Posted on 08/23/2012 8:44:23 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
What a difference one TV interview can make. Embattled Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill has now jumped to a 10-point lead over her Republican challenger, Congressman Todd Akin, in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race. Most Missouri Republicans want Akin to quit the race while most Missouri Democrats want him to stay.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Show Me State finds McCaskill earning 48% support to Akin’s 38%. Nine percent (9%) like some other candidate in the race, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
That's easy to answer. Because Akin is not backing off what he said that has the really ugly connotations - the implication that if a woman's body does not 'shut down' a pregnancy, there was no rape but, instead, she was probably involved in consensual sex (i.e., she was 'asking' for it).
That’s easy to answer. Because Akin is not backing off what he said that has the really ugly connotations - the implication that if a woman’s body does not ‘shut down’ a pregnancy, there was no rape but, instead, she was probably involved in consensual sex (i.e., she was ‘asking’ for it).
///////////////
I take it you must be akin to Chris Matthews in that you are apparently able to hear “dog whistles” in Akin’s comments that are inaudible to the rest of us.
In no way can what you infer in your post able to be upheld via an honest exegesis of Akin’s offending comments.
Whatever Akin is saying, it is certainly not that no woman who is forcibly raped ever gets pregnant: We all know that it happens. However, Akin is saying what is fairly common knowledge — namely that pregnancy is not as frequent a result of rape as the pro-aborts (who use this as a battle cry, “in cases of rape, etc”) would have us believe.
Moreover, it is egregiously dishonest of you to infer that Akin believes that anytime a woman becomes pregnant as a result of an undesired (violent or otherwise) sexual liaison “was asking for it.”
You assign “ugly implications” regarding Akin’s intentions in the offending quote. Again, these are dog whistles only you can hear. In fact, I see more ugliness in your post than in anything Akins said — no matter how incorrect or poorly thought-out it may have been.
I’m sure this guy would have been Missouri’s senator anyway before his careless remark. And we’d be stuck with him as well as his being beholden to the RNC and its cash. Now, if he wins; it’s all his on his terms with middle finger extended to the RNC. Personally,I don’t think he is done for mostly because his opponent is McCaskill.
It is also interesting that Huckabee is jumping in to raise cash for Akins, and Huckabee has chided the RNC and Crossroads for abandoning Akins.
////////////////////
Interesting take. I like the possibilities.
I honestly think a lot of the anti-Akins hysteria wave (unlike anything I have ever seen previously among the Republicans) reeks of anti- “old, Christian, conservative white guy” paranoia — meaning that the Libs have Republicans trained like Pavlov’s dogs to react in the liberally-approved way to someone such as Akins.
Has Ann Coulter ever called Sen Schumer a “selfish swine?” How about Obama? But, apparently, she has referred to Akins in those terms on national TV.
Frankly, I am amazed that the vast majority of posters on FR are joining the Romney-/GOPe-endorsed pile-on to crush Akins — a man who, despite his faults — is far better than the likes of Scott Brown, or the RINOettes from Maine.
I am not for leaving our wounded on the battlefield.
I will send my gifts to Akins before I send them to RINO John Cornyn’s RNSC.
And Palin was stupid enough and ignorant enough to suggest that Steelman could run as a third party candidate or a write in candidate. Missouri law prohibits that. Palin didn’t know that.
I will forgive her stupidity and ignorance. Too bad she can’t see fit to forgive Akin.
/////////////////
Well said. Well said.
“What a difference one TV interview can make. ..”
IF you’re a Republican! And I’m afraid Republicans are just accepting it.
And I have nowhere inferred that Akin himself believed or believes in this 'blame the victim' interpretation. That interpretation is purely your creation and is in no way germane to the point I made, IAC.
And I have nowhere inferred that Akin himself believed or believes in this 'blame the victim' interpretation. That interpretation is purely your creation and is in no way germane to the point I made, IAC.
sorry about repeat post - more isp trouble.
“R self-flagellation likely accounts for much of the 10% deficit.”
Doubt it. You’re just seeing now the number of actual Republican voters in the state. Missouri is a 40% Republican state. So, now you have 2% of the electorate who are Republican who won’t vote for Akin. And no Independents or Democrats. 38%.
The only thing possible could be the "Bradley Effect" on those polled. This is excluding down right skulduggery. They do not wish to be seen in a bad light by the pollster and give out what the pollster is thought to believe. The Bradley Effect is one name for that.
Akin still survives being thrown under the bus. (imho) It has been noted that the MSM seems to have forgotten Travon Martin- George Zimmerman.
A correction to my post on the Bradley Effect. It is usually in the case of a black candidate against a white candidate. The person polled not wishing to appear “racist”. It can be applied also to a person not wishing to displease the pollster.
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.