Harry Reid's seat not such an easy grab?

[soccerboy22]

Also, I don't see where you thought I liked her. I called her, "Miss Crazy." What I was saying that even if she is a bit out there, but she can't do much damage as a freshmen senator and will probably be out in a term if she's that bad. Meanwhile, Harry Reid has far more influence.

I agree with you that she will have a harder time to do more damage, but I don't honestly know if it is a reason to vote her in over Reid. I think it would send the wrong message to the GOP that we will elect anyone but a Democrat.

 

[Deuce]

Replacing the EPA, eliminating Social Security and withdraw from the U.N. Absolutely. As with anything it depends on how it's done. I'm disappointed that she doesn't want to remove the Dept. of Ed as well. Remember --- John Jay, Paine, Henry, Sam Adams... all whacko's of their day and I'm not saying she's of that caliber by any means --- just saying.

And if she would just explain that she wouldn't come off as so crazy. It's far less crazy sounding to say "I think we should privatize social security because it gives Americans a choice and freedom and blah blah less government" than it is to say "HARRY REID IS PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH."

No, lady, these are your own words, from your own website...

 

[Renae]

I agree with you that she will have a harder time to do more damage, but I don't honestly know if it is a reason to vote her in over Reid. I think it would send the wrong message to the GOP that we will elect anyone but a Democrat.

Yeah, so re-elect Reid and show those GOP'ers you're SERIOUS ABOUT CHANGE!!!

 

[soccerboy22]

Yeah, so re-elect Reid and show those GOP'ers you're SERIOUS ABOUT CHANGE!!!

Or you know the GOP can just not put anyone up for election, but find some one that would actually be a good senator from Nevada that can beat Reid.

 

[Ockham]

I'd certainly like to see someone "good", but if the first step is removal of Harry with "anyone" then so be it.

 

[Renae]

Or you know the GOP can just not put anyone up for election, but find some one that would actually be a good senator from Nevada that can beat Reid.

Like you'd vote for them anyway. Spare us the false concern with whom the GOP puts up.

 

[soccerboy22]

Like you'd vote for them anyway. Spare us the false concern with whom the GOP puts up.

Really because I have voted for more candidates from the GOP than I have Democrats. I also donated and voted for Scott Brown. So I do care.

 

[Renae]

Really because I have voted for more candidates from the GOP than I have Democrats. I also donated and voted for Scott Brown. So I do care.

Scott Brown, good first step for Mass. Wouldn't fly in Nev.

 

[soccerboy22]

Scott Brown, good first step for Mass. Wouldn't fly in Nev.

Really because Reid sucks and a Scott Brown is a hell of a lot more electable than this chick. I just don't see why the GOP wouldn't want to find a Scott Brown in Nevada when it seemed to work in Mass. I mean the guy is still pretty much well liked by a lot of people.

 

[ptif219]

I agree with you that she will have a harder time to do more damage, but I don't honestly know if it is a reason to vote her in over Reid. I think it would send the wrong message to the GOP that we will elect anyone but a Democrat.

The message would be to the democrats to shape up not to the GOP. Just like the message to the GOP in 2006 was cut spending

 

[ptif219]

Really because Reid sucks and a Scott Brown is a hell of a lot more electable than this chick. I just don't see why the GOP wouldn't want to find a Scott Brown in Nevada when it seemed to work in Mass. I mean the guy is still pretty much well liked by a lot of people.

Brown is to liberal

 

[soccerboy22]

The message would be to the democrats to shape up not to the GOP. Just like the message to the GOP in 2006 was cut spending

I agree that there is also a message to Democrats. What I was trying to point out is that I am under the assumption that the GOP would want to hold this seat for as long as they can. I am not so sure with her they will be able to do it. Even if later down the road some one better shows up.

Brown is to liberal

I am not saying that Senator Brown is the ideal candidate, but he would do a hell of a lot better than this chick. He pulls in the moderate and slightly left leaning voters.

 

[ptif219]

I agree that there is also a message to Democrats. What I was trying to point out is that I am under the assumption that the GOP would want to hold this seat for as long as they can. I am not so sure with her they will be able to do it. Even if later down the road some one better shows up.



I am not saying that Senator Brown is the ideal candidate, but he would do a hell of a lot better than this chick. He pulls in the moderate and slightly left leaning voters.

The message is to democrats. We do not want liberals and if the GOP will unite the conservative base they will not need any left leaning moderates

 

[ADK_Forever]

Scott Brown, good first step for Mass. Wouldn't fly in Nev.

Considering who the Repubs have put in the game, Ms. Whacko Barter-A-Chicken-With-Your-Doctor!) me thinks Brown, or any sane person, would be welcomed in Nevada with open arms! :roll:

 

[Deuce]

Whole country ran screaming from the GOP after the disastrous previous administration, and now the GOP thinks the solution is to push farther to the right. "Oh, clearly we're not being crazy enough."

We'll see how that works out I guess.

 

[Renae]

Really because Reid sucks and a Scott Brown is a hell of a lot more electable than this chick. I just don't see why the GOP wouldn't want to find a Scott Brown in Nevada when it seemed to work in Mass. I mean the guy is still pretty much well liked by a lot of people.

