Was Tennessee voting rigged?

[56FordGuy]

A bunch of lazy, easily won-over by commercials Republicans.

The problem is that too many people think the Republicans are the answer. They're not, and neither are the Democrats, or the Libertarians, or the Federalists, or the Wigs, or any other party. We can't just vote for any candidate with an R by their name and expect good results. We have to look at the individual candidates and what they stand for, not the commercials on TV or who has the most signs.

Unfortunately, most voters are too uneducated or too lazy to do that.

[Rightwinger]

Sadly, IMHO, most current voters just think about the dollars in a program for them. I'm all about KEEPING dollars, but if someone says govt is the answer to jobs again I'm gonna puke. I will try to hold it till I get to Strels area of operations though as he likes those that give.

[Links2k]

This is funny. Folks still waiting on politians to save them. What's the difference between you guys and the folks you claim Obama is trying to save/give everything to? All politians are self serving and they suck!

[Kenstaroni]

I would vote for Strel before I'd vote for Haslem. That should tell you what kind of worthless piece of I think Haslem will be as Governor. He's simply a puppet, just like Obama. No real credibility, nothing of merit shown from his work prior, and will lay down take it in the ass from the federal government, then apologize for not providing them a better experience while doing so. Looks like Tn, one of the last free and decent state's in the U.S. may just become another place for "Change."

[Mark A]

DesJarlais winning didn't surprise me at all. He was out by far the first and the hardest with a ton and radio and TV. I think he had it locked up before a lot of the others started running. In my opinion there were better candidates but he is still going to be better than what we have had...

[Guest db99wj]

Well I've met and talked with Bergmann on more than one occaision. So my mother once said, if you don't have anything nice to say..say nothing at all. So..."nothing at all".

If Cohen could beat Nikki Tinker and King Willie, he will have no trouble beating Bergmann. Cohen will keep his seat no problem folks.

Then what is the point of your post? Discussions like this can help inform others that might not know as much.

King Willie said it himself, he had worn out is political welcome. When the tristate defender paper and other minority owned organizations came out in support of Cohen, Willie was done. Willies arrogance was so bad, his elitism so high, he turned off many black people, especially the ones that vote. Nikki tinker, she was a nobody, she seemed like-able but from what I remember not much experience.

[Guest Doc44]

I I researched all the candidates I had to consider, local and state. Did a indepth look. No one I voted for was elected. Everyone I associate with voted the same way I did. Either me and my friends are really stupid or the mojority of the TN voting population is. Have had thoughts that the political "machines" actually control elections but have settled on most people vote for the guy who spends the most money, has the best looking kids and says he is going to have Coke coming from all the water fountains. It will be almost impossible for me to vote for #%^&$ Haslam. Old man McQurter's just may end up with my vote. Will have to see how he stands on gun. I know where Haslam stands.... any where he thinks it is good for HIM. Local sheriffs race was a joke, a waste of time trying to vote in a new guy. No one I have talked too voted for the incumbent and are surprized as I am about the outcome.

We have a lot of work to do before Nov. We have to get organized.

Anyone "know" where Mcquerter says he stands on guns and carry rights?

Doc44

[eapking]

Then what is the point of your post? Discussions like this can help inform others that might not know as much.

Ok...since you pushed it...

I found her to be a real goof ball. Gets in your face, very political, very pushy. I won't say how I know her, but I do. Trust me, I'd vote for Cohen before her.

Nikki Tinker is a lawyer, if that counts for "experience". Easy on the eyes.

[Guest sugarbear]

I heard Haslam say, on a local Knoxville TV station on election nite, that he was e-mailing back and forth with Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey all evening, just having fun? Just think If it wasn't for Ramsey spliting the vote, maybe Wamp would have won.

[tnhawk]

...Anyone "know" where Mcquerter says he stands on guns and carry rights?

Doc44

He's a dumbocrat, which usually is anti-gun rights. We know Haslam is anti-gun!

