Um… it doesn’t look good. Again, we don’t know where the ballots are coming from, or if they’re being counted in any particular temporal order, but Reichert won the last King County drop by a large margin, and it’s beginning to look like a trend. It’s too early to concede, but unless things go substantially in Darcy’s favor in today’s count, it’ll be time to start crying in my beer.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
These are the post Harvard-Hoax absentee ballots (mine included). No wonder Darcy’s showing is so weak.
Probably wouldn’t have been such a disaster for her had she not gone on “The Commentators” and proven to WA-08 voters what an entitled, whiny brat she really is.
The people of the 8th get the kind of Representative they deserve.
Goldy ..
Do you have any idea what her plans might be if she looses?
Seems lijke she might get some useful cred by workiong for Gregoire or Obama?
BTW .. another thought, as you know I think MickeyD is on his last bhlue pill. Maybe Darcy should move to Capital Hill and run for his seat? She would have a good chance unless there is an exosting candydate (Ed Murry?)
To lift our spirits a bit, let’s gloat some. The always interesting Tim Wise on the Obama victory:
http://www.redroom.com/blog/ti.....-age-obama
Brilliant! I love it!
I stated this over on OpenLeft, and I don’t want to sound like Pollyanna, but…
Both in the 2006 general race, and in the 2008 primary, Darcy lost in the Pierce County portion of WA-08 by around 6,000 votes. She is now behind there by 5,000 votes, and yet there are probably another 100K+ votes yet to count, most probably in King County.
There is always the possibility that the Republicans overperformed getting out their vote in the Pierce County section of WA-08 compared to previous years, but if that were the case, you would see something like Dino Rossi beating or having a very close race against Governor Gregoire in Pierce County, and that didn’t happen.
In 2004, Rossi beat Gregoire in Pierce County by around 12,500 votes. Dave Ross lost the 2004 WA-08 race to Dave Reichert in Pierce County that same year by a little over 13,000 votes.
In the 2008 totals so far, Governor Gregoire is beating Dino Rossi in Pierce County by a little over 9,000 votes. The odds are that Tacoma, which has a large non-white population, and which isn’t in WA-08, had extraordinary turnout for the Democrats. Nevertheless, you would expect that Pierce County would be at least similar to its last two election tallies for WA-08, if not an improvement for Darcy.
Another piece of info, to take as you wish…I was a poll watcher for one of the poll locations on Mercer Island. By pure dumb luck, this is where I voted until I switched to absentee ballot in 2005. I had never seen this location crack 150 votes, loaded as it is with condos and high-turnover apartments.
This year, there were almost 450 poll votes and somewhere between 100 and 150 absentee ballots turned in, and provisional ballots filled out. Again, this proves nothing, but it is worthy of note. And if you ask around, much of King County has plenty of similar stories of high poll turnout.
It’s a hard call to make, and I guarantee nothing, but we might – just maybe – be seeing Dave Reichert’s highwater mark.
@1 There was no “Harvard hoax.” Burner has a degree from Harvard that qualifies as a “degree in economics.” The hoax was the Seattle Times (ick) and Reichert (more ick) using semantical nitpicking to mislead voters into believing Burner doesn’t have a college degree. It’s hard to call this anything but lying — which we expect from politicians, but not from newspapers. However, I don’t think the degree flap had much to do with Burner’s apparent defeat. The 8th has always been a solidly GOP district, and while it’s trending more Democratic, the demographic alignment there is still too steep a hill for any Democrat to climb. Burner was a quality candidate who gave it her best.
[pause]
We’ll fix that in the 2010 redistricting.
[pause]
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Speaking of 2012, I was on the looking at census data yesterday for my job and noted that Massachusetts has 10 congressional seats, but a smaller projected population now than Washington. If this change is confirmed in the 2010 census, there is a strong likelihood that Washington will pick up another Congressional seat.
@5 I see no problems in the 8th that redistricting can’t fix.
@8:
Not likely. We do redistricting via a board, with two or three from each party, and an arbiter agreed to by both parties.
Given that Seattle’s population is shrinking relative to the Eastside’s, there will be a move to have existing Seattle-centric legislative districts to cherry-pick Dem-majority precincts away if at all possible. I live in the 41st LD, for example, and I fully expect us to lose what’s left of Renton and be asked to either take on more precincts along SR900 or within downtown Issaquah itself.
