Mia Love lost?

I am shocked - Mia Love lost. I am very disappointed. :blush:



The other shocker Congressman Allen West lost. :bug:



A bad night.

Not really. She wasn't a good candidate. Yes, she's Mormon, black and a female, but every time I heard her speech, I came away as less than impressed.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Not really. She wasn't a good candidate. Yes, she's Mormon, black and a female, but every time I heard her speech, I came away as less than impressed.

Really? I don't live in Utah - but - when I heard her speak at the GOP Convention, and subsequent interviews, I thought she presented herself well.



I'm still disappointed. I had great hopes for Mia Love.

I'm disappointed because it gives the Dems one more seat and that much more power. Anyone who doesn't believe that Mattheson is an Obama supporter is insane.



Mia Love wasn't a good candidate, I didn't like her, but in this election, I felt she was definitely the lesser of 2 evils, err idiots.

Spiff and Hawk, what are you guys talking about? How often do you see a better candidate better than Mia Love?



Could the campaign have been run smarter? I am sure it could but the problem was not the quality of candidate or her speaking ability.



The result of the election is a statement of the quality of the people living in Utah's 4th district. Matheson is a con man with the teachers unions in his pocket.



This is reminiscent of the school voucher fiasco.



The people of Utah think that they are wise because they think they are good. I have news for them, they are neither. Oh, are they a little better than the rest of the country? Maybe but that is really a horrible statement considering everything they have been given and what they aught to be. Until they decide to follow God instead wicked men they bring a curse on us all.



Flame me for being self-righteous if you want but I don't care anymore.

Matheson is a con man. He should have lost.



But Mia Love isn't a good candidate. I have a completely unfactual, personal test I use when I listen to politicians.



I ask myself this question when I listen to them. "After listening to this person talk, do I think they are smarter than me?"



I listened to Matheson and Love and said, "Nope, I don't think either one is." I listen to Mitt Romney and I think, "Yep, that guy has me beat."



I want people better and smarter than me in public office.

I want people better and smarter than me in public office.



Amen and Amen!

SpiffCoug wrote:
Matheson is a con man. He should have lost.



But Mia Love isn't a good candidate. I have a completely unfactual, personal test I use when I listen to politicians.



I ask myself this question when I listen to them. "After listening to this person talk, do I think they are smarter than me?"



I listened to Matheson and Love and said, "Nope, I don't think either one is." I listen to Mitt Romney and I think, "Yep, that guy has me beat."



I want people better and smarter than me in public office.

I ask that you tolerate me for a moment. I appreciate your "test." I would like to add my perspective to it. Sorry, it is just the way I am wired. I invite critic to make me better and and mutually discover truth. I figure other people think the same.



First, "smart" is both a very subjective description and an unreliable measure of capability. By sad experience I have learned that Momma Gump's definition of "smart" and "stupid" is the only reliable standard. To wit, "Stupid is as stupid does." In other words, a person that does stupid things with bad results, regardless of their IQ, is stupid by the only measure that matters.



I have helped too many smart people get elected only to watch their smarts melt away and take second place in determining their actions. There are a lot of smart people that I wouldn't hire or trust for the most menial responsibilities let alone something important.



Without commitment to a solid moral compass, smartness means nothing and in fact becomes a detriment. It is not a lack of smart that causes people to go wrong, it is a lack of wisdom and commitment to values.



Second, I hope you realize that your "test" incriminates you. If you are smarter or better than the candidates then YOU should be the one running. If you then choose not to run or to make the candidates better then, as far as I am concerned, you have waved your right and undermine your own credibility in such matters.



So, I expect to see you on the ballot or presenting the best candidate in the next convention.

As a Mormon and a current Utah resident I am embarrassed that my people could not bring themselves to elect a conservative black woman over a run-of-the-mill liberal white guy with no personality and no good record and no answers, that has already been in office way too long.



It confirms the hypocrisy of all those that were insistent that we had to elect a socialist simply because he was black. It also reinforces the stereotypes that Mormons are anti-women and anti-minority.



As in the time that Saul became king, I believe that God says now what He said then.



We will get what we deserve.

Ddawg wrote:

Not really. She wasn't a good candidate. Yes, she's Mormon, black and a female, but every time I heard her speech, I came away as less than impressed.

Really? I don't live in Utah - but - when I heard her speak at the GOP Convention, and subsequent interviews, I thought she presented herself well.



I'm still disappointed. I had great hopes for Mia Love.

Republicans are already getting hammered and stereotyped for being non-inclusive.

