PPP: Obama leads Rubio by 11, Palin by 9, Gingrich by 6, Huck by 3, Romney by 1

[Keystone Phil]

It's a shame Rubio didn't run for the Senate in 2006...

[Keystone Phil]

It's a shame Rubio didn't run for the Senate in 2006...

You think he could beat Saint Katherine Harris?

Yeah but I was crazy enough to think Rubio could beat Crist in the 2010 primary. Silly me. 

[Keystone Phil]

It's a shame Rubio didn't run for the Senate in 2006...

You think he could beat Saint Katherine Harris?

Yeah but I was crazy enough to think Rubio could beat Crist in the 2010 primary. Silly me. 

Yeah, but Crist was a RINO while Harris was a heroine of the conservative movement.

We see how Harris folds when faced with a real campaign.

It really doesn't matter. I can settle for a President Rubio in 2020 after two terms of President Santorum or Christie. 

[Keystone Phil]

Even if Rubio beat Harris he'd still lose the general in 2006 anyway.

Nelson was vulnerable so to say with confidence that Rubio would lose is...well...typical for you/idiotic.

[Keystone Phil]

Even if Rubio beat Harris he'd still lose the general in 2006 anyway.

Nelson was vulnerable so to say with confidence that Rubio would lose is...well...typical for you/idiotic.

It was 2006. The Republicans didn't pick up any Senate seats for a reason.

And yet Tom Kean only lost by what? Eight points? That was in New Jersey. In 2006. And that would have been a pick up.

[Keystone Phil]

Even if Rubio beat Harris he'd still lose the general in 2006 anyway.

Nelson was vulnerable so to say with confidence that Rubio would lose is...well...typical for you/idiotic.

It was 2006. The Republicans didn't pick up any Senate seats for a reason.

And yet Tom Kean only lost by what? Eight points? That was in New Jersey. In 2006. And that would have been a pick up.

Because Menendez was scandal-ridden. And yet he still did worse than Bush did in 2004.

And Nelson's ratings were weak in a swing state. My point is that you can't say with near certainty what would happen.

[Keystone Phil]

Just like Burr was this year in other words.

2010  was more of a wave than 2006 was in Democratic areas and Rubio is a far stronger candidate than Elaine Marshall. In other words, your comparison was a total joke.

[Keystone Phil]

Fun fact: Christie was the US attorney who opened the investigation on Menendez just 60 days before the 2006 election and then leaked the investigation to the press.
I'm sure it was all a big coincidence.

Awww. So bitter.

[Keystone Phil]

Fun fact: Christie was the US attorney who opened the investigation on Menendez just 60 days before the 2006 election and then leaked the investigation to the press.
I'm sure it was all a big coincidence.

Awww. So bitter.

Uhh...
Menendez won.

Bitter about Christie.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, yeah, must have been a giant conspiracy. Along with the Republicans Christie has prosecuted.

[Keystone Phil]

Just like Burr was this year in other words.

2010 was more of a wave than 2006 was in Democratic areas and Rubio is a far stronger candidate than Elaine Marshall. In other words, your comparison was a total joke.

Rubio couldn't even break 50% despite Crist collapsing amongst Republicans. He is not some savior-type candidate which is exactly what the GOP would've needed in 2006 (like for example Hoeven could've been). Can't you just admit Nelson would've been heavily favored?

Heavily favored? No. 2006 wasn't a 2010.

Crist might have collapsed amongst Republicans but he was still on the ballot and there are still enough Moderate Heroes out there. Amazing how in a three person race, you have to spin it that 49% isn't good enough for Rubio.

[Keystone Phil]

Now what makes Rubio such an amazing fantastic A-list candidate he could've done what no other Republican did that year? There's a difference between "competant" and that. You almost sound like you are arguing Rubio would be favored. Really he just strikes me as "generic Republican" and he performed about as well as I'd expect one to. "Generic Republican" will obviously not win in 2006.

Sure, you think he's "generic." You don't give credit to the opposition. Ever.

Meanwhile, everyone else recognizes his talent. His campaign was terrific. To win by double digits in a three way race in a swing state against a sitting Governor that wasn't terribly unpopular is impressive. Again, you won't acknowledge it because you are a bitter person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perception of Rubio has gone from "he's a fire breathing far right wing danger" to "he's competent and respectable." I'm not saying Rubio would have won but he certainly would have had a good shot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He was running against two of the biggest jokes in Colorado politics. Again, terrible comparison.

[Keystone Phil]

The guy was always a partisan hack, so there is nothing really extraordinary about the way he tried to influence the election.

You continue to ignore that he has prosecuted Republicans, too, but you want to lecture others about hackery. Classic.

