Reply With Quote
I guess we'll have to wait and see - but if the numbers are within the margin of error, I don't think Angle will just concede.
No, they aren't. I'm with you. I think fraud.
I guess we'll have to wait and see - but if the numbers are within the margin of error, I don't think Angle will just concede.
That stupid stupid Sharron Angle got what she deserved.
that she was going to get away without talking to the media and hiding her insane positions. I guess there won't be any chicken bartering in the senate, at least not literally.
I hate Sharron Angle just in case you couldn't tell.
But you probably could.
Well, republicans I think will have the last three uncalled seats.
In Colorado, it is favoring the republican. In Washington, the democrat is favored, but more of the eastern states that are primarily conservative are the majority of the unreported. As for Alaska, the democrat only had 25% last I saw. The write ins outnumber the republican 39% to 35%. However, I heard there are 160 write in candidates. Either way, it's a republican vote, which ever wins.
Tea Party may well have cost the GOP the Senate. Their crazy candidates in NV and DE were non-starters. Reid was ripe for the picking, and the GOP had a strong former House member lined up for the Senate race in DE, and he was favored in the polls before The Witch took him out.
Laugh of the evening: there was a candidate named Ashijian running as an independent for Senator in NV. He or she finished behind "None of these candidates". Probably time to give up the political thing if you can't outpoll voter apathy.
You're joking, right?
They have won 10 of the 15 senate candidates they endorsed so far, and 3 off them aren't decided yet. That's 83.3%
No, I'm not joking. The GOP failed to take the Senate, and the margin may well be two crazy fringe Tea Party candidates in states that had more compe ive general election candidates to offer.
How many actual "Tea Party" Senate candidates were there, anyway? I'm not talking endorsements, I'm talking Tea Party new candidates. I can only recall the guy who knocked off the GOP in bent in UT, the two crazy ladies, and Joe Miller. Endorsed candidates don't count for . They're just jumping on board, but they are Washington, through and through.
Taking over the Senate was a huge longshot. Its not fair to see anything cost the GOP the senate when they had such long odds at getting it to begin with.
We disagree on if they count or not. I say if they were endorsed, that they count. RINO's like McCain were not endorsed.
2/3 = 0.833 ?
Got damn.
Have you ever, in the history of this board, gotten a fact right? Seriously?
ALASKA
U.S. Senate: Joe Miller to defeat Lisa Murkowski (I) and Scott McAdams (D) - UNDECIDED, PROBABLE LOSS
CALIFORNIA
U.S. Senate: Carly Fiorina to defeat Barbara Boxer - LOSS
COLORADO
U.S. Senate: Ken Buck to defeat Michael Bennet - WIN
CONNECTICUT
U.S. Senate: Linda McMahan over Richard Blumenthal - LOSS
DELAWARE
U.S. Senate: Christine O’Donnell to defeat Chris Coons - LOSS
IDAHO
U.S. Senate: Mike Crapo to defeat Tom Sullivan - WIN
KANSAS
U.S. Senate: Jerry Moran to defeat Lisa Johnston - WIN
NEVADA
U.S. Senate: Sharron Angle to defeat Harry Reid - LOSS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
U.S. Senate: Kelly Ayotte over Paul Hodes - WIN
NORTH DAKOTA
U.S. Senate: John Hoeven to defeat Tracy Potter - WIN
OKLAHOMA
U.S. Senate: Tom Coburn to defeat Jim Rogers - WIN
OHIO
U.S. Senate: Rob Portman over Lee Fisher - WIN
PENNSYLVANIA
U.S. Senate: Pat Toomey over Joe Sestak - WIN
SOUTH DAKOTA
U.S. Senate: John Thune – unopposed - WIN
UTAH
U.S. Senate: Mike Lee to defeat Sam Granato - WIN
WASHINGTON
U.S. Senate: Dino Rossi to defeat Patty Murray - UNDECIDED, TOO CLOSE TO CALL
WEST VIRGINIA
U.S. Senate: John Raese over Joe Manchin - LOSS
So it's 10-5 with 2 undecided, one of which they probably lose and the other way too close to call yet.
, let me provide actual sources, since unlike WC's, the stats are not from my ass:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/2010electionsdashboard
http://www.teapartyexpress.org/endorse/
I posted the link I was using earlier. This is the list of senate candidates with tea party support:
Alaska: Joe Miller
Arkansas: John Boozman
Colorado: Ken Buck
Delaware: Christine O'Donnell
Florida: Marco Rubio
Idaho: Mike Crapo
Kansas: Jerry Moran
Kentucky: Rand Paul
Nevada: Sharron Angle
North Dakota: John Hoeven
Oklahoma: Tom Coburn
South Carolina: Jim DeMint
South Dakota: John Thune
Utah: Mike Lee
Washington: Dino Rossi
There is no individual tea party that supports all state races. Yours is a false one. They are not an organized national group. The ones I posted had actual tea party support. Not a just a site saying who to vote for.
Here is the list I used, again:
Tea Party Candidates of the 2010 Midterm Election
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-03-2010 at 05:57 AM.
Why doesn't yours have Rand Paul?
Because the Tea Party's web admin, much like its candidates, is a moron.
Murkowski 41%
Miller 34%
76% reporting.
Endorsement from the ultimate teabagger isn't teabagger support?
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-...a/386510153434
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpuQTTFpdNg
If you say so. Their was no single party, or list agreed upon. At least mine is marked as an "Unofficial list."
Look, I don't know if my list was complete or not. Fact is though, I was correct by the list I used, and I posted the list in a different thread. I was correct by that list. What I will do is compile the results of both lists for the senate. I'm not going to bother adding the others because of time. However, I assure you, the Tea party supported candidate will still have a nice gain.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-03-2010 at 06:11 PM.
Murkowski probably did win. However, we don't know that till the write in votes are tallied. Write in got 41%. Miller got 34.2%. Now I would say it is statistically impossible that enough of the write in votes were not for Murkowski if there were not so many write in candidates. However, there were more than 150 of them. If we assume each of them average 200 people, then that is 30000 votes. So far, the vote is 81,876 for write ins vs. 68,288 for Miller, or just a 13,588 difference. We don't know why there were so many write in candidate. For all I know, maybe it is normal for Alaska. Unless you can provide some good insight to Alaska politics, I suggest being cautious over who won.
Murkowski 41%
Miller 34%
76% reporting.
Joe Miller supporters flooded the write-in rolls and were able to get dozens of names added to the list.
Right now, that 41% is for ALL write-ins.
Conventional wisdom says most (enough, anyway) are for Murkowski. But, that won't be known until they are counted.
What would be cool is if there were more than one Murkowski on the write-in ballot. The voter would have to differentiate.
What a s bag you are, hoping Alaska voters are disenfranchised by a scam run by teabaggers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
