(11-03-2013 11:55 PM)Claw Wrote:  If they have early voting, the Republican has no chance.

What early voting?

(11-03-2013 11:54 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  According to Breitbart, they're reporting there was one fo the Sirius talk channels that said :

Quote:Kenney said to look to Fairfax County on election night, saying that if McAuliffe gets 55% of the vote or less there in the early voting, it could be a good night for Cuccinelli.

I'd say that with Fairfax being a strong Dem stronghold, I don't think that'd happen, but it also said if participation is 35% or less, it goes to Cuccinelli, more than that, it goes to "GreenTech" McAuliffe

TMac is going to do well in Fairyfax, all dems do and the white liberals will turnout. I am looking at turnout percentages in places like Richmond, Norfolk, and Portsmouth. They'll have to be low for Cuccinelli to win (black vote).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exhibit A on why we should have early voting.

I'll set the over / under line.

6 points. I'm taking TMAC and the over.

(11-04-2013 05:24 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Still sounds like neither candidate is very appealing.

this has been my takeaway from all I've read about this race as well.

(11-04-2013 08:16 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 05:24 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Still sounds like neither candidate is very appealing.

this has been my takeaway from all I've read about this race as well.

Cuccinelli might have been until he went bonkers, McAuliffe never was.

(11-04-2013 08:13 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exhibit A on why we should have early voting.

No. You aren't insinuating that certain folks are incapable of showing up on the Tuesday of voting are you?

Let's just go ahead and vote for governor for the next 50 years in case something were to happen between now and then and we couldn't get to the polls.

When someone says the GOP doesn't have a chance if they have early voting what does that mean to you? Seriously Creb? That's telling you that for the GOP to have a chance they have to find a way to disenfranchise people. It's right there. Out in the open.


I'm never surprised anymore the depths the GOP will go to ignore reality.

Let's just go ahead and vote for governor for the next 50 years


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exhibit #151 of that depth.................... It's beyond amazing.

(11-04-2013 08:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When someone says the GOP doesn't have a chance if they have early voting what does that mean to you? Seriously Creb? That's telling you that for the GOP to have a chance they have to find a way to disenfranchise people. It's right there. Out in the open.


I'm never surprised anymore the depths the GOP will go to ignore reality.

No, what that tells me is that somehow going to the polls on the Tuesday of voting is deemed too hard for some people so we need to give them more chances. Are you f'ing kidding me? It's too hard to either absentee vote or vote on Election day?......... and we wonder why too many people in this country can't take care of themselves without government handouts.

If voting is really important - vote on election day or by absentee ballot. How f'ing hard is that?

Disenfranchise is democratic code for "too hard".

Mach, there is no doubt in my mind that if all adults voted, the GOP would never win an election; however, some just don't belong voting. This includes anyone who can neither vote on election day nor initiate an absentee ballot request process. It also includes anyone who can be bribed for their vote with a pack of cigarettes or a 40 ounce bottle of malt liquor. Sorry, I'm not interested in giving the slum salesmen more than election day itself to turn out the ignorant, the dead, the illegal, and the uninformed. They don't belong being a part of the process.

Terry has a big lead. That lead has been closing.

What does that mean Mach?

That people have been changing theirs minds.

Early voters can't take their votes back. They can change their minds but can't change their vote.

If a dead body is found in a candidates bed a few days before an election, early voters are stuck with their vote.

Nothing sinister Mach.

(11-04-2013 08:16 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 05:24 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Still sounds like neither candidate is very appealing.

this has been my takeaway from all I've read about this race as well.

(11-04-2013 08:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 08:16 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 05:24 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Still sounds like neither candidate is very appealing.

this has been my takeaway from all I've read about this race as well.

Cuccinelli might have been until he went bonkers, McAuliffe never was.

Please explain how he went bonkers keeping in mind that the rich liberals like Bloomberg have funneled in 10x (literally) the funds as Cuccinelli for smear campaign ads.

Every negative thing you hear is a twist, with the one exception being he stayed in some dude's mansion for a couple of nights. If any of you pretend to know anything about politics, this isn't a big deal.

If Cuccinelli was so terrible, would Rand Paul & Ron Paul be campaigning for him?

Think about that for a minute.

(11-04-2013 09:10 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  If Cuccinelli was so terrible, would Rand Paul & Ron Paul be campaigning for him?
Think about that for a minute.

Same reason Bill Clinton campaigns for Obama.

I don't think he's terrible. I think it's time for republicans to realize that they're not going to win elections putting social issues out front. No matter what you believe about abortion and gay rights, you can't do a thing unless you win elections. And you can't win enough elections leading with those issues to get anything done.

(11-04-2013 09:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think he's terrible. I think it's time for republicans to realize that they're not going to win elections putting social issues out front. No matter what you believe about abortion and gay rights, you can't do a thing unless you win elections. And you can't win enough elections leading with those issues to get anything done.

You're a smart dude, but you screwed the pooch on this one.

Cuccinelli doesn't "put social issues out front"... McAulliffe does to make it seem Cuccinelli does.

Try keeping up.

(11-04-2013 09:33 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 09:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think he's terrible. I think it's time for republicans to realize that they're not going to win elections putting social issues out front. No matter what you believe about abortion and gay rights, you can't do a thing unless you win elections. And you can't win enough elections leading with those issues to get anything done.

You're a smart dude, but you screwed the pooch on this one.
Cuccinelli doesn't "put social issues out front"... McAulliffe does to make it seem Cuccinelli does.
Try keeping up.

Why do you think McAuliffe does that? Because those are the issues he can win on.

Don't feed the beast. Anything you say is going to get lifted out of context and spun by McAuliffe's people and the complicit media. So know that and don't feed it.

I think republicans don't know how to win elections. And that means sticking me with a country run by communists/socialists.

(11-04-2013 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think republicans don't know how to win elections. And that means sticking me with a country run by communists/socialists.

"knowing how to win elections" means you lie, cheat, steal, cover up, buy off, kill, etc.

eg. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/...ng-people/

No, Republicans I vote for don't know how to do that.

(11-04-2013 09:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 09:10 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  If Cuccinelli was so terrible, would Rand Paul & Ron Paul be campaigning for him?
Think about that for a minute.

Same reason Bill Clinton campaigns for Obama.

I don't think he's terrible. I think it's time for republicans to realize that they're not going to win elections putting social issues out front. No matter what you believe about abortion and gay rights, you can't do a thing unless you win elections. And you can't win enough elections leading with those issues to get anything done.

Why not? Democrats run exclusively on social issues. Unless you want to suggest our country is predominantly liberal....which it isn't, I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are about to witness several Republicans winning elections in the next year and a half.

BTW, Since Obama took office, the GOP has won 9 governorships, two Senate seats and 56 House seats. That's a lot of winning.