Mia Love lost?

SpiffCoug wrote:
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.

Sorry Spiff, maybe it is just me but I am not following your logic at all.



What does a "deeper candidate" mean? She was a solid conservative running against a liberal who had nothing on her as far as intellect, values, experience, or speaking ability. He was caught lying on numerous occasions. He is a loyal Obama supporter and only votes conservative when his party doesn't need his vote.



I have yet to find a person who can justify a Matheson vote with sound logic. It is always based on some false and bizarre thinking.



It may very well be that Mia did not get her message out sufficiently but I don't think that was the problem.



From my personal observations the differences in the campaigns was that Matheson was able to engage a whisper campaign network that Mia did not even attempt. What I mean by a whisper campaign is a network of professional organizations and unions literally whispering what sounds like inside information about the candidates that then gets projected out through Relief Society and whatever else. It's covert nature makes it hard to defend plus it is not based on fact but rather on the reputation of the person perpetuating the idea that either, "Matheson is a really good guy doing a lot of good things, and he is a blue-dog democrat," or "Mia Love was really not a very good mayor." So it isn't so much the information itself but who is telling it that counts.



This is very similar to what happened with the school vouchers.



Comparing Matheson and Love, Love is the better representative for Utah but the people were easily deceived because they would rather trust what they think is an inside track rather than actually learn the truth.



You can criticize Love all you want but it doesn't take away from the fact that she is still superior to Matheson.

Good post. Insightful. I agree, I would rather have had Mia Love in office than another vote that Obama and Pelosi can count on. I'm still disappointed she lost.

And didn't doesn't change the fact that a large part of the reason she was chosen to run was because of her demographics.

SpiffCoug wrote:
And didn't doesn't change the fact that a large part of the reason she was chosen to run was because of her demographics.

I think I know what you are saying but I am very close to asking Ddawg if I can borrow his mongo.



By demographics, are you saying black and female?



If that is the case then I can tell that you were not at the state convention that chose her.



Shurtleff tried to minimize her. The big gun support was against her. She was unknown outside of Saratoga springs.



I held off on my support of her until the convention because I didn't think she was the front runner. At the convention she was electrifying and won the delegates over by inspiring them far more than the other candidates. She set the place on fire and the whole room moved to her.



She was not an affirmative action candidate but quite the opposite. That was part of her appeal.



By the way, "Go Allen West."

I support Allen West. And I want to believe she wasn't an affirmative action candidate, but after listening to her debate Matheson, I had hard believing she wasn't. Maybe it was a bridge too far for her.



I don't think she's done, but maybe, a state level office and race would have helped prepare her more for what she got from Matheson.



This election process may help her grow and learn and become that "deeper" candidate I was hoping she was. Maybe she will be the next go around.

I just read that the stock market has dropped 3% since Obama was re-elected.



How's that for a vote of confidence? Mongo's not smart ..... whasssup? :lol: :lol: :lol:

And bonds are up because the future economy looks weak.

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.

This. Mia Love would have been a terrible representative.

TulaneVandyRiceCoug wrote:

This. Mia Love would have been a terrible representative.

Your opinion is based on what factual data?

Ddawg wrote:

This. Mia Love would have been a terrible representative.

Your opinion is based on what factual data?

“Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds;”

Thomas Jefferson, 1777



In other words, "garbage in, garbage out."