Posted on 06/03/2014 11:35:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
HATTIESBURG, Mississippi —With final votes still being counted, Tea Party-backed state Sen. Chris McDaniel is poised to force a runoff against 42-year incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the GOP primary here, likely prompting a three-week dash to the finish of an epic race between conservatives and the GOP Establishment.
"Whether it's tomorrow or whether it's three weeks from now we will be victorious,” McDaniel said during a speech to supporters here around 11:30 p.m. CT. Cochran did not plan to address his campaign rally, according to NBC reporter Kasie Hunt.
With 97.9 percent of precincts reporting, McDaniel was up nearly 3,000 votes at 49.6 percent to Cochran's 48.8 percent, according to the Associated Press.
The likely runoff follows an all-night nail-biter between Cochran and McDaniel that saw each candidate see-saw between winner and loser. McDaniel supporters at an event here were ecstatic, cheering loudly at the television whenever new results come in while a country rock band and bagpipe band take turns entertaining the crowd.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
IIRC, similar happened in New Haven CT (sanctuary city) in the races in 2010. The progressive puppets won after the city “extended voting hours” and “copied ballots because we ran out of blank ones” for the urban population.
No runoff, no MSM press interest, no investigation. Sure enough, in the end, Malloy and his cronies had just enough votes to win.
“During the 2011 legislative session, Malloy pushed $1.5 billion worth of tax increases to help bridge a budget gap estimated at $3.3 billion.
Individual and corporate income tax rates rose, along with inheritance, alcohol, cigarette and gasoline levies. Additionally, the retail sales tax rate rose from 6% to 6.35%.” - per Wikipedia
Keep in mind, Cochran courted, and presumably received, many votes from Dem crossovers. Those Dem crossovers will not show up for Cochran a second time in the same numbers as the Tea Party for McDaniel.
Looks like Rankin County had a voting machine/counting hiccup. My math is not great, but it appears there were just enough votes found in absentee and affidavit votes to cause a runoff. But the margin was within single votes ...
You are assuming that Thad will get the exact same support he got the first time around... History is NOT on his side... Only TWO incumbents have survived a primary runoff to get the nomination after they didn’t meet the 50%+1 threshold...
Old Thad is in DEEP trouble... You can bet the McDaniel people are totally jacked up just to be right here...
You know, your post could be consdered cruel, but I did LOL big time. But as we all know, good humor is based on truth, so.....
Be carefull and post patriots in front of the doors of where ever they are holding the ballots. They cheated terribly in Wisconsin in the past bringing in votes that thy supposedly found in a carrying saying they were meant to be turned.
One parameter needs the ballots to recount.
"Lucky Lyndon" Johnson "won" a Texas Senate seat thanks to a warehouse fire.
The ballots were in that warehouse.
good point.
http://twitchy.com/2014/06/04/tweet-praising-bowe-bergdahl-deleted-from-sen-thad-cochran-account/
Tweet praising Bowe Bergdahl deleted from Sen. Thad Cochran account
Which by definition would have to be a majority winner as well. When there are two candidates, the one with more votes must necessarily have a majority of voters. That’s the point of the runoff system.
Runoffs are far from stupid. Suppose that there are three candidates in a race, call them A, B and C, and for simplicity suppose there are 100 voters. Now, let’s say that 40 of them support A, with the other 32 support B and 28 support C. Further, let’s say that if asked for their second choice, the B and C supporters would support either B or C as well. (BTW, this isn’t as contrived as it seems. In most primaries there is an incumbent and one or more challengers. Many voters fall into the “anybody but the incumbent” camp).
Now, without runoffs, we can expect that A would win a primary among these three candidates with 40 votes. However, a large majority (60%) of the electorate would vote for anyone else. Is it really reflective of the will of the electorate that A should just be declared the winner? With a runoff, A and B would be in the runoff. Presumably the “anyone but A” voters who voted for C would switch to B in the runoff. That would give B the 60-40 edge and the primary victory. Isn’t that a better reflection on the will of the electorate than giving the win to a candidate that was opposed by 60% of the voters?
Cochran ... I hope this senile old “Coch” gets his RINO butt run out of town on a rail.
Yes, that does make sense.
So what happened with the runoff, there was never a follow up story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.