toll due to modern pagans is about 100,000,000 people murdered last century alone and the death toll keeps mounting every day.

cubanbob said...

if you have some evidence to show that affluent and educated voters love them some Pat Robertson, please show it to us. Otherwise, please continue with the sophomore philosophy major musings. "

I don't love Pat Robertson but I do admire his business acumen which several orders of magnitude higher than the collective economic IQ of the Democrat party combined.

Illuninati said...

El Pollo Raylan said...

"Titus happens to be someone whom Althouse adores and would defend to death."

I post my ideas primarily for my self to help organize my thoughts and to learn. Althouse stimulates good discussions with many points of view. Whether she likes Titus doesn't matter to me so long as the discussion is fair.

Inga said...

Commenters here should read the book "A Christian Nation". Illuninati here, based on his theories regarding those on the left, could be a central character. My daughter and son in law, who are conservatives, vote Republcan, are staunch capitalists, yet socially liberal, would call him a loon. But he's more than just a loon, he's a loon that is working hard to turn this nation into something, that could resemble "A Christian Nation", that's IF leftists and Democrats didn't have a larger voting demographic.

Those of you conservatives that don't fall into this increasingly extreme religiosity better get your heads out of the sand and see what these loons are doing to your party and your chances of ever winning a national election ever again.

Inga said...

Of course I'm only conjecturing that Illuninati's efforts at disseminating his brand of Christian politics is limited to right wing blogs, but I may be wrong.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"My daughter and son in law, who are conservatives, vote Republcan, are staunch capitalists, yet socially liberal, would call him a loon"

I see Inga is awake. Why should I care what Inga's son in law and daughter would call me? Inga already gave away the game by linking to Frank previously. Schafer.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2013/10/the-gop-shutdown-is-a-godsend-for-the-emergentconvergent-progressive-churches-and-will-pay-my-electric-bill-too/

Illuninati said...

As I said previously, I come here to learn. So what can I learn from Inga's most recent posts? Very little really since ad hominem posts have little intellectual content. However, Inga's link to Frank Schafer was very educational.

Inga said...

I'm sure Frank Schaeffer KNOWS people like you are loons, Illuninati. Now pragmatic, reasonable conservatives need to know too, or they can choose to go down your path at their own risk of never having a Republcan President again. I don't care, I'd prefer a Democratic President.

rcommal said...

"'The Republican Party would not mind at all...'"

In what, and also in which, parts?

Inga said...

And Illuninati, don't get your feelings hurt. Your politics are loony, hopefully you really and truly aren't.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"Now pragmatic, reasonable conservatives need to know too, or they can choose to go down your path at their own risk of never having a Republcan President again. I don't care, I'd prefer a Democratic President"

Let me see if I get the argument here? The evidence that I'm a loon is because most people would disagree with me? We know that because if other Republicans agree with me the Democrats will win all the elections? Do I follow your argument? If so, that mindset is exactly the type of mimetic process I am talking about.


Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"And Illuninati, don't get your feelings hurt. Your politics are loony, hopefully you really and truly aren't"

Why would I get my feelings hurt? I enjoy a good discussion. I just wish you would forget the ad hominem attacks and present some facts to refute what I say.

Inga said...

No Illuninati this makes you sound like a loon.
-------------------------
"I have called the modern Western pagans - neo-pagans - because they do not come from an established cultural tradition. I'm not sure if that term is ideal, perhaps I should call them modern pagans, but whatever the term, pagan is the most accurate description of the mind set exhibited by the left.

One of the hallmarks of the pagan mind is animosity against the Christian God and against all traditional moral standards based on the teachings of that God. Since new pagans have abandoned traditional morality and do not have any basis for an absolute standard of morality, what passes as morality among them is arrived at by a mimetic process. In essence the mimetic process on the left is no different from the mentality of any other mob including lynch mobs. This lack of moral mooring makes new pagans very dangerous since like any mob they can burst out in violence at any time. The death toll due to modern pagans is about 100,000,000 people murdered last century alone and the death toll keeps mounting every day."

11/6/13, 10:10 PM
----------------------------------

El Pollo Raylan said...