What worked in the “inner ring” of the Eastside was a desire for infrastructure that the voters were willing to pay for, and that the Republicans couldn’t address effectively. When that becomes as much of an issue within the 5th LD, and it will eventually, we’ll take the 8th CD and hold onto it for a while.
@9 Palamedes
I doi not see how your math works.
From a Republican POV, they WILL lose the 08th thru redistricting unless something is done.
From as Demo POV, they will dominate the guv and the legislature that makes this decision (no?) and would benefit by adding a safe dem seat in the north. The seats, except maybe Inslee, on the west side, are very safe.
Seems to me that a split eighth would benefit both reps and dems!
For the record,
My husband and I were both excited to vote for Darcy Burner, but this whole Harvard thing really did change our minds. I’m not under any false impression about whether or not she got a degree from Harvard. She did, and that’s great. But she quite clearly misstated what kind of degree she received. Five econ classes are in no way equivalent to an Economic degree. Instead of simply admitting her misstatements, she turned what was initially an impulsive exaggeration into something much closer to a bald-faced lie. We as Democrats deserve better from the people we choose to represent us, and I hope we get a more inspiring candidate next time.
11 – Yep you get the kind of rep you deserve.
Fuzzball spews: My husband and I were both excited to vote for Darcy Burner, but this whole Harvard thing really did change our minds.
your concern is noted. but you raised your paw without being called on. so now you must go to the dean’s office and learn the truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_dHFlHYzUs
@11
that “problem” you speak of compaired to the absolutly zero he has accomplished for you and your neighbors makes you the kind of voter that absolutly KILLs me!
@10:
The redistricting process in this state is such that the Republicans can prevent the Democrats from accomplishing any sort of gerrymandering. (It works both ways, of course.) Every state LD in place has to be within the same specific vote range.
If Seattle-based LDs shrink, then an increase in votes will have to come from somewhere. If the 11th LD needs votes, a likely candidate is the 41st LD. The 5th LD, in turn, is one of our fastest-growing LDs, so it can afford to compensate the 41st LD for it’s loss to the 11th LD. And so on.
@7:
There was brief talk at the beginning of the last redistricting that Washington state was on the short list for a possible 10th CD, but it didn’t happen. If it does the next go-round that we’re eligible for it, I could see a scenario where the two parties consider a deal such that the Republicans get a “safe” seat west of the Cascades, and the resulting remaining seats are “safer” for the Democrats. But I also would suspect that such a deal would never be accomplished.
no hare @6
Crack open a civics book, you varmint. Redistricting won’t happen until 2012. The redistricting commission won’t even convene until 2011, AFTER the 2010 census is complete. In two years, the district will still look exactly as it does today.
So, to borrow your expression: HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
“Killer” Rabbit was cross. Even the rattle and hum of Mrs. R, snoring and sweetly oblivious to impending doom, didn’t make his little heart thump faster with pleasure.
Rolling out of a warm rack at 0-dark-30 to save democracy was not his idea of a good time. But when you got old and fat and slow, he mused bitterly while looking at his cracked reflection in the warren’s cracked mirror, a good time was hard to find and a good hard was even harder to find.
His fuzz was frazzed and grey. His lucky rabbit’s foot was mottled by moths or fungus. “Bloodshot eyes,” he muttered. “Bushy little tail’s draggin’, man. Oughtta go back to bed and let the young bucks and freedom fighters from the KC Bar save the free world.”
He went down his pre-flight. Hollow points, check. Napalm, check. A spare B-A-R from the N-A-M … ummmm, yeah. At last the old warrior was starting to stir to life for one more mission.
Back in the day, fucking goats had cranked Killer up. But that day was long long ago and very far away. Now he was old and fat and slow and grey; goats and Darcy just didn’t do it for him any more. Now, and for a very long time, only 60-cal Brownings could get him up. A little thin, maybe, just as Killer himself had been back in his distant day, but very phallic and very firm.
“Yeah,” Killer whispered huskily, “maybe I can do this thing. Maybe me and the Commandos can save the world one more time.”
His tail was gaining lift, just a little. Not perky and pert like it had been when Killer walked point in the Delta, but still … a little dangle angle was better than no angle at all.
