Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter


  • ***


« A spellbinding moment with Dick Cheney | Main | A Hannity-Palin colloquium »

June 25, 2014


The rationale is three-fold, as I understand it from my reading.
1. Cochran is not quite as looney. For example, he was against any government showdown.
2. Cochran brings home the bacon. 37% of Mississippi's operating budget comes from the federal government, helping run some of those very same programs.
3. Although one would normally think that having a complete loon run on the GOP side would help the Dem candidate, that is not necessarily so (we are talking about Mississippi here). There appears to be a lot of anger towards Cochran and his strategy down there, and it is actually possible that a lot of McDaniel's supporters will stay home or set up a third party, either of which would hurt Cochran.

Not saying all of those make sense, but it appears to be some of the rationale.

I doubt they had the local Democratic party organize these additional votes. The tea partiers are suggesting these votes were obtained with walking around money provided by the party establishment. If that is true then you need look no further for a rationale. If not then perhaps Cochran's rep as a supplier of Bacon provides the answer. His ads certainly made much of McDaniel's supposed desire to shut down this funding.

I note that your position here is at odds with your earlier position today. No criticism is implied. It is perfectly reasonable to say that the more loony candidates the Republicans run the better for the Democrats. I've said it myself enough times. So says Politco and that is why they viewed the election results as bad for the Democrats. While I agree with the logic of that argument I also know this, one of these elections the conservatives will have enough and they won't show up on election day. And the conventional wisdom will fail. That's why I examine Redstate's entrails. I'm looking for signs. Just a few more humiliations is all it should take.

The right's ideological positioning does get tricky at times, doesn't it Peter? I think the perception, though, is that Cochran tactically moved a bit left to win the primary (i.e. to attract Dems), but he's still the same old Cochran, same old modern Republican.

(Oh, and the tea party's claim of "walking around" money? Classic TP racism, a throwback to what their forebears saw as corrupt, "black" Reconstruction politics.)

I agree. Cochran actually negotiates compromises that serve the interests of his state. Extremely shitty compromises that disproportionately extort value for his vote. But in the tea party view that makes him a fellow traveler of Stalin.

The "walking around money" meme had a sort vague stink about it. But, If you'll pardon my mixing of sensory metaphors, it is a dog whistle I failed to hear. I plead unfamiliarity. And I still can't make up my mind about which Republican party failure mode has more entertainment appeal, the tea party takes its marbles and goes home or the tea party takes command and everybody else jumps in the lifeboats scenario.

That's the same summary I've read this morning...and Sarah is now talking third party!

Here in TX, I struggle with whether or not to crossover and vote in the Republican primaries. Democrats often run unopposed, and Repubs usually win the general elections (barf), so it's a question of whether to have a voice in the choosing the lesser of 2 evils or let the hard line Repug primary voters pick them. Having said that, I waffled and didn't vote in the recent Lt. Gov. runoff--Dewhurst is such a jerk and Dan Patrick is a complete idiot. Will the fact that Dan Patrick won and is so far right mean a possibility that a Dem will win the seat in Nov? Geez, I hope so--if not, we're in BIG trouble. So, I can understand MS Dems that may have crossed over. Plus, there's the whole "devil you know vs the devil you don't" thing going on.

The comments to this entry are closed.