People seem to be freaking over nutters electing nutters in the primaries.

[lonestarnot]

I don't think nutters will make a go of it in the general. :D :toast: There are not enough nutters.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. It's healthy caution.St. Ronnie was considered a nut in 79-80. nt

[BolivarianHero]

2. And George H. W. Bush

In 24 years, that man went from being so batshit right-wing that he couldn't beat a pinko (from me that's a compliment) like Yarborough to being moderate enough to carry states that Democrats today take for granted.

[onenote]

4. no he wasn't

He was elected governor of the nation's largest (or second largest) state twice, once in 1966 and again in 1970. He had a national reputation. Comparing Reagan to O'Donnell. who finished a distant third in the repub primary for senate in 2006 and got smoked by Joe Biden by a nearly 2-1 margin in 2008 to Reagan is ridiculous.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

7. Yes he was. Lots of Democrats were happy because they considered him crazy. I know that

he was governor of CA. He moved to the right over the years. It says more about their party than anything. The crazy goalposts have shifted. It doesn't mean that this woman is like him but voters are pretty unpredictable. It is healthy to worry and attack every race no matter how insane the opponent looks.

[onenote]

8. Again, the comparison with Reagan is completely inapt

O'Donnell came out of nowhere to get the nomination. She has been and continues to be regarded as virtually unelectable.

In contrast, in 1979, when he declared he was seeking the repub nomination, Reagan not only was a two-time governor, he immediately was considered the front-runner and near lock to get the nomination. As for Democrats being happy he was the nominee -- Democrats in mid/late 1979 into 1980 mostly were focused on the issue of whether Carter was re-electable.

As early as April 1979, Carter and Reagan were polling at nearly dead even levels. While the polls moved in Carter's favor for a period in 1980, Reagan was never viewed as unelectable.

I agree that no one is unelectable is people don't get out and vote for their opponent, but suggesting that the fact reagan got elected suggests that O'Donnell is just as likely to be elected is not borne out by facts.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

9. Let me try this one more time. View anyone as unelectable at your own risk. Reagan was

viewed as extreme uninformed and a joke by many people. As horrible a time as Carter was having he still beat him in early polling. A series of bad circumstances brought Carter down. Not to mention many of his own mistakes. Ronnie's economic views were viewed as extreme even by many republicans. The Laffer curve was seen as total bullshit until Reagan's inner circle co opted it. He was views as extreme just a couple of years earlier which is why he couldn't get the nomination prior to 80. All it takes is good PR and marketing.

[truedelphi]

3. Except for this one little hitch in the situation - which we shouldn't overlook:

The voting machinery is every bit as hackable today as it was in 2004.

So as long as Mainstream Media provides the "Cover Story" that the more liberal crowd stayed home, and the nutters all came out of the fallout shelters to vote, they can pull this off.

For instance, I don't think for one minute that the nutters here in Calif. got Prop Hate to pass by the strength of their numbers. I think that took the "cooperation" of the voting machinery.

The huge discrepancies noted in Los Angeles, posted here by some DU'er doing good work, show that if each precinct in LA had a eight to nineteen percent "drift" in numbers away from what the exit poll data showed the numbers should be, then the state of california can easily have nutters win in a great many more contests than they ought to come this November.

[lonestarnot]

6. No, I didn't! Scarey!

:scared: I will never have to legitimize a nutball candidate.

[deaniac21]

5. Looks like it will be a repub wipe out. Huge majorities for us in

the Senate and House!

[lonestarnot]

10. Could be. Sure hope so.