Scott Brown is very LIBERAL as far as Republicans go. He's popular because he's a charismatic.

Quick question: Do you like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins or John Boehner more?

 

[Renae]

Considering who the Repubs have put in the game, Ms. Whacko Barter-A-Chicken-With-Your-Doctor!) me thinks Brown, or any sane person, would be welcomed in Nevada with open arms! :roll:

Your assessment of political realities when it comes to Conservatives has always lacked any rationale or sane basis. So your statement is hardly surprising.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Your assessment of political realities when it comes to Conservatives has always lacked any rationale or sane basis. So your statement is hardly surprising.

So, you think Sharron Angle is a better pick than Scott Brown? :roll:

Do you want to win an election or make a point? As long as the Repubs continue with your way of thinking, the Dems will have nothing to worry about, no matter how deep the Repubs hatred of the Dem incumbent goes.

 

[Renae]

Whole country ran screaming from the GOP after the disastrous previous administration, and now the GOP thinks the solution is to push farther to the right. "Oh, clearly we're not being crazy enough."

We'll see how that works out I guess.

No, the country didn't "run screaming from the GOP". The GOP had two things going against it:

An unpopular President, and a lack of leadership.


Bush couldn't catch a break with the Media, made some really dumb domestic decisions and the GOP went weak with no guiding principle. The Dem's offered America "Leadership". The GOP then selected John McCain as their standard barer and well... that was just beyond stupid. The man was never liked by the base, and he lacks the needed Charisma to inspire people. Obama on the other hand is an extremely Charismatic gentleman who inspired people to vote FOR him. And that sort of inspiration has coat tails.

But 4 years (counting the 2006 Dem take-over of the Senate) the people realize the Dem's aren't so much as leading as Dictating to the country, and Obama's shown that a President needs more then pretty words to lead. 2010 will be a correction of 2006 and 2012 will, barring the GOP being stupid and believing they must "Appeal to the center left", correct the mistake of electing a man who is incapable of performing his duties as President. The GOP needs someone that will inspire and lead, not appeal. Move the center left to you, not you to the center left. (That btw, is how Reagan won 49-1 in '84)

 

[Renae]

So, you think Sharron Angle is a better pick than Scott Brown? :roll:

Do you want to win an election or make a point? As long as the Repubs continue with your way of thinking, the Dems will have nothing to worry about, no matter how deep the Repubs hatred of the Dem incumbent goes.

For Nevada, certainly. Keep believing that ADK, you're in for a very bad Nov. And I'll be here to point out "Told ya so". Will you admit it? Nah, you'll carry on about rigged election machines, and stupid voters.

 

[justabubba]

For Nevada, certainly. Keep believing that ADK, you're in for a very bad Nov. And I'll be here to point out "Told ya so". Will you admit it? Nah, you'll carry on about rigged election machines, and stupid voters.

that presumes there are no rigged elections and stupid voters

 

[ADK_Forever]

For Nevada, certainly.

Well, that IS what we were discussing. :roll:

Keep believing that ADK, you're in for a very bad Nov. And I'll be here to point out "Told ya so". Will you admit it? Nah, you'll carry on about rigged election machines, and stupid voters.

While it's quite normal for the president's party to lose seats in an off year election, I believe it is going to be you and your fellow right wing extremists who are going to be surprised. Thanks to the tea baggers! When they get the tea bag off their face :lol: they'll see that their whacko candidates will have actually helped the Dems to lose far fewer seats that they normally would have.

Harry Reid was an easy target for your team and they ****ed that up. Do you really still have faith in your failed tactics? Or do you believe that anyone will win against your enemies simply because you think they should? :roll:

Yes, I will admit it when the Dems lose seats. The bigger question is... will you admit that you picked up much less than you did in your dreams? :2wave:

You'll forgive me if I don't put much stock in your predictions after your total miss on Avatar's success. :mrgreen:

 

[Renae]

that presumes there are no rigged elections and stupid voters

Any election a Liberal looses is presumed to be not their fault, we know. Why do you list yourself "independent" ashamed?

 

[theunbubba]

I think all the GOP had to do to make this an easy win was run a pretty standard conservative who WASN'T A NUTCASE.

They failed to do that. Now they have a fight on their hands. I'm not saying Reid has it in the bag, just that now it's a match to watch.

Using a bunch of lies about her position and carefully editing the video is you libs way always. That "interviewer" was a badgering asshole that wouldn't let her finish her thought. When are you Alinskyites going to realise that you don't control all of the presses anymore?
He wasn't quoting her website, he was intentionally misquoting it.

 

[justabubba]

Any election a Liberal looses is presumed to be not their fault, we know.

my disappointment that the republicans have not chosen someone electable to oust reid from his senate seat appears to be beyond your comprehension

Why do you list yourself "independent" ashamed?

what is beyond my comprehension is why an independent, someone who votes for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation, should be ashamed to take that political stance. elucidate us with your explanation - IF you are able