He was even starting to shake off the horror (the horror!) of last night’s snuff flick, Gangs of New York, where hooligans (Whigs or Rethuglicans, every one) had paraded through mean streets with skewered rabbits.
“That’s why I’ve gotta do what I’ve gotta do,” Killer growled while Mrs. R and the free world slept. “Here we are in the leftest precincts this side of Stalingrad, everything run by us Democrats, but Rethuglicans are sure as shit gonna steal freedom right from under our little pink noses if hard men like me don’t fight for what’s right.”
Stroking 60s, tail rising at last, at long last, Killer Rabbit lifted his flea-bit leg, pissed into Green Lake, and went again to war.
HNMT @ 17
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz.
Right wing crapola lost..
Same thing is happening in minnesota, except in reverse. The democrats are finding ballot after ballot that weren’t counted and just happened to all be voting for al franken.
What a complete waste of money this has been! Has anyone ever spent this amount of dollars on a candidate who was this enept? She could’t win even when nearly every other democrat candidate cruised to victory.
How do my husband and I get our $1000 back?
On another note, at least the money we donated to the Governor was well spent. All power to the tribes. In another 4 years you will buying all your essentials (gasoline, electrical power and water)from us. And we won’t have to share any of our profit with Whitey.
11 Fuzz
Wrong on all counts. Darcy has repeatedly stated quite correctly that she has a degree in computer science and economics from Harvard. She often says that she received a degree in computer science with a concentration in economics, but that takes much more time and is only slightly more specific. The economics courses she took were not “bonehead” courses but used higher mathematics, statistical modeling, and all the other tools used in the Econ degree courses. I am sure she can understand and discuss economics quite comfortably and deeply. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that Dave Reichert has to write stuff on his money so that he knows which are the big bills.
Her only minor gaffe was (to make a point on a single occasion) to say “I like economics so much I got a dgree in it from Harvard,” when instead it was much more like a double degree, half of which was in economics. However, people who spend hours explaining abstruse details around simple topics don’t get elected to office.
FYI, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from the UW with a concentration in Computer Science. That “minor” consisted of ALL of the breadth of coursework taken by the CSci majors, though some courses were combined so some depth of detail was omitted. I work in the software industry today and I understand, discuss and communicate complex computer science issues with experts in the field, on a deep technical level, every day. I usually tell people “I have a degree in Match and Computer Science.” Sometimes, to get the issue out of the way, and to make the point that I can understand a programmer perhaps I have just met, I will tell them something like, “Don’t worry, I have a Computer Science degree.”
If you called me a bald-faced liar for doing so, you would be incorrect, and I would certainly call you some interesting things in return.
Sorry to disturb your zzzzzeeeeees, YLB, but that’s libtard crapola you smell.
Yes, we lost. More than lost, in fact. McC was the only Retardlican who had a chance this year, and he didn’t have a chance. Especially after his spaz dance (can’t debate, my friends, gotta go save your sorry asses from Goldman Sachs and Bill Ayers) in mid-September. Especially after his pick of the incredible shrinking Palin.
=========
Big Dave Ross was beating up Limbaugh this morning because Limbaugh wasn’t thrilled about having Rahm run things. Big Dave should pick on somebody his own size.
Although Rush did waste a few minutes slapping at Rahm, Rush wasted hours doing what Rush does best, kicking McCain. You thought, all these years, that the Majority Maker was mean to ‘Crats like you? Wrong. For years El Rushbo from the ExLax in Broadcasting Network has expended his worst spleen on Maverick John.
Limbaugh hates McCain. Always has, except for a few minutes after “John McBrilliant” brilliantly snatched Sarah out of deserved obscurity.
Now Limbaugh blames McCain for destroying a once great (?) useful (?) party. Says McCain was too nice to Rev Wright’s protege. Says McCain (Bush’s Third Term, to you) was too far left. Says McCain’s people were mean to Sarah. Says McCain lost because he didn’t run like those Repub winners from 1980 and 1994.
We won in 1980 and 1994 because we were running against Democrat losers like you. This year we were running against ourselves, and we’d already knocked ourselves out in 2002 by trying to buy Florida with prescription drug socialism.
