Your Endorsements 2010

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

If the Mods find it appropriate to move this to the IMHO forum feel free to do so.

What are you endorsements for the 2010 Midterm elections?

Senate:

Alabama: Richard Shelby (Republican)
Alaska: Lisa Murkowski (Republican)
Arizona: John McCain (Republican)
Arkansas: John Boozman (Republican)
California: Carly Fiorina (Republican)
Colorado: Jane Norton (Republican)
Connecticut: Peter Schriff (Republican)
Delaware: Mike Castle (Republican)
Florida: Charlie Crist (Independent)*
Georgia: Jonny Isakson (Republican)
Hawaii: Campbell Cavasso (Republican)
Idaho: Mike Crapo (Republican)
Illinois: Mark Kirk (Republican)
Indiana: Dan Coats (Republican)
Iowa: Chuck Grassley (Republican)
Kansas: Jerry Moran (Republican)
Kentucky: Trey Grayson (Republican, write-in)
Louisiana: David Vitter (Republican)
Maryland: Eric Wargotz (Republican)
Missouri: Roy Blunt (Republican)
Nevada: Sue Lowden (Republican, write-in)
New Hampshire: Kelly Ayotte (Republican)
New York (1): Joseph DioGuardi (Republican)
New York (2): Gary Berntsen (Republican)
North Carolina: Richard Burr (Republican)
North Dakota: John Hoeven (Republican)
Ohio: Rob Portman (Republican)
Oklahoma: Tom Coburn (Republican)
Oregon: Jim Huffman (Republican)
Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey (Republican)
South Carolina: Jim DeMint (Republican)
South Dakota: John Thune (Republican)
Utah: Bob Bennett (Republican, write-in)
Vermont: Len Britton (Republican)
Washington: Dino Rossi (Republican)
West Virginia: John Raese (Republican)
Wisconsin: Ron Johnson (Republican)


Governor

California: Meg Whitman (Republican)

Representative

California, 47th District: Van Tran (Republican)

Proposition

California, Prop 19: Yes

[Lamar Mundane]

Call me crazy, but I am sensing a pattern...

[BrainGlutton]

If we want any interesting discussion here, it's probably only worthwhile posting an endorsement in this thread if it crosses your usual party line, or else relates to an intrapartisan primary fight.

[Chronos]

Hey, give him credit, he's favoring Crist over Rubio in Florida.

[Superhal]

I endorse all non-republicans, even when they are running unopposed.

[Fear Itself]

Aren't some of those guys incumbents? I thought we were supposed to throw them all out.

[BobLibDem]

Seriously, Curtis, how much research did you do in each of these races? What puzzles me is your non-endorsements of the GOP candidates who happen to be Teabaggers. What do Rand Paul, Angle, and Rubio believe that you do not?

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm curious why Crist has an asterisk. I think there's a missing footnote like "*Used to be a Republican" or "*Secretly wishes he was Republican". As an afterthought, California's Pop 19 (legalizing some aspects of marijuana use) sounds pretty good, though it may turn into another Arizona-immigration debacle if the feds try to insist that drug regulation is their jurisdiction.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Cry for attention?


Also, my endorsements: everyone running against the people that Curtis LeMay endorses.



Now we're back to square one.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Seriously, Curtis, how much research did you do in each of these races? What puzzles me is your non-endorsements of the GOP candidates who happen to be Teabaggers. What do Rand Paul, Angle, and Rubio believe that you do not?

I think Paul, and Angle will both end up being a liability to the Republican Party rather than an asset once they're in political office and that I think overall Crist would do better than Rubio as Florida is a centrist state.

I'm curious why Crist has an asterisk. I think there's a missing footnote like "*Used to be a Republican" or "*Secretly wishes he was Republican".

I would have said "If he still leans to Republicans by November".

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Cry for attention?


Also, my endorsements: everyone running against the people that Curtis LeMay endorses.



Now we're back to square one.

So Sharron Angle for Senate in Nevada? :dubious:

[Gagundathar]

Roy Barnes (D) as the next Governor of Georgia.

