Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "If" (0+ / 0-)

    Gun Control is such a loser Democratic incumbents in Democratic districts are losing elections in non-election years.

    The converse of your hypothetical question is already happening in the real world.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:18:44 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If you're referring (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, Smoh, coquiero

      to the two recalls in Colorado, that's a lot less than it seems to be.

      That said, that was what KVoimakas was referring to, which is why I asked him the converse question.

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:20:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It seemed to be two utterly humiliating loses (0+ / 0-)

        where two Democratic Senators, with a 6-1 spending advantage, in a state that had never had so much as a single successful recall petition managed to lose in districts that were Democratic & voted for Obama by 19 points, where somewhere between 20%-30% of Democrats that voted for the recall.

        It seems that way primarily because it was.

        Honestly, if it was GOPers that lost 2 unprecedented elections in a GOP district, that voted for Mitt, had a 6-1 spending advantage and 20%-30% of Republican voters voted for their recall because they voted against a background check what would your conclusion be?

        What would be your opinion of RedStaters that claimed that voting against B/Cs was an electoral winner, in the aftermath of such a vote?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:36:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Noting you're dodging a direct response to my (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh, Glen The Plumber, coquiero, JVolvo

          question, here's some facts:

          The NRA very, very strategically selected the two most vulnerable Democrats in the Colorado Senate for their campaign, out of the 20 they could have chosen to target. They gauged based on the margin of their victory, the activity of the NRA's voting base, and the relative likelihood of their supporters turning out for a mid-year recall election.

          And they have some powerful number crunchers working for them, to make sure that they were going to have their best shots at victory, spending margins notwithstanding.

          In a regular election cycle, it's very likely that neither of these candidates would have been threatened, and it's very likely that at least one of these two seats will flip back to the D column in the next cycle.

          The NRA is playing a game of 'hit the weak points and make people think we can inflict the same damage anywhere.' They showed they have some strength, but are pretending they have far, far more.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:39:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't 'dodge' anything: (0+ / 0-)

            However you have. If this exact same situation happened with GOPers becoming the first recalled legislators in state history despite being in friendly districts & having a 6-1 spending advantage with 20%-30% of Republicans voting for their recall because of their vote for background checks, what would be your conclusion?

            "The NRA...."
            Did they mastermind this devious plan in a hollowed-out-Vol-ca-no lair?
            Because the NRA only gave $985 to the recall petition.

            "In a regular election cycle..."
            Excuses are for losers.
            Results are for winners.

            "flip back to the D column"
            Exactly. A pro-gun-rights Democrat.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:03:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's no hypothetical, you realize. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, coquiero

              We've already lived that scenario, only over union rights instead of background checks, in Wisconsin.

              So we don't need to pretend. We saw the results, and what happened in the next election cycle. And what I described is pretty much an identical scenario with the issue changed and the parties reversed.

              And yes, you're still dodging my question because it continues to go unanswered.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  1) No you didn't answer. I wonder why....;) (0+ / 0-)

                2) If gun control actually managed to not humiliate the party with unprecedented electoral losses then the party would continue to pursue it.......
                Of course, the contrary is true.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Uh, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                  I just DID answer it. With the real-world scenario where it happened.

                  You also seem to have tried to answer my question but answered a significantly different one.

                  Methinks you're not listening. But KVoimakas answered my question quite directly, and so I'm cool with that. Have a nice day.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:03:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That wasn't my question. (0+ / 0-)

                    Which is fine. Both of us know exactly why you won't;)

                    "Answered my question directly"
                    As did I.
                    The only one who didn't answer a question directly is you.

                    Glad you've managed to stay consistent in your inconsistency.
                    Irony.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:14:32 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's funny. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                      I conclude you're not paying close attention to the thread, you conclude deceptive motives. Think that says something.

                      But here, take another potshot if you like. I'm done.

                      End of line.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:31:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site