@Iluminati: I misread your response of calling Titus a pagan as being (partially) in response to his personal screed aimed at me. I merely meant to say that Althouse enjoys and encourages such comments like Titus' despite her stated comment policy. She enjoys comments like Titus' and from people like Titus so long as they are people whom she perceives to be on her side. I am about the umpteenth reasonable person she has encouraged to leave her comment section by this lopsided policy.

Illuninati said...

Inga,

You repeated my post verbatim but you didn't deal with the fact that the left killed 100,000,000 last century. How do you explain that?

Illuninati said...

El Polo Raylan said:
"I misread your response of calling Titus a pagan as being (partially) in response to his personal screed aimed at me."

I hope you don't leave.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

WHY would I need to explain your conflation of Communism with liberalism? It's wrong.

Inga said...

A liberal CAN. Be. A. Christian. Or a Jew. Or a Hindu, etc, etc, etc.

Inga said...

Illuninati, your premise that leftists do not come from any established cultural tradition is simply wrong. It's a broad brush exaggeration at best and an attempt to demonize at worst. I was raised in Fundamentalst Christian church and left it at age 18. I didn't leave my belief in God. And I'm not unusual in that I came from a traditional right wing home and chose liberalism as a better fit as an adult.

rcommal said...

I don't get the definitions so loudly that it's hard to hear the words amidst the noise.

Just sayin'.

cubanbob said...

No Illuninati this makes you sound like a loon."

A certain fellow in Germany in the last century and his loyal supporters were indeed pagans.

Illuminati your problem in this thread with another commenter is you think and she emotes.

cubanbob said...

WHY would I need to explain your conflation of Communism with liberalism? It's wrong.

11/6/13, 11:21 PM

The size of the turd in the milk tank isn't the problem. The problem is the turd in the milk tank.

Inga said...

AND what does the Nazi movement have to do with American liberalism?? THAT is equally loony. You people are seriously messed up. Good thing you won't have a President of your choosing any time soon.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"WHY would I need to explain your conflation of Communism with liberalism? It's wrong"

First of all, a point of semantics. If you noticed, I don't talk about liberalism, I talk about the left. People who know the left such as David Horowitz know that the left is closely associated with Marxism. The left in this country strongly supported the Communists for many years and refused to acknowledge massive crimes against humanity like the holodomor happened.

You still didn't answer the question, why did the communists who the left supported kill so many people

Inga said...

And most likely no majorities in House or Senate.....thank you God.

rcommal said...

Still not serious, the lot of you.

rcommal said...

Nor amusing, either.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"AND what does the Nazi movement have to do with American liberalism?? THAT is equally loony. You people are seriously messed up. Good thing you won't have a President of your choosing any time soon"

Now that the Nazis are defeated, the left views them as the ultimate evil, but not so much when the Nazis were allied with the Soviet Union. After the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union the left suddenly saw the light. The Nazis were modern pagans in every sense of the word who were swept away with a mimetic fury against innocent people.

In case my use of the term mimetic is confusing, let me refer you to the writings of Rene Gerard. He uses the term in more limited sense to explain pagan religious myths. I am applying his idea in a more general sense. The left is openly hostile to traditional Christian culture and has rejected any absolute standard of morality. Therefore they have no alternative but to rely on a mimetic process for their moral beliefs. When I talk about a mimetic process, I'm talking about a type of group think in which people derive their opinions exclusively from those around them.

El Pollo Raylan said...

When I talk about a mimetic process, I'm talking about a type of group think in which people derive their opinions exclusively from those around them.

Like mimeograph machines. Viral blue ink and all (I actually liked the smell). Grade school stuff.

I think that was amusing, rcommal.

rcommal said...

I do respect, however, because I do have to so respect (and therefore I do so) the great and vast affects and effects you all have on our land, our country.

Eh. So it goes (and so it goes, and so it goes, and so it goes. Where it's going, no one knows...).

no matter what people say

Inga said...

Illuninati, that would also be a wrong assumption. So many assumptions. Don't you realize that the left thinks the right engages in group think? Right wing think tanks churn out the ideology, it's disseminated over the airwaves by right wing talkers, it becomes "reality" to those who it resonates with. This could be said for leftists also. However, shouldn't we hope for independant thinkers on both groups?