[Ravenman]

I think Paul, and Angle will both end up being a liability to the Republican Party rather than an asset once they're in political office and that I think overall Crist would do better than Rubio as Florida is a centrist state. So why do you endorse Jim DeMint, who is just as extreme as Paul or Angle? One might think that if you don't swallow the Tea Party nonsense, which you do not, then you might decline to endorse the highest-ranking Tea Party posterchild in government today.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Cry for attention?


Also, my endorsements: everyone running against the people that Curtis LeMay endorses.



Now we're back to square one.

So Sharron Angle for Senate in Nevada? :dubious:

Yes, because it'd be a nice trainwreck.

[Jophiel]

So Sharron Angle for Senate in Nevada? :dubious:
Well sure, if Democrats are going to sweep the rest of the map :D

[Really Not All That Bright]

You're endorsing Jim "I don't understand how foreign policy works after 5 years in the Senate" DeMint?

[Skammer]

The only race I'm really invested in is the re-election of our local congressman, Jim Cooper - one of the Blue-Dog Democrats. I hope he can pull it off, but voting for the health care bill (and being an incumant and a Democrat) will hurt him.

I haven't made up my mind on the governer's race yet. I wish Bredesen didn't have to step down.

[BrainGlutton]

If we want any interesting discussion here, it's probably only worthwhile posting an endorsement in this thread if it crosses your usual party line, or else relates to an intrapartisan primary fight.

On that note: In the Florida Senate election, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=565581) I'm still deeply undecided/conflicted on whether to vote (or campaign) for Kendrick Meek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Meek) or Charlie Crist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Crist) I'd much, much rather have Meek in office, but Crist is running so much stronger, and I don't want to split the anti-Rubio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio) (Ogdamn "Tea Party Candidate") vote.

America needs instant-runoff voting, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) dammit! :mad:

Anyway, anyone have any suggestions for resolving this dilemma?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Move to Georgia. :D

[BrainGlutton]

Move to Georgia. :D

Bite my guava.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You didn't ask for sensible suggestions...

If it were me (actually, it is also me) I'd decide whether the difference between my favored candidate and my second-choice candidate was greater than the difference between my second-choice candidate and the guy I absolutely didn't want winning.

I think we both know what you have to do.

[foolsguinea]

I can only vote for one of these. And as a Missourian, I can tell you that Roy Blunt is a corrupt putz. Robin Carnahan may have her flaws, but i consider her less offensive. Blunt is a total unrepentant megacorp whore, & was the whip for the Abramoff cabal.

[foolsguinea]

If it were me (actually, it is also me) I'd decide whether the difference between my favored candidate and my second-choice candidate was greater than the difference between my second-choice candidate and the guy I absolutely didn't want winning.

I think we both know what you have to do.It doesn't matter. If the vote is split it's split, whichever side of the split you fall on.

I would vote for the Democrat, & let Crist be a GOP splitter. But I can see why it might be better to have an "independent Republican" begin to wear down the ideological stance of the GOP.

[Morgenstern]

Actually, apparently LeMay has thought this through.

Think of the money the tax payers would save in printing costs of voter pamphlets. All we'd need is a single sheet with name and party on it. Hell,we'd not need elections - all we'd have to do is count registered voters in each party and we'd have a winner. That would save the 2 months of annoying campaign ads we're bombarded with and we wouldn't have to look at all those colorful election signs for weeks on end. The news stations could actually cover important things like whether the new recycling bins we're about to get should be blue or yellow. Yeah, there is something here.

Damn right man. This idea is golden.

[Cisco]

I'm really, really hoping Terry Goddard can pull out a miracle in the race for governor, but I highly doubt it. Brewer is ridiculously comfortable in the polls, and they aren't moving. Damn SB1070 was a political stunt of epic proportions.

[Chefguy]

The Republicans don't want Murkowski, and the Independents are too keen on her, either. A write-in campaign might have worked, but she doesn't seem too interested in that, either. So basically your choice for Alaska just shows that you haven't really done any homework on your list, but are posting it as a screed.

[gonzomax]

Curtis is supposed to a religious nut yet he is for David Vitter. Vitter liked to spend time and money in whore houses and the women said he liked to wear diapers. But on the other hand ,he is a Republican and that is what Curtis really requires.

