• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

McCaskill declares victory (1 Viewer)

Kandahar

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Claire McCaskill just declared victory over Jim Talent in Missouri's Senate race. It increasingly looks like the Democrats are going to sweep the Senate races and gain a 51-49 majority.
 
Jim Talent has conceeded to McCaskill
 
Last edited:
Praise the Lord!

There is still hope for this little blue planet, and it looks like the temporary insantity that has kept the far right in power is finally starting to fade!

Today is a good day - now let's start to work out of the pile of **** Bush has dug the world into!
 
python416 said:
Praise the Lord!

There is still hope for this little blue planet, and it looks like the temporary insantity that has kept the far right in power is finally starting to fade!

Today is a good day - now let's start to work out of the pile of **** Bush has dug the world into!
Click to expand...
Can we party first? :party The Radical neocons and bushnevik apologetics are no more!!
 
I live just across the river from St. Louis, on the Illinois side, so Missouri is my neighbor.

I can't be more pleased that Missouri, normally a red state, has elected a Dem Senator and approved stem cell research.

And my Cardinals are World Champions...LOL! ( just had to add that)

Of course, Talent did nothing wrong, other than wear the republican label, but that was enough to doom him, right or wrong.
 
Hoot said:
I live just across the river from St. Louis, on the Illinois side, so Missouri is my neighbor.

I can't be more pleased that Missouri, normally a red state, has elected a Dem Senator and approved stem cell research.

And my Cardinals are World Champions...LOL! ( just had to add that)

Of course, Talent did nothing wrong, other than wear the republican label, but that was enough to doom him, right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Approvement of stem cell research, wow, finally Science.
Perhaps now we can also have an initiative on global warming and greenhouse gases?
 
jfuh said:
Approvement of stem cell research, wow, finally Science.
Perhaps now we can also have an initiative on global warming and greenhouse gases?
Click to expand...
You're a little confused. There were two different items on the Missouri ballot. McCaskill could have won with Amendment 2 still being defeated. Or the inverse. Talent could have won with Stem Cell passing.

The blending of the issues by Michael J. Fox worked.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
You're a little confused. There were two different items on the Missouri ballot. McCaskill could have won with Amendment 2 still being defeated. Or the inverse. Talent could have won with Stem Cell passing.

The blending of the issues by Michael J. Fox worked.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused?
Amendment 2 passed, McCaskill also won, there's no confusion. Missourrians chose Science and change - it's quite simple.
 
jfuh said:
Amendment 2 passed, McCaskill also won, there's no confusion.
Click to expand...
Suggesting that they went hand in hand points to your confusion. My guess is Michael J. Fox led you astry on this.

Yes or no: Amendment 2 could have still passed in Missouri even if Jim Talent had won.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Suggesting that they went hand in hand points to your confusion. My guess is Michael J. Fox led you astry on this.

Yes or no: Amendment 2 could have still passed in Missouri even if Jim Talent had won.
Click to expand...

In theory, you are correct. But as you observed, Michael J. Fox's blending of stem-cell research with the Senate race WORKED. My guess is that if you re-ran this election 1000 times, stem-cells would win almost every time McCaskill won, and stem-cells would lose almost every time Talent won.
 
Kandahar said:
In theory, you are correct. But as you observed, Michael J. Fox's blending of stem-cell research with the Senate race WORKED. My guess is that if you re-ran this election 1000 times, stem-cells would win almost every time McCaskill won, and stem-cells would lose almost every time Talent won.
Click to expand...
Darn right it worked. He made it sound like a vote for Claire was a vote for curing all diseases. It reminded me of John Edwards saying "vote for John Kerry and Chris Reeve would walk again." Sad but effective.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Suggesting that they went hand in hand points to your confusion. My guess is Michael J. Fox led you astry on this.

Yes or no: Amendment 2 could have still passed in Missouri even if Jim Talent had won.
Click to expand...
McCaskill stood by Yes on 2, Talent Opposed it - it was the main divide between the two candidates. Fox has nothing to do with it. It's how the two candidates approached the issue. McCaskill bandwagoned on with stem cell research and science, Talent chose otherwise.
 
jfuh said:
McCaskill stood by Yes on 2, Talent Opposed it - it was the main divide between the two candidates. Fox has nothing to do with it. It's how the two candidates approached the issue. McCaskill bandwagoned on with stem cell research and science, Talent chose otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, as a Missourian, I can tell you the main divide was national security. Now, I think this is the question I asked you:

True or false: Amendment 2 could have still passed in Missouri even if Jim Talent had won.

You're not avoiding the question, right? ;)
 
CurrentAffairs said:
No, as a Missourian, I can tell you the main divide was national security. Now, I think this is the question I asked you:

True or false: Amendment 2 could have still passed in Missouri even if Jim Talent had won.

