Horning Steal Election from Mourdock

[Solitaire]

You know, I was thinking that all of the people saying that a vote for Horning was a vote for Donnelly were a little silly, but after looking at the numbers:

According to Fox News:

Donnelly - 1,211,983
Mourdock - 1,082,597
Horning - 141,253

The margin of victory for Donnelly was less than the number of votes for Horning.

Interesting.

 

[cobber]

What was Mourdock's total compared to Romney's? I'm guessing a few Repubs did not vote for him, but also did not vote for Donnelly or Horning.

 

[Wreaver]

Mourdock cost himself the election.

 

[RyanV]

From my reply to you in the other thread:

Strange, I guess I voted for Donnelly by not voting for Donnelly then? Maybe the GOP should stop ignoring Libertarian/Ron Paul-esque voters but that is ok, there aren't enough of us to matter right?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Social Conservatism just had its final nail pounded into its coffin. Mourdock and Akin swung the hammer.

 

[Solitaire]

Social Conservatism just had its final nail pounded into its coffin. Mourdock and Akin swung the hammer.

When the red states, bastions of "conservatism," are the leaders in sucking on the federal welfare teat and highest in teen pregnancies and divorce, I'm left wondering just what "conservatism" is.

 

[Cerberus]

When the red states, bastions of "conservatism," are the leaders in sucking on the federal welfare teat and highest in teen pregnancies and divorce, I'm left wondering just what "conservatism" is.

Let's see some numbers.

 

[Solitaire]

Let's see some numbers.

Your Google broke?

(Warning - You won't like what you find.)

G'night.

 

[gunowner930]

Mourdock has only himself to blame. what a stupid comment

 

[Prometheus]

Your Google broke?

(Warning - You won't like what you find.)

G'night.

Yep. The amount of federal funds going to farmers alone is astounding.

Conservative? ROFL! Welfare is welfare, doesn't matter if it's going to feed corn chips in the hood or corn on the cob.

Big government is big government. Justify it all you want.

 

[88GT]

From my reply to you in the other thread:

Strange, I guess I voted for Donnelly by not voting for Donnelly then? Maybe the GOP should stop ignoring Libertarian/Ron Paul-esque voters but that is ok, there aren't enough of us to matter right?

No, there aren't. Why do you think they keep ignoring you?

 

[mlzoiss]

Let's see some numbers.

Oh, you can find all sorts of skewed numbers all over the internet, with no actual studies cited to back them up. Like the story on Slate.com posted back in September.

They blame abstinence-only sex education programs in Mississippi and praise New York’s contraceptive-friendly policies for lowering teen birth rates but fail to mention a major reason why New York has a lower teen birthrate is because New York teens are far more likely to abort unwanted pregnancies. Mississippi has a pro-life parental-involvement law in effect, while New York has none.

Many journalists point to the high teen-pregnancy rates in “red” states as proof that abstinence-only sex education programs are ineffective. However, this analysis is flawed for several reasons. First, not every southern school district has adopted abstinence-only sex education. Second, poverty rates are a key determinant in teen-pregnancy rates and many southern states have a high incidence of poverty. Third, the average age of marriage is much lower in many southern states, so some percentage of these teen pregnancies are carried by older teens who are married.

A 2012 Centers for Disease Control study of 5,000 teen girls who gave birth after unplanned pregnancies found that only a small percentage had difficulty accessing contraception. Furthermore, in 1999 the British government launched its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy program, the goal of which was to cut the number of teen pregnancies in half by promoting comprehensive sexual education and birth control. Since then, some £300 million ($454 million) has been spent on this initiative. Unfortunately, the British teen-abortion rate has climbed steadily.

 

[mlzoiss]

Oh, and the numbers on higher rates of divorce in red states? Also misrepresented, it turns out that what was being compared was the number of divorces per 1000 people in each state rather than the number of divorces per 1000 married couples.

Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South,” said Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau. “In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces.”

 

[sepe]

Oh, and the numbers on higher rates of divorce in red states? Also misrepresented, it turns out that what was being compared was the number of divorces per 1000 people in each state rather than the number of divorces per 1000 married couples.

Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South,” said Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau. “In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces.”

But in the south, are they still related after they get divorced?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Oh, and the numbers on higher rates of divorce in red states? Also misrepresented, it turns out that what was being compared was the number of divorces per 1000 people in each state rather than the number of divorces per 1000 married couples.

Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South,” said Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau. “In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces.”

So, there are still more divorces - just not necessarily more per capita, because they get married more frequently?

I am not so sure that makes the case....

 

[Reno316]

Mourdock cost himself the election.

Yep.

When will all the people who supported the guy that lost learn this?

I didn't cost your guy the win by voting for a third party. Your guy lost the race by being a douchebag.

 

[jamil]

So, there are still more divorces - just not necessarily more per capita, because they get married more frequently?

I am not so sure that makes the case....

Well if you had more married couples and the same divorce rate per marriage, yes, that would be more divorces. Are you saying people shouldn't marry so they won't divorce as much?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Yep.

When will all the people who supported the guy that lost learn this?

I didn't cost your guy the win by voting for a third party. Your guy lost the race by being a douchebag.

But... But... that would require admitting that your opinion is not infallible, and that the candidate you backed and their political beliefs might actually bear responsibility for their defeat.

Nah... It is just so much easier to blame the "insignificant" candidate....

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Well if you had more married couples and the same divorce rate per marriage, yes, that would be more divorces. Are you saying people shouldn't marry so they won't divorce as much?

I am saying that if 10 marriages exist, and 9 end in divorce - that cannot be used to argue that a state is doing it right.

Even if the other state has 5 marriages, and 5 end in divorce - that still does not make a strong argument.

If you have to even bring per capita into divorce rates - the situation is bleak.

The same for teen pregnancy. If it requires any type of abortion math to make a state's teen pregnancy rate look better - we are simply failing as a whole, and not in a partisan manner.

 

[jamil]

Mourdock cost himself the election.

^ This. Mourdock had a lead in the polls and was starting to gain some momentum, and then he got all churchy. Of cource the relentless and unanswered stream of negative adds from Donnelly didn't help him either.