Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on June 10, 2014, 07:58:18 PM
-
Guess joining hands with Obama to sing Kumbaya and amnesty millions of illegals isn't a wise political move. So long sucker.
http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsCTY.aspx?type=CON&rid=1&pty=REP&osn=003&map=CTY
-
Cantor outspent his opponent 5-1, and is losing %56 to %43. >:D
-
Undoubtedly unrelated...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/08/cantor-wants-youth-amnesty-deal-with-obama/#ixzz346xtIN8T
GOP Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor called for a compromise immigration deal with President Barack Obama during a campaign interview with a local Virginia TV station.
“I have told the president, there are some things we can work on together,” he said in the WTVR interview.
-
It's been called with Cantor loosing.
I'm less hopeful for booting out Graham here in SC. As more districts report in he's steadily ticking down, but a ways to go to force a run off.
-
Now I need to look at trammel.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
According to what the estab gopers say when the estab pick wins it is now time for all to get behind the nonestab candidate. And stab him in the back repeatedly to punish the grass roots.
-
Oh the noes! What if the GOP loses Cantor's seat?!
-
This is, of course, proof that the voters want centrist republicans
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/11/the-only-poll-that-matters/
The survey had Cantor ahead of his opponent, little-known professor David Brat, 62 percent to 28 percent, with 11 percent of voters undecided, according to the Post. It polled 400 likely Republican primary voters on May 27 and 28.
It was supposed to have had a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points. The error, of course, was far larger. (Statistically, this is expected to happen on 1 in 20 surveys.) In the end, it undercounted Brat’s support by about 27 percentage points and overestimated Cantor’s by 17 points. The poll was widely mocked on Twitter.
In an email to National Journal, McLaughlin, whose firm has been paid nearly $75,000 by Cantor’s campaign since 2013, offered several explanations: unexpectedly high turnout, last-minute Democratic meddling, and stinging late attacks on amnesty and immigration.
“Primary turnout was 45,000 2 years ago,” McLaughlin wrote. “This time 65,000. This was an almost 50% increase in turnout.”
Translation: McLaughlin’s estimate of who was a “likely Republican” voter was way, way off the mark. But Cantor’s total number of votes still shrunk, even as the total number of primary voters went up dramatically in 2014. He secured 37,369 primary votes in 2012 and less than 29,000 this year, with 100 percent of precincts reporting.
-
The spinmeisters are already hard at work, claiming that no, GOP voters really, really want illegal immigration reform - they actually WANT effective amnesty for illegals, and Cantor lost for . . . ummm . . . other reasons. That's it, other reasons. Something else.
It doesn't seem to be working - too many people have already come out and said that the main reason Cantor lost was his tacit support of illegal immigration reform. (Unlike the situation when Rick Perry's Presidential campaign tanked as soon as it became more widely known that he supported discounted tuition for illegals in Texas, and considered those who disagreed to be bad people.)
-
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-11.html
The pro-amnesty crowd -- i.e., everyone except the American people -- promptly lost its collective mind. The amnesty shills went on the attack, insisting that Cantor's historic defeat had nothing to do amnesty. Brat's triumph was touted as simply a victory for the "tea party."
Of course, these are the same people who also try to persuade us that amnesty isn't "amnesty," illegal aliens aren't "illegal aliens" (they're "undocumented workers"!), and that there are 30 million jobs Americans won't do at any price.
In fact, however, the tea party had nothing to do with Brat's victory. Only the small, local tea party groups stand for anything anymore, but they're as different from the media-recognized "tea party" as lay Catholics are from the Catholic bishops.
National tea party groups did not contribute dime one to Brat. Not Freedom Works, not Club for Growth, not the Tea Party Express, not Tea Party Patriots. They were too busy denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell -- who has consistently voted against amnesty.
As I have been warning you, the big, national tea party groups are mostly shysters and con-men raising money for their own self-aggrandizement. (Today, they're blast-faxing "media availability" notices to television networks claiming credit for Brat's victory.)
On Fox News, Mark Thiessen assured viewers that Brat's victory was not about amnesty at all, but was an expression of the same anti-establishment sentiment we've seen elsewhere this year. He specifically cited Ben Sasse's victory in the Nebraska Senate GOP primary, and Chris McDaniel's forcing incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran into a run-off in Mississippi.
Let's take those:
(1) Ben Sasse was running for an open seat -- there was no "establishment" Republican to defeat.
(2) McDaniel has made his opposition to amnesty the centerpiece of his campaign.
We're 0 for 2, so far. What else you got?
There were, in fact, a couple of tea party challenges this year to so-called "establishment" Republican incumbents such as McConnell and John Cornyn. They both voted against the Schumer-Rubio amnesty. They both won.
That's 0 for 4.
-
He secured 37,369 primary votes in 2012 and less than 29,000 this year, with 100 percent of precincts reporting.
Tale of the tape right there. KO, Cantor! Next!