Liberals are very gullible.
So, does the local democrat have a good shot of slapping the Brat on the ass this Fall?
Will this seat go democrat?
Unlikely, democrats expected to have to face Cantor and have zero shot so they didn’t get a good candidate in the race either.
I think the last point is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the quote “My hero Socrates trained in Plato on a rock. How much did that cost? So the greatest minds in history became the greatest minds in history without spending a lot of money.”
Sounds like both parties will have weak candidates. In an off year that usually means low turnout. It won’t take much voter action to win this one but will either be able to inspire it? What if Cantor’s friends push for a write-in “against his will”? Would he take the seat?
I don’t see any problem with that statement. Do you dispute the first sentence, or the last one? What in that statement is incorrect?
How about “We spendmore money on our schools than all OECD countries except maybe one, about double the OECD average, and the results are much worse” - do you find fault with this statement?
Who said anything about correctness? I was just saying that the response to that statement you were responding to isn’t all that much of a stretch. Also, your use of “gullible” implied that you didn’t think that the statement was true AT ALL, so I didn’t know what you already knew about it.
I dunno, it’s the same situation with health care, and there are plenty of conservatives who don’t see any problem with the current system.
Cantor lost because he was a swarmy careerist, but not a sausage maker. His raison d’etre was being tight with wingnuts. Which is sort of ironic, considering who threw him out.
They have no political experience and no experience in Washington. One or the other would be fine with me, as would extensive managerial experience or deep policy immersion. I’m guessing they have the prerequisite intelligence.
I don’t want to be misunderstood. I tried to convey that the dull pencil hypothesis was possible, but less likely than the alternative, which was that Brat hadn’t really prepped for victory.
There are various sorts of intelligence and Brat may not have the chops to be successful in certain contexts: he could be bad at speaking on his feet for example. Not likely, but I know of some otherwise brilliant professors who were like that. It happens.
Yes, because saying that “he also wants to slash funding for schools, because Aristotle did okay learning on a rock” using that statement as a basis is either stupid or dishonest. If you said that “he also wants to slash funding for schools because greatest minds in history became the greatest minds in history without spending a lot of money” - that would be both accurate and honest. But since it wouldn’t be as snarky, you went with the stupid.
It’s not “the same situation” because it is not government money being spent on health care that is being compared.
And I am trying to convey to you that the “dull pencil hypothesis” is not possible, since “dull pencils” cannot get a PhD in Economics.
Anyone doubt that Cantor will win back that seat in two years?
I recall a brash and cocky young Governor named Bill Clinton that lost to an unknown candidate, Frank White. Clinton took back that job and continued as governor for almost ten more years. Before becoming President. I always thought that loss made Clinton a better politician. He never took the public’s support for granted again.
Ok, but what I was trying to convey was that idiot savants can get PhDs from 3rd tier universities. Though I’m speaking metaphorically - really, some people just don’t come across as very smart regardless of their native intelligence. I generally agree with your underlying point though.
Oh, I do. He could cash in big by lobbying, if it interests him. He could also obtain a sinecure from any number of wingnut organizations, sort of like Santorum. I don’t know what he will do and I’m guessing he doesn’t either.
I hope he doesn’t, and finds himself a career that doesn’t involve being a scoundrel and lying to people. I hate to see a nice Jewish boy demean himself in that way.
I can’t speak for the original snarker, of course, but considering what I personally think of the point being made, there’s less daylight between the two interpretations to me than to you. And I still think regardless, “gullible” was the wrong word to use. It gave me a far different impression of what you were saying,
And just as a point of clarity on the education thing, I actually do wonder how much Brat was thinking of/talking about federal spending versus spending in general.
I am sure he was talking about government spending - federal and local. Not about private spending. Because private spending on education is not in the purview of politicians.
The search for pure conservatism continues. So does the search for a fountain of youth. Neither will, or can ever, be found. The GOP is rudderless and without a rallying-point. Good. Hope the thing sinks to the bottom.
So did he lie when he made those claims?
What do the Senate seats in Virginia look like in two years? Is there a position there for Cantor to campaign?
It’s also worth noting that, while his RMC page accurately lists his educational CV, his political website stretches the truth a little bit:
I don’t know about you, but if i read that, i’d think that he had attended Princeton University. Princeton Theological Seminary and Princeton University are in the same town, but they’re are not the same institution.