Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So again, how do you account for her coming within .31% of winning given this pervasive racism? How do you account for Harry Reid, older white male Mormon who convinced Barack Obama to run for prez.
"Call them racist" is a good example of
[/b]
I don't claim most Mormons voted against her because of her race.
Only a minority of Mormons felt that way.
That's why she lost.
Again, had the right in Utah turned out to vote for her as they did other GOP candidates she would have won in a landslide. The 3rd party votes would have been meaningless.
She lost primarily because of racism, then and only then, did the 3rd party votes matter.
She lost primarily because of racism, then and only then, did the 3rd party votes matter.
You can say she lost primarily because she is Black. Someone else can say it was because she is a woman. Someone else can say it was because she is a Mormon. The truth of the matter is that she lost primarily because most of the state's residents preferred the more moderate incumbent. He has always been extremely popular in Utah, as was his father (who was Utah's governor for two terms).
Most people said it was a shocking loss for Mia... Racism played a part IMO and sexism played a part as well. Then again, maybe pundits got this one wrong just like the presidential election.
..and I'm not sure what Harry Reid pushing Obama to run proves... Most politicians will do anything to keep their power/position. He probably knew he had a better chance of keeping his spot with Obama instead of Hillary.
I don't claim most Mormons voted against her because of her race.
Only a minority of Mormons felt that way.
That's why she lost.
Again, had the right in Utah turned out to vote for her as they did other GOP candidates she would have won in a landslide. The 3rd party votes would have been meaningless.
She lost primarily because of racism, then and only then, did the 3rd party votes matter.
Well, here's what bugs me about this. It's not so much what you say. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that she lost due to racism. It's the way you state it, as if it's an incontroverible fact, but it's not.
The fact that other Utah R's won by wide margins is not enough evidence. Were these other candidates small town mayors facing popular incumbents? Were these other candidates Tea Party-types, or more moderate R's in the mold of Hatch, Huntsman, etc? There are probably 100 other possible factors, but you seem to have a need to lay it at the feet of racism. But in fact, we don't know that, and if we don't know, we probably shouldn't make an uncategorical accusation (that's what this amounts to).
You can say she lost primarily because she is Black. Someone else can say it was because she is a woman. Someone else can say it was because she is a Mormon. The truth of the matter is that she lost primarily because most of the state's residents preferred the more moderate incumbent. He has always been extremely popular in Utah, as was his father (who was Utah's governor for two terms).
Does that area have a history of electing moderate candidates? I know that it's a new seat, so there's no history of that seat in particular, but how were those people voting before?
Does that area have a history of electing moderate candidates? I know that it's a new seat, so there's no history of that seat in particular, but how were those people voting before?
As you said, there's no history of that seat (4th district) specifically, since it was newly-created in 2011. Utah is, as everyone knows, typically conservative. Matheson, however, had represented the 2nd district ever since 2001. Even though he's a Democratic, his votes have consistently reflected the desires of his constituents, which is why they like him. For instance, he voted against Obamacare. In his seven bids for Congress, this is the closest he has ever come to losing.
As you said, there's no history of that seat (4th district) specifically, since it was newly-created in 2011. Utah is, as everyone knows, typically conservative. Matheson, however, had represented the 2nd district ever since 2001. Even though he's a Democratic, his votes have consistently reflected the desires of his constituents, which is why they like him. For instance, he voted against Obamacare. In his seven bids for Congress, this is the closest he has ever come to losing.
So what are the right wingers crying about then with this nonsense about "libertarians" sinking her candidacy? Sounds to me like she never stood a chance.
Love IS A MORMON! Good grief, it clearly was the Libertarians that cost her the seat, and I lean Libertarian!
Me too and I thought Mia was awesome. I'm sorry she didn't win, but I hope she will be back. We need more like her.
Why do you believe the Libertarians caused her to lose?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He has always been extremely popular in Utah, as was his father (who was Utah's governor for two terms).
