|
Feather posted:The simplest answer is one Democratic partisans hate: the Democratic party leadership is by turns incompetent and complicit. Then when poo poo like "light blue states elect deep red people to office" they blame actual progressives for not turning out. I don't think it has anything to do with "actual progressives" not turning out - it's mainly that Braley just ran a lovely loving campaign and people genuinely liked Joni Ernst. Some people tend to think that there's some sort of cache of shy progressives that will only vote if the right candidate comes along, but otherwise will abstain in a very principled fashion. This is essentially never the case - in fact, in Iowa it more a case of Democrats turning out at elevated midterm levels and Republicans turning out at Presidential levels. Iowa 2014 had the highest midterm turnout in decades.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I don't think it has anything to do with "actual progressives" not turning out Of course it doesn't. It's just that progressives are a useful whipping boy for the incompetent/complicit insiders. The hardcore liberals and partisans have the highest turnout every time. It's the casual voters who don't, and usually because they aren't motivated by the lovely Republican-light candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Could Vilsack pull a Bizarro-Branstad and make a run for Governor or Senator in 2018 after his Ag Sec gig is up, or is he too over the hill now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Feather posted:Of course it doesn't. It's just that progressives are a useful whipping boy for the incompetent/complicit insiders. The hardcore liberals and partisans have the highest turnout every time. It's the casual voters who don't, and usually because they aren't motivated by the lovely Republican-light candidate. Braley wasn't a Republican-lite candidate, though. He was just an unlikable prick. Casual voters don't really know or care a whole lot about ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:Could Vilsack pull a Bizarro-Branstad and make a run for Governor or Senator in 2018 after his Ag Sec gig is up, or is he too over the hill now? There has been zero indication he would. He would be 67 if he ran. Who is to say though. His wife just lost to Steve King in 2012. Her name has been floated out as a challenger for the Senate seat too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Feather posted:The simplest answer is one Democratic partisans hate: the Democratic party leadership is by turns incompetent and complicit. Then when poo poo like "light blue states elect deep red people to office" they blame actual progressives for not turning out. this is one of those "the simplest explanation for the moon landing is they were faked" uses of occam's razor
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Braley wasn't a Republican-lite candidate, though. He was just an unlikable prick. Casual voters don't really know or care a whole lot about ideology. Casual voters don't know or care a whole lot about details. They do care about appearances, as you suggest was the cause of Braley's loss, but part of that is the ability to distinguish oneself ideologically. Not saying it applies in that specific instance (I didn't follow the race), of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Feather posted:Casual voters don't know or care a whole lot about details. Granted, I live in the western part of the state and he may have just conceded this area (except Council Bluffs), but drat that was a bad campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is one of those "the simplest explanation for the moon landing is they were faked" uses of occam's razor IDK, state party Democrats are more than capable of being incompetent. Wouldn't be the first time a state party was dominated by the vaingloriously mediocre or the people who think it's an honor to be a State Party member and don't want to do more than handle nominations + be a social club. Toss in a statewide politician handing the Chair/ED jobs over to some buddies of his, and you wind up with a weak state party. EDIT: State parties are also capable of being useful and vital, but this takes a concerted effort to swing them that way and it seems to be less common.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Wouldn't be the first time a state party was dominated by the vaingloriously mediocre or the people who think it's an honor to be a State Party member and don't want to do more than handle nominations + be a social club. Toss in a statewide politician handing the Chair/ED jobs over to some buddies of his, and you wind up with a weak state party. This is basically the description of the Alabama state party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:IDK, state party Democrats are more than capable of being incompetent. Wouldn't be the first time a state party was dominated by the vaingloriously mediocre or the people who think it's an honor to be a State Party member and don't want to do more than handle nominations + be a social club. Toss in a statewide politician handing the Chair/ED jobs over to some buddies of his, and you wind up with a weak state party. It's not just incompetence, though, it's complicity. Florida is a prime example of both incompetence and complicity. And certain democrats who have some influence but aren't elected (e.g. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos) help with the latter significantly (e.g., in Markos' case, by effectively endorsing Republicans like Crist and Murphy in Florida). It's true it's not every state and local party, though, but generalizations aren't universally true of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Feather posted:It's not just incompetence, though, it's complicity. Florida is a prime example of both incompetence and complicity. And certain democrats who have some influence but aren't elected (e.g. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos) help with the latter significantly (e.g., in Markos' case, by effectively endorsing Republicans like Crist and Murphy in Florida). It's true it's not every state and local party, though, but generalizations aren't universally true of course. I'm skeptical that this will even change in my lifetime. There really isn't any real ray of hope here. They are probably going to botch the election for Rubio's vacant seat in 2016 as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Feather posted:Casual voters don't know or care a whole lot about details. They do care about appearances, as you suggest was the cause of Braley's loss, but part of that is the ability to distinguish oneself ideologically. Not saying it applies in that specific instance (I didn't follow the race), of course. It's not like there isn't a massive amount of daylight between the GOP and the Dems in 2014. Sure, some Republicans like Gardner did a great job of running toward the center in CO, but anyone with even cursory knowledge can tell the difference between Braley, a mainstream House Democrat with a progressive record, and Joni Ernst, one of the most conservative Republicans ever elected to statewide office in IA. It has everything to do with massive GOP turnout and little to do with drop-off voters upset that the Democrat isn't progressive enough or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Feather posted:It's not just incompetence, though, it's complicity. Florida is a prime example of both incompetence and complicity. And certain democrats who have some influence but aren't elected (e.g. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos) help with the latter significantly (e.g., in Markos' case, by effectively endorsing Republicans like Crist and Murphy in Florida). It's true it's not every state and local party, though, but generalizations aren't universally true of course. I'm not really sure why you call it "complicity." In FL, they want to win. They spend a lot of time and effort on it. The problem is that they have a lot of issues recruiting quality candidates, mostly because Florida Democrats essentially never win statwide races. The GOP does not. Blaming people for "endorsing Crist and Murphy" is dumb because Nan Rich and Grayson, the only alternatives, were/are loving horrible and would be a trainwreck for the party. I didn't like Chain Gang Charlie and I don't like Murphy, but I do like running competitive races and not just giving seats away to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Well Graham is in the governor's race now but if you think Murphy is a Republican you'd hate her even more. Best stick with the multi-millionaire who abandoned his family to a life of poverty and is doing his best to even now weasel out of divorce payments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I'm not really sure why you call it "complicity." In FL, they want to win. They spend a lot of time and effort on it. The problem is that they have a lot of issues recruiting quality candidates, mostly because Florida Democrats essentially never win statwide races. The GOP does not. Blaming people for "endorsing Crist and Murphy" is dumb because Nan Rich and Grayson, the only alternatives, were/are loving horrible and would be a trainwreck for the party. I didn't like Chain Gang Charlie and I don't like Murphy, but I do like running competitive races and not just giving seats away to Republicans. Democrats endorsing republicans for office is complicity. In Florida, the "need" to do so because the bench is so wretched is incompetence. So it's both, in that case. I was a precinct captain in Orange County in Florida some few years ago. The depth of the incompetence and corruption of the official party organs, from the state down, was eye-opening for me. OFA didn't help any--they withheld voter information, scuttled attempts at cooperative organization to help democrats get elected, and generally helped the power-wielders stomp out any internal attempts at changing the direction of the DEC to anything marginally more, well, democratic, or enlisting a deeper, more qualified bench. Precinct captains who showed even the slightest bit of interest in doing anything beyond whipping votes were marginalized, and there was almost no support for even becoming a Captain (I filled a spot that had been vacant for multiple election cycles, and there were so many more it wasn't