-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Bloomberg backed Democrat wins Virginia
- Thread starter cekim
- Start date
Garys
NES Member
Fear not, most of the Bloomberg backed candidates lost.
It's a short article, so I'm not going to quote it, but it's an interesting read with a link to a longer article.
McAullife had a lot of support beyond Bloomberg and just barely managed to win. VA is a purple state, mostly because of the influx of DC workers in NOVA.
It's a short article, so I'm not going to quote it, but it's an interesting read with a link to a longer article.
McAullife had a lot of support beyond Bloomberg and just barely managed to win. VA is a purple state, mostly because of the influx of DC workers in NOVA.
71montess
NES Member
Tea party nut ? your an A- h@!$. Funney how the Republican establishment went out of their way to not support the guy and the Democrazzz spent 15 million on the duechbag. who were you ? He still almost won .It's a good thing the Republicans ran Tea Party nut Cuccinelli instead of Lt. Governor Bill Bolling.
Because, ideological purity, or something...![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Yeah, to be outspent that much and lose by 2 points when the F$#king libertarian funded by an obama mega bundler takes over 6%. He did pretty well. McAuliffe is such a crook, you know he'll be indicted at some point. As slimy as they come.
VA is going to be tough for R's for a bit. The R's are (with the exception of the RINO establishments) the party who wants to shrink the gov't. NoVA, the DC suburbs are dependent on the fed money trough and they vote to keep the D's in power and the money flowing. MD is VERY democratic. If you look at MD, a ton of their population work for the fed gov't or very close to it. VA wasn't as much like this but it has become so.
So if the goal of the tea party is to shrink DC, that hurts in VA elections. But I was to kill the fed budget so I'm fine with Va being tough.
Last edited:
Once you get outside of the DC suburbs, this is still a fairly conservative, culturally Southern ie pro-gun state.
That's why Bloomberg was only running his ads on background checks in Northern Virginia.
MetalgodZ
NES Member
I hear a lot of crying here...Big surprise that women are voting against politicians that are perceived as standing against their self determination. Read this and stew on it.
The Dems certainly aren't going to quit their shit.
The Repubs have an opportunity, if they can figure it out. Or they can continue to **** it up and have the libertarians continue to make build acceptance.
The Dems certainly aren't going to quit their shit.
The Repubs have an opportunity, if they can figure it out. Or they can continue to **** it up and have the libertarians continue to make build acceptance.
Cucinelli actually won married women by 9%, so it's the moron single women who have their heads up their a$$es. Cucinelli was supported by Ron Paul and the "libertarian" candidate was funded by one of obama's biggest financial supporters.
Whatever. If they only vote on their lady parts, they are morons and nothing more. Self determination? The lib's are against guns, will tax you to death, then revive you to tax you to death again, they want to control what you eat, what you drive, everything. The issue is low information voters and many single women are idiots.
I don't understand this. I really need to have a (rational) woman explain it to me. My wife and I have argued about it once or twice. I think abortion is horrible but should be legal up to a point. My wife basically agrees. But what I don't get is the view that 'I personally would never - ever - get an abortion, but I will not vote for a candidate who is against them.' Layer on that these same people play fast and loose with wanting to ban guns and drugs, and I just can't understand the philosophy. I can't defend my body or put drugs that make me feel good into my body, but it's okay to kill someone growing in my body? Hmm.
I guess I just like the idea of defending myself the way many women like the idea of killing their unborn children. Can't we all just get along?
Last edited:
The GREAT majority of single girls I know are near brain dead when you get away from pop culture, makeup, hair stuff, clothes, etc. They are all in their 20's or early 30's and they are literal morons. Most went to college, some very good schools. They are just plain stupid, the D's know it and play on it.
I know a handful of girls who have had unplanned pregnancies and not one of them have had abortions. Some are radically "pro choice" but when they had the chance...
I have a nutcase free loader relative who probably votes D (not 100% sure she votes, if she does, it's D all the way). She had 6 or 7 abortions, it was her birth control rather than the pill. She already get SSDI, section 8 housing, food stamps, etc. So she didn't need extra welfare, she was already maxed out.
Headed hard into thread-lock territory, but RNC needs to re-examine the meaning of "limited government", or it will cease to win elections no matter how bad the DNC gets.
MetalgodZ
NES Member
Self determination?
Yeah, the libs are against guns, but they're not particularly likely to tell you who you can and cannot stick your dick in, so long as your intended target is old enough, sober enough, and conscious enough to consent. Cuccinelli is. The libs are against guns, but they're not particularly likely to define the act which may not be named on this forum based on an all but certainly fictional book interpreted by a bunch of old, superstitious men. Cuccinelli is.
You can expose as many people as you want to firearms and get them comfortable with them, but you're going to keep losing if you put up people that keep opposing those two things.
If you believe otherwise, the issue remains "low information voters," and idiots. But they're not the people that are more likely to be prosecuted for a consensual sex act or require the "big forbidden A" than they are to require a firearm to defend themselves over the course of their lifetime.
The DNC are ****ing idiots if they think the current course is going to result in them winning. And the ones that think that that's ok because CWII will result in some religious cleansing will likely still not get it when they figure out it doesn't work that way any more.
That really wasn't my intention, though I usually stay away from anything vaguely provocative on here. It is sad that we can't talk about divisive issues any more. There was a time when we could. And some people could even explain why they thought what they thought.
When was the last time you heard anyone discuss the underlying social issues that make it difficult to change public policy?
71montess
NES Member
I don't think, as we find the Dems voted for a libertarian, we can blame this on a third party guy. Rather we should redirect our aim at the establishment Republicans who failed to back The candidate and severely underestimated the TEA PARTY.still find it hard to believe a Democratzzzz could vote Libertarian.
Why is it hard to believe? A lot of people who vote democrat are single issue voters on the issues of gay marriage and abortion and only vote democrat because republicans are on the other side of that. Libertarians are of the mindset of leave the government out of it.
No doubt. Every libertarian I have ever seen in MA had two issues: small government(with no particular way of getting there) and legalize pot. A few more recent candidates may be deeper than that.
What makes you so sure the libertarian votes all came from the Republican? They usually don't. They involve some portion of democrats and people who would otherwise not vote.
This tired excuse is tired. Losing these elections to fascist dictators and their stooges is painful, but the message that their garbage doesn't sell either needs to reach the RNC or those who support the RNC need to get tired enough of losing to stop supporting them.
So, in the grand scheme of things, it is a good thing to have such a large showing of 3rd party as it will force a change in the status quo.
Actually the math was done and it shows you as completely wrong. Quit peddling the bullshit that L candidates are "spoilers" for republicans.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/dont-blame-sarvis-for-the-cuccinelli-los
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/the-real-way-to-get-politicians-to-liste
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/read-this-if-you-believe-your-candidate
This is a rather common misconception and FUD mechanism to scare people from third parties.
"but, but, but, the even worse guy will win of you don't vote for the awful guy" is pretty much every election now...
The idiots are the politicians who keep up this war on women, given that the women keep responding by voting against those candidates.
Similar threads
