Since the Repubs in NJ and Virginia didn't run against Obama, the only contests that could be counted as bellweathers were Congressional races in NY and California. and guess what? The Democrat won in a New York district that had been Republican for more than a century despite a million dollars from the right-wing sugar daddies and astroturfing carpetbagging tea baggers and birthers brought in from outside. Get it, conjobs? You got REJECTED in a heavily republican district. Then a true progressive easily won in Cal., replacing a Blue Dog.

Here's the scoop:
In the high-profile special election contest in upstate New York, Democrat Bill Owens won a U.S. House seat that had been held since 1872 by the Republicans. Owens maintained a steady 49-45 lead over Conservative Party nominee Bill Hoffman, who secured the support of the national GOP after Sarah Palin and other top Republicans rejected moderate Dede Scozzafava as the party's nominee. (An embittered Scozzafava endorsed Democrat Hoffman but her name remained on the ballot and she pulled about 5 percent.)

The New York special election was portrayed as a critical internal test for a Republican Party that is battling to redefine itself in advance of the 2010 congressional elections. But it turned into a critical external test, and a fratricidal GOP failed it.

Then came the news that Democrat John Garamendi, who campaigned as an unapologetic backer of sweeping health-care reform, had won a big victory in the race to fill an open U.S. House seat in northern California. Garamendi, a rabble-rousing critic of big insurance companies who beat the choices of much of the party establishment in the primary, keeps a Democratic seat Democratic. But he will serve as a decidedly more progressive representative than the member he succeeds, Ellen Tauscher, who was one of the few California Democrats to join the conservative Blue Dog Caucus.
_________________
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die - Lives in the Balance, Jackson Browne

I think GOPerp got the "scoop" too!

You guys sure are some scoopy guys, huh?

Dingus (where would we be without ya'?)

Steve1us wrote

LOL

You should be careful what you are scooping; you are liable to get dysentery.

Dingus wrote

Well, his didn't mention the Calif. one or that and mine was about bellweather contests overall and progressives winning. Reading and understanding just isn't high on your guys list of goals, is it?
_________________
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die - Lives in the Balance, Jackson Browne

gghhamr wrote

Notice that you didn't question the descriptions I offered of the forces behind your wingnut candidate. Maybe because they are accurate? Nice deflection try though.
_________________
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die - Lives in the Balance, Jackson Browne

Steve1us wrote

I just hope you keep believing it.

gghhamr wrote

That made a lot of sense. Another non-response response. Wow you are out of ammo aren't you?
_________________
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die - Lives in the Balance, Jackson Browne

Steve1us wrote

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him. Prov 26:4

Steve1us wrote

Maybe he didn't question your descriptions because they are childish and stupid. Anyone who uses those terms fails to make a point because they look like a nutjob. Its not different that the other side constantly throwing out the socialist term. When you use childish terms, people treat you the same way you treat a whining child... you ignore the whining.

gghhamr wrote

Quite the dodger aren't you? My post raised questions about the wingnut strategy of pushing moderates aside, losing in a historically red district and you respond with ... well, a wingnut non-response. Speaking of fools, you guys with your less than 20 percent of the electorate sure are fooling yourselves. Good.
_________________
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die - Lives in the Balance, Jackson Browne

PennRamsFan wrote

They were simply accurate, shorthand descriptions of the "forces" that were lined up behind their chosen candidate. The birthers are people who believe Obama isn't a legitimate President because he was born in Kenya. That is nutty. How would you describe them? The tea baggers are revolting against a laundry list of supposed infrations based on falsehoods and underlying bigotry. Should they be described in glowing terms? They are not credible and they should be called out for their actions. I simply called nut, nuts.
_________________
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die - Lives in the Balance, Jackson Browne

Steve1us wrote

How would I have described them? Right wing interests. Plain and simple. Name calling hurts your argument and integrity. I may be in the minority around here but the moment I see people using certain partisan words, I dismiss them. In my mind, if you are sinking to the level of using those terms, it seems obvious to me that those people have closed their mind to any critcal thought. They seem to be clearly on one side or the other and their speech is full of "talking points" that they were told, not opinions or ideas that were developed on their own. They are so entrenched in their opinion that even if facts were shown to them, they will disagree with the facts because it doesn't jive with the talking points that they embrace. Just my .02