Favorite part is National Review's response (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332211/who-d-have-thunk-it-andrew-stuttaford#):
QuoteBoth The Economist and Nurse Bloomberg endorse Obama today.
Liberal establishment backs liberal candidate.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Definitely deserves its own thread.
I love this thread.
The Economist already supported Obama in 2008, but I'm pretty sure Bloomberg didn't cast his hat back then.
I think this is the first time the Economist's endorsed an incumbent since Dole - maybe even earlier.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:37:40 PM
I think this is the first time the Economist's endorsed an incumbent since Dole - maybe even earlier.
They endorsed Dole it looks like.
I like Nurse Bloomberg. :(
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 07:40:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:37:40 PM
I think this is the first time the Economist's endorsed an incumbent since Dole - maybe even earlier.
They endorsed Dole it looks like.
Checking their endorsement history, it actually looks like it's the first time The Economist endorse an incumbent, indeed.
http://www.economist.com/node/12499760?story_id=12499760
Neither endorsement was ringing, and both seemed driven more by concern over Mitt's flip-flopping than by satisfaction with Obama.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 07:45:21 PM
I like Nurse Bloomberg. :(
We'll just have to disagree on him. I think he is a nosy zit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 07:49:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 07:45:21 PM
I like Nurse Bloomberg. :(
We'll just have to disagree on him. I think he is a nosy zit.
:lol: Yes, I just suppose we will.
PUT THAT BIG GULP DOWN
BIG GULPS ARE FOR CLOSERS
IS THAT JELLY DOUGHNUT IN YOUR FOOTLOCKER?
Quote from: Kleves on November 01, 2012, 07:49:28 PM
Neither endorsement was ringing, and both seemed driven more by concern over Mitt's flip-flopping than by satisfaction with Obama.
Still think it is revealing of NR's insanity that The Economist is considered Liberal Establishment.
Furrigners are all crypto commies.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 07:55:43 PM
Still think it is revealing of NR's insanity that The Economist is considered Liberal Establishment.
Probably not nearly as surprising as it is to
The Economist :lol:
But they came to terms with that particular designation by Americans over 20 years ago.
I think the Economist is the definition of the liberal establishment, in both the UK sense and the US sense. I can't think of a more bien pensant paper.
The Atlantic, The New Yorker and The New Republic are far more clearly related to the Democratic establishment, and TNR's relative centrism (Clintonite, Liberaltarian arguably) would probably make it the closest. I think The Nation is too far to the right to be the equivalent, and The Economist is generally pretty esoteric in it's politics. In terms of temprement and affiliation it's probably about equally split between Matthew Yglesias and Reihan Salaam, meaning that it's primarily concerned with efficient, technocratic government and well-regulated, lightly managed economy more than tribal affiliation or class interest. The Democratic Party and the "Liberal Establishment" is a creature of tribal affiliation and class interest before policy, so I don't think The Economist falls in that at all.
Actually, that's kind of an interesting question. I don't know if TNR's wonkish Clintonite bent or The New Yorker's pretentious, vaguely patrician, highly tribal Liberalism better represent "The Liberal Establishment." Probably best to say that they both represent it, and that they aren't mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 08:18:06 PM
The Democratic Party and the "Liberal Establishment" is a creature of tribal affiliation and class interest before policy, so I don't think The Economist falls in that at all.
The Economist's first love is the free market and free trade.
But isn't there a Liberal Establishment and a liberal establishment? On the one hand a group with links to the Democrats and policy wonkishness like TNR or the New Yorker or whatever else, on the other a group which is simply the upper middle-class bien pensants who drink DOC wine, go to their farmers market, listen to PBS and, to relax, Coltrane, they probably watch BBC America. The Economist clearly isn't part of the Democrat establishment but I think they're a pretty liberal establishment paper.
The fact that they're foreign, maybe a little elitist in tone and written with Oxbridge brio and omniscience helps.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:06:17 PM
The fact that they're foreign, maybe a little elitist in tone and written with Oxbridge brio and omniscience helps.
Exactly. Feeds directly into the American anti-intellectualism that labels anything like that as commie pinko lefty pap.
