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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)18. Most of those idiots drained votes from Cuchinelli
Without them it would have indeed been a blow out.
There is another candidate that became POTUS due to a strong third party candidate and I do not mean Bush. More like 1992.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
But as to his point, why aren't we winning huge, esp. with Sarvis siphoning off GOP votes
hooverville29
Nov 2013
#3
PW said conservatives vs hard core progressives end in conservative victories in New England.
NuclearDem
Nov 2013
#28
D'oh, that's right. I don't know why I pictured New England as being larger.
NuclearDem
Nov 2013
#32
I'm on pins and needles with the 1% difference right now. It's going the way of the Rove playbook.
ancianita
Nov 2013
#10
I hope people remember that during the 2016 election when they complain that
Auntie Bush
Nov 2013
#39
When Dems nominate people who aren't too left wing in border states--they win. Look at Missouri
Pretzel_Warrior
Nov 2013
#38