Do I win? He won't be defeated.Nice try. The way I see it you owe me $20.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us...stupak.html?hp Originally Posted by discreetgent
- pjorourke
- 04-09-2010, 12:45 PM
- discreetgent
- 04-09-2010, 05:02 PM
- pjorourke
- 04-09-2010, 08:07 PM
Let me ask you a question. In Leonard-Duran II (NOLA, 1980), did Leonard defeat Duran when Duran turned his back and said "No mas"?
"The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is a culturally conservative area that viewed most aspects of the health care bill with suspicion. In 2000 and 2004, the district went easily for George W. Bush, and Barack Obama barely managed 50% of the vote there in 2008. Mr. Stupak is known to have taken a private poll of his district since his health care vote, and his retirement announcement is a likely indication that he feared he might lose to a Republican challenger this fall." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopOpinion
"The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is a culturally conservative area that viewed most aspects of the health care bill with suspicion. In 2000 and 2004, the district went easily for George W. Bush, and Barack Obama barely managed 50% of the vote there in 2008. Mr. Stupak is known to have taken a private poll of his district since his health care vote, and his retirement announcement is a likely indication that he feared he might lose to a Republican challenger this fall." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopOpinion
- discreetgent
- 04-09-2010, 09:22 PM
lol a Wall Street Journal opinion piece? please. Weren't you the guy who railed on a link from MSNBC
Defeated is defeated, not retired. Maybe I should insist on you paying up
Defeated is defeated, not retired. Maybe I should insist on you paying up
- pjorourke
- 04-09-2010, 09:37 PM
Nope, you are the weasel. Quiting because you know you are going to lose is a defeat.
- discreetgent
- 04-09-2010, 09:42 PM
The speakers are clearly biased but
"Senior Democratic officials said there were signs that Mr. Stupak, even as he negotiated the health care compromise, was considering not running for re-election. He had not raised much money and had done little campaigning."
Say Vegas had a line on this race, I think they simply call off the bets.
"Senior Democratic officials said there were signs that Mr. Stupak, even as he negotiated the health care compromise, was considering not running for re-election. He had not raised much money and had done little campaigning."
Say Vegas had a line on this race, I think they simply call off the bets.
- pjorourke
- 04-09-2010, 10:04 PM
Typical liberal weasel -- all talk and empty promises. 
The point of the bet was that Stupak was toast and wouldn't be back after he sold the country down the river for an empty promise.
The point of the bet was that Stupak was toast and wouldn't be back after he sold the country down the river for an empty promise.
- discreetgent
- 04-09-2010, 10:35 PM
Typical right wing talk - when you have no case resort to insults
- TexTushHog
- 04-10-2010, 12:58 AM
Stupak was likely going to win his general election race if he got by Connie Saltonstall in the Democratic primary. His bigger hurdle was getting through the primary. Stupak pissed tons of Democrats off in the first House vote by insisting on draconian abortion restrictions that went well beyond current law as embodied in the Hyde Amendment.
Saltonstall will have a bit of an uphill climb in November, but she can still win. The district is only about +3 or 4 R, so it could still be competitive. Saltonstall's big problem now is raising money. She could get gobs of national money in the Democratic primary because she was running against Stupak, who pissed pro-choice Democrats off more than he pissed of the loonies. She was going to get Emily's List money, NARL money, ActBlue money, MoveOn.org money, etc.
Now, she's just another rookie Democrat running to keep a winnable, but still marginal district, that is no more high priority than any other. And apparently, she comes from the wrong end of the district from a geographical standpoint. Had she beaten Stupak in the primary, she would be the Ned Lamont of this election cycle.
Saltonstall will have a bit of an uphill climb in November, but she can still win. The district is only about +3 or 4 R, so it could still be competitive. Saltonstall's big problem now is raising money. She could get gobs of national money in the Democratic primary because she was running against Stupak, who pissed pro-choice Democrats off more than he pissed of the loonies. She was going to get Emily's List money, NARL money, ActBlue money, MoveOn.org money, etc.
Now, she's just another rookie Democrat running to keep a winnable, but still marginal district, that is no more high priority than any other. And apparently, she comes from the wrong end of the district from a geographical standpoint. Had she beaten Stupak in the primary, she would be the Ned Lamont of this election cycle.