And for the record, I don't even drink wine, thank you. :mad:
Furrigners smell.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 09:12:56 PM
And for the record, I don't even drink wine, thank you. :mad:
Me neither. But if I did, they'd have ice. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:06:17 PM
But isn't there a Liberal Establishment and a liberal establishment? On the one hand a group with links to the Democrats and policy wonkishness like TNR or the New Yorker or whatever else, on the other a group which is simply the upper middle-class bien pensants who drink DOC wine, go to their farmers market, listen to PBS and, to relax, Coltrane, they probably watch BBC America. The Economist clearly isn't part of the Democrat establishment but I think they're a pretty liberal establishment paper.
The fact that they're foreign, maybe a little elitist in tone and written with Oxbridge brio and omniscience helps.
He we are running in to conflicting usages of the term Liberal. To my mind, the American usage of the term implies a degree of hostility-or at least skepticism- of lightly regulated capitalism that is almost entirely at odds with The Economist's positions dating back to the Corn Laws.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 09:32:49 PM
He we are running in to conflicting usages of the term Liberal. To my mind, the American usage of the term implies a degree of hostility-or at least skepticism- of lightly regulated capitalism that is almost entirely at odds with The Economist's positions dating back to the Corn Laws.
But I think the NRO is using 'liberal establishment' to mean sneering, elitist, DC & NY cocktail party-goers - not the the Liberal Establishment. I think it's liberal establishment as a cultural judgement not as a political elite.
Edit: Incidentally I can't stand Yglesias. Him, Klein and Sorkin make the American left almost unelectable :bleeding: <_<
So you're not using the American definition of Liberal, but rather the definition of Liberal Establishment by the feverishly insane and paranoid modern NRO? You might be right, but they're just a bunch of incompetent children of sightly more gifted demagogues who hate that they'll never be smart enough for The New Yorker.
I think Economist readers are more likely to aspire to be intellectuals than sophisticates.
The Republican Intramural Bloodletting that will happen if Obama wins again and the dems take back the senate will be entertaining. I suspect the blame will fall on those who Teapartiers were attacking all cycle.
We never lost the Senate.
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2012, 09:41:21 PM
The Republican Intramural Bloodletting that will happen if Obama wins again and the dems take back the senate will be entertaining. I suspect the blame will fall on those who Teapartiers were attacking all cycle.
Agreed. My suspicion is that they'll point to 2010 and say the reason they lost was because they weren't conservative enough.
As an aside this is the first time the Economist's endorsed an incumbent. If Obama wins it'll also be the first time there's been three consecutive two term Presidents since Jefferson-Monroe-Madison.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:35:32 PM
Edit: Incidentally I can't stand Yglesias. Him, Klein and Sorkin make the American left almost unelectable :bleeding: <_<
I can understand the hatred. Both him and Salaam are almost pure Technocrats, and I'm half-convinced the entirety of your political convictions is " So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
I love a good technocrat. I wish every country had a Monti :(
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
We never lost the Senate.
You sorta did until August :angry:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:35:32 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 09:32:49 PM
He we are running in to conflicting usages of the term Liberal. To my mind, the American usage of the term implies a degree of hostility-or at least skepticism- of lightly regulated capitalism that is almost entirely at odds with The Economist's positions dating back to the Corn Laws.
But I think the NRO is using 'liberal establishment' to mean sneering, elitist, DC & NY cocktail party-goers - not the the Liberal Establishment. I think it's liberal establishment as a cultural judgement not as a political elite.
Edit: Incidentally I can't stand Yglesias. Him, Klein and Sorkin make the American left almost unelectable :bleeding: <_<
Klein's solid. Yglesias can be interesting but's a prick. Sorkin is a huge asshole (though very talented)
I'm not really a fan of The Economist. The "omniscient voice" combined with being just a bit wrong all the time- whenever they write about an issue where I'm familiar they say dumb shit. I don't mean just their political perspective, which unsurprisingly I don't share. I mean in terms of their reporting.
Even in their endorsement they made charges against Obama that don't make sense. How do you criticize Obamacare from the perspective that he surrendered too much control to left-wing Democrats while at the same time praising Obamacare for getting universal coverage? The bill gets coverage through a relatively conservative mechanism; the left-wingers wanted single payer. And I am not sure who they are referring to when they say "bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Obama."