[leroy]

...I heard Haslam say, on a local Knoxville TV station on election nite, that he was e-mailing back and forth with Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey all evening, just having fun? Just think If it wasn't for Ramsey spliting the vote, maybe Wamp would have won. ....

Fellow political pundits; sugarbear nailed this one in one sentence. You could substitute any name (..."State Line" Wamp, or Ramsey--depending on your prejudices in this sentence....). I think he is exactly right. I'll grant that Haslam aint much of a republican; but he won because the field was too crowded and he had plenty of dollars. As little as i like Haslam; he will be a credit to any Demorat; especially "Uncle Phil". I didnt vote for Haslam either; but i WILL vote for him in the general election; because i am voting AGAINST THE DEMORATS. Make no mistake; politics is a "winner take all" proposition. If you like what is going on now, vote for a demorat or dont vote at all. Protest votes are votes for the opposing party --- they never work.

Food for thought.

Leroy

[tntnixon]

Fellow political pundits; sugarbear nailed this one in one sentence. You could substitute any name (..."State Line" Wamp, or Ramsey--depending on your prejudices in this sentence....). I think he is exactly right. I'll grant that Haslam aint much of a republican; but he won because the field was too crowded and he had plenty of dollars. As little as i like Haslam; he will be a credit to any Demorat; especially "Uncle Phil". I didnt vote for Haslam either; but i WILL vote for him in the general election; because i am voting AGAINST THE DEMORATS. Make no mistake; politics is a "winner take all" proposition. If you like what is going on now, vote for a demorat or dont vote at all. Protest votes are votes for the opposing party --- they never work.

Food for thought.

Leroy

This line of thought actually requires reason, something that seems to be sorely lacking today. I find it amazing, how many people will allow emotion to rule them (people who would normally be very logical). It's similar to rioters who burn down there own house, only there will be no one willing to rebuild it for them, in this case.

There was a recent study done that showed that misery does indeed love company. It showed that when one person does something stupid, it makes their friends and aquaintances 150% more likely to do the same stupid thing. Divorce, for instance, ran in clusters and simply knowing someone who was going through a divorce made you more likely to go through one yourself, even if you were previously happy in your marriage.

I lump this whole "don't vote for any of them" thing in the same category. People hear that one person is gonna do it, so it seems more rational to do it yourself. Wake up, it is just as stupid an idea as it was before you heard it from a fellow citizen and gun owner.

If you do indeed like gun rights, you are better off in the Haslam camp than the McMini Me camp. I'm not saying it is a great choice, only a better choice. Sometimes you do have to choose between being shot in the leg or being shot in the chest, when not getting shot is not an option.

[Defender]

This line of thought actually requires reason, something that seems to be sorely lacking today. I find it amazing, how many people will allow emotion to rule them (people who would normally be very logical). It's similar to rioters who burn down there own house, only there will be no one willing to rebuild it for them, in this case.

There was a recent study done that showed that misery does indeed love company. It showed that when one person does something stupid, it makes their friends and aquaintances 150% more likely to do the same stupid thing. Divorce, for instance, ran in clusters and simply knowing someone who was going through a divorce made you more likely to go through one yourself, even if you were previously happy in your marriage.

I lump this whole "don't vote for any of them" thing in the same category. People hear that one person is gonna do it, so it seems more rational to do it yourself. Wake up, it is just as stupid an idea as it was before you heard it from a fellow citizen and gun owner.

If you do indeed like gun rights, you are better off in the Haslam camp than the McMini Me camp. I'm not saying it is a great choice, only a better choice. Sometimes you do have to choose between being shot in the leg or being shot in the chest, when not getting shot is not an option.

VERY well said! Ever since so many of us conservatives voted for Ross Perot and ended up giving the election to Bill Clinton, I have realized that when it comes down to the crunch, after the primaries, voting for anyone other than the Republican nominee is, like tntnixon said, counter-productive, getting angry sometimes works against you. Haslam is the lesser of the two evils...if enough of us do not vote for him, it will just get the Dems back in. Simple as that. Sending "messages" to them by protest votes, don't work, they will indeed backfire. If Haslam gets in, and if Ramsey stays as Lt Governor, and we keep our majority, we will do ok I think. I am hoping that those factors will either cause Haslam to do right, or if not, then limit his doing wrong.

