Why Stephen Colbert's Sister Was Pummeled

Right, we agree Sanford committed political suicide. And he still won handily.

That's the topic of this thread: to discover why that was. And no, it's not that women voters in S.C. don't see his infidelity as a big deal. It's because they saw an even bigger deal in Colbert-Busch...

The topic is to investigate what that platform element was, isolate it, and eliminate it from any other dem hopeful running for Congress who wants and needs middle votes to win.

 

Well....aren't we quite emotional today....

breathe a little...geeze.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't need this thread to discover why Sanford won. It's obvious South Carolina is a Republican dominated red state.

Simple

 

I agree that kind of behavior is inexcusable. I am just so sick of the libs making everything about sex. He can be the worst husband on earth and cheat, but that should not define his career. When it starts to intersect, then yes, I see that issue.

 

I'm pretty sure I already pointed out why she lost...

 

As more and more Democrats realize that the USA is now gay-friendly and that homosexuality is not harmful, we can probably expect Republicans to do the same. I think that by 2014 that many more states will have legal gay marriage and more Republicans will publicly support homosexuality.

 

Right the lying and embezzling tax payer dollars should have assured him 3 hots and a cot in a luxury minimum security prison somewhere, and that didn't even happen.

 

If she lost, why was she projected to win?

Women voted for Sanford. That alone is a subject worthy of study. What thing disturbs these women more viscerally about Colbert-Busch than cheating, mistress-praising Sanford? The dems stance on gun control?

 

House wives everywhere? Please, they just need to get in the kichen and make sammiches.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, like that is a big deal. I guess he should have just sat in the oval office and banged an intern.

 

It's actually conservatives -- especially evangelists on a pulpit -- who keep talking about sex. It's the liberals who call them on it after they are caught doing the deeds that they condemn so often.

 

Diverting the topic isn't going to work this time. This was an upset and democratic strategists keen to know how women vote will be studying this despite all the gay propaganda painting it out as "no big deal".

Sanford shouldn't have won by any political yardstick. The GOP withdrew their support from him. This was a victory on bad vs worse. S.C. decided some stance having to do with marriage was worse than what Sanford did.

 

Someone is always gonna be "projected to win..."

There's no reason to look any further into that than the nature of reporting...

Why study it?

What would be the point?

Did you just create this thread to spin up some speculative nonsense?

Have you heard anything about Colbert-Busch, other than the contempt charge 25 years ago?

No, and I don't expect the average voter has either...

The fact of the matter is that Sanford won in a Congressional district that leans 11% higher toward Republicans...

And, like I said, considering how partisan the country is now, it's no surprise that a Republican won by about 8 or so percentage points in a district that leans toward Republicans by about 11%...

That, coupled with a weak campaign from Colbert-Busch, all but handed the seat to Sanford...

- - - Updated - - -

What are you talking about!?

That's the same (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) thing as Sanford's affair...

Irrelevant...

The misuse of taxpayer funds is a different thing, and one that is actually relevant...

 

The district stayed on its historical trend.

Conclusion: Cheating was cancelled out by gay marriage.

Do social issues resonate like the weakness of a regulation-choked economy?

 

"there's no reason to look any further" eh?

Sure there is...if you want and need dems to retake Congress.. Politics lives and dies based on what politicians think the public is thinking right on the verge of elections. If they are purposefully misled by activists special interest groups, they make deadly mistakes.

Sanford won by nearly 10 points.

 

And exactly where are you determining that there's a need to dig into some alleged underlying reason why he won?

Republicans have consistently won that district for 32 years...

With the sheer amount of people who blindly vote partisan, there was no reason to think that was gonna change now...

 

It was a Hobson's choice. Filthy lying Republican adulturer was less of a POS than a garden variety Democrat. This is the Obama stench polluting a laydown Dem victory. Sanford should be a punchline, not a Congresscritter.

.

 

MOD EDIT : I HAVE REMOVED THE OFF TOPIC PART OF THIS POST , PLEASE READ THE RULES Actually the reason she lost was the hypocrisy of the Republicans in this gerrymandered district. That is all. They picked a guy who stole from the state to visit his mistress and lied to the people and his family. If this had been a Democrat we wouldn't have even let him on the ballot in the primary. But you family values people don't care about infidelity and larceny. Good for you, you put another bigoted hypocrite in Congress. He will fit right in with your caucus.

 

Listen, Obama won handily last election. Don't misinterpret who or what was at fault here. Either there was something voting women in S.C. hated about Elizabeth Colbert-Busch personally or something she stood for. I'm banking on the latter.

 

And to put that into context we have to look at the previous results. His first term 7% second term 10% and this election is 10% The only other element to consider is voter turn out. Once we see these figures we can see how much traction the Democrats got or did not get this election

 

Then tell your party to stop trying to make where someone puts their weiner a crime. When they do that we can talk.

By the way...we can put you down as pro=gay marriage?

 

Same is true here is CT but in reverse. If you have an R next to your name, you need not apply. You're are right, it was the biggest factor going for Sanford in SC.

Also, while Sanford is a mutt, Colbert was a total mystery. She refused to take a stance on most issues. She was basically in stealth mode and people were left with no clue who she was. She dodged all but one debate and said nothing in that one. The people in SC knew exactly where the mutt stood on every issue. It looks like they held their noses pulled his lever.

 

Especially if we we want to continue empowering ethically bankrupt liars, phonies, and p.o.s. swindlers. If personal integrity isn't a relevant factor in selecting competent leaders then wtf is (relevant)??? Whoever will (*)(*)(*)(*) over their own "loved ones" and trash whatever avowed commitment was once made and held in esteem, will more than likely (*)(*)(*)(*) over anyone (or everyone) if it gets them what they personally desire at the time.

 

It could have been the disgusting republican push polling days before the election. Oh no it has to be your bigotry.

 

Grant was an alcoholic. He was also the only general Lincoln could find that could beat Lee.

Hate the sin, forgive the sinner.

 

Really? Even if that R is running against a D who was just caught cheating on his wife and instead of begging forgiveness, stood up publicly instead just days later and sung the praises of his hot love for his new mistress...as his wife and children were still reeling from the news? Still a guaranteed win for the D there?

Yeah, I don't think so. I've got a new idea for this thread. Let's make it one where people are honest instead of the usual fare.

 

Honestly, most districts nowadays are like that. They are either in heavily GOP or Dem areas or have been gerrymandered to simulate that. There is literally no analysis to be done here. Sanford won because he's a Republican in a district that has voted Republican EVERY election since 1981.