funny). At some point that kind of malfeasance is no longer attributable to incompetence. It's not like that everywhere, thank the gods, but Florida was an especially good example of just how bad it is. Wanting to win isn't an indicator that complicity doesn't apply. In fact, in the case of Florida, it's a supporting piece of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Feather posted:Democrats endorsing republicans for office is complicity. In Florida, the "need" to do so because the bench is so wretched is incompetence. So it's both, in that case. I was a precinct captain in Orange County in Florida some few years ago. The depth of the incompetence and corruption of the official party organs, from the state down, was eye-opening for me. OFA didn't help any--they withheld voter information, scuttled attempts at cooperative organization to help democrats get elected, and generally helped the power-wielders stomp out any internal attempts at changing the direction of the DEC to anything marginally more, well, democratic, or enlisting a deeper, more qualified bench. Precinct captains who showed even the slightest bit of interest in doing anything beyond whipping votes were marginalized, and there was almost no support for even becoming a Captain (I filled a spot that had been vacant for multiple election cycles, and there were so many more it wasn't funny). At some point that kind of malfeasance is no longer attributable to incompetence. It's not like that everywhere, thank the gods, but Florida was an especially good example of just how bad it is. Wanting to win isn't an indicator that complicity doesn't apply. In fact, in the case of Florida, it's a supporting piece of evidence. I wasn't a fan of Charlie Crist (who is vastly more conservative than Murphy, or at least until his magical transformation into a true blue progressive) but it was basically him or handing the GOP an easy win. Crist would have won if the national climate hadn't been so wretched - he certainly drew it closer than he had any right to do, considering we lost gov races in states like Mass and Maryland. Maybe the Florida Dems can do a better job at recruiting candidates, but I would point out that it's not exactly an easy job to convince someone to run for US Senate or Governor in a state like Florida, and there is not really much of a bench of Democratic elected officials that are well-qualified to run. As far as being a precinct captain - DEC's (along with most local Dem organizations) are, for the most part, rotten vestigial organizations of a type of politics that are long past. They were very popular back when you'd use them to direct payola to folks who had their cache of people (or claimed to have a cache of people) they'd turn out once the bag full of money came to their doorstep. Precinct captains are no longer really necessary or desirable positions and they are largely going to be phased out as the influx of money into politics has allowed us to replace them with professional turnout organizations using methods statistically proven to increase turnout. I was actually employed by OFA-FL, funnily enough. Of course they were going to withhold voter information - the OFA voterfile was worth many millions of dollars and was both proprietary and full of confidential information. It was enhanced with information they paid a lot of money to get, and they aren't going to simply hand it out to a guy because he's a precinct captain. And such a thing is largely unnecessary, because a duplicate GOTV effort does not serve any purpose, and if you run GOTV on the wrong targets because you aren't familiar with how to create a GOTV universe then you will actually cause a net loss of votes. OFA was the coordinated effort. I can say that when I was employed, I literally could not give a single loving poo poo about the local DEC because they were largely useless (not malicious). I have seen local Dem party corruption, but it's almost entirely in the northeast where they have control over ballot placement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
For no particular reason, here's the Cook political report from earlier this month, showing his best guess as to the state of the 2016 races: Seems a little pessimistic given the likely 2016 electorate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Seems a bit odd to have the California seat at only Likely D. Same with the Georgia seat in Likely R.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Seems a bit odd to have the California seat at only Likely D. Same with the Georgia seat in Likely R. I guess since CA won't have an incumbent you could argue the seat is more vulnerable than normal. However, I believe Harris is fairly popular and the Republicans don't have any strong candidates that I'm aware of. I'd mark it as Solid D, myself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
These days the big ratings sites put a little too much weight in incumbency (or lack their of.) They're running a little behind the curb on the increased partisanship displayed in 2004+ elections. As for specifics, I'd put Kirk's and Johnson's races at lean D and Bennett's at likely but otherwise keep the close ratings the same.
Cliff Racer has issued a correction as of 19:44 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
FMguru posted:For no particular reason, here's the Cook political report from earlier this month, showing his best guess as to the state of the 2016 races: IDK, Ohio is a Toss-Up on the Presidential side, and I'd expect a challenger Senate candidate to trail Clinton by a few points. Pennsylvania I imagine Clinton will win by 5%+, but again it's not hard to see an incumbent holding on 51-49 there. North Carolina is a red-leaning battleground, if Clinton wins it'll be narrowly, so Burr just has to run marginally ahead of Jeb! or whoever to hang on. And of course it's entirely possible that Clinton's win is considerably narrower than 2008/2012 or even that she loses. When you favor that in, I think a lot of the numbers make sense. EDIT: Yeah, Kirk and the WI race going from Toss-Up to Lean-D makes some sense, but I don't think it's unreasonable to call them Toss-Ups, especially if Hillary's not campaigning heavily in IL (since it's in the bag).
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Keep in mind that Ohio Democrats got their dream candidate this cycle, former Governor Sherrod Brown. I'd honestly say that that race, if listed as a toss up, would not have been something I would have disagreed with, though I totally understand keeping it at lean R for now. edit: Also understand that Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Scott Walker are all running for president and stand a reasonable shot at being the nominee (put together they've got well over a fifty percent chance, in my opinion) which means that Portman, un-named Floridian candidate and Johnson all stand some shot at getting an added boost this cycle. Cliff Racer has issued a correction as of 19:18 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
^^You mean Ted Strickland. Brown is already Senator. There's only been one poll of IL this year but it had Duckworth up nearly 20 points over Kirk. There's a credible argument for Lean D, but definitely more data is needed there. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 19:20 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Crist would have won if the national climate hadn't been so wretched - he certainly drew it closer than he had any right to do, considering we lost gov races in states like Mass and Maryland. I can't speak for Maryland, but I don't think you can blame Baker's win in MA to the national climate; it had a lot more to do with the fact that Martha Coakley ran a terrible, terrible campaign. Again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
For what its worth, here is what the other two big sites are saying. Sabato's Crystal Ball:  Note that he has both Kirk's and Johnson's races at Lean D, while Burr's is at likely R. His latest update said that Bennet will find himself at Likely D soon if the Republicans can't find some sort of challenger. You can't see it here but Sabato thinks that Grayson has a good shot at winning the Florida senate nomination and turning into this cycle's Todd Akin. Rothenberg-Gonzalez:  Rothenberg has Kirk at Lean D but Johnson remains a toss-up there. McCain is in Lean R here with the typical crew, though I doubt that that will last much longer. A general trend of R/G's ratings is that they seem real worried about Republican incumbents being primaries or getting sub-par candidates out of the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:I can't speak for Maryland, but I don't think you can blame Baker's win in MA to the national climate; it had a lot more to do with the fact that Martha Coakley ran a terrible, terrible campaign. It's definitely part of the formula. She lost by less than 2 points, so I'd say in a better climate she would have won. I also think it was more on Baker running a great campaign than Coakley's campaign being terrible, although it wasn't so great either. It would help if MA didn't have such late primaries, which makes it tough for Democrats to shift gears for a general election campaign quickly enough to be effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:It's definitely part of the formula. She lost by less than 2 points, so I'd say in a better climate she would have won. I also think it was more on Baker running a great campaign than Coakley's campaign being terrible, although it wasn't so great either. It would help if MA didn't have such late primaries, which makes it tough for Democrats to shift gears for a general election campaign quickly enough to be effective. Honestly, a better climate probably would have helped her - she lost by only 40k votes! - so I'll give you that, but I can't say that the climate was to blame for her loss. With about two weeks to go before the primary vote it was pretty clear to all and sundry that she was getting the Democratic nomination (disclaimer: I voted for Don Berwick, personally, because I believe that gently caress yes single-payer healthcare is a good idea), and Baker's nomination was even more taken for granted; Coakley wasn't talking about Berwick and Grossman, she was talking about Baker, and vice versa, so even the primary timing wasn't the smoking gun. The issue is that Coakley ran her gubernatorial campaign the