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
" I was raised in Fundamentalst Christian church and left it at age 18. I didn't leave my belief in God. And I'm not unusual in that I came from a traditional right wing home and chose liberalism as a better fit as an adult."

I'm not certain what fundamentalist church you were part of or what your spiritual journey might have been. I suppose everyone would call the Southern Baptists fundamentalists. My experience with Southern Baptists is that they tend to be quite open to differing points of view. Once when I was with a group of them I thought I would test them, so I said that I thought God created the World through evolution. The members of the group were quiet for a short period of time and them one of them said "so do I", and they continued talking.

When you say you find liberalism a better fit, I find that confusing since liberalism is not supposed to be a religion.

Inga said...

Illuninati,
Assemblies of God, Pentecostal. Sarah Palin's childhood church.

Inga said...

I didn't say liberalism was any type of spiritual belief AT ALL. It isn't. That is what you want to believe.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"Illuninati, that would also be a wrong assumption. So many assumptions. Don't you realize that the left thinks the right engages in group think? Right wing think tanks churn out the ideology, it's disseminated over the airwaves by right wing talkers, it becomes "reality" to those who it resonates with. This could be said for leftists also. However, shouldn't we hope for independant thinkers on both groups?"

I agree, group think on the right can be a problem just as it is on the left. The left seems to rely much more on ad hominem attacks like using the terms racist or stupid to describe people on the right rather than appealing to people's intellect. To me this use of loaded language with little intellectual content is pathognomonic of what I call the mimetic process. Incidentally, Frank Schafer's article is full of that type of loaded language.

Inga said...

Illuninati,
The better fit was leaving a an overly strict tightly ruled paternalistic upbringing that was too concerned with living within very narrow boundaries, to a life that didn't reject wider horizons. If that makes sense to you, maybe it doesn't.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"Assemblies of God, Pentecostal"

I don't know much about them, but their strong suite doesn't seem to be rational thought. I did meet with the Full Gospel Businessmen for a time, not because I believed what they believed, but because I enjoyed their company. I did notice that over time people tended to drift away from that form of religious experience. The Southern Baptists are a much more cerebral group of people generally. They are who I usually think of when I think of fundamentalists.

Inga said:
"I didn't say liberalism was any type of spiritual belief AT ALL. It isn't. That is what you want to believe"

I have no reason to want to believe anything about other people. The reason I have noted the hostility of self defined liberals to traditional Christianity is because they express it. For instance people who mock Sara Palin for her religious beliefs.



rcommal said...

*shrug*

I can only assume that the dueling here are, from both their sides, in such comfortable positions that they both lack imagination and that they both lack the impetus to search out facts.

(And also they that they are poorly read, from all across the spectrum and back again, both currently and in the past.)

To repeat:

*shrug*

-0-

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"The better fit was leaving a an overly strict tightly ruled paternalistic upbringing that was too concerned with living within very narrow boundaries, to a life that didn't reject wider horizons. If that makes sense to you, maybe it doesn't."

It makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't fit in well with the Assemblies of God myself. On the other hand I respect people who do chose to worship that way.

Inga said...

Illuninati, well Sarah Palin was raised in the Wasilla Assemblies of God. You say she was made fun of because of her religion, you also say that "their strong suit doesn't seem to be rational thought". I could not agree with you more. Maybe that's why she was made fun of. Who belives that stuff?

Inga said...

Hey Illuninati, is rcommal speaking to us? LOL. Or is it some disembodied voice in the Ethernet? :) Goodnight, thanks for a good discussion afterall.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"You say she was made fun of because of her religion, you also say that "their strong suit doesn't seem to be rational thought". I could not agree with you more. Maybe that's why she was made fun of. Who belives that stuff?"

Sara Palin is a very smart poised woman. When she gave her speech to the Republican Convention her teleprompter was not working, but her speech was almost perfect. She is in no way stupid.

When I said that the Assemblies of God are not very intellectual, that does not mean that I believe they are stupid or ignorant. It doesn't even mean they are wrong. The religious ecstatic experience or mysticism is potentially very beneficial, it is just not for me.

Illuninati said...

Goodnight.

rcommal said...