[Chefguy]

I really hope that Murky pursues a write-in campaign. That would pretty much insure that the Democrat wins the seat, since it will split the Republican vote.

[kevja]

Governor - Jerry Brown

US Senate - Barbara Boxer

[Merijeek]

I can only vote for one of these. And as a Missourian, I can tell you that Roy Blunt is a corrupt putz. Robin Carnahan may have her flaws, but i consider her less offensive. Blunt is a total unrepentant megacorp whore, & was the whip for the Abramoff cabal.

Well, sure but he's a Republican.

Oh, sorry to be redundant.

-Joe

[gonzomax]

What a lot of typing to say vote Republican, the rich don't have enough of your money yet.

[elfkin477]

It'll still be a few hours until we hear who our candidates in the general will be given today's the primary, but I'm hoping that Kelly Ayotte loses. I voted for Jim Bender despite not being thrilled he's prochoice and would somewhat rather see Ovid LaMontane get it over Ayotte too because besides the issue of gay marriage he's closer to my ideal than she is as well. Being both prolife and pro gay marriage & adoption made the choice hard, and I ultimately decided that there was much more danger of someone wanting to contest the right of gay folks to marry than to do anything (that I'd consider) negative on the abortion front, and while Bender doesn't seem thrilled about gay marriage, he seemed the least hostile to it during the debate.

As for other seats, I voted for Jack Kimball for govenor and Rich Ashooh for congress. Ashooh is the only person running who actually said something about health care other than "Obamacare is bad, we should do something else" and outlined what "something else" might be.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I don't have the energy to follow all those elections, Curtis. I have a job. Anyway, I find it simpler to oppose anyone supported by Glenn Beck and/or Sarah Palin.

[Frank]

I don't have the energy to follow all those elections, Curtis. I have a job. Anyway, I find it simpler to oppose anyone supported by Glenn Beck and/or Sarah Palin.
In fairness, Curtis doesn't seem to be a Tea Party supporter, if you look at his choices. He's endorsing writing in Bill Bennett, who isn't even running after losing the nomination. He's also, albeit rather lukewarmedly, supporting Charlie Crist. At least two of his choices have also lost their nomination battles to Tea Partiers. (I say "at least two" because, hell, I can't follow them all either.)

I don't get the impression that Beck and Palin carry a lot of weight with him.

That said, I do notice (as others have) a trend in his choices.

[gonzomax]

I endorse all non-republicans, even when they are running unopposed.

The difference is you are old enough to vote. You don"t cancel Curtis but you trump him.he is a kid with no clues.

[Chronos]

he is a kid with no clues. He has a heck of a lot more clue than most fourteen-year-olds. Most of his peers probably couldn't even tell you who's running in their local races. He just has extremely peculiar clues, is all.

[Merijeek]

he is a kid with no clues. He has a heck of a lot more clue than most fourteen-year-olds. Most of his peers probably couldn't even tell you who's running in their local races. He just has extremely peculiar clues, is all.

Parroting talking points and longing to pull the red lever means he has a clue?

-Joe

[theR]

Seriously, Curtis, how much research did you do in each of these races? What puzzles me is your non-endorsements of the GOP candidates who happen to be Teabaggers. What do Rand Paul, Angle, and Rubio believe that you do not?

I think Paul, and Angle will both end up being a liability to the Republican Party rather than an asset once they're in political office and that I think overall Crist would do better than Rubio as Florida is a centrist state.


So you vote for candidates based on whether you think they're good for the party? Silly me, but I would vote for a candidate that I think will do a better job over a candidate that will strengthen a party. I am not endorsing any of those mentioned in BobLibDem's post, but I am wondering if you think any of them would do a better job but won't vote for them because they will hurt your party.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It'll still be a few hours until we hear who our candidates in the general will be given today's the primary, but I'm hoping that Kelly Ayotte loses. I voted for Jim Bender despite not being thrilled he's prochoice and would somewhat rather see Ovid LaMontane get it over Ayotte too because besides the issue of gay marriage he's closer to my ideal than she is as well.
Blech. LaMontagne sounds like a nutjob. Repeal the capital gains and dividends taxes entirely?
He has a heck of a lot more clue than most fourteen-year-olds. Most of his peers probably couldn't even tell you who's running in their local races. He just has extremely peculiar clues, is all.