Rush said a few months ago that Retardlicans don’t know how to behave when we’re in the majority. Rush finally got one right. He’s been wrong about everything else since about the time he made the majority. Wrong about Bosnia, Kosovo, Clinton, impeachment (any dumb son of a bitch knows from Shakespeare that you don’t start a regicide you can’t finish), wrong about Bush (the people love this man, Rush said four years ago, when the administration’s corpse was starting to stink), wrong about Katrina (the people totally support Bush on this, said Rush), wrong about Iraq, wrong about the second coming of the Great Depression (it’s all the Democrat’s fault, says Rush).
So connect the dots. Rush begat Bush. Bush begat the end of Republcan history. Therefore it’s perfectly clear: Rush Limbaugh is a Democrat sleeper cell who woke up in 1995 and killed conservatism. Big Dave Ross should show some appreciation.
Fuzzball
“My husband and I were both excited to vote for Darcy Burner, but this whole Harvard thing really did change our minds.”
That’s too bad. You were, in fact, hoodwinked by the Reichert people.
“But she quite clearly misstated what kind of degree she received. Five econ classes are in no way equivalent to an Economic degree.”
In fact, you are incorrect on a number of fronts. First, her degree is an A.B. (the Harvard equivallent of a Bacheloriate degree) period. She did not mistate what her degree is.
You are mistaking her degree with the field of study of her degree. At UW, we talk about majors and minors. Harvard did not, at the time, have majors or minors—they used different terminology, but there is not a one-to-one mapping. Technically, Darcy has a “Concentration in Computer Science with a Technical Specialization in Economics.” This is as close as one can come to a double-major at Harvard. There is a possibility of being a “double concentrator” at Harvard, but the undergraduate program is highly regimented and doesn’t have the flexibility that is found at other universities (were double majors are quite common). Hence, “double concentrators” are exceedingly rare. But there are numerous departments that allow (or require) a second field of study.
The technical specialization in Economics as part of the computer science program involved seven courses (five in economics, two in mathematics).
After completing her degree Darcy Buner can claim two fields of study. This is not just my opinion (although I am a university professor), but is the opinion of a Dean at Harvard who designed the computer science program).
“Instead of simply admitting her misstatements, she turned what was initially an impulsive exaggeration into something much closer to a bald-faced lie.”
There was no “impulsive exaggeration” and I am not aware of anything Darcy said that was a lie. I only know that there was a highly misleading ad from the Reichert campaign that strongly implied that Burner does not have a degree from Harvard. That is most certainly false.
“We as Democrats deserve better from the people we choose to represent us, and I hope we get a more inspiring candidate next time.”
Umm…I’m guessing that you don’t really know anything at all about Darcy. “Inspiring” and “better” are two words that leap to mind when I think of Darcy. She really is a remarkable person.
@ Daddy Love comment 21:
Thank you for replying so politely. I am sure that Ms. Burner has stated the details of her degree correctly on more than one occasion, which is why I am happy to give her the benefit of the doubt and refer to her misstatements as . . . misstatements. The truth is that while she may have some economics education, she in no way shape or form has a degree in the subject. Sure, her econ classes were probably difficult; that is irrelevant. I recall listening to her on the Ron Reagan show; he said he was unfamiliar with the details in her race but wanted to know what some of the difficulties have been. She went on to describe how she was accused of lying about having a degree from Harvard, when she actually has a degree and it has been certified by the dean. Here she is not taking responsibility for her misstatement, she is maintaining an innocence that is not applicable.
You have a minor in Computer Science, so that is a part of your degree. However, if you claimed to have an english degree because you took advanced writing classes eventually I’d definitely call you a bald-faced liar. I’m not there yet with Darcy, and I hope I don’t ever get there.
Come on, aren’t there any other likely candidates for next time?
@ Darryl comment #23:
Touche! Yes, I erred in that I confused her degree with the field of study in which she earned her degree. That does not change that she doesn’t have an economics degree from Harvard. She did not double-major as you are implying, the compsci major at Harvard requires an emphasis in another field. So basically she completed a set of pre-reqs from Harvard’s course menu in order to obtain her Computer Science degree. I will concede the emphasis in economics but I argue that since as you write “there is not a one-to-one mapping” She most certainly did not get a degree in economics.