Quote from: Count on November 01, 2012, 10:37:42 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:35:32 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 09:32:49 PM
He we are running in to conflicting usages of the term Liberal. To my mind, the American usage of the term implies a degree of hostility-or at least skepticism- of lightly regulated capitalism that is almost entirely at odds with The Economist's positions dating back to the Corn Laws.
But I think the NRO is using 'liberal establishment' to mean sneering, elitist, DC & NY cocktail party-goers - not the the Liberal Establishment. I think it's liberal establishment as a cultural judgement not as a political elite.
Edit: Incidentally I can't stand Yglesias. Him, Klein and Sorkin make the American left almost unelectable :bleeding: <_<
Klein's solid. Yglesias can be interesting but's a prick. Sorkin is a huge asshole (though very talented)
I'm not really a fan of The Economist. The "omniscient voice" combined with being just a bit wrong all the time- whenever they write about an issue where I'm familiar they say dumb shit. I don't mean just their political perspective, which unsurprisingly I don't share. I mean in terms of their reporting.
Even in their endorsement they made charges against Obama that don't make sense. How do you criticize Obamacare from the perspective that he surrendered too much control to left-wing Democrats while at the same time praising Obamacare for getting universal coverage? The bill gets coverage through a relatively conservative mechanism; the left-wingers wanted single payer. And I am not sure who they are referring to when they say "bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Obama."
Being fashionably balanced means you have to take shots at both sides, no matter how irrelevant or nonsensical they are.
Quote from: Count on November 01, 2012, 10:37:42 PMAnd I am not sure who they are referring to when they say "bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Obama."
Seems fairly straightforward. Would you have preferred they provide a list of names? They're making a broad and general point about the tone of the communication that exists there. Some people take the occasion of bashing business excess/corruption/whatever and use it to bash business in general. Been part of our politics forever. Always will be, and business mags will still be complaining about it when our descendants are bashing businesses hundreds of light years from here.
Quote from: Count on November 01, 2012, 10:37:42 PM
Klein's solid.
Klein is a DNC spokesman posing as a journalist.
Why is The Economist referred to as "liberal" by some people. They are pretty much toeing the line of the new tories under Cameron. :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:58:04 PM
I think the Economist is the definition of the liberal establishment, in both the UK sense and the US sense. I can't think of a more bien pensant paper.
I disagree. I would describe them as modern centre-right. They are pro-free market and free trade, pro-Atlanticist and neutral on religion (but religious conservatism makes them uneasy). I think they actually are very much like the Languish majority, of people like Berkut or Richard Haykluyt.
Quote from: celedhring on November 01, 2012, 07:47:26 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 07:40:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:37:40 PM
I think this is the first time the Economist's endorsed an incumbent since Dole - maybe even earlier.
They endorsed Dole it looks like.
Checking their endorsement history, it actually looks like it's the first time The Economist endorse an incumbent, indeed.
http://www.economist.com/node/12499760?story_id=12499760
Yes. Furthermore their endorsement history shows they are as likely to endorse a Republican as they are a Democrat (and in the UK they seem to be overwhelmingly pro-Tory).
I think this is really a testament to how shitty a candidate Romney is. Reading the Economist's editorials for the last few months, I thought they were itching to support Romney.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2012, 01:51:56 AM
Why is The Economist referred to as "liberal" by some people. They are pretty much toeing the line of the new tories under Cameron. :huh:
So they can ignore it when it says things they don't like.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 08:55:37 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 08:18:06 PM
The Democratic Party and the "Liberal Establishment" is a creature of tribal affiliation and class interest before policy, so I don't think The Economist falls in that at all.
The Economist's first love is the free market and free trade.
This.
They do favour some government regulation, and gov't involvement, they're no libertarians, but for the most part they tend to be pretty fiscally conservative.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2012, 01:51:56 AM
Why is The Economist referred to as "liberal" by some people. They are pretty much toeing the line of the new tories under Cameron. :huh:
Those two thoughts aren't as far apart as you think. I love my cousin David, but this is not the party of Thatcher, sadly.
Quote from: Josephus on November 02, 2012, 10:18:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 08:55:37 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2012, 08:18:06 PM
The Democratic Party and the "Liberal Establishment" is a creature of tribal affiliation and class interest before policy, so I don't think The Economist falls in that at all.