From: [some disembodied voice] from wherever.

MattL said...

Early 20th Century American Progressivism was the American version of contemporary European Fascism. They weren't identical, but they sure shared a lot in common. Obviously, there are similarities between Communism and Fascism and Progressivism. It's not just policy preferences but the philosophies behind them.

This shouldn't be controversial, but we have a hard time getting past the worst of the Nazis and often don't even admit there were other Fascists, let alone take an honest look at the sorts of things they stood for beyond genocide.

I'll take a socially conservative "loon" who wants me to have a certain type of sex over a know it all leftist who wants to tell me how to live all the other parts of my life any day.

tim in vermont said...

I was watching Dee Dee Meyers on Morning Joe and she said that the internal polls showed the shutdown moved votes by a small amount for a short time.

The only people who held the shutdown against Cuccinelli were the same people who wouldn't have voted for him on a bet.

And that is Virginia. The shutdown is a non issue in the rest of the country.

tim in vermont said...

Inga has made clear that she thinks lying is justified to advance what she "knows" is for the best; a position that is as anti democratic as one can get. Why waste time discussing anything with her? She is far more likely to say something to create an intended effect than to communicate what she really thinks.

Rusty said...


Who gives jobs to Virginia residents with PhD s?


Usually people without phds.

But I don't take those blessings for granted and try to do my bit to enlighten the benighted.

So you teach?

My observations about social conservatism and its diminishing popularity among affluent, educated Republicans comes from first-hand observation, including from friends who are pretty active in GOP politics.

So. All anecdotal, then? Nothing we can quantify?

WHY would I need to explain your conflation of Communism with liberalism? It's wrong

No it isn't. Modern liberalism has
historically embraced communism. The roots of modern liberalism are entwined with those of communism.

Rusty said...

tim in vermont said...
Inga has made clear that she thinks lying is justified to advance what she "knows" is for the best; a position that is as anti democratic as one can get. Why waste time discussing anything with her? She is far more likely to say something to create an intended effect than to communicate what she really thinks

This is news to you?
Deceit is the acknowledged tool of the lefty commentators here and the left in general. It is why they deal in assertion rather than fact.

Brando said...

Cuccinelli as a candidate had a ceiling in VA, which is a far less conservative state than it was ten years ago. He met the Tea Party "purity" tests, and was a "true" social conservative (on gay rights and abortion particularly) of the type that right wingers claim they always want.

Well, they got what they want--and that sort of candidate will only be able to appeal to so many voters. That ceiling may be high enough in Alabama or Texas these days, but it often won't get you a majority in other, more "purple" (or blue) states.

So there was only so much that more money or endorsements could have done. Cuccinelli never really had a chance, and the closeness of the race is just a testament to how much voters couldn't stand McAuliffe.

But sure, for Rush and his ilk it's easier to blame "establishment" Republicans and "RINOS" or whatnot for stabbing their guy in the back. Funny that they can say this at the same time that they claim Romney lost in 2012 only because he didn't appeal enough to conservatives who stayed home--and they fail to apply the lesson here.

Inga said...

Tim in Vermont, really? That is pathetic. Simply call your ideological opponents liars, that will always further your own agenda I guess. Your own lack of moral fiber shins through here. Truly pathetic.

Inga said...

You know what is a "truth" in the rightist' s world ? Self deception.

Matthew Sablan said...

A Christian Nation is the most subversive book in American history.

MattL said...

You know what is a "truth" in the rightist' s world ? Self deception.

Is that the euphemism that's replaced "false consciousness" these days?

Inga said...

Matthew, why because it reveals some major truths? Get your collective heads out of the sand..... Or don't. Democrats won't mind winning.

Matthew Sablan said...

Inga missed the point of the post, I take it. The post was because the book is written BADLY. It fails as satire because it is written poorly. The characters dialogue is stilted, the writing is blase.

The only people who are saying otherwise are people who wish, desperately hope, to use the book as a tool to proselytize.

It is a bad book. My single linked to post is a better piece of satire (as well as hinging on an understanding of different literary theories, such as reader response.)

The book explores no uncomfortable truths. Palin, for example, expanded the rights of homosexuals in Alaska. That fact, alone, destroys any hope that we should take the book seriously.

