The Official 2010 Election Thread

[CaneBrain 95]

Harry Reid lost his debate badlyGotta suck when the republicans have two wacko chicks kicking your butts in debates.O'Donnell cut the Coons lead in half, and everyone saw the Angle Reid debate as a shellacking of Reid.And Reid is the Democrats leading senator...

'She won by not coming off as the Wicked Witch of the West.'That's a ringing endorsement. I don't think you understand what the word badly means. Or you did not bother to read the article. Or both.And O'Donnell cut Coons lead in half (to 11 which is still not very close) in the best year to be a right winger ever. Very impressive.Like Sarah Palin, both these women benfitted from incredibly low expectations.....and Angle did not even get a bump in the polls. Good post!

[brvheart 1,752]

Probably near the same quality as a post making the claim that Jon Stewart is unbiased.

[85suited 0]

'She won by not coming off as the Wicked Witch of the West.'And O'Donnell cut Coons lead in half (to 11 which is still not very close) in the best year to be a right winger ever. Very impressive.

So is it time to admit Obama only won because is was the best year ever to be a left winger?

[CaneBrain 95]

So is it time to admit Obama only won because is was the best year ever to be a left winger?

It's not why he won; it's why he won some states though like Indiana as an example.

[85suited 0]

It's not why he won; it's why he won some states though like Indiana as an example.

Obama would not have won in any other election cycle ...ever

[85suited 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftZq6lnvH6o...player_embedded“We have enough wealth to continue to have a great university and get every kid into this school that can qualify. Now when I say every young man and young woman, I mean everyone – whether they are documented or not. If they went to school, they ought to be here." Jerry BrownHave fun with that BG/VB

[CaneBrain 95]

Obama would not have won in any other election cycle ...ever

Disagree completely. He definitely would have won in 2004 against Bush and maybe 2000 as well. Kerry was the worst candidate ever and he lost 51/49.Obviously, a black guy would not have won in a lot of earlier cycles for a specific reason.

[85suited 0]

Disagree completely. He definitely would have won in 2004 against Bush and maybe 2000 as well. Kerry was the worst candidate ever and he lost 51/49.Obviously, a black guy would not have won in a lot of earlier cycles for a specific reason.

Obama might not even win against Bush now

[85suited 0]

Disagree completely. He definitely would have won in 2004 against Bush and maybe 2000 as well. Kerry was the worst candidate ever and he lost 51/49.Obviously, a black guy would not have won in a lot of earlier cycles for a specific reason.

You are delirious....even if you give Obama his 2 years of senate experience - there was no way he is unseating a sitting president wit NO experience

[brvheart 1,752]

Disagree completely. He definitely would have won in 2004 against Bush and maybe 2000 as well. Kerry was the worst candidate ever and he lost 51/49.Obviously, a black guy would not have won in a lot of earlier cycles for a specific reason.

I think you're either joking, or legitimately stupid. I don't think you're stupid, so I guess I'm going to go with joking.Bush won by more than 3 million votes. It was a mandate. Did you watch Bill Maher on the Friday after the election? It wasn't close.Obama was completely unknown to everyone outside of Illinois, until the 2004 DNC convention. The over-under on number of states won by Obama would have been set at 0.5

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I think you're either joking, or legitimately stupid. I don't think you're stupid, so I guess I'm going to go with joking.Bush won by more than 3 million votes. It was a mandate. Did you watch Bill Maher on the Friday after the election? It wasn't close.Obama was completely unknown to everyone outside of Illinois, until the 2004 DNC convention. The over-under on number of states won by Obama would have been set at 0.5

I might be stupid but I think that Cane is comparing the Obama who won in 2008 to Bush of 2004 and not the mostly unknown Obama of 2004 to the Bush of 2004.

[dapokerbum 0]

I might be stupid but I think that Cane is comparing the Obama who won in 2008 to Bush of 2004 and not the mostly unknown Obama of 2004 to the Bush of 2004.

Not stupid ... just really good at reading comprehension

[hblask 1]

Republican polls have weakened over the last couple of weeks, and at this point the R's may only get 6 or 7 Senate seats. They'll still take the house, but not by the overwhelming majorities they once hoped.