We needed Mia Love.

tww wrote:
Republicans are already getting hammered and stereotyped for being non-inclusive.

We needed Mia Love.

Sounds like the rationale that drove many independents to vote for Obama in '08.

snoscythe wrote:

Republicans are already getting hammered and stereotyped for being non-inclusive.

We needed Mia Love.

Sounds like the rationale that drove many independents to vote for Obama in '08.

I acknowledge that there are some common components but there is much more to it than simply proving you are not racist. It even goes beyond the fact that the minority candidate in this case was a better representative of the values of the district than the white candidate, which was not the case in the presidential race.



To keep it short and simple, when playing political chess there is only one piece that trumps a minority male and that is a minority female.



The way it was put to me by a business mentor is that when doing business with a particular demographic, only a man from the same demographic can punch a man in the nose. Even better if it is a woman doing the punching. (The main reason liberals had to destroy Cain.)



Still what are people going to think about a conservative state that will elect a liberal white man over a conservative black woman?



If I were a conservative minority in Utah I wouldn't want to run for office. Think about it, they become the most attacked person on the planet with no support from their race, religion, or those that consider themselves conservatives. As hard as it is to be white, LDS, conservative, it is even harder for a minority because no group has their back.

I wasn't a huge Mia Love fan, but still think she's head and shoulders better than that snake Matheson. That slime ball plays the political game hard, talks out of both sides of his mouth, and will do anything to stay in office.

tww wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
Not really. She wasn't a good candidate. Yes, she's Mormon, black and a female, but every time I heard her speech, I came away as less than impressed.

Really? I don't live in Utah - but - when I heard her speak at the GOP Convention, and subsequent interviews, I thought she presented herself well.



I'm still disappointed. I had great hopes for Mia Love.

Republicans are already getting hammered and stereotyped for being non-inclusive.

We needed Mia Love.

+1. Bingo!

Schmoe wrote:
I wasn't a huge Mia Love fan, but still think she's head and shoulders better than that snake Matheson. That slime ball plays the political game hard, talks out of both sides of his mouth, and will do anything to stay in office.

+1. Bingo!

Why do people elect people that speak out of both sides of their month? Why can't they see the empty promises? What is wrong with our citizens. This frustrates me to no end.

scott715 wrote:
Why do people elect people that speak out of both sides of their month? Why can't they see the empty promises?

The problem is you've also described how a lot of people feel about Romney.



Choosing the lesser of two evils, unfortunately, is what politics feels like most of the time.

MTM wrote:

Why do people elect people that speak out of both sides of their month? Why can't they see the empty promises?

The problem is you've also described how a lot of people feel about Romney.



Choosing the lesser of two evils, unfortunately, is what politics feels like most of the time.

Yes, the Obama re-election folks spent over $500 million defining Mitt Romney as a guy that talked out both sides of his mouth, killed a lady with cancer, was out of touch, and only cared about rich people. It was effective - Obama won.



However, it was not true. It was an effective propaganda campaign. It was still false propaganda.



At least Romney did not get caught caught lying - as Obama did about Benghazi during the 2nd Presidential debate. Obama claimed he called the Sept. 11 attack a terrorist attack. Pure BS.



Here's the 60 Minute transcript -



"KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other."



Video link. Watch for yourself. Irrefutable proof. Obama lied to the American people.



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/05/Proof-Obama-Refused-to-Call-Benghazi-Terror-CBS-Covered-Up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The GOP doesn't need candidates because they fit certain demographics or show how inclusive they are. A bad candidate who has certain demographic features (i.e., black, female, LDS, etc.) does NOT become a good candidate because they have thoes features. They're still a bad candidate.



Love wasn't elected because she didn't convince enough people that she was a deeper candidate than just being female, black, etc. Of course, if she were a Democrat, Utah would have been racist for not electing her.

Ddawg wrote:
It was an effective propaganda campaign.

And that is what "campaigning" has become in our day and age and it sucks.

SL TRIB-The war between Matheson and Love was epic, drawing unprecedented national attention and money for a Utah contest.



State and national Republicans held nothing back, pouring more than $5 million into the effort to unseat Matheson, whose presence as a Democrat holding a congressional seat in the most Republican state in America tormented the GOP.



Matheson and his backers countered with more than $5 million of their own spending, rallying to protect the incumbent. The resulting spending binge saturated airwaves and shattered records for spending on a Utah congressional race.

Politics is a money grub and attack ads. Most people don't (won't) spend any time learning anything about candidates.



They either punch a single party ticket based on a belief that someone from another party couldn't possibly offer anything positive. Or they vote based on who scares them the most after watching attack ads.