Lipinski beats challenger

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kind of amazing, really. The party didn’t support Lipinski because he’s not pro-abortion.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Kind of amazing, really. The party didn’t support Lipinski because he’s not pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you choose to perpetuate spin (which you call false) that has been debunked many times here already.
  1. The local party apparatus supported him.
  2. The DNCC declined to endorse him over his opponent; reasons could be assumed to include his opposition to the party on AHA and DACA and his failure to endorse Obama in 2012.
I wonder if we will hear from the usual CAF contingent which loves to talk about ballot irregularities in Chicago.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations Congressman Lipinski. You overcame overwhelming odds in this primary.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Not a good sign for the GOP as if they didn’t already have enough to worry about in their hope to retain control of the House.

The article says the district is socially conservative. So a Democratic candidate seemingly more in line with the district won.

The same thing happened in PA-18.

Democrats reportedly will have candidates across the nation who represent the districts they are running in. In those more liberal districts, liberal candidates. In districts less so, then less so.

IOW focusing on issues important to the specific district as the goal is to reach the number of 218.
 
dvdjs said:
that has been debunked many times here already.
Click to expand...
You always say this about things, most of which are not debunked by you or anyone else.

Of course, you admit it anyway; that while the locals like him, the party itself is so far to the left it won’t accept him. And it’s not just AHA, DACA and Obama. It’s abortion; the true religion of the Dem party. He’s prolife, seemingly the only prolife Dem congressman left. So naturally he doesn’t belong. Natually NARAL backed his opponent, which meant that the Dem party would too.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You always say this about things, most of which are not debunked by you or anyone else.
Click to expand...
Your point was:
Ridgerunner said:
The party didn’t support Lipinski because he’s not pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
That has most certainly been debunked:
It is wrong both in reference to the “the party”, and in sole reference to abortion.

You are entitled to your opinion, but not you our own facts. And the totality of facts in this case are at odds with what you presented as a matter of fact.
 
Last edited:
jagged said:
Well, that’s good, but you would think that the Republicans could do better than nominate a Nazi though.
Click to expand...
They couldn’t do better than nominate Donald Trump and they had how many, 16 other choices?
 
Ridgerunner said:
It’s abortion; the true religion of the Dem party.
Click to expand...
It’s somewhat ironic that in the same state and same ballot, the Republicans chose the pro-abortion Rauner over a prolifer in the gubernatorial race.
 
Last edited:
In reading the article, he won by default since nobody else was on the ticket. State level GOP really dropped the ball, even if the chance of any GOP candidate winning in IL is slim to none.
 
Not by default. Rauner 51.4% Ives 48.6%.

Illinois has had a few GOP governors in past.
 
dvdjs said:
That has most certainly been debunked:

It is wrong both in reference to the “the party”, and in sole reference to abortion.
Click to expand...
Preposterous.

Lipinski was not favored by the party. You said so yourself. The question, then, is why. There is more than one way in which Lipinski is not a totally faithful Dem to the party ideology. But abortion is certainly one of them. When the DNC head declares there is no room for prolife people in the party’s officeholders and when NARAL supports Lipinski’s opponent, and when that is the opinion of many who observe such things, it’s reasonable to believe abortion is the reason Lipinski is disfavored by the party. Even CNN makes a big deal of that.

And it’s true the number of prolife Dem officeholders is rapidly dwindling, as is the number of prolife Dems generally. It’s the abortion party, and no mistake about it.

 
ProVobis said:
Not by default. Rauner 51.4% Ives 48.6%.

Illinois has had a few GOP governors in past.
Click to expand...
My bad, I meant to post that comment in the Jones ‘neo-Nazi’ thread.
Arthur ran uncontested in the GOP Primary. The IL 3rd has been owned by Dems since 1975
 
The district lines have been redrawn a few times but it encompasses a lot of southwest Chicago.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Not a good sign for the GOP as if they didn’t already have enough to worry about in their hope to retain control of the House.

The article says the district is socially conservative. So a Democratic candidate seemingly more in line with the district won.

The same thing happened in PA-18.

Democrats reportedly will have candidates across the nation who represent the districts they are running in. In those more liberal districts, liberal candidates. In districts less so, then less so.

IOW focusing on issues important to the specific district as the goal is to reach the number of 218.
Click to expand...
The only reason a Nazi won for the GOP is that the district is so overwhelmingly Democratic that the serious Republicans did not want to waste their time running. Now that the more moderate Democrat has won his primary there is zero chance Arthur Jones will win in the general election. I don’t think this says anything about the Republican party generally, other than they are practical. The party did denounce Arthur Jones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top