Inga said...

If you think "A Christian Nation" was poorly written, consider reading "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris.

Matthew Sablan said...

Not only that: The idea that a conservative conspiracy of media interests could somehow be forged is preposterous when Fox is, at best, center right. You might be able to claim Breitbart and Drudge have some Internet capabilities, maybe with whatever Beck is doing. But, their ability to be a true media conglomerate to push a story in the way MSNBC, ABC, NBC, the NYT, the WaPo, Slate, HuffPo, etc., do will require GENERATIONAL shifts within the journalism industry. To pretend that there was a shift that would take generations in even a decade is ridiculous. Bad science fiction posits Mars colonies by 2030; bad political satire assumes a sudden reshaping of the entire American identity into a leftist boogeyman in less time.

MattL said...

Thanks, Matthew, I hadn't remembered that book, and hadn't taken the effort to look into it. I am still amazed that anyone takes it seriously, but I like your take on it.

But then, those people are pretty much the same ones trying to explain why "Period," really means "Asterisk." It would be funny if there weren't so many of them who vote.

Matthew Sablan said...

I note you ignored the factual claim (Palin's support of rights for homosexuals in Alaska) that damaged the book and focused on my critique of its style. Why?

Inga said...

Or, just listen to Pastor Cruz's sermons, that's probably a better fit for many here.

grackle said...

Here in Virginia, we didn't start hearing about Cuccinelli's opposition to Obamacare until after the shutdown was over, even though Cuccinelli as Attorney General filed suit against Obamacare.

In other words: The MSM controlled the narrative. Potentially beneficial information about a conservative candidate was squelched and potentially harmful information was emphasized. Not a surprise. SOP for the MSM. Most GOP candidates start out with what amounts to a 10-point handicap from the MSM.

Even Virginians who hate Obamacare blamed the Tea Party for the shutdown, which they thought was stupid because almost no one thought the shutdown would get Obama to bend.

Yeah, Cruz's attempt to make Obama delay Obamacare was so "stupid" that several Democrat red-state Senators met with Obama yesterday BEGGING him to delay Obamacare. And it looks as if the great Obama may have to do that thing that "almost no one" thought was possible.

Matthew Sablan said...

If Obama delays the ACA, it is going to be one of the greatest political defeats in a long, long time. Most poignantly because it was completely self-orchestrated and could have easily been avoided. All he had to do was compromise (what EVERYONE wanted), and then blamed Republicans (what HE wanted.) He literally could have swept a clean win, and gotten what he wanted.

Instead, he has harmed his own brand, probably irreparably, and created a toxic series of new issues -- to the point people are actually laughing at him.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Simply call your ideological opponents liars, that will always further your own agenda I guess. Your own lack of moral fiber shins through here.


It's just bizarre reading someone who promotes every idiotic shibboleth pushed by the left complain about others' extremism. Next she'll bemoan the lack of independent thinkers right after asserting that America offers a tax credit for offshoring jobs. Oh wait, that already happened. Maybe next she'll blame her ideological opponents for a crazy person killing someone at LAX. Oh wait, that already happened.

No self awareness at all.

tim in vermont said...

Inga,
You think it makes no difference that Obama lied selling the ACA, when it likely would not have passed had it been clear that so many would be forced to lose their plans and doctors? That is what I referred to, and it is neither self deception on my part nor a lack of moral fiber.

As I have said before, though, there is little point discussing anything with somebody who believes that lying to advance a cause is justified.

By the way, "self-deception" is a lot like "false consciousness" but liberalism has nothing in common with marxism... See how transparent deception is?

tim in vermont said...

As a member of the 1%, I can tell you that the money has been coming in faster under Obama than it had under Bush, tax rates notwithstanding. Those I see suffering are what used to be classified as the "working poor," a demographic Obama pays a lot of lip service to, but does little for. He is too busy helping us 1%ers and the non working poor, and attempting to change the nation's demographics to his electoral advantage, despite what it does to wages on the low end.

Rusty said...


But sure, for Rush and his ilk it's easier to blame "establishment" Republicans and "RINOS" or whatnot for stabbing their guy in the back.

