Wow! More MAGA corruption/election interference news. The corrupt chair of the bankrupt Arizona GOP just resigned after recordings of him trying to bribe Lake to drop out of the senate race and politics (for at least a few years) were made public.



In case you are unaware, Arizona is FAR from the only state GOP party that has hundreds of thousands in outstanding bills but at best tens of thousands in the bank. They don’t have money to pay their rent or past due bills but can find money to bribe each other into leaving politics because even you find yourselves so toxic!
This is your preferred party! 😂

Edit: turns out she blackmailed him into quitting saying he needed to quit today or face another more damaging recording being released. She’s been secretly recording private conversations for years, this one was from at least a year ago. MAGA blackmailing itself now. Who knows what she has on Trump, probably some sick shit.

What the press release should have been:

"I HAD NO IDEA HOW A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM WORKS AND I HAVE NO BUSINESS TALKING ABOUT IT, LET ALONE MAKING LAWS REGARDING IT. I AM TRULY SORRY FOR MY IGNORANCE AND WILL NOW DROP OUT OF THE SENATE RACE. I WILL NOW DEVOTE THE REST OF MY LIFE TOWARDS THE GOAL OF ELIMINATING THIS IGNORANCE FROM THE REST OF MY PARTY. PLEASE FORGIVE ME."

Uh - no offense - but Frank Luntz is about as 'insider' as you can get. He is not a conservative. He is a GOP wonk. Putting it simply - he's one of those RINOs that real conservatives can't stand and who sells true conservatism down the river every chance he gets.

The GOP insiders want Romney. They want Romney because he is the person they have polled as being the most 'normal'. Above all else, the GOP insiders want someone bland, flavorless, and easy to swallow. They don't want the Sarah Palins, or the Herman Cains, or Ron Paul, or anyone else. They want vanilla, plain-jane, smart sounding, pretty for the camera, non-controversial candidates.

Romney would probably lose to Obama though. So why does the GOP want him? Quite simply, the GOP (as a political party) wants to keep the House, and win the Senate. And they think that Romney is the guy that would give them the best chance to do that. He is so inoffensive, that he would not really 'damage' the critical House/Senate races they want to win in 2012. And if the GOP keeps the House and wins the Senate then the GOP gets to head up all those committee chairmanships, get charge of all the appropriations, and basically run the show. They wouldn't care whether Obama was still President as long as they got to run the town. That is the perspective that Luntz is coming from. Any candidate that risks the GOP 'master plan' is seen as someone to beat down and toss off the overpass rolled up in a flaming carpet.

The normal voters don't give a flying handshake about OWS. OWS is a bunch of freaks, losers, and radicals who will have absolutely no impact on the presidential election whatsoever. But they have a remote chance of messing up a few House & Senate races... That's the only thing our dear Frank cares about.

>> ^My_design:
One other question, if the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, prior to Kennedy's death, then what kept them from getting this thing passed the first time around? I would think that it would have been better for them to pass the bill when they could and then make the changes later.

You and me both! Democrats seem to love to shoot themselves in the foot. They were bending over backwards and tying themselves into knots to make the bill appealing enough to conservatives to win Republican votes.

They also have members of their own party whose electoral strategy is to be "centrist", which often means "hold legislation hostage until Democrats water down their legislation." There also was a pretty drawn out argument between the Senate and the House about things like the public option, employer mandates, how to pay for it (liberals wanted to tax the rich, conservadems wanted to repeal the tax exemption on employer benefits), the overall level at which people would be subsidized, and even whether there would be a single, nationwide "exchange" set up, or if they would be done state-by-state. The conservadems in the Senate won every single one of those fights by holding their breath and refusing to vote for the bill until they got their way. After they lost the race in MA, there wasn't any way for the House to try to claw any of those back, except some of the tax & subsidy stuff (via the reconciliation "sidecar").

I also think losing the Senate race in Massachusetts itself was political malpractice. There was no way a Republican should have won that race, but Coakley went on vacation after the primary (literally and figuratively), and Brown went to everyone's front yard and asked for their vote. That's a recipe for success, no matter what the prevailing political environment looks like. Voters don't like to be taken for granted like that.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by NetRunner.

*dupeof=http://politics.videosift.com/video/6-30-09-Norm-Coleman-Concedes-Minnesota-Senate-Race

On Election Day, Franken lost the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota to the Republican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman by 725 votes.

Yet here we are with another election "miracle" from the commies and futtbucker soros.

Ah well, you get what you deserve Minnesota.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'm pretty sure at the end of a sporting event, the team or individual with the HIGHER (or better) score is the winner, even if it's by one. Prolonging the game until your team is ahead has a name too: cheating.


Florida results in 2000 ?

>> ^Retroboy:
>> ^charliem:
Out of the 2,500,000 odd voters in MN, a swing of 1000 is less than half of one thousandth of a percent.
er... Math fail.
1000/25000000 = 0.04%, or one twenty-fifth of a percent.
Transfer all your comment upvotes to me immediately.


Damn you and your ability to multiply by 100.

>> ^charliem:
Out of the 2,500,000 odd voters in MN, a swing of 1000 is less than half of one thousandth of a percent.

er... Math fail.

1000/25000000 = 0.04%, or one twenty-fifth of a percent.

Transfer all your comment upvotes to me immediately.

If you want maximum objectivity, go for C-SPAN coverage, or PBS.

I'm going to be sitting at my computer, TV nearby with MSNBC on, and my web browser open to: VideoSift, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post Fivethirtyeight.com, CNN's election results page, and YouTube.

I'll be switching over to the Comedy Central election coverage at 10pm, and back to the real thing if it's still not decided by then (and I doubt it would be).

I'll have champagne on ice for victory, and whiskey nearby for sorrow-drowning.

I'll try to do a little armchair electoral math, Chuck Todd style as the night goes on, as I'm sure every network/site will.

One preview though:

2000 it was Florida, Florida, Florida
2004 it was Ohio, Ohio, Ohio
2008 it will be Virginia, Virginia, Virginia

Also keep an eye on the Senate races in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Georgia.

If she helped to plan the event, it could legally constitute a direct hard money donation to Clinton's Senate campaign, rather than to her joint fundraising committee called New York Senate 2000. If that is the case, the donation from Paul would be 10 times the legal limit of $2,000. Knowingly soliciting a contribution of $25,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The conversation appears to show Clinton actively helping to plan the event. The suit alleges that she violated federal campaign finance laws by directly soliciting a contribution from Paul.

"And you know, Aaron, I'm so grateful because I know how hard you've worked on it because it's your constant effort and outreach," Clinton is heard to say over a speaker phone. "You know, I talked with [celebrity singer] Cher and she was just great. Said she was really so excited. And I hadn't talked to her so you must have done a really good job selling it to her."

At no point did Clinton suggest that the event and the Paul donation were not going directly to her campaign, even as the other three in the conversation referenced it repeatedly.

Tonkin later is heard to say, "We've got people like Cher and others that have really never done anything before that are like coming out in full force knowing this is for your Senate race, it's unbelievable."

"I'm just thrilled," Clinton answers. "I'll check in with you from time to time because I know that putting something like this together is challenging even when people are enthusiastic and looking forward to doing it. It's still, there's so much work that's involved."