The Economist's first love is the free market and free trade.
This.
They do favour some government regulation, and gov't involvement, they're no libertarians, but for the most part they tend to be pretty fiscally conservative.
Yep,
They reflect my view of the world rather well.
Free markets and free trade both being liberal ideas of course...............or has the misuse of the word by parts of the American right entirely obscured its proper meaning :hmm: ?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 02, 2012, 11:38:44 AM
Free markets and free trade both being liberal ideas of course...............or has the misuse of the word by parts of the American right entirely obscured its proper meaning :hmm: ?
It appears to have done so for Marti but I think most Americans understand their use of the term liberal is incorrect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2012, 09:41:21 PM
The Republican Intramural Bloodletting that will happen if Obama wins again and the dems take back the senate will be entertaining. I suspect the blame will fall on those who Teapartiers were attacking all cycle.
Agreed. My suspicion is that they'll point to 2010 and say the reason they lost was because they weren't conservative enough.
Doubt it. Extremists they primaried in like Akin and Mourdock (casting out incumbent GOP Senator Lugar) are losing what should be easy Senate seats.
The same thing happened when they sent a Tea Partier Sharon Angle against unpopular Harry Reid in 2010 when he initially looked like losing; witch/Tea Partier O'Donnell picked by 2010 GOP primary in Delaware instead of U.S. Rep and former Governor Mike Castle.
Michelle Bachmann's in a much tighter fight than she expected.
Oh man, wouldn't it be nice to see that Fruit Loop out. Doubtful, but one can hope.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 01:27:16 PM
Michelle Bachmann's in a much tighter fight than she expected.
Oh man, wouldn't it be nice to see that Fruit Loop out. Doubtful, but one can hope.
Be nice to see her and Wasserman escort each other out.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 02, 2012, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 01:27:16 PM
Michelle Bachmann's in a much tighter fight than she expected.
Oh man, wouldn't it be nice to see that Fruit Loop out. Doubtful, but one can hope.
Be nice to see her and Wasserman escort each other out.
I would accept that trade. Totally insane versus insane curls with body and bounce? Sure.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 02, 2012, 01:25:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2012, 09:41:21 PM
The Republican Intramural Bloodletting that will happen if Obama wins again and the dems take back the senate will be entertaining. I suspect the blame will fall on those who Teapartiers were attacking all cycle.
Agreed. My suspicion is that they'll point to 2010 and say the reason they lost was because they weren't conservative enough.
Doubt it. Extremists they primaried in like Akin and Mourdock (casting out incumbent GOP Senator Lugar) are losing what should be easy Senate seats.
The same thing happened when they sent a Tea Partier Sharon Angle against unpopular Harry Reid in 2010 when he initially looked like losing; witch/Tea Partier O'Donnell picked by 2010 GOP primary in Delaware instead of U.S. Rep and former Governor Mike Castle.
Akin had that election in the bag before he said something stupid. He's not losing because he's out of touch with Missouri voters, he's losing because he's an idiot. Now, if you wish to conflate stupidity with the Republican message I'm okay with that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2012, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 02, 2012, 11:38:44 AM
Free markets and free trade both being liberal ideas of course...............or has the misuse of the word by parts of the American right entirely obscured its proper meaning :hmm: ?
It appears to have done so for Marti but I think most Americans understand their use of the term liberal is incorrect.
On this board, yeah. In the rest of the country, I doubt it. I get the feeling that most people didn't pay attention in history or civics classes.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2012, 02:40:11 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 02, 2012, 01:25:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2012, 09:41:21 PM
The Republican Intramural Bloodletting that will happen if Obama wins again and the dems take back the senate will be entertaining. I suspect the blame will fall on those who Teapartiers were attacking all cycle.
Agreed. My suspicion is that they'll point to 2010 and say the reason they lost was because they weren't conservative enough.
Doubt it. Extremists they primaried in like Akin and Mourdock (casting out incumbent GOP Senator Lugar) are losing what should be easy Senate seats.
The same thing happened when they sent a Tea Partier Sharon Angle against unpopular Harry Reid in 2010 when he initially looked like losing; witch/Tea Partier O'Donnell picked by 2010 GOP primary in Delaware instead of U.S. Rep and former Governor Mike Castle.