same way she'd run her Senate campaign. Step One, win the primary. Step Two, assume Massachusetts voters aren't going to elect a Republican. Step Three, coast for a bit. Step Four, look surprised when the opponent who campaigned his rear end off ends up winning, because they energized their voters while you kicked back and did the opposite. Except this time it wasn't even a shock the way it was when Scott Brown beat her, because Baker's poll numbers had been trending upwards for weeks and Coakley's had been holding steady at best. Believe me, I couldn't watch TV without hearing Charlie Baker's name seventeen times an hour in the week prior to the election, while no one was talking about Coakley - except for the occasional news piece about a national figure coming to MA to stump for her, which only served to reinforce the 'her campaign is failing and she needs help' narrative. I mean, you're right to say that a better climate would have helped her and probably could have pushed her over the top, but near as I could tell she wasn't doing anything to try and make the climate better; there was no fight to her, politically. She wasn't even a particularly good campaigner in the primaries, honestly - it was name recognition, I suspect, more than anything else that paved the way for her. I'm leery of blaming losses like this on "national climate." A bad campaign is a bad campaign no matter what climate it happens in, and if a loss gets excused as the result of a bad climate it means we don't start looking at how to make the campaigns better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Honestly, a better climate probably would have helped her - she lost by only 40k votes! - so I'll give you that, but I can't say that the climate was to blame for her loss. With about two weeks to go before the primary vote it was pretty clear to all and sundry that she was getting the Democratic nomination (disclaimer: I voted for Don Berwick, personally, because I believe that gently caress yes single-payer healthcare is a good idea), and Baker's nomination was even more taken for granted; Coakley wasn't talking about Berwick and Grossman, she was talking about Baker, and vice versa, so even the primary timing wasn't the smoking gun. I don't disagree with you. She could have done better, with the caveat that it's very rare to hear someone say "yeah s/he lost but they ran such a good campaign!" But there are some serious issues, especially when it comes to building GOTV operations. Scaling an operation designed for a 500k vote primary to a 2 million vote general in two months is really, really difficult. Actually, it's basically impossible to do it well. A lot of fundraising work can't be done until the votes are counted, and it takes time to unite the party after a primary even if it wasn't particularly close. Baker was also able to spend pretty much the entire primary period raising money, while Coakley was desperately trying to build relationships with her former opponent's donors while precious weeks ticked away I don't think it was so much that Coakley wasn't trying to win - it's not like she wasn't raising money or doing events. It's just that the late primary, plus a lackluster campaign (although I think it was largely on par with MA Dem campaigns, which typically suck), combined with the a fundraising disadvantage and a very unfavorable climate led to her loss. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 21:26 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I don't disagree with you. She could have done better, with the caveat that it's very rare to hear someone say "yeah s/he lost but they ran such a good campaign!" I don't know, I hear this a quite a bit, just not from candidates who end up losing in states where their party has massive advantages. Like Fung, the Republican who almost won in Rhode Island last cycle? He ran a great campaign. That one Republican who came decently close to winning a house seat in Mass last cycle? Ran a great campaign. Barrow in Georgia ran a great campaign. The independent in Kansas who almost won? Ran a great campaign. Ed Gillespie ran a great campaign. The Democratic AG candidate in Nevada ran a great campaign compared to the total poo poo show that was had on his opponents side. Still lost though. A lot of those losing candidates who ran great campaigns will be able to come back, especially if they were only running for representative, and win election in their next race.