Fuzzball,
“The truth is that while she may have some economics education, she in no way shape or form has a degree in the subject.”
Again…it was no misstatement. She has two fields of study associated with her A.B. In the middle of a discussion of economics, it is not a misstatement to point out that one of the fields of study for her degree was economics.
“She went on to describe how she was accused of lying about having a degree from Harvard, when she actually has a degree and it has been certified by the dean.”
That is because of the “artful” ad that essentially left unaware listeners with the impression that she lied about having a degree from Harvard.
“Here she is not taking responsibility for her misstatement, she is maintaining an innocence that is not applicable.”
Because it is not a misstatement. Unfortunately, it did allow people who misunderstand academic etiquette, are not aware of the subtleties of degrees and fields of study, and who don’t understand the system at Harvard, to latch onto a falsehood, as you appear to have done.
@26 You seem to have the patience of a saint, Darryl.
@26 Darryl
My undergraduate degree is also from Harvard. I chose to major in biology, although my central interest was history, because that way I could fulfill my parents desire that I go to med school and, by majoring in bio, I could take a lot more divers history classes than if I had made that my major and still fulfilled the admin requirements for med schools.
Since I ended up taking a mix of religion, history, and philosophy, I think it is fair to say that my undergraduate degree was in biology with a “minor” in the history of religion.
The Times and Reichert should be censured for this sort of crap. On the other hand, I do think Darcy played into their trap by making too much of her undergrad degree. In my own case, since college, and leaving my MD and PhD aside, I have also read a vast amount of history of religion and become an expert enough photographer tot each that subject (with a certificate yet!) in community college and in extention in California.
I think some of Darcy’s image problem comes form her not having a lot of life experience to point to. I also felt, and said at the time, that her huge effort on a “Responsible PLan” was not a good idea. Given the recession and the regression of Iraq as an issue, the political skill she showed in that effort did not end up impressing people.
It seems to me that if DB wants to go to Congress, she should seek a job with CG or BHO, preferably one that will give her more local experience.
An alternative I like is to use her skills asa politician to move Mickey D aside, move to Seattle and run as his replacement.
@15 15. palamedes spews:
1. I do not know statewide that Seattle is declining. The city is growing rapidly.
2. As I said, iy may be in Reichet’s interest to move his border soth and west.
Fuzzball,
“That does not change that she doesn’t have an economics degree from Harvard.”
Nobody has an “economics degree” from Harvard. The degree is an A.B., period. Now…there are institutions that offer B.E. (bachelor of economics) degrees, but Harvard is not one of them.
“She did not double-major as you are implying,”
I am not implying that at all. There is no such thing as a majors at Harvard (at the time). And there are almost no double-concentrators at Harvard.
“the compsci major at Harvard requires an emphasis in another field.”
It is a technical specilization which, is not the same as a minor, or even an “emphasis”.
“So basically she completed a set of pre-reqs from Harvard’s course menu in order to obtain her Computer Science degree.”
Nope…prerequisites have nothing to do with it. A technical specilization in the C.S. program at Harvard involves advanced training in an allied field.
“I will concede the emphasis in economics but I argue that since as you write “there is not a one-to-one mapping”” She most certainly did not get a degree in economics.”
Ummm…not following this last sentence. The point about the lack of one-to-one mapping is that Harvard did almost everything differently than other universities. So…trying to compare it to a Major/Minor is incorrect. It is almost comparable to a double-Major because double-concentration is undoable (because of the structured nature of undergraduate curricula at Harvard.)
The fact is, what she said during the debate, that, upon request by the CEO of the company that offered her a fellowship to Harvard, that she take an economics course, that she not only took that one course but that she “took a degree in economics” is correct. She completed a formal series of courses that gave her a technical specialization (i.e. not just a typical background, not just an overview) in economics.
There are many, many thousands of Harvard graduates who have completed such specializations, and associate one or both fields in describing their credentials. This is considered approproate and accurate in academia (where we are pretty uptight about credentials).
By the way, I am in the same boat as Darcy. I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology and Demography (one degree, two fields of study). My graduate department was Anthropology, but Demography is a technical specialization, not unlike Harvard. It is more than a minor in Demography (which also exists).
