Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reasons for Tuesdays Results:Why the Democrats Did so Poorly
none | 13 Nov 02 | Stephen Boyd

Posted on 11/13/2002 6:58:44 PM PST by sboyd

Tuesday was a massacre for the democrats. They had no message and the polling was horrible. I have always been skeptical about polls and it appears that most of the pre-election polls were off. So why did the republicans do so well? George Bush deserves much of the credit, but let's not forget about the great candidates we had. 90% od our candidates were experienced and did well in their debates. The democrats did have a message. It was "no" to whatever being asked. The get nothing done senate was another reason. No bills and no judges were coming out of the senate. Homeland security was probably another huge hit for the (D)'s. Redistricting actually hurt them also. They probably focused too much on protecting their incumbents and republicans did well in the marginal districts. So here are a few states:

Florida- JEB won big. The media hyped this one up including that idiot Terry McAuliffe. McBride really hurt himself with that remark about not giving an exact cost of his education plan. Tell me this too, if Gore got cheated in FLA, then why didn't they just vote his brother out? JEB won by 13 points.

GA- My home state. Cleland lost because he voted against homeland security and the infamous ban on partial birth abotion ban. he should have listened to his fellow Georgians more. He thought he could get in good with the party leaders. Chambliss is from the mid and south state. He gained enough votes there and Atlanta to carry the day. Barnes losing was sweet! he was such a dictator. He felt like he had all the answers and no one else did. He didn't need teachers' support or flag supporters. He was wrong. He was ahead in all the polls by large margins, but the pollsters underestimated the middle and south GA turnout for Sonny and Saxby. Both great men. Oh and the myth about blacks not voting is not true. they came out and voted. But this time christains and Atlanta (R)'s stuck together.

Ala- This race should not have been so close. Siegelman's admin. was full of corruption. He should have been blown away. He also changed the liscense plates from ALA- the heart of Dixie to Stars fell on (or over)ALA.

NC- I had said from the get go that Dole wwas going to win. She is a good campaigner. Pollsters said it would be close. 9 points.

Maryland- I really enjoyed this great victory. Ehrlich has so much more class than Townsend. She was a b--ch. She lost because white people voted together and because Townsend was scary left like Pelosi.

NH- Another great one. I thought Shaheen was a closet liberal. She would have been bad for NH in the senate. i think Bush put Sununu over the top with his visit. But Sununu might have won anyways thanks to gov-elect Benson.

Massachussetts- Excellent job by Romney here. He straight outclassed O'Brien. beat her by 100,000 votes in a very liberal state. The "unbecoming" remark hostility probably did her in with swing voters. That was stupid of her to make such a fuss about it.

MO- Carnahan was a loser. She was a terrible debator. Talent probably ran one of the best campaigns in the country. She should not have voted against Ashcroft for attorney general. That was wrong. Ever since Charlie Cook, the pollster, said that Carnahan looked lost in the senate things went poorly for her. She only lost by 30,000 votes. Another myth was that blacks did not vote here either. Wrong! Look at the results. they came out in their usual numbers for the (D)'s.

Minn- No doubt Bush helped here, bu the (D)'s shot themselves in the foot at the funeral with their party. Wellstone probably would have won if he had lived. They shot their own foot off. Ventura helped with his ranting against the (D)'s over the funeral.

SD- We should have won here. May have campaigned too much. I believe that Thune may have gotten cheated here. Bush should give him a job in the admin.

LA- Landrieu is in serious trouble. Terrell is a viable threat to her. Landrieu did poorly on election night with 46%. The black leaders in New Orleans won't endorse her. Great for us! watch this one on Dec 7.

TX- It's a myth that democrats are making huge gains here. Sanchez and Kirk did not have a prayer. Hispanics have not given their undying devotion to the (D)s.

Okl- Steve Largent should not have lost this race!

Colo- I don't know how many times i told my friends that Allard was not going to lose. 6 points was the victory margin. When Allard comes home, he travels to different towns and has town hall meetings. He is too well liked. Second try candidates lose 90% of the time anyways.

Arkansas- Hate to say it, but Hutchinson asked for it with that divorce. He would have won if not for that. It's the only (R) senate seat loss.But (R)'s have another chance in 04 with Lincoln up for re-election.

Kalifornication (CA)- Davis should be ashamed. He didn't even get 50% of the vote. Simon could have won if he had not had so many misteps. We let that one get away.

Mistakes the (D)'s are making- -elect Pelosi House minority leader -Gore in 04 or Hillary -Dodd as mimority leader (if he runs) -keep McAuliffe as DNC -Keep Bill Clinton in the eyes of the public

TOPICS: Alabama; Arkansas; California; Colorado; Florida; Georgia; Louisiana; Maryland; Massachusetts; Minnesota; Missouri; New Hampshire; North Carolina; South Dakota; Texas; Campaign News
KEYWORDS: election2002
It looks bad for the (D)'s in 04. people are really pleased with Bush. He just got an Iraq victory today. people like and trust him. He has brought back dignity and respect back to the Oval Office.
1 posted on 11/13/2002 6:58:44 PM PST by sboyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sboyd
I think the major problem is that democrats don't have a foreign policy or domestic policy. To win in times of danger or down-turning economy the challenging party must have a plan to fix the economy and make the nation safe.

The huge problem for the democrats is they are deeply divided on how to fix the economyu and make the nation safe.

On Saddam on one hand you had Bonier in Baghdad cheering "Appease him again .. appease him again harder. " That appeals to about 50 percent of the Democrats. The other half want to nuke Saddam before dawn. The problem for Democrats on foreign policy is a plan that pleases half the Democrats would have sent the other half for a walk on election day. So Democrats first opposed the Iraq resolution to please the appeasers, then folded to the Bush Position to please the hawks. The democrats tried ot be HawkDoves... It is hard to do.

It was the same on the economy. The old JFK wing of the party was for a JFK style tax cut and economic stimulus. That portion thinks that giving tax cuts to the people and companies that hire people, would give them enough money to hire people. The other half thinks that if you tax companies and the Rich at a higher rate the rich will respond by puting more people on the payroll.

Democrats can implement the Bush tax cuts and with republican help enact it. They can support it if it is a Democrat plan put forht by a democrat president. But aDemocrat leader does not dare endorse a Repulican plan because half his party is opposed and half are for it. So they did the same thing on domestic policy. First they oppose then they fold. They are in favor of increasing taxes while raising tem.

The dilemma for the Democratic party is real. They are deeply divided. The candidates dare not take a position.

To please their all their base Democratic Candidates must be both for and against nearly everything on the national agenda.

The only thing left is to propose nothing and attack Republicans. We just saw how well that works.

The only thing left is for one half of the party to convince the other half of the party, to their view. That effort could be called Mission Impossible.

2 posted on 11/13/2002 8:42:41 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sboyd
Arkansas- Hate to say it, but Hutchinson asked for it with that divorce. He would have won if not for that. It's the only (R) senate seat loss.But (R)'s have another chance in 04 with Lincoln up for re-election.

He should have lost that race. The staffer he married after divorcing his wife is a real cow. You should have seen her when he made his concession speach. Hutchinson actually has worse taste in women than Clinton.

3 posted on 11/17/2002 6:28:02 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Is that kind of comment really necessary?

Just saying.
4 posted on 11/17/2002 6:45:24 PM PST by Gunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson