Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 07:26 AM Jun 2014

Cochran vs McDaniel: Maybe we should reconsider the idea far right candidates are less electable?


McDaniels supporters are so pissed they are promising not to vote, so Cochran maybe the less electable one. That is beautiful result since it no longer pays to move right for either party. Maybe we need to reconsider the vote for the crazy repuke in the primary, and vote for so-called moderate that teabaggers will reject. Then the entire political system moves left.

Unfortunately allowing the republicans to move right, also encourages the Democrats to do it, which depresses the democratic vote.

Let's face it, if we are scared shitless of teabag republicans the Democrat doesn't have to do much to appeal to those of us who are progressive in any way.
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cochran vs McDaniel: Maybe we should reconsider the idea far right candidates are less electable? (Original Post) betterdemsonly Jun 2014 OP
It should be noted DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author HERVEPA Jun 2014 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author betterdemsonly Jun 2014 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author HERVEPA Jun 2014 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author betterdemsonly Jun 2014 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author HERVEPA Jun 2014 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author betterdemsonly Jun 2014 #8
This message was self-deleted by its author HERVEPA Jun 2014 #10
no shit. here's a clue folks: Doctor_J Jun 2014 #6
They think it is good for the Dem candidate betterdemsonly Jun 2014 #9
Obviously a divided GOP helps the Dems. HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #11
but it's not a competitive state. if Cochran loses there WILL BE A Doctor_J Jun 2014 #12
Yes, that was my point. HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #13
I fail to see what functional difference that makes. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #14
It doesn't. The point of the OP is that teabaggers are not "good for Dems" Doctor_J Jun 2014 #15
ah thanks, agree completely. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #16

DonCoquixote

(13,616 posts)
1. It should be noted
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 07:34 AM
Jun 2014

That Cochran had the solid support of the Republican Machine in Missippi, from Barbour on down. The Koches and Norquists will note that, and then make an example of people to break the GOP.

Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #1)

Response to HERVEPA (Reply #2)

Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #3)

Response to HERVEPA (Reply #4)

Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #5)

Response to HERVEPA (Reply #7)

Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #8)

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
6. no shit. here's a clue folks:
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:02 AM
Jun 2014

Whoever wins this primary will be senator. You really want it to be a teabagger?

 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
9. They think it is good for the Dem candidate
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:15 AM
Jun 2014

presuming the right wing candidate less electable, but if nominating a moderate is less electable in these states, than it isn't true. So it is neither good for the party or the country.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
11. Obviously a divided GOP helps the Dems.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:29 AM
Jun 2014

Under ordinary circumstances the GOP candidate would be a shoo-in to win that race.

In a more competitive state, with a higher number of Inds, the voters typically reject an extreme RW candidate.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
12. but it's not a competitive state. if Cochran loses there WILL BE A
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:50 AM
Jun 2014

Teabagger in that seat in the Senate. Period.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
13. Yes, that was my point.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:00 AM
Jun 2014

In a non-competitive state, hope for the least RW republican, as the Dem won't win. In a competitive state, hope for the most RW republican as the easiest opponant for the Dem.

The current situation in Miss is an outlier. The GOP is in a civil war. The teabaggers likely won't show up to support Cochran, so the Dems might have a chance of getting that seat. If McDaniels had won, likely the establishment GOP would have voted for him, and a RW extremist would be replacing a "moderate" RWer.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
14. I fail to see what functional difference that makes.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:00 PM
Jun 2014

The senate republicans obstruct everything they can obstruct.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
15. It doesn't. The point of the OP is that teabaggers are not "good for Dems"
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:05 PM
Jun 2014

The posts that claim they are are dumb.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
16. ah thanks, agree completely.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:07 PM
Jun 2014

The ideological differences within the far right republican party are minor.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Cochran vs McDaniel: Mayb...