IA: Rasmussen: Toss-up (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:27:51 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls
  2014 Senatorial Election Polls
  IA: Rasmussen: Toss-up (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: IA: Rasmussen: Toss-up  (Read 2155 times)
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

« on: August 14, 2014, 09:40:03 AM »

Iowa is a blue state, Braley would have won regardless of who ran, but against Ernst, who is crazy, he'll win easily.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2014, 05:14:05 PM »

Iowa is a blue state, Braley would have won regardless of who ran, but against Ernst, who is crazy, he'll win easily.
No, Latham would have no troubles stomping a joke candidate like Braley.

Latham would have been like Terri Lynn Land, overhyped, but not all that formidable in the end. Not going to argue about it, though, not worth the time.

Iowa is a blue state, Braley would have won regardless of who ran, but against Ernst, who is crazy, he'll win easily.

No it's not. It's purple with a blue tint that can easily be stomped with the right candidates. Braley is an out of touch elitist that thinks offering eggs is a public disturbance, insults a beloved senator, and talks down to his constituents. Ernst won't win as much as he will lose.

Iowa is D+1, for a rural state, that's quite blue. Ernst considers mass murder an accident and thinks that there were WMDs in Iraq hat were moved, which are real crazy positions to take.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2014, 06:02:19 PM »

Iowa is a blue state, Braley would have won regardless of who ran, but against Ernst, who is crazy, he'll win easily.

Terry Branstad and Chuck Grassley agree.

I didn't say there were no elected Republicans. It is worth noting that both of them have a long history of being elected. It's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't really consider Ernst to be on the same level as either one and that's who is running in this race, not Brandstad or Grassley.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2014, 08:36:16 PM »

Iowa is D+1, for a rural state, that's quite blue. Ernst considers mass murder an accident and thinks that there were WMDs in Iraq hat were moved, which are real crazy positions to take.

2004 called.  They want their campaign issues back.  Nobody outside of the leftist blogosphere cares if a candidate thinks there were WMDs in Iraq a decade ago.

Ernst is the one bringing up old issues, look it up. You should email her and tell her 2004 called, because she's the one trying to re-fight old issues.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2014, 08:55:16 PM »

Ernst is the one bringing up old issues, look it up. You should email her and tell her 2004 called, because she's the one trying to re-fight old issues.

She's not trying to refight anything.  She misspoke.  She later clarified her remarks, stating that Iraq had WMDs at one time - which they did.  Democrats are the ones trying to make an issue out of something that happened over 10 years ago.  Ernst hasn't raised anything since May. 

Your candidate is an out-of-touch elitist trial lawyer with serious character issues that is out-of-step with Iowa's farming tradition.  That is much more salient to 2014.

She didn't misspeak, she made a claim about WMDs being moved, that's not misspeaking at all. When you have to go to this length to explain for your candidate, you are losing the argument.

You sound like a cheap ad, so please, stop.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2014, 09:10:33 PM »

She didn't misspeak, she made a claim about WMDs being moved, that's not misspeaking at all. When you have to go to this length to explain for your candidate, you are losing the argument.

You sound like a cheap ad, so please, stop.

Two sentences is a long explanation?  I don't think so. 

When your best argument about why a candidate can't win is over something that happened 10 years ago, you're losing the election.

It's the fact that she's even talking about something that happened 10 years ago that makes her a bad candidate, especially something that was a failure. Besides that, she called mass murder an accident, which you could call misspeaking, but not knowing the difference between the words incident and accident is a pretty amateur mistake to make.  And recently, she backed off some statements she made about Agenda 21.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2014, 10:04:28 PM »

It's the fact that she's even talking about something that happened 10 years ago that makes her a bad candidate, especially something that was a failure.

You make it sound like Ernst is going around Iowa talking about WMDs in Iraq daily.  She misspoke once in front of an editorial meeting.  Where she was probably asked about it.  She then clarified her remarks.  And has moved on.  Unlike the left-wing blogosphere.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which has been picked up by nothing but the left-wing blogosphere.  And she admits she misspoke and has moved on, unlike the left-wing blogosphere.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is something nobody has heard of.  Can there be a gaffe about things people don't care about?

Meanwhille, your candidate insulted the state's sitting Senator and farmers and threatened to sue because the chickens she was using as theraputic animals for disabled kids were on his lawn.  He has trouble connecting with ordinary Iowans and is throwing away what should be an easy win in November.

All those things are going to come back on her in ads, and most voters won't be impressed. And, it's never a good thing when a candidate is talking about conspiracy theories and then walks it back. If it wasn't a problem, she wouldn't have taken it back.

Repeatedly misspeaking (if that's what you want to call it, lol) is the sign of a terrible candidate.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 14 queries.