You're not avoiding the question, right? ;)
Click to expand...
See, now your spinning. So you're saying that McCaskill won because Missourrians believed she's stronger on national security? Please enlighten us all and show us a reputable source on that - or are you simply pulling garbage out again?
I never stated in any place that McCaskill won because of stemcells. I said she was tied with stem cells. Talent supported No, McCaskill supported yes. The possibility that Amendment 2 could've passed and Talent winning is marginal and highly unlikly.
 
jfuh said:
The possibility that Amendment 2 could've passed and Talent winning is marginal and highly unlikly.
Click to expand...
You've got something to support this, I trust...? :lol: You couldn't be any more wrong!

Better yet, tell us more about how someone can "force" themselves to be gay or straight, Einstein.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
You've got something to support this, I trust...? :lol: You couldn't be any more wrong!
Click to expand...
Is that right? Fox commercial ring a bell?
Talent opposed it, McCaskill embraced it. Talent lost, McCaskill won.
The person that never posts any sources asking for a source, the irony.

CurrentAffairs said:
Better yet, tell us more about how someone can "force" themselves to be gay or straight, Einstein.
Click to expand...
That would be your job as this is not a position that I have in anyway expressed or taken. You trying to be a dick about it does not support your credibility either. Finally you turning the issue away onto something else only further shows of your inability to "stay the course".
 
Well CNN declared her the winner on like November 5th so this is really no surprise.
 
jfuh said:
The person that never posts any sources asking for a source, the irony.
Click to expand...
Ya mean we got us another Navy Pride?
What a :joke:
 
jfuh said:
Is that right? Fox commercial ring a bell?
Talent opposed it, McCaskill embraced it. Talent lost, McCaskill won.
The person that never posts any sources asking for a source, the irony.

That would be your job as this is not a position that I have in anyway expressed or taken. You trying to be a dick about it does not support your credibility either. Finally you turning the issue away onto something else only further shows of your inability to "stay the course".
Click to expand...

The Fox commercial rings a loud bell, jfuh. You're joining the thread very late and a quick review might help you catch up. The Fox commercial is what started this debate. That ad disingenuously blended two seperate issues and tried to trick voters (successfully) into thinking a vote for McCaskill was the only way to further the stem cell initiative....which is wrong. By the way, I am not faulting McCaskill or the Dems for this. It was effective politics.

Dana is having trouble with this one thing: Voters from Missouri could have voted FOR McCaskill and AGAINST Amendment 2. True or false?
 
Last edited:
jfuh said:
The person that never posts any sources asking for a source, the irony.
Click to expand...
Never? Never, jfuh? Sure about that, brother? :lol: Thanks for just showing us just how habitual your lying problem is.

I am very clear when I express my opinion on this forum, which requires no links. When I state a fact, I provide the link. Do your homework or stop mouthing off with your lies.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
The Fox commercial rings a loud bell, jfuh. You're joining the thread very late and a quick review might help you catch up. The Fox commercial is what started this debate. That ad disingenuously blended two seperate issues and tried to trick voters (successfully) into thinking a vote for McCaskill was the only way to further the stem cell initiative....which is wrong. By the way, I am not faulting McCaskill or the Dems for this. It was effective politics.

Dana is having trouble with this one thing: Voters from Missouri could have voted FOR McCaskill and AGAINST Amendment 2. True or false?
Click to expand...
I joined the debate late? Hmm perhaps you should scan through and see who made the #2 post in this thread.
Keep spinning your irrational fears as much as you want to CA. McCaskill ran on stem cell research where as Talent ran in opposition. You keep asking your question over and over admist the fact that I and other's have answered you over and over.
Wipe that partisan crap out of your eyes ca, it's helping you no where.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Never? Never, jfuh? Sure about that, brother? :lol: Thanks for just showing us just how habitual your lying problem is.

I am very clear when I express my opinion on this forum, which requires no links. When I state a fact, I provide the link. Do your homework or stop mouthing off with your lies.
Click to expand...
You're right, not never. So let me re-word for your semantic argument.
99.99% of the time you voice something and back up with 0 source to validate your claim. 99.99% of the time it is also the party rhetoric.
You don't state fact, you state party spin - aka lies.
 
jfuh said:
Is that right? Fox commercial ring a bell?
Talent opposed it, McCaskill embraced it. Talent lost, McCaskill won.
The person that never posts any sources asking for a source, the irony.

That would be your job as this is not a position that I have in anyway expressed or taken. You trying to be a dick about it does not support your credibility either. Finally you turning the issue away onto something else only further shows of your inability to "stay the course".
Click to expand...

Sure, the Fox commercial rings a bell. I wonder how many Fox News watchers saw the commercial as an endorsement by Fox News, so voted for it? I mean Rush himself was all ajitter over it. LOL.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom