Kucinich is Out

S

Spokker

CAGiversary!
A Congressman with some big brass balls lost a primary today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...t-to-marcy-kaptur-in-ohio-democratic-primary/

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a liberal establishment in the House, conceded defeat Tuesday night in Ohio's 9th district Democratic primary to longtime Rep. Marcy Kaptur.

...

During the campaign, Kucinich -- an outspoken anti-war liberal -- attacked Kaptur for voting to fund "Bush's wars," voting for the Patriot Act, backing the Keystone XL pipeline and opposing gay marriage, among other things. Kaptur, meanwhile, slammed Kucinich for voting against bills that would have brought in funds for new manufacturing jobs and veterans' care.

Outside groups also jumped into the mix: For instance, the Texas-based political action committee Campaign for Primary Accountability ran an ad charging Kaptur of paying her taxes late.

After the results were in, Kaptur said on MSNBC that voters were interested in jobs and the economy.
Click to expand...
I'm puzzled that despite the apparent discontent with those in Congress, this district collectively decided to vote in another politician who is more of the same. They say he lost due to redistricting, but those more familiar with the local politics will have to speak on that.

I mean, this guy tried to impeach Cheney. Not sure why he's not president.
 
Most of the electorate is fucking stupid. Well, uninformed, which let's be frank here leads to stupidity. The Repulicons achieved their goals via redistricting (just as Dems would) well. Kaptur pretty much ran the typical negative campaigns on radio whereas Dennis did not from what I was told. And people say they don't like the negative campaigning! What do they know? Oh yeah nothing meaningful. Therefore, more of the same...

This is a dark day for democracy. Russ Feingold down, now Dennis. Is Bernie Sanders next? I don't think Vermonters will let the corporate elites take him away. Sheeeiiittt!!! They are challenging corporate personhood!

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/7/vermont_voters_back_grassroots_campaign_to
 
Lol Ohio.

They get rid of Kucinich, vote Joe the Plumber as an actual candidate for the general, and nearly give Santorum a win all in the same day. So glad I left that rotten state.
 
What's so bad about Kaptur? She's pretty populist though doesn't seem to be as concerned about civil liberties as kucinich was.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What's so bad about Kaptur? She's pretty populist though doesn't seem to be as concerned about civil liberties as kucinich was.[/QUOTE]

Still, Kucinich was clearly the better choice.
 
Imagine if Ron Paul lost in his TX district primary.

Although, truth be told, that would be hilarious to see all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and conspiracies from the Paulistinians.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Imagine if Ron Paul lost in his TX district primary.

Although, truth be told, that would be hilarious to see all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and conspiracies from the Paulistinians.[/QUOTE]

I've surprisingly never heard of the term "Paulistinians" before. That is just fantastic.
 
Damn, looks like republicans and democrats are trolling each other in Ohio by voting in each others' primaries...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Imagine if Ron Paul lost in his TX district primary.

Although, truth be told, that would be hilarious to see all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and conspiracies from the Paulistinians.[/QUOTE]

It'd probably be blamed on something like a group of government officials abusing their power to realign the districts to keep him out of power or such.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It'd probably be blamed on something like a group of government officials abusing their power to realign the districts to keep him out of power or such.[/QUOTE]

Less than half of the new district, a barbell-shaped piece of land that stretches about 100 miles along Lake Erie, is made up of Mr. Kucinich’s old turf, and he has spent recent weeks traversing it in an all-out effort to get votes.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/for-dennis-kucinich-a-possible-last-hurrah.html

1) Nobody said anything about 'abuse of power' except you.

2) It's not just a trend this week that you speak ill-informed. It's pretty fucking universal.
 
Did I say anyone specifically said anything about "abuse of power"?

It's not just a trend this week that you make up crap and claim someone said it. It's pretty universal.
 
It's just amusing to me that some members are salivating at the idea of Ron Paul going down and the expected response of those who support him - that Paul's failure to be reelected would be attributed to some grand conspiracy to keep him out of office, instead of voters just no longer buying his "brand of crazy".

Meanwhile, when Kucinich is out, well, it's because of some grand conspiracy designed to keep him out of office and no one even considers the possibility that voters are just no longer buying his "brand of crazy".

Yup. No double standards here.
 
For someone who seems to dislike politicians, bob would make an excellent one. Next thing you know he'll be asking us to define "is".
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's just amusing to me that some members are salivating at the idea of Ron Paul going down and the expected response of those who support him - that Paul's failure to be reelected would be attributed to some grand conspiracy to keep him out of office, instead of voters just no longer buying his "brand of crazy".

Meanwhile, when Kucinich is out, well, it's because of some grand conspiracy designed to keep him out of office and no one even considers the possibility that voters are just no longer buying his "brand of crazy".

Yup. No double standards here.[/QUOTE]

Well, one is hypothetical and simplistic.