Why do you still sport that Independent avatar? You're one of the biggest hacks for the Dems here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it wasn't scrapped so I guess you won't be stunned.

[Keystone Phil]

He had the national tide on his side as Meek basically being a spoiler since he never had any chance and was a spoiler. He didn't do anything impressive enough to do what no other Republican did in 2006 which as I noted and you ignored was basically a direct mirror of 2010.

He won by double digits in a swing state after being portrayed as being outside of the mainstream throughout the entire campaign.

Nelson's ratings were worse than Crist's. Please stop hiding behind this "No other Republican could pick up a seat in 2006." That doesn't affect individual races.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But Rubio wasn't the one sitting with what? An approval rating in the high 30s or low 40s? A challenger doesn't have to be Messiah-like to win in that environment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They still weren't worse than Tancredo and Maes and you know it.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, I don't doubt that he might have prosecuted some token corrupt Republican. That doesn't change the fact that he "remembered" that Menendez was corrupt only when the 2006 election approached and then leaked it to the media.

Ha! "Token." More proof that you're not interested in knowing anything that might be positive about the guy and are only interested in bashing him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Other" would be more appropriate then. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they should have just convicted him so you could claim that it's even more of a sham. Here's a news flash: investigating high ranking officials isn't something you breeze through. But you know that and, again, are only interested in trashing someone.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, I don't doubt that he might have prosecuted some token corrupt Republican. That doesn't change the fact that he "remembered" that Menendez was corrupt only when the 2006 election approached and then leaked it to the media.

Ha! "Token." More proof that you're not interested in knowing anything that might be positive about the guy and are only interested in bashing him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Other" would be more appropriate then. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they should have just convicted him so you could claim that it's even more of a sham. Here's a news flash: investigating high ranking officials isn't something you breeze through. But you know that and, again, are only interested in trashing someone.

1)You latch onto a single word and avoid answering the facts.

What's the question? "Was it or was it not a conspiracy that the investigation was leaked to the press?" I don't know. Do you know for certain that it was?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't compare Rangel's and Water's investigations in the House (which were jokes but you, of course, ignore that) to that of a U.S. Attorney's. They are separate.

[Keystone Phil]

Let's just say that the timing and Christie's past and future don't allow us to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, let's say that.    Give me a shout when you decide to be even somewhat fair to the opposition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Enough evidence that four years of investigating isn't unheard of.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Enough evidence that four years of investigating isn't unheard of.

What's unheard of is four years of investigation producing zero evidence. If the investigation is still active then it seems like a waste of time to me.

There are other problems to consider: Christie's successor is responsible for handling the situation. Guess who suggested the successor? Here's a hint: the President picks new U.S. Attorneys and both Senators from the state are of the President's party.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil: Nelson had a 44-25 approval rating in July 27, 2006 according to Quinnipiac.  

Thanks. I knew they weren't as bad as Phil is claiming but didn't have a cite.

Not exactly a great reference since it was taken in July. At that point, it was pretty clear the alternative would be Katherine Harris so quite a few people might have thought to themselves, "Uh...we certainly like him when all things are considered."

[Keystone Phil]

I'm happy to see you admitting that there is politicking involved in the prosecution of elected officials (Don Siegelman anyone?).

Uh...what I was saying was there is politics involved in who becomes U.S. Attorney and you've conveniently ignored that Menendez got to suggest Christie's replacement to the President.
Now of course you believe that it's only the dastardly Democrats who do such a thing while Christie was a paradigm of ethics, but it's a start nonetheless.

That was an absolutely brutal twisting of my words, by the way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct and Harris didn't face a single serious challenger in that primary so I'll say again that it was clear that Katherine Harris was the alternative to Bill Nelson.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct and Harris didn't face a single serious challenger in that primary so I'll say again that it was clear that Katherine Harris was the alternative to Bill Nelson.

And Sharron Angle was the alternative this year but Reid's numbers still remained in the gutter.
Nelson might never have been uber-popular but he was a serviceable senator. And that kind of Democrat would never lose in a year like 2006.

Angle was seen as a nutcase (like Harris) and her total failure of a campaign has been exposed. Assuming  perception of Rubio would be the same as it is now, he wouldn't have had those problems.

Here's where I'll concede a point that will end this entire argument: I just remembered that Rubio wasn't even elected Speaker until the end of 2006. Not to say that he definitely couldn't have beaten Harris in a primary but he wasn't seen as that much of a star at that point.

Maybe he should have just run for Governor in 2006... 

[Keystone Phil]

My point was that even with an opponent as crazy as Angle, Reid's favorability and approval numbers didn't improve at all.

Fair enough. Then again, do we know how accurate those ratings are since polling is apparently inaccurate in Nevada? For all we know, Reid could have had ratings in the mid 40s as well.