The spending MUST be curtailed. Taxes are going up, despite promises to the contrary. Tennessee will also be affected by this. Do you really wanna help the free spending Dems get in here too?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Watch out if you plan to vote for a democrat. If you

look back at the health care bill and were paying

attention, you saw so called blue dogs howling at

socialism and voting the opposite from their constituents'

desires, time and time again. Bart Stupak comes to mind.

It's the same for state races. Dems tend to stick to their

ideology more than republicans and will bury you in

rationalizations on why they voted that way. Disingenuous comes to mind here. Not that both parties

don't do it, but it is more obvious with the dems.

Haslam may try to do some things we don't like, but he

can't get a state income tax, or take away much without

the assistance of the legislature.

I'll take him over any remaining choice. Protest votes are

nothing more than a waste of time and effort. If you value your republic, you will keep building coalition

power and minimalise the opposition to being irrelevant,

which is where a socialist should be considered. Send

them to Europe, where they still thrive. If you still want

to cast a protest vote, you don't understand the game.

[Guest 1010011010]

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, realize you're voting in favor of evil.

If you're unwilling to vote for evil, realize there are more options than just the major party candidates and go vote.

The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate that doesn't represent your interests or a vote not cast at all.

[Defender]

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, realize you're voting in favor of evil.

If you're unwilling to vote for evil, realize there are more options than just the major party candidates and go vote.

The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate that doesn't represent your interests or a vote not cast at all.

So you thinks its good to vote for someone who wont win, casuing the more evil one to win?

[Mike.357]

So you thinks its good to vote for someone who wont win, casuing the more evil one to win?

did that with McCain and the evil one won anyway.

I am not voting for Haslam, if that causes McW to win, oh well.

[tntnixon]

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, realize you're voting in favor of evil.

If you're unwilling to vote for evil, realize there are more options than just the major party candidates and go vote.

The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate that doesn't represent your interests or a vote not cast at all.

I'll see your intentions and raise you one result.

If there had been no H. Ross Perot, there would be no Bill Clinton presidency. If there had been no Bill Clinton, chances are there'd be no Obama and there certainly would be no Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer. There would have been no asault weapons ban or Community Re-investment Act. See where this is going?

[Guest HvyMtl]

If we had real choice, the lesser of evils decision would probably not come into the forefront. This two party system are wings of the same vulture. They have a lock on our government, and are, in effect, another layer of said government. So, we get the choice of one wing or the other, and have to pull for the lesser of two evils.

This said, I actually fear the Oil Man over the Beer Man. Why? He won due to money. He won by lying (MAIG member until he decided to run for Governor, then puts out claims he is a 2nd A supporter, for example.) His message is not true Republican. He will be able to pass his agenda more easily, as he is a member of the party in control, even though this agenda may be anti-conservative under the surface.

The Beer Man is not a well known target. However, he will be forced to go along with the Legislature's agenda. His agenda will be placed on the back burner, in the least, and opposed by the Legislature. This prevents possible actions which could damage our State further. He can talk all he wants, but he would not be in control. The legislature would have the final say. (In effect, this puts the final say more in Ramsey's hands...)

@ TnNixon - The 3rd party cuts both ways. Were it not for Ralph Nader running, Al Gore would have been President, not George W Bush. Had Bush not won his second term, we probably would not have had Obama as President, as the economy tanked during his second term. And any Poly Sci major knows, the party which has the Presidency when the economy tanks, generally loses the office the following election...

Edited August 8, 2010 by HvyMtl

[tntnixon]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Yes, and no.

But, I have studied it. And am not happy with it. So, I have a choice where I can vote in a person I do not believe in, or vote in another person I do not believe in. So, I will be voting in a way which minimizes damage to the State. And places more power in the hands of people like Ramsey, over people like Haslam.