Akin had that election in the bag before he said something stupid. He's not losing because he's out of touch with Missouri voters, he's losing because he's an idiot. Now, if you wish to conflate stupidity with the Republican message I'm okay with that.
Akin only won the Republican primary with 36% of the vote. Democrats indirectly supported his candidacy in the primary since they considered him the most extreme/weakest candidate. They were right.
Uh, no. Akin was favored to win before he made a fool of himself. He got only 36% of primary vote because there was over a half dozen candidates.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2012, 03:04:13 PM
Uh, no. Akin was favored to win before he made a fool of himself. He got only 36% of primary vote because there was over a half dozen candidates.
That's the point. A fool was selected in the primary. His extreme views are not a surprise.
Yeah my understanding is that McClaskill (who is not terribly likable) tried to help Akin win the primary.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 02, 2012, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 01:27:16 PM
Michelle Bachmann's in a much tighter fight than she expected.
Oh man, wouldn't it be nice to see that Fruit Loop out. Doubtful, but one can hope.
Be nice to see her and Wasserman escort each other out.
OMG, I would pay good money to see this shit happen. Both of those loony women (I don't call them bitches because I have a female dog that I respect as a pet) deserve to spend eternity straitjacketed together, face to face.
Schultz simultaneously checks the JAP and Milf boxes. 7/10 would bang.
Great, squeelus taints Debbie.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2012, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2012, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 02, 2012, 11:38:44 AM
Free markets and free trade both being liberal ideas of course...............or has the misuse of the word by parts of the American right entirely obscured its proper meaning :hmm: ?
It appears to have done so for Marti but I think most Americans understand their use of the term liberal is incorrect.
On this board, yeah. In the rest of the country, I doubt it. I get the feeling that most people didn't pay attention in history or civics classes.
It's not so incorrect, though... "liberal" also used to mean "generous" in Latin (and in Spanish it can still mean that, for example), which I think is where the American use of the word comes from (as liberals are seen as favoring redistribution of wealth).
It's just confusing.
Quote from: Count on November 02, 2012, 08:22:11 PM
Yeah my understanding is that McClaskill (who is not terribly likable) tried to help Akin win the primary.
I don't know that I really believe that, it sounds like one of those things people want to believe retroactively. Until Akin started foaming at the mouth about rape babies he had a 10 point lead on a sitting Senator in some polls, and no lower than 5 across the board. He was going to the Senate in a walk, and it took awhile into the actual campaign before he decided he cared more about being insane than getting elected.
If he had a half competent campaign manager that could keep him from talking in anything but platitudes Akin would have killed her in the general, so I can't believe of all the primary field he was the weakest. There was really nothing she could have done to beat him, and I doubt she'd want to gamble her Senate seat on the hope that he commit a gaffe. The gaffe only looks obvious and expected in retrospect.
Quote from: celedhring on November 03, 2012, 07:13:36 AM
It's not so incorrect, though... "liberal" also used to mean "generous" in Latin (and in Spanish it can still mean that, for example), which I think is where the American use of the word comes from (as liberals are seen as favoring redistribution of wealth).
It's just confusing.
The term socialist was tainted. We needed something else to call it that people would actually vote for.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 02:20:24 PM
Quote from: Count on November 02, 2012, 08:22:11 PM
Yeah my understanding is that McClaskill (who is not terribly likable) tried to help Akin win the primary.
I don't know that I really believe that, it sounds like one of those things people want to believe retroactively. Until Akin started foaming at the mouth about rape babies he had a 10 point lead on a sitting Senator in some polls, and no lower than 5 across the board. He was going to the Senate in a walk, and it took awhile into the actual campaign before he decided he cared more about being insane than getting elected.
If he had a half competent campaign manager that could keep him from talking in anything but platitudes Akin would have killed her in the general, so I can't believe of all the primary field he was the weakest. There was really nothing she could have done to beat him, and I doubt she'd want to gamble her Senate seat on the hope that he commit a gaffe. The gaffe only looks obvious and expected in retrospect.
