Losing a race is synonymous with unelectability? That's a curious argument. You'll have to expand on the logic behind that one. All indications were that they were on track to being elected if not for some pretty stupid comments. They were both leading in the polls prior to the comments. The races were different: McCaskill's approval rating was abysmal, whereas Donnelly was likeable but running slightly behind Murdock in a red state. I suppose it's possible that someone could be nominated that is unelectable statewide this year, but the two cases you cited above aren't really appropriate examples of that.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mo/missouri_senate_akin_vs_mccaskill-2079.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012 "The GOP primary in the state was August 7, 2012. At no point after August 20 did the Republican candidate lead in the polls. He led in the polls for two weeks. Then the press put in their first report and they lost. This of course ignores the entire literature on how polling is quite variant before an election; if you look at Nate Silver's predictions, there were forecasting errors that got smaller as the election day got closer. As for Indiana, Mourdock led in some polls, trailed in others, until his late revelation that he was nuttier than that dude with 700-pound balls from South Park. Then he stopped leading in all of them." You have Brummie on ignore, so I just went ahead and quoted his post that disproves your "theory".
When I think of the GOPs blowing a winnable race, I think of Delaware. To me, the guy in Indiana wasn't unelectable, he just committed a fatal gaffe. I mean, was George Allen unelectable in VA? No, because he had already won statewide races.
I didn’t posit a theory, so I’m not sure what exactly you’re taking issue with. The post you quoted above is representative of an argument that is either absurdly lazy or pathetically disingenuous. Unfortunately, some people (like yourself apparently) are prone to accept lazy constructs without doing your own research. If you did your own research (in fact, it’s in the very link you quoted), you would find that the polls showed a steady lead for Akin in a head to head match-up with McCaskill for months. Then came legitimate rape, and he plummeted in the polls. So both candidates were polling strongly statewide prior to their arrival on Dumbass Blvd. The correlation between their dramatic drop in the polls and the timing of their comments gives us sufficient reason to believe that both candidates would have been very competitive in the general election, and were in fact, very electable.
But now, at this moment in time, George Allen is unelectable in Virginia. He may have won statewide races in the past, but he won't win any in the future, because (1) people know more about him and don't like what they've learned, and (2) changing demographics will only make it harder for a Republican to win going forward, unless the Republicans change a bunch of core planks in their platform.
Without those comments they were easily tipped to take the state. MO and Indiana were easily carried by Romney 13+ % points. Obama was highly unpopular in both states and were especially weighing down mccaskill. Akin and Murdock proved to crazy even for these deep red states because they had credible conservdem opponents.
So while I've always known the whole voter disenfranchisement movement was bogus to begin with, some people may still honestly think (or force themselves to believe) that voter ID laws are put in place not to prevent Ms. Hamilton County Pollworker from voting in place of her dead sister but rather to target poor, minorities, and the elderly, all of whom are a menace to society that we would really be better off without. So this should encourage everyone to dismiss any person who ever tries to bring it up again: Signing up for the new state healthcare exchanges requires....well, it's almost too comical to even type. You know what it is.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gop-has-built-advantage-fight-us-house In the short run, this is bad for democracy. It's the kind of problem that makes people check out from the system. In the short run, it's obviously good for GOPs. In the long run, it's bad for GOPs, because it keeps them from addressing the reality that they get fewer votes for POTUS almost every time (5 of the last 6) and they get fewer votes for US House. The Senate seems to be a 50-50 thing right now, ebbing one way or the other depending on hot issues, off year vs. on year, etc. But within a decade, that, too, will be solidly pro-Dem, unless the GOPs cleave off a hunk of the Democratic core vote. But in order to do that, they are going to have to change their positions on one or more issues. I still think the "soft underbelly" is for the GOPs to ease up on the environment, to take that arrow out of the Democrats' quiver. Rich ********s will still love the GOPs since if there is ONE THING that is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR after the Great Recession, it's that Captains of Industry don't self-identify with their industry, they self-identify with their class. So the GOPs can go greenish and still hoover up campaign contributions from the .01%.
In theory, I agree but less intrusive government is the party's most basic core issue (right?) so the I can't see any way they could get into the zip code of consensus on environmental issues. They'd have a much easier road switching policy on drugs or immigration (which frankly are better electoral sells anyway).
Actually I don't-- are you saying that people are being asked to show photo ID on the exchange websites?
@uclacarlos : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012 This too is incorrect. Let's assume that all poll voters had perfect information about all candidates (that's not true, but go with me). In not one poll leading up to the primary available through Wikipedia was Todd Akin in the lead. So the primary pollsters predicted that McCaskill would probably face Brunner or Steelman, leaving only a handful (13) of polls that indicated Akin's name. Of those thirteen, McCaskill led narrowly in four, and they were tied in a fifth. Of the remaining eight, Akin led by 1 point. Akin's lead up until the primary was 5.13% in the eight polls where he led. None of this gets at the problem of public polling and likely voters, or of the uncertainty bands that should accompany any point estimate. Nor does it get at the counterfactual: we do not know what Akin's performance would have been had he never uttered those words. But we cannot say for certain that he held a steady lead.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013...-own-health-care-exchange/UPI-39811357241395/ You are a ********ing moron. Check out which state Taos, New Mexico is in. The check out where Taosjohn lives.
Two big House seats now open in Michigan as both Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers and Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp have announced their retirement. Republicans are probably still favored in both races at this point. With regards to the latter, it will be interesting to see if that is incentive enough for Paul Ryan to remove himself from a potential presidential run in 2014.
Former American Idol runnerup Clay Aiken a slight lead in his fight to get the nomination for the 2nd district. It was close and they were going to a recount, but his opponent fell down some stairs and died. So it'll be Clay vs. Renee Elmers.
Definitely? I heard today (might have been on Howard Stern :-D ) that if the opponent's campaign insists on the recounts and wins, the state can choose a different candidate. Or something like that. Edit: Oops, that was yesterday's Stern show. Today they reported that Aiken did indeed win the primary.
House Majority Leader in BIG trouble... http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=CON&map=CTY