HipChick
(569 posts)
|
Tue Nov-03-09 08:50 PM
Original message |
| So why is M$M ignoring CA-10 election? Because its going to be progressive win? |
 |
when it looks like a progressive will be elected in? Does it not fit into their little referendum on Obama agenda.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
|
Nikki Stone1
(1000+ posts)
|
Tue Nov-03-09 09:08 PM
Response to Original message |
malaise
(1000+ posts)
|
Tue Nov-03-09 09:09 PM
Response to Original message |
LonePirate
(81 posts)
|
Tue Nov-03-09 09:13 PM
Response to Original message |
| 3. There is almost no chance of a party flip in the district. |
 |
Without high profile endorsements, a competitive race or a party control flip, the media couldn't care less about this race. Plus, the political media centers in NYC and DC can more easily cover races in NY, NJ and VA. Then there's the fact that media organizations refuse to conduct any investigative analysis that would highlight the trendsetting leftward tilt of the election in this district.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
|
Tue Nov-03-09 09:18 PM
Response to Original message |
| 4. Polls don't close for a while yet. They've all committed to |
 |
not making comentary or predictions until the poills are closed in the area.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
|
Tue Nov-03-09 09:19 PM
Response to Original message |
| 5. Result in the CA-10 is not surprising. |
 |
Edited on Tue Nov-03-09 09:20 PM by tritsofme
Obama carried the NY-23, and likely picked McHugh as Army Secretary with an eye toward taking over the seat.
Lots of drama in NY-23, the outcome in California was known weeks ago.
|
jmondine
(1000+ posts)
|
Tue Nov-03-09 09:34 PM
Response to Original message |
| 6. No crazy Alaskan beauty queen endorsements |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon Nov 23rd 2009, 02:44 AM
Response to Original message |