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I don't know, I hear this a quite a bit, just not from candidates who end up losing in states where their party has massive advantages. Like Fung, the Republican who almost won in Rhode Island last cycle? He ran a great campaign. That one Republican who came decently close to winning a house seat in Mass last cycle? Ran a great campaign. Barrow in Georgia ran a great campaign. The independent in Kansas who almost won? Ran a great campaign. Ed Gillespie ran a great campaign. The Democratic AG candidate in Nevada ran a great campaign compared to the total poo poo show that was had on his opponents side. Still lost though. A lot of those losing candidates who ran great campaigns will be able to come back, especially if they were only running for representative, and win election in their next race. Well, Fung didn't run a good campaign at all. He just profited from the disaster that was the very nasty RI primary plus disaffected Democrats voting for a third party. His campaign was basically recycled attacks from the Dem primary against Raimondo, and he got one of the lowest vote shares for a Republican in RI history. The GOP in MA suffered double digit losses in both competitive Congressional districts, but the 2012 one that was close was a moderate Republican running against a widely hated and corrupt Congressman. Gillespie literally stopped running ads in the last two weeks of the election because he ran out of money. But my point is that you can't conflate election results with the quality of the campaign. If the climate had been better for Democrats, no one would be talking about Gillespie's campaign and no one would have complained about the effort Coakley put in. The vast majority of an election result, in most cases, is totally outside the control of a campaign. Between demographics and overall climate, the campaigns are left to try and nudge results across the line of 50+1. For example, a lot of pundits criticized Democratic turnout operations because Democratic turnout was low overall. But randomized studies showed the GOTVs worked as intended - it just can't counteract the larger forces at play. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 21:58 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Well, Fung didn't run a good campaign at all. He just profited from the disaster that was the very nasty RI primary plus disaffected Democrats voting for a third party. His campaign was basically recycled attacks from the Dem primary against Raimondo, and he got one of the lowest vote shares for a Republican in RI history. The GOP in MA suffered double digit losses in both competitive Congressional districts, but the 2012 one that was close was a moderate Republican running against a widely hated and corrupt Congressman. Gillespie literally stopped running ads in the last two weeks of the election because he ran out of money. But my point is that you can't conflate election results with the quality of the campaign. If the climate had been better for Democrats, no one would be talking about Gillespie's campaign and no one would have complained about the effort Coakley put in. The vast majority of an election result, in most cases, is totally outside the control of a campaign. Between demographics and overall climate, the campaigns are left to try and nudge results across the line of 50+1. For example, a lot of pundits criticized Democratic turnout operations because Democratic turnout was low overall. But randomized studies showed the GOTVs worked as intended - it just can't counteract the larger forces at play. I would have complained about the effort Coakley put in even if she'd won by five points, because after the Scott Brown fiasco she needed to step up her game and singularly failed to do so. But that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure where some of you people live and how much contact you have outside of your peer groups, but a lot fewer parts of this country are "ready for a true left wing candidate" or "won't turn out unless there's a true progressive left wing candidate" than you think. This junk sounds nice when you lose, to convince yourself that you are right, but time and time again the groups that don't show up are generally low info groups that may lean left but aren't conscious left wing voters as much as they are identity voters (ie: turning out due to a compelling candidate like Obama or a narrow but passionate issue like immigration reform).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
PPP polled Duckworth vs. Kirk in Illinois.   
DutchDupe has issued a correction as of 18:47 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Oddly enough, both served in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
So why does everyone think Alan Grayson is crazy? I admit I don't have firsthand experience with him but all I've seen on my facebook is "get big money out of politics" and "expand medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing."
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:So why does everyone think Alan Grayson is crazy? I admit I don't have firsthand experience with him but all I've seen on my facebook is "get big money out of politics" and "expand medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing." He's not crazy, he's just very outspoken about things he's passionate about. Think: Howard Dean's Scream.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
His speeches during the ACA voting were amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Grayson is the one who took flack for saying the Republican health care plan was "don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly", right? He wasn't wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Flobbster posted:Grayson is the one who took flack for saying the Republican health care plan was "don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly", right? Yeah and they demanded apologies
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 00:29
|
|