Parroting talking points and longing to pull the red lever means he has a clue?

-Joe
Caring enough to do so means he has a clue. His analysis (in other threads) indicates that he has one.

Look, you may not like him or his point of view, but Curtis is a smart kid, full stop.

[YogSosoth]

Usually I hold out hope of some kind of good Republican candidate, but based on the insanity of the GOP and their bastard step-child the Tea Baggers, I'm simply going full Democrat, no exceptions. At this point, I'd vote for a puppy-stomping Democrat than an atheist Republican

[Skammer]

Got my Jim Cooper (D - TN 5th district) yard sign yesterday. Hopefully it won't get stolen/vandalized.

Listened to a little bit of the TN governer debate yesterday and I have to admit that the Republican, Haslam, came off a little better than McWherter, the Dem. I'm still torn on that race.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I don't have the energy to follow all those elections, Curtis. I have a job. Anyway, I find it simpler to oppose anyone supported by Glenn Beck and/or Sarah Palin.
In fairness, Curtis doesn't seem to be a Tea Party supporter, if you look at his choices. He's endorsing writing in Bill Bennett, who isn't even running after losing the nomination. He's also, albeit rather lukewarmedly, supporting Charlie Crist. At least two of his choices have also lost their nomination battles to Tea Partiers. (I say "at least two" because, hell, I can't follow them all either.)

I don't get the impression that Beck and Palin carry a lot of weight with him.

That said, I do notice (as others have) a trend in his choices.

Correct. I'm a moderate conservative on most issues (except abortion) roughly between JOhn McCain and Scott Brown.

[Chronos]

Correct. I'm a moderate conservative on most issues (except abortion) roughly between JOhn McCain and Scott Brown. Which John McCain? The John McCain of 2000, the John McCain of 2007 through the spring of 2008, the John McCain of the summer of 2008 through Election Day, the John McCain from the day after election day through inauguration, or the John McCain since inauguration day?

[Locrian]

Governor - Jerry Brown

US Senate - Barbara Boxer

I second that, kevja! Meg Whitman strikes me as a hidden agenda driven person. Plus she seems to like to spend money pretty easily on lame stuff, like her campaign. :D
I'm going for Jerry Brown. Not that I'm fond of electing sharks, mind you... Mrs. Boxer will get my vote, third election in a row.

[Omar Little]

What a lot of typing to say vote Republican, the rich don't have enough of your money yet.

What does this even mean?:confused:

I'll just pass it off as the rantings of one poster, and not necessarily a common view held by many non-Republicans. :rolleyes:

Saying the opposite (The democrats don't have enough of your money yet?) has a plausible foundation. Democrats are more pro taxes :: they have taken more of my money. I don't get it. But that's not surprising.

[ShibbOleth]

And as a Missourian, I can tell you that Roy Blunt is a corrupt putz. Robin Carnahan may have her flaws, but i consider her less offensive. Blunt is a total unrepentant megacorp whore, & was the whip for the Abramoff cabal.

I actually like him when he's on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. As a Floridian, he has my vote.

[Chronos]

What does this even mean?

I'll just pass it off as the rantings of one poster, and not necessarily a common view held by many non-Republicans.

Saying the opposite (The democrats don't have enough of your money yet?) has a plausible foundation. Democrats are more pro taxes :: they have taken more of my money. I don't get it. But that's not surprising.What it means is that Curtis's list consists entirely of Republicans, most of them in races in which he doesn't even have a stake. So he might as well have just said that he prefers a straight Republican party-line ticket.

And the difference between Republicans and Democrats isn't which one wants to tax; they both do. The difference is whom they want to tax. Democrats want to tax people who have money, while Republicans want to tax people who don't. Hence, electing more Republicans amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class.

[Captain Amazing]

The difference is whom they want to tax. Democrats want to tax people who have money, while Republicans want to tax people who don't.