None of the establishment repubs would campaign with him. The RNC denied him campaign money.

So yes establishment republicans are largely to blame for his lack of coverage.

Brando said...

Rusty, it's clear the "establishment" GOP did not pull out all the stops for Cuccinelli, by not campaigning with him or shifting money to his race. Whether that's because they saw his race as unwinnable (he was down in the polls for a long time) or because they didn't want to support a Tea-style insurgent, how is this really any different from the "conservatives" who "stayed home" in Romney's race (and this is according to the "conservatives'" own narrative)?

There's one underlying lesson here, regardless of whether you prefer the Tea faction or the "establishment" faction--a Republican candidate cannot win, particularly in a non-"red" state, without appealing to as broad a cross section of the party as possible. Conservatives can blame moderates and vice versa for not backing their guy to the hilt, but the only one laughing their way to the state house will be the crook whose claim to fame is selling off the Lincoln Bedroom.

chrisnavin.com said...

Maybe that's partly what the Ivies are for these days: Taking disenfranchised youth from the corners of the Republic, maybe even those flirting with Marxism, and making them comfortable enough around old money, connections and a fairly rigorous intellectual environment enough to become ineffective, inexpereienced leaders.

That bodes well.

Marshal said...

Leftists are pushing the fiction that the right's TP vs Establishment conflict is over social conservatism. In fact their conflict is over government spending.

Pretending the conflict is over social conservatism allows the left to misrepresent the TP in the minds of voters.

bbkingfish said...

Marshall said:

"Leftists are pushing the fiction that the right's TP vs Establishment conflict is over social conservatism. In fact their conflict is over government spending."

Marshall is wrong. As is usual in politics, the only conflict between the Tea Party and the Bushies surrounds the question of who gets to drive the bus. Their conflict extends back to the 1940s, at least. Their differences on spending and social issues are cosmetic, intended for the consumption of the Peanut Gallery.

Rush Limbaugh is correct in his observation here, and that's one more data point supporting the Broken Clock Theory of political punditry.

tim in vermont said...

My brother is an establishment Republican. He runs a factory in a state where shale gas has made good paying jobs plentiful and made it hard for him to retain employees. He is all for "immigration reform," otherwise, he would have to pay market rates for his help.

I am more of a Tea Party Republican/Libertarian. I remember where we both came from and the people we knew there better than he, I think.

Marshal said...

bbkingfish said...
Marshall is wrong. As is usual in politics, the only conflict between the Tea Party and the Bushies surrounds the question of who gets to drive the bus. Their conflict extends back to the 1940s, at least.


Just to clarify, who who did the Tea Party endorse for President in the 1940 election? I pulled it up on wiki and couldn't find any reference to them.

Rusty said...


There's one underlying lesson here, regardless of whether you prefer the Tea faction or the "establishment" faction--a Republican candidate cannot win, particularly in a non-"red" state, without appealing to as broad a cross section of the party as possible. Conservatives can blame moderates and vice versa for not backing their guy to the hilt, but the only one laughing their way to the state house will be the crook whose claim to fame is selling off the Lincoln Bedroom.

So you're saying republicans should be more like democrats.

Brando said...

"So you're saying republicans should be more like democrats."

If by "more like Democrats" you mean "more like a unified coalition that can win across the country" then yes. Even the relative nastiness of the Hillary vs. Obama primary never came close to the eat-their-own knife fight that the Republicans engage in every four years.


Joe said...

How about the obvious: Cuccinelli was a terrible candidate. Among other things, he had no passion. Why do Republicans, especially, think they can win by just saying a few words? It's disillusion. (Cruz did the same thing--he acted like saying a few things would make everyone see his brilliance and kiss his ass.)

For those who criticize other Republicans for not helping, why should they help someone who won't help themself? Why should any Republican burn their career to an idiot who won't even try to win?

And, BTW, a lot of tea party conservatives are NOT Reagan conservatives; too many are bat shit crazy. They all too often resemble our last local Libertarian candidate for governor who sounded great until she started talking about UFOs and alternative medicine.

Rusty said...

