Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Republican David Jolly upset Democrat Alex Sink in a special election to fill the Florida House seat vacated by the late Rep. CW Bill Young, who died after a 42-year career in the Congress. The race closely focused on ObamaCare. Jolly portrayed Sink as an Obama/Pelosi clone, and that spoke to voters. Jolly won a narrow race despite being outspent 3 to 1 on TV ads.



http://news.yahoo.com/republican-jolly- ... ction.html

Can you explain how

1) a Republican dies
2) is replaced by a Republican (which happens 80% of the time)
3) and this is seen as a victory..?

I'm all ears

Typically, when one candidate outspends the other by that kind of a margin, that candidate wins. Besides, the media portrays nearly every Democrat (save for those with ethics problems, which even then are often swept under the carpet) as infallible, so on that alone, this is a "win" for the Republicans....

Call me when a democrat is actually unseated.

Some additional background on the race if you're bored

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenbl ... d-to-lose/

HI54UNI wrote:Some additional background on the race if you're bored

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenbl ... d-to-lose/

Very interesting.

Now let's have some boobs!

SH, where do you get your healthcare from?

SuperHornet wrote:Typically, when one candidate outspends the other by that kind of a margin, that candidate wins. Besides, the media portrays nearly every Democrat (save for those with ethics problems, which even then are often swept under the carpet) as infallible, so on that alone, this is a "win" for the Republicans....

Right...
and didn't two Koch brothers just spend like $500 Million on Romney
on top of Sheldon Adelson's $100 million flushed down the toilet
This just in "Politics is expensive"


I'm still waiting for the "BREAKING NEWS" part of this whole thing

Chizzang wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Typically, when one candidate outspends the other by that kind of a margin, that candidate wins. Besides, the media portrays nearly every Democrat (save for those with ethics problems, which even then are often swept under the carpet) as infallible, so on that alone, this is a "win" for the Republicans....

Right...
and didn't two Koch brothers just spend like $500 Million on Romney
on top of Sheldon Adelson's $100 million flushed down the toilet
This just in "Politics is expensive"


I'm still waiting for the "BREAKING NEWS" part of this whole thing

SH is right here. It's unusual if the candidate who spent less wins.

Chizzang wrote:Can you explain how

1) a Republican dies
2) is replaced by a Republican (which happens 80% of the time)
3) and this is seen as a victory..?

I'm all ears

Registration in that district has been pretty evenly split for many years and the Dems poured boatloads of money into the race.

The results actually weren't very close if you consider the Libertarian (anti-Obama) candidate got nearly 5% of the vote.

An interesting analysis from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... -in-fl-13/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most campaign analysts and all pre-election polls named Sink the favorite in the race. Sink held statewide office as Florida Chief Financial Officer from 2007-2010. In 2010, one of the bloodiest political years for Democrats ever, Sink came within a hair of winning Florida’s gubernatorial election. Sink had a tremendous name recognition advantage over Jolly

Sink decided to counter anti-Obamacare sentiment by defining Jolly as a scientifically dangerous climate change skeptic.

If there is any congressional district in America where Democrats should theoretically get the most bang for their buck selling global warming alarmism, Florida District 13 should be it. The district is urban and decidedly moderate. The Tea Party barely exists here. Northeastern and Rust Belt snowbirds dominate the demographics. President Obama carried the district in 2008 and 2012.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Can you explain how

1) a Republican dies
2) is replaced by a Republican (which happens 80% of the time)
3) and this is seen as a victory..?

I'm all ears

Registration in that district has been pretty evenly split for many years and the Dems poured boatloads of money into the race.

The results actually weren't very close if you consider the Libertarian (anti-Obama) candidate got nearly 5% of the vote.

Plus, they brought in Bill Clinton and Biden.
She won that district when she ran against Rick Scott for governor.
Outspent the Conk 4:1.

Donks = Toast

Chizzang wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Typically, when one candidate outspends the other by that kind of a margin, that candidate wins. Besides, the media portrays nearly every Democrat (save for those with ethics problems, which even then are often swept under the carpet) as infallible, so on that alone, this is a "win" for the Republicans....

Right...
and didn't two Koch brothers just spend like $500 Million on Romney
on top of Sheldon Adelson's $100 million flushed down the toilet
This just in "Politics is expensive"


I'm still waiting for the "BREAKING NEWS" part of this whole thing

The HI54UNI corollary to Godwins Law - how long before the Koch brothers appear in a political thread.

The Chosen won carried the district twice as well.

