Dem Primary Winner in South Carolina

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

and 340,000 for jim demint.

face it. outside of being black, alvin greene would beat vic rawl again if he had an (r) after his name on the ballot in s carolina.

that takes nothing away from the hilarity of what they managed to pull off here but it's not like there was any chance demint was losing regardless of the nominee.

Why did Democrats vote for Alvin Green over Vic Rawl? I don't get it. I'm sure you are right that neither one of them will beat DeMint in November. But regardless, why would Democrats vote for an unemployed guy that lives at home that has felony charges pending against him?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why did Democrats vote for Alvin Green over Vic Rawl? I don't get it. I'm sure you are right that neither one of them will beat DeMint in November. But regardless, why would Democrats vote for an unemployed guy that lives at home that has felony charges pending against him?

because they're stupid? they didn't pay attention and voted anyway?

don't expect me to defend this.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

because they're stupid? they didn't pay attention and voted anyway?

don't expect me to defend this.

I think we have some of the same thing going on here in California. Some of the people that get elected, especially to city council seats, are terrible. The voters will often times vote for a totally unqualified person.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think we have some of the same thing going on here in California. Some of the people that get elected, especially to city council seats, are terrible. The voters will often times vote for a totally unqualified person.

nah. we're waaaaaay smarter here in california.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Rocco_(politician)

that said, i was pleased to see fiorina get the nod here for senate. she's no alvin greene but campbell would have been a far tougher opponent for boxer.

good job on whitman though. i was rooting for poizner.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

nah. we're waaaaaay smarter here in california.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Rocco_(politician)

that said, i was pleased to see fiorina get the nod here for senate. she's no alvin greene but campbell would have been a far tougher opponent for boxer.

good job on whitman though. i was rooting for poizner.

Why would you want a life-long politician like Boxer over a succesful business-woman like Fiorina? I don't get it.

When this country was orginally founded, serving in office was something that a person would do to give back to society. It made sense the way things were done back then. They would take the wisest and most succesful people and elect them to office. If they were going to elect a mayor, they would try to get the wisest and most respected man in the town to be the mayor. I think that is much better than what they often times do nowadays. Nowadays they often times elect a career politician that never accomplished anything in the real world.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would you want a life-long politician like Boxer over a succesful business-woman like Fiorina? I don't get it.

When this country was orginally founded, serving in office was something that a person would do to give back to society. It made sense the way things were done back then. They would take the wisest and most succesful people and elect them to office. If they were going to elect a mayor, they would try to get the wisest and most respected man in the town to be the mayor. I think that is much better than what they often times do nowadays. Nowadays they often times elect a career politician that never accomplished anything in the real world.

because like the majority of californians, i'm pro-choice and fiorina isn't.

and because fiorina doesn't believe people on the "no fly" list should be restricted from buying guns.

those are 2 actual difference's that would keep me from voting from her.

not that i'm in love with boxer.

but i might have been tempted by a pro-choice, "i can't believe what i'm hearing" (during the debate when fiorina wouldn't oppose gun right's for people on the "no fly" list) tom campbell.

her story includes being fired by hewlett packard. and shipping jobs to china beforehand. there are plenty of campaign issues.

this is more political handicapping than endorsing the incumbent. i think the republican party in california is more aligned with public opinion in s. carolina than it is with public opinion in california. hell, i think the palin endorsement of fiorina helps boxer more than fiorina in this state.

i could be wrong. but i'd lay odds the national republican party puts no significant money in this race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

because like the majority of californians, i'm pro-choice and fiorina isn't.

and because fiorina doesn't believe people on the "no fly" list should be restricted from buying guns.

those are 2 actual difference's that would keep me from voting from her.

not that i'm in love with boxer.

but i might have been tempted by a pro-choice, "i can't believe what i'm hearing" (during the debate when fiorina wouldn't oppose gun right's for people on the "no fly" list) tom campbell.

her story includes being fired by hewlett packard. and shipping jobs to china beforehand. there are plenty of campaign issues.

this is more political handicapping than endorsing the incumbent. i think the republican party in california is more aligned with public opinion in s. carolina than it is with public opinion in california. hell, i think the palin endorsement of fiorina helps boxer more than fiorina in this state.

i could be wrong. but i'd lay odds the national republican party puts no significant money in this race.

Why would you care who is pro-choice? It's a non-issue for a Senator. If we were talking about Fiorina vs Boxer for the US Spureme Court, then it would obviously be a real issue.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

because like the majority of californians, i'm pro-choice and fiorina isn't.

and because fiorina doesn't believe people on the "no fly" list should be restricted from buying guns.

those are 2 actual difference's that would keep me from voting from her.

not that i'm in love with boxer.

but i might have been tempted by a pro-choice, "i can't believe what i'm hearing" (during the debate when fiorina wouldn't oppose gun right's for people on the "no fly" list) tom campbell.

her story includes being fired by hewlett packard. and shipping jobs to china beforehand. there are plenty of campaign issues.

this is more political handicapping than endorsing the incumbent. i think the republican party in california is more aligned with public opinion in s. carolina than it is with public opinion in california. hell, i think the palin endorsement of fiorina helps boxer more than fiorina in this state.

i could be wrong. but i'd lay odds the national republican party puts no significant money in this race.

One big reason this country is screwed up is because people vote for or against people based on abortion when it is about the millionth biggest issue that we face.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would you want a life-long politician like Boxer over a succesful business-woman like Fiorina? I don't get it.

These aren't CEO-type jobs. Those are usually dictatorship situations. These are jobs where one needs to gather a consensus, negotiate, and give n' take. Honestly, I don't think these are jobs that fit these people's skill set. I don't think it fits Doctors either. Perfectionism is useful in medicine, but useless in politics. That's why you see that Senator from Oklahoma making an ass out of himself.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

These aren't CEO-type jobs. Those are usually dictatorship situations. These are jobs where one needs to gather a consensus, negotiate, and give n' take. Honestly, I don't think these are jobs that fit these people's skill set. I don't think it fits Doctors either. Perfectionism is useful in medicine, but useless in politics. That's why you see that Senator from Oklahoma making an ass out of himself.

That is a good point. Just because a person was a successful CEO, it doesn't mean they will make a good Senator. But by the same token, who else do we vote for? I would have to choose a successful person and hope they could make the transition rather than picking a person that has never succeeded at anything.