Just keep in mind that without a third party McAuliff could just as easily have lost.
This not exactly a ringing endorsement of democrat policies, but rather Virginia, like Illinois, elections are decided more by a few more liberal counties while the rest of the state is red.
I don't think the T.E.A. party idea is going to go away any time soon.

tim in vermont said...

When I think about it, I think that immigration is the cause of the civil war. Republicans lower on the economic scale, who tend to the Tea Party, are harmed by the wage competition.

Among the upper scale Republicans, there are those who benefit by wage competition in their industries, and those who do not benefit, specifically tech companies that have no way to monetize cheap labor and for whom the savings in having their yard and garden tended are not a factor in their vote.

grackle said...

How about the obvious: Cuccinelli was a terrible candidate. Among other things, he had no passion.

Here I think selection bias is in force. I saw Cuccinelli several times during the campaign and he seemed chock full of passion.

For those who criticize other Republicans for not helping, why should they help someone who won't help themself?

None of the establishment repubs would campaign with him. The RNC denied him campaign money.

To those Repubs that did not help Cuccinelli. We know who you are and you will feel the results of that knowledge during your future primary campaigns. Your opponents will get our support. I will laugh in your face when you call me or email me for donations – which happens now about twice a week.

… a Republican candidate cannot win, particularly in a non-"red" state, without appealing to as broad a cross section of the party as possible.

Appeal to the cross sections, that's fine. But when you also go out of your way to attack conservatives you are no longer "appealing" to voters; instead you then are crossing over to the other side and should be fought against like the liberal politician you have proven yourself to be.

grackle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brando said...

Grackle, feel free to primary any Republican you feel is insufficiently conservative (though that apparently includes McConnell, Enzi, Lugar, etc. these days). But I hope you don't complain too much when Harry Reid gets to stay Majority Leader or if Pelosi becomes Speaker again. By my count there are at least five additional Senate seats (don't know how many House seats) that would be in GOP hands if not for successful Tea Party primaries.

And if you think that's worth it because there's not a dime's worth of difference between an insufficiently conservative Republican and a reliable Democrat, then check back again if Obama gets to make another Supreme Court appointment.

hombre said...

some feller wrote: "McAuliffe won among voters with postgrad educations and incomes over $100,000. I wonder why."

As for postgrads, to paraphrase Wm. Buckley: this doesn't prove they're smart. It proves that people who sit at the feet of liberals for years are likely to become liberals.

The $100,000 is the average of overpaid federal workers living in Va who hope to remain overpaid.

OTOH, it seems clear that low information voters, welfare recipients, and felons overwhelmingly support Dems and nobody is wondering why

Rusty said...

But I hope you don't complain too much when Harry Reid gets to stay Majority Leader or if Pelosi becomes Speaker again

I hope you don't complain when they don't.

Joe said...

Grackle, passion in a speech is not passion for the job. It's not passion to stay up late night-after-night talking money with supporters. Delivering zingers is not a campaign. The fact is Cuccinelli did a piss poor job raising money. The hypocrisy is that if conservatism stands for anything it's that you don't take gifts without first proving your worth.

(Note to Mark Levin; the "tea party" didn't help out Cuccinelli either, so what does that say about them? Tells me that the tea party is more bluster than brawn.)

grackle said...

Grackle, feel free to primary any Republican you feel is insufficiently conservative (though that apparently includes McConnell, Enzi, Lugar, etc. these days). But I hope you don't complain too much when Harry Reid gets to stay Majority Leader or if Pelosi becomes Speaker again.

I voted for both McCain and Romney. Neither were my first choice. Both were moderates. Both lost. Reid and Pelosi remained in power.

The fact is Cuccinelli did a piss poor job raising money.

Actually … no. The RNC had the money but did not choose to give any to Cuccinelli. You can't fight a war without bullets. Coincidentally, the RNC called me just yesterday. I've donated in the past. I told them in detail how they could get back in my good graces but I doubt they'll pay any attention.

To Chris Christie: I understand that to be elected in a state like New Jersey you have to be fairly liberal on the issues. Gun control, immigration, etc. I understand you have very little wiggle room on these issues. And that you are a better Governor than a Democrat Governor would be. For that I'm happy for the citizens of your state.

But you have attacked conservatives numerous times. And you eagerly participated in the Left's love affair with Obama.

