Teabagger Heroes Humiliated At The Polls

[A'isha]

Trudat! And it also serves as a nice indicator to distinguish between people who want to carry on a meaningful worthwhile discussion and people who just want to snicker like an adolescent who has discovered a new curse-word.

I agree. These people aren't interested in any kind of meaningful worthwhile discussion at all.

 

[Spindrift]

Plus it will be interesting to see how they sort out the inevitable misspellings of Murkowski.

Despite what you may have heard, spelling doesn't count, intent does. If it can be construed as an attempt to write in Murkowski, it counts for her.

 

[Freddy]

The big three, the standard bearers for the Teabagger movement, not only lost, but two of the three were humiliated.

Let's take a look:

Sharron Angle did the best of the three, only losing by 5%.

Christine O'Donnell was crushed in Delaware, by a relative unkown - 56%-40%. That's called a "smackdown".

In Alaska, nutjob Joe Miller lost to....are you ready....a freakin' write-in candidate!!! Do you understand what I'm saying? A write-in candidate!!! How humiliating is that?

Ahhh....I know what your thinking now. What about Rand Paul? Well, what about him? He was (and has been all along) endorsed by the Libertards. Why aren't they getting credit for his win?

Am I missing anyone? Those were the big three or four.

But what about the Republican wave, you ask? The teabaggers endorsed them! I would argue the republicans wuold have had big gains, teabaggers or no teabaggers. Those candidates they did endorse, likely would have won anyhow.

I think the press is over playing the teabagger story. But it's the hot story right now, but will quickly fade. Wait until the "teabagger" candidates get to congress. Not a single one of them will introduce any bills to balance the budget or cut government in any meaningful way. Not one. And the teabaggers who held the rallies back home will wonder where it all went wrong.

I would say you're missing Rubio, who was by far the single most important "tea party" candidate. Shocking that you forgot that one. Also, Paul definitely and obviously counts, since he has self-identified as a tea party candidate all along. Your reason for excluding him is as stupid as all the juvenile pejoratives you can't help yourself from using. But I realize they don't fit your narrative, and I don't begrudge you your coping mechanisms. "OH YEAH!!11!! O'Donnell LOST!!! WHAT A GREAT NIGHT!!1!1!!" Priceless. Completely predictable, but no less hilarious for that. I'm glad that getting your ass handed to you hasn't affected your self confidence, unjustified as it may be. But here's a tip: you have to be above someone to condescend to them. Your side just suffered the biggest defeat either party has experienced in the last 70 years. Loser.

The lesson that people with brains learned is that if you nominate unelectable candidates, they won't get elected. If you nominate decent candidates, they can win. If the tea party hadn't needed to learn that lesson, Republicans would likely have won both the Nevada and Delaware senate races as well. Hopefully they'll nominate more Rubios and fewer O'Donnells in the future. That would be better for everyone, since candidates as bad as O'Donnell deprive voters of a meaningful choice.

 

[GStan]

<snip>

I agree. These people aren't interested in any kind of meaningful worthwhile discussion at all.

Are you equating not being aware that the terms 'teabagger' or 'teabagging' were associated as an obscure (obscure back then in 2009, certainly not anymore) pop culture sexual reference with not being interested in meaningful discussion?

Funny finds, none-the-less.

ETA: I was not aware of the sexual reference until people started making fun of 'teabaggers' as a political organization. Just sayin.

 

[Freddy]

Despite what you may have heard, spelling doesn't count, intent does. If it can be construed as an attempt to write in Murkowski, it counts for her.

That depends on what other write in candidates there are and whether any of their names are spelled similarly. The vote counts if you can clearly tell for whom it was cast. I bring this up because I'm not sure how many people actually signed up as write in candidates after the court ruled that a list could be posted at polling places.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I would say you're missing Rubio, who was by far the single most important "tea party" candidate. Shocking that you forgot that one. Also, Paul definitely and obviously counts, since he has self-identified as a tea party candidate all along. Your reason for excluding him is as stupid as all the juvenile pejoratives you can't help yourself from using. But I realize they don't fit your narrative, and I don't begrudge you your coping mechanisms. "OH YEAH!!11!! O'Donnell LOST!!! WHAT A GREAT NIGHT!!1!1!!" Priceless. Completely predictable, but no less hilarious for that. I'm glad that getting your ass handed to you hasn't affected your self confidence, unjustified as it may be. But here's a tip: you have to be above someone to condescend to them. Your side just suffered the biggest defeat either party has experienced in the last 70 years. Loser..

My side? I didn't realize I had a "side". Because I don't. I guess that makes you the loser, doesn't it? That kind of blew up in your face, didn't it?

For the record, I am above you. I know that won't make you very happy.

 

[Brainster]

Hmmm, if we accept the premise that the Tea Party candidates lost, doesn't that mean that the Republican Party doesn't become too extreme for the country, leading to the reelection of Hopey McChange?

