LA: Rasmussen: Landrieu(D) ahead of Kennedy(R) by 3%

[7,052,770]

So when Landrieu leads close, people still assume the race is going to close, but when Musgrove leads close, people still call me an idiot for thinking that that race is going to be close?

[7,052,770]

So when Landrieu leads close, people still assume the race is going to close, but when Musgrove leads close, people still call me an idiot for thinking that that race is going to be close?

Landrieu - Democrat in Republican state. History of having very close elections.

Musgrove - Defeated Democrat in Republican state.


Does this really need to be spelled out every damn time for you?

Polls trump what some Northern Republican hack thinks.

[7,052,770]

So when Landrieu leads close, people still assume the race is going to close, but when Musgrove leads close, people still call me an idiot for thinking that that race is going to be close?

Landrieu - Democrat in Republican state. History of having very close elections.

Musgrove - Defeated Democrat in Republican state.


Does this really need to be spelled out every damn time for you?

Polls trump what some Northern Republican hack thinks.

Harry, people always lose the argument that I'm a hack so don't waste your time.

As Franzl stated, some of us look beyond just the polls. You're really digging yourself quite a hole with your arrogant attitude about Musgrove.

Actually, polls are all that Wickerites can hold onto.  Analysis beyond the polls suggests a Musgrove win, as he's already won 2 statewide races and Wicker is such a weak candidate.  The polls show it close though.
As far as arrogance goes, I'm not sure what you're talking about.  If anyone, it's you who's being arrogant by proclaiming that Wicker wins a double digit victory when there's nothing to suggest that.

[7,052,770]

Analysis beyond the polls suggests a Musgrove win, as he's already won 2 statewide races and Wicker is such a weak candidate. 

He's already won two statewide races...but lost his last one by a comfortable margin. How many times do you want to argue this?

By the way, the "Wicker is weak" point is getting tiring. That (R) next to his name will be strong enough even if he is "weak."

There is no R next to his name (again).  Special elections are nonpartisan.

[7,052,770]

Analysis beyond the polls suggests a Musgrove win, as he's already won 2 statewide races and Wicker is such a weak candidate. 

He's already won two statewide races...but lost his last one by a comfortable margin. How many times do you want to argue this?

By the way, the "Wicker is weak" point is getting tiring. That (R) next to his name will be strong enough even if he is "weak."

There is no R next to his name (again).  Special elections are nonpartisan.

Well, I don't recall you ever saying that before. What a completely assinine quirk.

Anyway, I'll concede that that likely does help Musgrove out a bit but he's still losing and by more than ten points.

It's been discussed on just about every thread about this race...

[7,052,770]

So when Landrieu leads close, people still assume the race is going to close, but when Musgrove leads close, people still call me an idiot for thinking that that race is going to be close?

Landrieu - Democrat in Republican state. History of having very close elections.

Musgrove - Defeated Democrat in Republican state.


Does this really need to be spelled out every damn time for you?

Polls trump what some Northern Republican hack thinks.

Harry, people always lose the argument that I'm a hack so don't waste your time.

As Franzl stated, some of us look beyond just the polls. You're really digging yourself quite a hole with your arrogant attitude about Musgrove.

Actually, polls are all that Wickerites can hold onto.  Analysis beyond the polls suggests a Musgrove win, as he's already won 2 statewide races and Wicker is such a weak candidate.  The polls show it close though.
As far as arrogance goes, I'm not sure what you're talking about.  If anyone, it's you who's being arrogant by proclaiming that Wicker wins a double digit victory when there's nothing to suggest that.

Harry to illustrate why Musgrove has no chance, can you please find me the last time a Democrat even ran decent in a statewide race?  Lott got 63% in 2006 a terrible GOP year, and 61% in 2000.  Thad Cochran got 84% of the vote in 2002.  And last year, after you insisted that Eaves had a shot, Barbour got 57% of the vote.  Why would this year be any different?  Harry, you live in MS, it is not going anywhere anytime soon.

2007 - AG Jim Hood received more votes statewide than any of the Republican candidates.
2003 - AG Jim Hood, Sec. of State Eric Clark, and Insurance Commish George Dale won overwhelmingly statewide.

1999 - Ronnie Musgrove himself!

Anyway, the reason that I believe Musgrove will win is not because Musgrove is just an amazing knockout candidate, although I do believe he's pretty good considering how he's won statewide twice, but because Wicker is such a weak one.

[7,052,770]

I don't think you can judge this race from looking at Lott, Cochran, and Barbour.  They were popular incumbents with R next to their name, while Wicker is fairly unknown, against a former Governor, with no party label.

Wicker does not have a party label?  That is news to me

On election day, neither candidate will have a party label.  Isn't that correct, Harry?

That is true.  What's funny is that that fact has been stated in every thread about this race, yet Northern Republicans always say it's the first they've heard.  It just shows how little they're paying attention and just arrogantly assuming that they are still pulling the wool over the eyes of Mississippians, whom they believe to be subhuman simpletons.