Now it's entirely possible to deal with the enemy and remain credible to me and even to the base of the Republican party but if you collude with the enemy you are effectively eliminating serious consideration from me as a Presidential candidate.

If you run I don't believe you will survive the primaries. But console yourself with this: Being a popular Governor is a nice gig in and of itself. Bask in the popularity, savor the perks. Be resigned to local power, local influence – which, after all, is considerable and worth wielding. I don't believe widespread, nationally-based influence among the Republican base, such as Ted Cruz is beginning to command, is going to be your particular fate.

Finally, if I am wrong and you somehow manage to capture the nomination I will gladly send you a donation, talk up your good points to those who might listen and without hesitation flip the lever for you in the voting booth.

Brando said...

Rusty--I certainly wouldn't complain if Reid and Pelosi were in the minority! I just don't see that happening if the GOP doesn't broaden its appeal. And remember--these "RINOs" that got hunted out last two cycles--like Lugar and Castle--were votes against Obamacare. I'd rather have a few more of them in the Senate .

Joe said...

Jesus, Grackle, there comes a point in being an apologist where you end up sounding like an idiot.

The fact is Cuccinelli did a piss poor job RAISING money. Getting money handed you from the RNC isn't raising money.

I'm tired of candidates who think they are so brilliant, people should just hand them money. They are as pathetic as the losers that liberal democrats appeal to.

Cuccinelli may have lost regardless, but he ran a shitty campaign and you should stop apologizing and blaming everyone else for HIS failure. I'm tired of Republicans playing the victim card. I'm tired of Republicans thinking that being clever or witty is a substitute for actually doing something. I'm tired of Republicans thinking that they are entitled to win.

grackle said...

Jesus, Grackle, there comes a point in being an apologist where you end up sounding like an idiot.

I guess I should be grateful for the minor caveat of "sounding like." Name-calling is not my game so I will refrain from responding in kind.

The fact is Cuccinelli did a piss poor job RAISING money. Getting money handed you from the RNC isn't raising money.

Cuccinelli was entitled to help from the RNC but didn't get it. McAuliffe had no such problem with the DNC. They look after their own. Furthermore McAuliffe …

" … the former Democratic National Committee chairman and champion fundraiser … was able to significantly outspend Cuccinelli on the airwaves. McAuliffe also got more help from deep-pocketed outside groups than Cuccinelli did."

http://tinyurl.com/meklks7

It wasn't surprising to me and shouldn't have been surprising to the commentor that McAuliffe outspent Cuccinelli – money-raising is McAuliffe's middle name. He's known for it; he's a "champion" at that activity.

I'm tired of candidates who think they are so brilliant, people should just hand them money. They are as pathetic as the losers that liberal democrats appeal to.

I saw Cuccinelli several times on TV and he never in any of those instances claimed any brilliancy. In fact he seemed kind of humble to me – not prideful at all.

And the commentor doesn't seem to realize that ALL politicians ask folks to "hand them money." Unless they are billionaires or can print their own money there's no other way to raise campaign funds. Yet the commentor condemns Cuccinelli for doing so.

Cuccinelli may have lost regardless, but he ran a shitty campaign and you should stop apologizing and blaming everyone else for HIS failure. I'm tired of Republicans playing the victim card. I'm tired of Republicans thinking that being clever or witty is a substitute for actually doing something. I'm tired of Republicans thinking that they are entitled to win.

All this is in the commentor's mind. Cuccinelli ran a good, though underfunded campaign but in my opinion switched to hitting McAuliffe on Obamacare a few days too late; it took awhile for the Obamacare rollout to be seen as the complete disaster it is.

Also, McAuliffe started out with a huge lead in the polls and substantial votes were siphoned off from Cuccinelli by the Democrat-funded phony Libertarian candidate. Considering all those handicaps I think Cuccinelli held a pretty good campaign.

Rusty said...

(Note to Mark Levin; the "tea party" didn't help out Cuccinelli either, so what does that say about them? Tells me that the tea party is more bluster than brawn.)

Some polls had McAuliff up by 16 over cooch. Most were at least 8 percentage points. He won by 2.
Please keep underestimating the T.E.A. party.