 

[A'isha]

Are you equating not being aware that the terms 'teabagger' or 'teabagging' were associated as an obscure (obscure back then in 2009, certainly not anymore) pop culture sexual reference with not being interested in meaningful discussion?

Nah, just sort of taking your original point (which I agree with, by the way) and highlighting that even though you were saying that those who use "teabagger" as a derogatory appellation aren't interested in meaningful discussion, the group that originally and proudly adopted the term as a descriptor for themselves (before learning what it really meant) are equally as disinterested in meaningful discussion.

I found it amusing that your comment actually worked completely accurately both ways like that - anyone using the term "teabagger" isn't interested in any kind of meaningful discussion.

Funny finds, none-the-less.

Indeed!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wouldn't dismiss the teabaggers so readily. They really did have an effect on this election. If they had gone and started a third party, this could have been a Democratic landslide with the tea party siphoning off votes from the Republicans.

If they start a third party in 2012 I'll send them all the money I can find.



I'm a Democrat.

 

[daredelvis]

the group that originally and proudly adopted the term as a descriptor for themselves (before learning what it really meant) are equally as disinterested in meaningful discussion.

I take issue with the bolded portion. Some of the original signs from the 2009 teabagger protest dried out, "Let's teabag Washington, before they teabag us!".

The leadership knew what it meant.

Daredelvis

 

[Tony]

Are you equating not being aware that the terms 'teabagger' or 'teabagging' were associated as an obscure (obscure back then in 2009, certainly not anymore) pop culture sexual reference with not being interested in meaningful discussion?

Funny finds, none-the-less.

ETA: I was not aware of the sexual reference until people started making fun of 'teabaggers' as a political organization. Just sayin.

Obscure? I knew what "teabagger" and "teabagging" meant over 10 years ago. If anything, it demonstrated how out of touch those people were with the mainstream.

 

[Mark6]

I take issue with the bolded portion. Some of the original signs from the 2009 teabagger protest dried out, "Let's teabag Washington, before they teabag us!".

I had known for some years what "teabagging" means. What I did not realize, is that apparently it is a transitive verb. So my question is: in the original sense, who "teabags" whom?

 

[A'isha]

I take issue with the bolded portion. Some of the original signs from the 2009 teabagger protest dried out, "Let's teabag Washington, before they teabag us!".

The leadership knew what it meant.

Yeah, but not everyone. The rank and file was pretty clueless. And I doubt Cavuto and Breitbart knew either.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

If your goal is to be no better than those referring to Obama as such, then congratulations. But IMHO, you should aim higher than that.

Your concern (troll) is noted...

 

[Spindrift]

That depends on what other write in candidates there are and whether any of their names are spelled similarly. The vote counts if you can clearly tell for whom it was cast. I bring this up because I'm not sure how many people actually signed up as write in candidates after the court ruled that a list could be posted at polling places.

There's a huge list of people who signed up as write-in candidates, but not many that could be mistaken for Murkowski.

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/ci_pg_cl_2010_genr.php#uss

 

[Spindrift]

I had known for some years what "teabagging" means. What I did not realize, is that apparently it is a transitive verb. So my question is: in the original sense, who "teabags" whom?

The teabagger teabags the teabaggee.

 

[iknownothing]

Christine O'Donnell was crushed in Delaware, by a relative unkown - 56%-40%. That's called a "smackdown".

I'm a little disturbed that 40% of the people of Delaware actually voted for her.

 

[GStan]

Obscure? I knew what "teabagger" and "teabagging" meant over 10 years ago. If anything, it demonstrated how out of touch those people were with the mainstream.

You knowing the meaning does not signal that the term was not obscure. Anymore than my having not known it qualifies it as obscure. People in the tea party movement initially self-identified as 'teabaggers'. The obscure sexual reference associated with this term became known in the mainstream. After that, just about all tea party self-identification as 'teabaggers' stopped.

 

[daredelvis]

Yeah, but not everyone. The rank and file was pretty clueless. And I doubt Cavuto and Breitbart knew either.

I think it is indicative of how out of touch they are on all issues.

My wife's company is going through layoffs, and the thought of these fools and their stated goals, driving us into a lost decade similar to Japan's does not help me sleep at night.

Daredelvis

 

[cwalner]

There's a huge list of people who signed up as write-in candidates, but not many that could be mistaken for Murkowski.

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/ci_pg_cl_2010_genr.php#uss

And that list does not include the perrenial favorites that I mentioned, who always seem to garner some write in votes in any election that allows them despite being 1) completely fictional and 2) in one case an actual rodent.

Its easy to say that most of those are probably for Murkowski, but since total write-ins exceed miller by only about 5% they need to be fully counted before she can be oficially declared the winner. I think this is likely, but still to early to call a certainty.