One is factual and involves substantial redistricting. Conspiracy? Nobody said conspiracy. I linked to an article that discussed just how significant his redistricting was. No conspiracy, just a story about shit that actually happened. No illuminati, no federal reserve, no David Icke lizard people. Just the state congress of Ohio, which happens to be majority Republican.

Doubling down on this phony equivalence is jaw-droppingly fucking moronic - and that's including the "UncleBob Handicap."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's just amusing to me that some members are salivating at the idea of Ron Paul going down and the expected response of those who support him - that Paul's failure to be reelected would be attributed to some grand conspiracy to keep him out of office, instead of voters just no longer buying his "brand of crazy".

Meanwhile, when Kucinich is out, well, it's because of some grand conspiracy designed to keep him out of office and no one even considers the possibility that voters are just no longer buying his "brand of crazy".

Yup. No double standards here.[/QUOTE]

Who said Paul wouldn't be re elected because voters would stop "buying his brand of crazy?"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']One is factual and involves substantial redistricting.[/QUOTE]

So - you can prove that the redistricting played a significant role in Kucinich 's inability to get reelected?
 
I'll take that as a "No, sir, I have absolutely no proof.". Instead of any kind of poll or survey (oh, hey, voting is a kind of poll or survey) that shows people just liked the other candidate more, your default position is to blame the loss on redistricting. Then, later, you point out that the opposing political party had control of the redistricting. Yup.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'll take that as a "No, sir, I have absolutely no proof.".[/QUOTE]

As someone who gets bent out of shape because you never "used those words" when alluding to something that you're afraid to take a principled stance on, you certainly like to put words in other peoples' mouths.

You're a whinging brat who can dish it out, but can't take it for a moment withing crying to mother. Yet you claim to be a grown adult.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As someone who gets bent out of shape because you never "used those words" when alluding to something that you're afraid to take a principled stance on, you certainly like to put words in other peoples' mouths.[/QUOTE]

The painfully obvious difference being that I didn't say you said that - I said I'd take what you said as that.
 
The difference is Paul keeps running for president repeatedly and sticking in the races long after its clear he has no chance and the country in general couldn't give a crap less about him.

Kucinich, to the best of my knowledge, only ran the one time and dropped out quickly.

And his seat loss likely was due to the redistricting as he had a pretty solid base in his district before, despite being just as fringe on the national stage as Paul.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The difference is Paul keeps running for president repeatedly and sticking in the races long after its clear he has no chance and the country in general couldn't give a crap less about him.

Kucinich, to the best of my knowledge, only ran the one time and dropped out quickly.

And his seat loss likely was due to the redistricting as he had a pretty solid base in his district before, despite being just as fringe on the national stage as Paul.[/QUOTE]
It's sad when someone like Kucinich, who is half as crazy as Paul, is considered just as fringe, if not more, on the national stage. Scale be damned!

*Not directed at you, just an observation about the dichotomy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Kucinich, to the best of my knowledge, only ran the one time and dropped out quickly.[/quote]

Twice (as opposed to Paul's three runs). Yeah, Paul sticks in the races longer though.

And his seat loss likely was due to the redistricting as he had a pretty solid base in his district before, despite being just as fringe on the national stage as Paul.
Click to expand...

How much of the loss was due to the redistricting though? Do we really know if he had faced a Kaptur-esque opponent in is old district, that he still wouldn't have lost simply because the people find Kaptur to be the better candidate?
 
This, for anyone lost in the conversation, is Myke's response to me asking if he had any actual proof that the primary reason Kucinich failed to be re-elected was due to redistricting.

Take that as you will, fellow observers.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This, for anyone lost in the conversation, is Myke's response to me asking if he had any actual proof that the primary reason Kucinich failed to be re-elected was due to redistricting.

Take that as you will, fellow observers.[/QUOTE]

I don't blame him.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']'meh, I don't either. It's not like he has any actual proof to back up his claim.[/QUOTE]

Ahahah UB, you're a real pisser.
 
Hey maybe now Republicans can shut up about "liberals" in government since now there won't be any more, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders and maybe Al Franken
 
Right-o. Two districts combined into one. Two incumbent Democrats. One must lose, and that loss is necessarily the result of redistricting.
 
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/dennis_kucinich_and_wackiness/singleton/?mobile.html[/QUOTE]

War is the health of the state, and he opposed aggressive wars and the war on drugs. While he advocated another kind of fiat currency, he still opposed the Fed.

Kucinich was more anti-government than the vast majority of the GOP. Bad day for peaceniks.
 
The loss of a Democrat is the direct result of redistricting.

Kucinich's loss, specifically? The people liked his opponent better?
 
Damn. Ohio is becoming more and more like Indiana. Republican politicians don't run on a platform of smaller government. They rail against "entitlement culture".

Basically, Republican voters have been brainwashed into believing that Indianapolis is filled with blacks, illegals, and poor white trash that want nothing more than to suck the rural areas dry. The subtle racism is getting ridiculous.

If that doesn't work, family values get trotted out like a show pony. Blame abortion and gay marriage and watch the conservatives swoon like the Beatles just landed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top