People often vote for the incumbent with out knowing much about the person.
For 35 years? They voted for the guy every 2 years for 35 years without knowing much about him? I find that extremely difficult to believe.
Murtha was the king of pork. He got re-elected for 35 years. The people in his district loved him and they loved the pork. If not they could have voted him out.
This whole RINO thing is the reason the GOP will never be a majority party again. The Big Tent is truly dead if this is the prevailing thought in the GOP and if this REvival Tent continues, I will continue to remain outside the GOP as I have since 2003.
What was the percentage he won by the last few years? I bet he was struggling to keep his seat.
I don't know. I know they kept re-electing him. So he got at least 50% of the vote plus one.
Actually it doesn't Navy. Not unless the numbers are close. Senate seats have always and will continue to matter a great deal more than congress seats.
I don't like the way our legislative power is proportioned....but that's the reality.
I looked it up he got 58% last election. If he would have been a GOP the press would have condemned him but with a D he got a pass.
58% is pretty high. That's almost 6 out of 10 voters saying "Hey keep feeding us that pork baby!"
What was the percentage he won by the last few years? I bet he was struggling to keep his seat.
he was the second most corrupt man in dc, after rangel
as chair of defense appropriations he kept steering hundreds of millions to contractors represented by pma, a lobbyist he was closely associated with and which steered big sums back into his campaigns
he was also earl of earmarks, most famously the eponymous airport in johnstown which gets so much money but sees so little traffic
he also once quite stupidly insulted his constituents as a lot of racists
now his district, pa12, is the only in the nation that went for mccain in 08 and jfkerry in 04
very interesting
i read that as meaning it's a very close district
mccain won it with 49%, jfk with 51
again, a close district
it's lower income but kinda clingy to bibles and guns
that a big, old and heavy hitter like murtha would take it by 58...
i wouldn't be too surprised, i would expect as much, i would expect goodness knows what arms twisted and boxes pried...
if you know what i mean
like i said, murtha was monstrously mendacious
anyway, a 58 point win in november of 08 is certainly no 58 today
as we've seen in virginia, new jersey and massachusetts
those referenda witnessed TWENTY FIVE to THIRTY point swings SO (since obama)
dems are super scared about pa12
they should be
58% ain't close.
So, with Taxachusett[e]s and Virginia and New Jersey swinging up to 30 points, you want to keep on saying 58% ain't close, when that candidate was a lifetime incumbent?
Let's see....58% - 30% = 28%.
I'd say this election might say something interesting.
If another corrupt Democrat is elected, it says the voters aren't paying attention.
If a Republican is elected, it says the voters are still tired of Democrats in Washington.
You're assuming the Dem that runs in Murtha's district is gonna lose 30% of the vote. His district has nothing to do with Virginia or Massachusetts.
And here's the only point I made earlier - what difference does it make if a Dem or Republican wins the seat? That district is a giant pile of pork. Whoever wins the seat better keep the pork coming or they'll be out of a job soon.
It is a national movement. The dems and Obama pushed to far now voters will push back.
Cool ..now we'll see if they see things your way.
Sure hope the Republicans can win back the House. I want to see legislation bottlenecked because of petty infighting between the House and Senate.
As long as we maintain a two party system, the best government is one of gridlock.
The whole "Big Tent" notion is bull****.
To say that a party that campaigns on a smaller government, smaller taxes, and pro-business agenda can't complain when an elected candidate turns out to be big government pro-tax anti-business turd is absurd.
Let's see, when the Rapist had his party's re-nomination campaign in 1996, his party refused to allow the governor of the state hosting the convention to speak solely because that governor had pro-life views that conflicted with the pro-baby-murder agenda of the Democrat Party, and you want to whine about the Republican?
(FYI: The GOP IS a major party. Has always been one since Lincoln was elected.)
For the last two decades of the twentieth century, Republicans welcomed people who didn't march with them lock step on every issue.
Then the evangelicals took over the party. As a Catholic and someone who is knowledgable about the history of discrimination against Catholics in the United States (something not unique to the US among English-speaking countries) I am wary about a party where the likes of Palin and Huckabee are among the leading figures.
But you can't expect everyone to march in lock step on EVERY issue in the party.
I am pro-environmentalist and when I was an activist in the GOP on the local and state levels, I was roundly criticized for it by members of my own party -- telling me that true Republicans do this or believe that. Sickening.
Did you see me defend the Democrats on this point ANYWHERE on this post or anywhere else? Did I say I identify myself as a Democrat?
Do you know the difference between "major" and "majority"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?