[CaneBrain 95]

I might be stupid but I think that Cane is comparing the Obama who won in 2008 to Bush of 2004 and not the mostly unknown Obama of 2004 to the Bush of 2004.

Um, yeah.'Hey Cane, no way Obama beats Woodrow Wilson, he wasn't even born yet stupid-face.'

[brvheart 1,752]

I might be stupid but I think that Cane is comparing the Obama who won in 2008 to Bush of 2004 and not the mostly unknown Obama of 2004 to the Bush of 2004.

Did that even make sense when you typed it?Would have Obama and society of 2008 won against Thomas Jefferson in 1800? Yep. Because Jefferson was a slave owner, 2008 society would never elect a slave owner.So are you also saying that the society of 2008 was teleported to 2004 right before the election?You guys are apparently fine with Cane comparing two completely incomparable things. Ok.

[brvheart 1,752]

Republican polls have weakened over the last couple of weeks, and at this point the R's may only get 6 or 7 Senate seats. They'll still take the house, but not by the overwhelming majorities they once hoped.

yawn. Polls are stupid.

[85suited 0]

Did that even make sense when you typed it?Would have Obama and society of 2008 won against Thomas Jefferson in 1800? Yep. Because Jefferson was a slave owner, 2008 society would never elect a slave owner.So are you also saying that the society of 2008 was teleported to 2004 right before the election?You guys are apparently fine with Cane comparing two completely incomparable things. Ok.

Nobody actually thinks he is right

[brvheart 1,752]

Nobody actually thinks he is right

Sadly, you're wrong.

[CaneBrain 95]

Nobody actually thinks he is right

Sadly, you're wrong.

The best part is that Brv's point (that you just cannot compare the two times 2004 and 2008 with any real accuracy).....invalidates the original point of 85suited (that Obama could not have won in any other era) because Brv makes the point that it is impossible to compare so it's moot.What's sad is that you jackasses thought you were agreeing on something.

[brvheart 1,752]

1. I'm not a jackass2. I didn't even read his original post, because I don't read his posts. (unless he's replying to me)3. I only read posts in this forum, in their entirely, from the following people: Cindylou, mk, Canebrain, LLY, Skeleton Jelly, Scram, Henry, Bob, JJJ, VB (It should be noted that Canebrain gets skipped very frequently if he's having a long conversation with BG)

[85suited 0]

Obama the candidate - with 2 years senate experience would not have won any of these elections.20042000198819841980

[brvheart 1,752]

The best part is that Brv's point (that you just cannot compare the two times 2004 and 2008 with any real accuracy).....invalidates the original point of 85suited (that Obama could not have won in any other era) because Brv makes the point that it is impossible to compare so it's moot.What's sad is that you jackasses thought you were agreeing on something.

I don't think that anything I said invalidates the idea that Obama vs. Bush in 2004, WITH THE PEOPLE, SOCIETY, AND CULTURE OF 2004, would have been a landslide for Bush. As far as I can tell, that's the point.

[brvheart 1,752]

Obama would not have won in any other election cycle ...ever

Yeah, I guess I'm not totally sure what you're even saying here. You mean the Obama with the 1 term senate experience, the coloredness, and: that name?

[85suited 0]

Yeah, I guess I'm not totally sure what you're even saying here. You mean the Obama with the 1 term senate experience, the coloredness, and: that name?

Obama with 2 years as a senator would not have won in 2004,2000,1988,1984,1980The larger point is cane is already saying the only reason republicans are going to win is because it is the best time ever to be a republican.... just like in 2008 it was the best time ever to be a democrat senator from illinois running for POTUS with NO experience

[strategy 4]

3. I only read posts in this forum, in their entirely, from the following people: Cindylou, mk, Canebrain, LLY, Skeleton Jelly, Scram, Henry, Bob, JJJ, VB (It should be noted that Canebrain gets skipped very frequently if he's having a long conversation with BG)

so wait, is there anyone in this conversation you haven't yet been a jerkface to? I think you tied it all up in a neat package with this point.