HI54UNI wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Right...
and didn't two Koch brothers just spend like $500 Million on Romney
on top of Sheldon Adelson's $100 million flushed down the toilet
This just in "Politics is expensive"


I'm still waiting for the "BREAKING NEWS" part of this whole thing

The HI54UNI corollary to Godwins Law - how long before the Koch brothers appear in a political thread.

Damn you!

Also Saul Alinsky.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
The HI54UNI corollary to Godwins Law - how long before the Koch brothers appear in a political thread.

Damn you!

Also Saul Alinsky.

I love the Koch brothers I mean who else has a half a billion to just shovel into a furnace

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
Damn you!

Also Saul Alinsky.

I love the Koch brothers I mean who else has a half a billion to just shovel into a furnace

Warren Buffet, George Soros....

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
Damn you!

Also Saul Alinsky.

I love the Koch brothers I mean who else has a half a billion to just shovel into a furnace

You don't think they get bang for their buck?

SuperHornet wrote:Typically, when one candidate outspends the other by that kind of a margin, that candidate wins. Besides, the media portrays nearly every Democrat (save for those with ethics problems, which even then are often swept under the carpet) as infallible, so on that alone, this is a "win" for the Republicans....

You're an idiot. That seat has been Republican for 30 years. That district voted Republican in 2000, 2004 and 2008 for President. In 2012 they were 51% for Obama. The races have usually been close so this isn't an upset.

You should stick to what you know best, shitty TV shows from the 70s and 80s, root beer and kittens.

LOL

One - District has been REPUBLICAN for decades, and has majority republican representative
Two - Conk running was aide to highly popular congressman
Three - Said aide ran on platform reminding how much federal pork the previous congressman brought to district, and how much he personally had a hand in it.
Four - Sink is a shitty candidate, who ran away from Obamacare. Sink couldn't beat admitted fraud felon Prick Scott for Gov.


So in reality, the Dem was out-spent - by a guy using our own tax dollars.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I love the Koch brothers I mean who else has a half a billion to just shovel into a furnace

You don't think they get bang for their buck?

I would file "$500 Million in the dumpster" under: bad investment

dbackjon wrote:LOL

One - District has been REPUBLICAN for decades, and has majority republican representative
Two - Conk running was aide to highly popular congressman
Three - Said aide ran on platform reminding how much federal pork the previous congressman brought to district, and how much he personally had a hand in it.
Four - Sink is a shitty candidate, who ran away from Obamacare. Sink couldn't beat admitted fraud felon Prick Scott for Gov.


So in reality, the Dem was out-spent - by a guy using our own tax dollars.

I'll give that spin and A for effort!

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:LOL

One - District has been REPUBLICAN for decades, and has majority republican representative
Two - Conk running was aide to highly popular congressman
Three - Said aide ran on platform reminding how much federal pork the previous congressman brought to district, and how much he personally had a hand in it.
Four - Sink is a shitty candidate, who ran away from Obamacare. Sink couldn't beat admitted fraud felon Prick Scott for Gov.


So in reality, the Dem was out-spent - by a guy using our own tax dollars.

I'll give that spin and A for effort!

No spin. I had hoped Sink could pull off the upset, but wasn't surprised she didn't.

More to the point - off cycle elections favor the GOP, who generally turn out to vote in greater numbers.

Indeed - the turnout in GOP-leaning precincts was about 50%, in Dem leaning precincts, 30%.

Ibanez wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Typically, when one candidate outspends the other by that kind of a margin, that candidate wins. Besides, the media portrays nearly every Democrat (save for those with ethics problems, which even then are often swept under the carpet) as infallible, so on that alone, this is a "win" for the Republicans....

You're an idiot. That seat has been Republican for 30 years. That district voted Republican in 2000, 2004 and 2008 for President. In 2012 they were 51% for Obama. The races have usually been close so this isn't an upset.

You should stick to what you know best, shitty TV shows from the 70s and 80s, root beer and kittens.

Uh, wrong. That district voted for Obama in 08'.

The Race Democrats Can’t Afford to Lose
http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenbl ... d-to-lose/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you going to call Rothenburg an idiot also? Maybe you should also stick to what you know....

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Right...
and didn't two Koch brothers just spend like $500 Million on Romney
on top of Sheldon Adelson's $100 million flushed down the toilet
This just in "Politics is expensive"


I'm still waiting for the "BREAKING NEWS" part of this whole thing

SH is right here. It's unusual if the candidate who spent less wins.

Despite her spendthrift exercise of political speech rights, Sink was sunk!

Ain't Citizens United grand?