When I describe my PhD I use both fields. But, when discussing demography, and asked if I have a degree in demography, I would answer afirmatively. Likewise when discussing Anthropology, and asked if I have an Anthropology Ph.D., I say yes. This is a completely acceptable practice.
Darryl @ #30:
I clearly am not as informed on academia credential minutia as you, and we will simply have to agree to disagree. My responses to each of your points would simply be reiterating my earlier comments, and I’m sure your subsequent responses would also reiterate, ad infinitum. Nothing like two people banging their ultra-hard heads together, eh?
Seattle Jew,
“My undergraduate degree is also from Harvard.”
But one hell of a long time ago! :-)
“I chose to major in biology, although my central interest was history…Since I ended up taking a mix of religion, history, and philosophy, I think it is fair to say that my undergraduate degree was in biology with a “minor” in the history of religion.”
Yet, you would not say that you have “taken a degree in history of religion” (which at Harvard, would require a “special concentration” unless there is a now-extinct program). That would be inappropriate because you did not complete the courses as part of a formally specified field of study. If you had, you could.
“On the other hand, I do think Darcy played into their trap by making too much of her undergrad degree.”
Did you actually SEE and HEAR the part of the debate where this came up? I cannot imagine why, in the midst of troubling economic times, the information was not highly relevant.
“I think some of Darcy’s image problem comes form her not having a lot of life experience to point to.”
This is remarkable coming from a man who so strongly supported Barack Obama!!!! Clearly, there is much more to being a good legislator than just life experience. But in Darcy’s case, she had far more leadership experience and far more accomplishments by the time she was 18 than Dave Reichert had by the time he was 40! And you know damn well, that Darcy is very bright, highly self-motivated, energetic, analytical, and inspiring. These are all attributes that can be far more important than “life experiences”—I presume these characteristics are why you supported Obama despite McCain superior set of life experiences.
“I also felt, and said at the time, that her huge effort on a “Responsible PLan” was not a good idea.”
Well…two things. It obviously turned out very well for he–it brought in million of dollars for her. But, she undertook it for one simple reason: she didn’t have a clear answer about what to do about Iraq. I know what you do (as a researcher) when you don’t understand something–research it. Maybe even write a review paper on the topic. That is what Darcy did. That is the kind of analytical thinking that I value, and find completely lacking in Reichert.
“Given the recession and the regression of Iraq as an issue, the political skill she showed in that effort did not end up impressing people.”
Based on what? I mean…that she rasied more money than any other congressional challenger this cycle, offers quantitative evidence to the contrary.
“It seems to me that if DB wants to go to Congress, she should seek a job with CG or BHO, preferably one that will give her more local experience.”
Yeah…that’s what they said about Patty Murray. But, I disagree with you. I think if someone want to go to congress…they ought to run!
Huh?
I think we can safely say they are not being found in some back room cart like Larry Phillips 2004 ballot.
I’ll hold my “See ya Darcy Moonbat!” comment until it’s official.
YLB – such a fool.
Doesn’t listen to those radio commentators otherwise you’d know first off, Rush disliked McCain and you can Google “Results 1 – 10 of about 29,500 for Rush Limbaugh dislikes McCain” You ignorant fool, focus in on the CNN story.
Now Sean Hannity liked McCain? ” Results 1 – 10 of about 16,200 for Sean Hannity dislikes McCain”
And lastly Glenn Beck liked McCain? He only chose McCain because he disliked Obama.
Next YLB claims it was a defeat of blah blah blah…
YLB, fewer Republicans voted in this election vs. 2004. Why? Because McCain’s values didn’t cut the mustard. Many conservatives didn’t like his stance on many issues. Oh BTW, your side only grew a little eventhough there were claims of 18 MM new voter registrations. Too many Americans don’t take voting seriously.
Your girlfriend is done, Goldy. She outspent Reichert by over a million dollars in an absolutely terrible environment for Republicans and still couldn’t do it. Apparently money doesn’t make up for mediocrity. See ya Darcy, and hopefully not anytime soon.
YLB – still a moron.
Obama does support abortionists choking the full term aborted baby. I gave you the link moron.
That’s why you are still yelling loser boy.
Gonna believe Rasmussen now fool? Best polling coverage.
But you keep believing the NYSlimes/SEE BS polls okay?
Once again! How the hell do we get our money returned?