Voting party lines does not remove the fact we have a choice between 2 people I do not believe in. In many cases, I believe voting the party line actually enables the lack of true candidates. Voting the party line gets you losers like McCain, and Dubya, Don Sunquist, and Dan Quayle, etc. So, instead of trying to get a candidate who actually supports the party line, you get a candidate in party name only. If all the Republicans, instead of holding their nose and voting McCain, had voted for some 3rd party candidate, would it not have sent a message to the GOP not to put such a poor candidate in the race?

Edited August 8, 2010 by HvyMtl

[tntnixon]

Yes, and no.

But, I have studied it. And am not happy with it. So, I have a choice where I can vote in a person I do not believe in, or vote in another person I do not believe in. So, I will be voting in a way which minimizes damage to the State. And places more power in the hands of people like Ramsey, over people like Haslam.

Voting party lines does not remove the fact we have a choice between 2 people I do not believe in. In many cases, I believe voting the party line actually enables the lack of true candidates. Voting the party line gets you losers like McCain, and Dubya, Don Sunquist, and Dan Quayle, etc. So, instead of trying to get a candidate who actually supports the party line, you get a candidate in party name only. If all the Republicans, instead of holding their nose and voting McCain, had voted for some 3rd party candidate, would it not have sent a message to the GOP not to put such a poor candidate in the race?

The answer to your question is NO!!! Your question has an assumption attached to it that doesn't exist, that of some secret cabal that nominates the candidates. Candidates decide to run based on their convictions, desire to perform the job, desire to prevent someone else from performing the job in a way that they don't agree with, ego, desire for power and a whole slew of other factors my mind can't comprehend during the time that I'm writing this post. After they make the decision to run, they gather whatever resources they can muster to make it more likely that they will get the opportunity, whether it is personal or from others. At that point, they launch their campaign. After they launch said campaign, they try to convince voters that they are the right candidate for the job by accentuating their positives, decreasing their negatives, and increasing their opponent's negatives by whatever means is at their disposal. Now follow me, because here's where it gets tricky. Finally, it goes to the voters and they get to decide, based on the information that they have and their own personal convictions, which candidate will represent them in the general election by voting in the primary. Then the process begins all over again in the run-up to the general election.

So, whether you or I like it or not, the people of the Republican Party (average citizens) chose Haslam, not some great political machine. That is why I chose the "Not rigged, the thinking people are just outnumbered in this state" option in the poll. I would go on to say the same for our country as a whole, as much as I hate it.

But right now, I am going to make chicken salad out of chicken... I'm going to try and avoid all out catastrophe, as we saw in the last election when so many conservatives just stayed home. If that's your road to freedom, brother, I'll have to get off at the next side street.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Your attempt at belittling fails.

The process of an open primary enabled a large number of Democrats to vote in the Republican Primary. This probably (definitely) skewed the results. When the state is roughly split Democrat vs Republican, a 750,000 vs. 250,000 voting result shows the skew.

I, unlike you, will vote my conscience. My conscience states not to vote for someone who does not represent the party. My conscience states to protect myself, and the State I love. Therefore, I will not vote party line when the candidate is party in name only. By doing so only enables more party in name only candidates. It is not a waste of vote to vote 3rd party when that 3rd party vote is a push for change in your party.

As I know that McW hands will be tied by the Legislature, and Haslam's wont be, I will vote McW, as I know the persons pushing the agenda in the Legislature are mostly Republicans who are not in name only...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No. Voting is rigged by our own lack of interest in the issues. The

politician and his advisors know that and work towards headline type

campaigning, since that seems to be all many pay attention to.

Unless you wish to talk about Minnesota's bought senatorial election,

which was fraudulent, to say the least.

We rig our own results by not engaging in the election process and allow

a minority of voters determine the outcome.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The governor is not answerable to the state legislature. I don't know where you

get the idea that McW will be constrained by the legislature, except in new law.

But, anyway, it is always good to vote your conscience. Just make sure your

conscience is rational.