Only going by wikipedia, it says that Akin liked to call abortion providers "terrorists" (2008) and claimed that abortions were performed on women that were not actually pregnant. He was an extremist, and that's what a plurality of primary voters picked.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 03, 2012, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 02:20:24 PM
Quote from: Count on November 02, 2012, 08:22:11 PM
Yeah my understanding is that McClaskill (who is not terribly likable) tried to help Akin win the primary.
I don't know that I really believe that, it sounds like one of those things people want to believe retroactively. Until Akin started foaming at the mouth about rape babies he had a 10 point lead on a sitting Senator in some polls, and no lower than 5 across the board. He was going to the Senate in a walk, and it took awhile into the actual campaign before he decided he cared more about being insane than getting elected.
If he had a half competent campaign manager that could keep him from talking in anything but platitudes Akin would have killed her in the general, so I can't believe of all the primary field he was the weakest. There was really nothing she could have done to beat him, and I doubt she'd want to gamble her Senate seat on the hope that he commit a gaffe. The gaffe only looks obvious and expected in retrospect.
Only going by wikipedia, it says that Akin liked to call abortion providers "terrorists" (2008) and claimed that abortions were performed on women that were not actually pregnant. He was an extremist, and that's what a plurality of primary voters picked.
And preferred to McCaskill until his gaffe, if he hadn't made the specific comments he did when he did there's little reason to assume he wouldn't have won the election. He was a strong candidate coming out of the primary.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 03, 2012, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 02:20:24 PM
Quote from: Count on November 02, 2012, 08:22:11 PM
Yeah my understanding is that McClaskill (who is not terribly likable) tried to help Akin win the primary.
I don't know that I really believe that, it sounds like one of those things people want to believe retroactively. Until Akin started foaming at the mouth about rape babies he had a 10 point lead on a sitting Senator in some polls, and no lower than 5 across the board. He was going to the Senate in a walk, and it took awhile into the actual campaign before he decided he cared more about being insane than getting elected.
If he had a half competent campaign manager that could keep him from talking in anything but platitudes Akin would have killed her in the general, so I can't believe of all the primary field he was the weakest. There was really nothing she could have done to beat him, and I doubt she'd want to gamble her Senate seat on the hope that he commit a gaffe. The gaffe only looks obvious and expected in retrospect.
Only going by wikipedia, it says that Akin liked to call abortion providers "terrorists" (2008) and claimed that abortions were performed on women that were not actually pregnant. He was an extremist, and that's what a plurality of primary voters picked.
And preferred to McCaskill until his gaffe, if he hadn't made the specific comments he did when he did there's little reason to assume he wouldn't have won the election. He was a strong candidate coming out of the primary.
Would his close runner-ups not have been strong? Any other Republican would have sufficed in now red Missouri, and there were safer picks. They instead chose an extremist.
We have this same example in Indiana (2012), Nevada (2010), and Delaware (2010). The latter two missed out on the mid-term wave election because they were crazies.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 03, 2012, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 02:20:24 PM
Quote from: Count on November 02, 2012, 08:22:11 PM
Yeah my understanding is that McClaskill (who is not terribly likable) tried to help Akin win the primary.
I don't know that I really believe that, it sounds like one of those things people want to believe retroactively. Until Akin started foaming at the mouth about rape babies he had a 10 point lead on a sitting Senator in some polls, and no lower than 5 across the board. He was going to the Senate in a walk, and it took awhile into the actual campaign before he decided he cared more about being insane than getting elected.
If he had a half competent campaign manager that could keep him from talking in anything but platitudes Akin would have killed her in the general, so I can't believe of all the primary field he was the weakest. There was really nothing she could have done to beat him, and I doubt she'd want to gamble her Senate seat on the hope that he commit a gaffe. The gaffe only looks obvious and expected in retrospect.
Only going by wikipedia, it says that Akin liked to call abortion providers "terrorists" (2008) and claimed that abortions were performed on women that were not actually pregnant. He was an extremist, and that's what a plurality of primary voters picked.
And preferred to McCaskill until his gaffe, if he hadn't made the specific comments he did when he did there's little reason to assume he wouldn't have won the election. He was a strong candidate coming out of the primary.
She thought (correctly it turned out in the end) that he was the weakest opponent, and dems spent money to help him win:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79467.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-spent-1.5-mil-to-help-akin-win-gop-primary/article/2505373