Pelosi's San Francisco GOP challengers raise $1.5 million

Examiner.com ^ | April 20, 2010 | Arthur Bruzzone

[Impy]

Unfortunately not even that will occur.

The GOP is not a threat in that district. She can ignore her GOP opponent, no matter how much they spend and attack her they will get less than 20% of the vote. That is the sad reality.

Here are the 2008 results

Pelosi (D) 71.87%
Cindy Sheehan (I) 16.17%
Dana Walsh (R) 9.68%

Yes than Cindy Sheehan. Running to the far left.

The recent high for the GOP is 18.15% is 1994.

If this election reduces to the rats to 30 seats Pelosi’s district will be one of them. The vast majority of people currently living in San Fran are leftist morons.

Of course we should still give her a spirited fight but I personally wouldn’t advise anyone to donate to her opponent unless they’re already given to every Republican that actually has a snowball’s chance to win or even “bloody” some rats nose. The money can do no good in that district. Our candidate there will get the same 10-15% of vote only relying on their website and any free media they could get.

[Oceander]

Then I’ll make sure that my first political donation this season is to her GOP opponent. In districts that are less rabidly fascist, the GOP candidates are less in need of my assistance.

[Impy]

You have a the right attitude. I sympathies with the plight of the minority of normal people in San Fran. I live in a heavily rat seat in Chicago.

But even if you gave a million dollars it would be like giving an aspirin to a man who’s has 50 bullets wounds in his chest.

[Oceander]

No, it wouldn’t. It would be like standing with the doomed souls at the Alamo rather than slinking away like a rat in the dark to try and find a smaller band of Santa Anna’s boys to pick on. It is never a waste to stand up to tyranny and fascism, even if you know that you, individually and corporeally, will probably not survive the encounter.

[GOPsterinMA]

Excellent data FM!

So if the sane people got out of Sodom and Gomorrah starting in the 1950’s, then I guess Eugene McCarthy was on the money, and the freak leftist takeover has been going on for 60 years.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It will be completely wasted, you might as well convert it to quarters and fling it off the Bay Bridge. She’ll get as much of a bloody nose as a Buick Roadmaster breezing by at 85mph on a Texas highway against a gnat. The Republican is the gnat. $1.5 mil could get us 3 winnable GOP-leaning seats held by Democrat incumbents elsewhere.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You want to give Pelosi a bloody nose ? Take seats away from her elsewhere in the country. THAT’S how to win.

[Oceander]

No, that’s not how to win. One must not only win, one must be seen to have won, and to have taken a credible fight to the enemy’s home territory is part and parcel of being seen to have won. It’s a matter of morale which, like goodwill or any other intangible, is priceless, and by that I do not mean without value.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You have a better change of winning over 400 seats before you have the most remote chance of securing a district with less than a 10% Republican presence. Gnat on a windshield. And with all due respect, that’s not how to win. You take back the seats that they have no business occupying. Render the opposition impotent. There’s a difference between heroism and pure insanity.

[Oceander]

If you don’t understand morale, you don’t understand winning, and you’ll be continually surprised at your losses. You don’t understand morale - you don’t understand how to win, which means you won’t. That’s about as clear as it gets.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I understand what you're getting at, but you're not getting what I'm saying. There are winnable districts, and there are non-winnable districts. Occasionally, there are unusual factors that can contribute to our carrying non-winnable seats (LA-2, for example), but even in those, you generally tend to have a GOP voting bloc of (at least) 1/3rd. I'm trying to get it through to you that the SF district is not even 1/10th. It is that way not for racial reasons, but for clear and distinct ideological ones. It is stupid to waste a dime here on one of THE most unwinnable viscerally anti-Republican/anti-Conservative districts in the United States. It has zilch to do with morale. I cannot agree in the least with wasting money on such districts. I'll say it again, in the field of battle, if the General is untouchable on their turf, you take out as many of their officers and soldiers as you can where they CAN be taken out. A General without an army is less than useless.

Just as an aside, why the last Democrat Speaker we took out in 1994 was accomplished was simple to understand... Tom Foley occupied a Republican-leaning district. Pelosi's district nowhere resembles that seat, nor does Steny Hoyer's ever-increasing Democrat district in Southern MD (which was competitive in the early to mid '90s, but not with the demographic changes there).

[MplsSteve]

“A total waste of money. We need that in winnable districts, not one where the GOP candidate gets 10% in a good year.”

Agreed.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least five races (special elections not included) where that type of money could be put to better use.

[JimWayne]

Thanks for the info. Seems rotten to the core. I have a question for you — what if the candidate pretended to be ultra-liberal and was a Hispanic who shepherded the Hispanics into voting for one of their race? Do you think that will work?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Aren’t enough Hispanics in the district - 16% as of 2000, and I doubt substantially higher now given the cost of living there — the Black population used to be much higher and they were driven out along with working and middle class Conservative families. It’s a plurality White seat, but probably the single-greatest cluster of extreme-left Whites in the entire country.