What's the point of taxing people who don't have money?

[Omar Little]

...Republicans want to tax people who don't. Hence, electing more Republicans amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class.

This is one the most sad posts I've read on here. It, like the first post referred to, makes no sense. Even if it were true, how does only taxing the poor people result in a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.:rolleyes:

[BrainGlutton]

The difference is whom they want to tax. Democrats want to tax people who have money, while Republicans want to tax people who don't.

What's the point of taxing people who don't have money?

It's not worth the cost of collecting what they have, but the IRS makes it up in volume. [rimshot]

[Cisco]

The difference is whom they want to tax. Democrats want to tax people who have money, while Republicans want to tax people who don't.

What's the point of taxing people who don't have money?

There's a pretty obvious implied "to spare" after "money".

[gonzomax]

What a lot of typing to say vote Republican, the rich don't have enough of your money yet.

What does this even mean?:confused:

I'll just pass it off as the rantings of one poster, and not necessarily a common view held by many non-Republicans. :rolleyes:

Saying the opposite (The democrats don't have enough of your money yet?) has a plausible foundation. Democrats are more pro taxes :: they have taken more of my money. I don't get it. But that's not surprising.

Obama cut your taxes. Is that surprising to you?

[Omar Little]

What does this even mean?:confused:

I'll just pass it off as the rantings of one poster, and not necessarily a common view held by many non-Republicans. :rolleyes:

Saying the opposite (The democrats don't have enough of your money yet?) has a plausible foundation. Democrats are more pro taxes :: they have taken more of my money. I don't get it. But that's not surprising.

Obama cut your taxes. Is that surprising to you?

What does that even have to do with your original post? How does having a Republican in office lead to the "rich" taking other people's money?

[Chronos]

Everyone (yes, that includes Bill Gates and John Galt and anyone else you can name) receives the benefits of government services. If you tax poor people and then use that money to provide services to rich people, how is that not redistribution of money from the poor to the rich?

[Omar Little]

Everyone (yes, that includes Bill Gates and John Galt and anyone else you can name) receives the benefits of government services. If you tax poor people and then use that money to provide services to rich people, how is that not redistribution of money from the poor to the rich?

Not if you also tax rich people. I have yet to see any Republican platform include a proposed legislation where taxes only apply to poor people and not rich people.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Everyone (yes, that includes Bill Gates and John Galt and anyone else you can name) receives the benefits of government services. If you tax poor people and then use that money to provide services to rich people, how is that not redistribution of money from the poor to the rich?

Not if you also tax rich people. I have yet to see any Republican platform include a proposed legislation where taxes only apply to poor people and not rich people.

Meh, I think Republicans want to take more of my money because they love to cut taxes while increasing spending and thus dramatically increasing the debt. They are either going to destroy the economy by bankrupting the US Government, or make it necessary to dramatically increase taxes at a later date to cover the interest payments. Of course, President Obama is not looking too good in this regard at the moment; he may be the first Democratic President to increase the debt/GDP ratio since Roosevelt. But since every Republican President since Nixon has increased this ratio, I am willing to cut him a little slack and give him the benefit of the doubt. Touch economic times and all that.

[gonzomax]

Everyone (yes, that includes Bill Gates and John Galt and anyone else you can name) receives the benefits of government services. If you tax poor people and then use that money to provide services to rich people, how is that not redistribution of money from the poor to the rich?

Not if you also tax rich people. I have yet to see any Republican platform include a proposed legislation where taxes only apply to poor people and not rich people.

Of course you have. The Bush tax cut was a boon to the wealthy. Krugman says it is equivalent to writing a tax payer check to the top 1200 richest people in America for 3.2 million dollars, every single year. The Repubs are fighting to keep this fiasco in place and many Americans have been convinced it is a good idea.
The Bush tax cut was sunsetted because in their evil little hearts, the rich Repubs knew it was bad for deficits and should not go on forever. If we killed the whole thing, our deficits would drop 25 to 30 percent. Does that sound bad? Yet the greedy rich have convinced Americans that any tax is bad. They like getting richer off tax payers.