Posted on 11/19/2007 4:28:43 AM PST by Romneyfor President2008
O'Brien was an incredibly incompetent candidate. Somehow, I don't get that same sense from Hillary.
I also love how Romney and his supporters try to pretend that Romney "almost" beat Kennedy in 1994. In 1994, in the midst of the greatest congressional landslide in recent history and at a time when Ted Kennedy was only slightly more popular than toenail fungus, Romney lost to Kennedy by the oh-so-close margin of 17 points.
We are talking about MA. How many Congressional Democrats lost in MA in 1994? Teddy's race against Romney was the smallest victory margin Kennedy has ever had in his races except his first one in 1962, which he won by 14 points. MA gave Clinton his largest victory margin of any state in 1992.
Kennedy won his 2000 race by 60 points and his 2006 race by 39 points. He won in 1988 by 31 points. In 1982 by 22 points and 1976 by 40 points. And despite the Chappaquiddick incident surrounding the 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne, Kennedy won in 1970 by 24 points. Romney's 17 point loss against Kennedy, a 32 year incumbent, in 1994 looks pretty good by comparison.
Roosevelt/Wallace had no vets during WWII. I don't think that is an absolute requirement.
He beat O’Brien, but he destroyed Kerry Healy, his supposed successor in the MA GOP.
I think Romney will eventually be the GOP nominee and face Hillary.
None. However, two had lost in 1992, and both Republicans, Peter Blute and Pete Torkildsen, were reelected in '94. I don't see much to crow about in a 17 point Romney loss. It was the only contested race that Ted Kennedy had to put up with, and it was a blowout. The millions spent on Romney would have been better spent beating any number of more-vulnerale Democrats elsewhere.
Kennedy’s first race in 1962 against Lodge was the most contested. My point was that Romney’s race needs to be placed in context. By that measure, Romney did quite well. That’s just a fact.
PRESS FORWARD MITT!:)
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
No, it's a myth.
In 1988, the GOP ran a no-name placeholder candidate against Kennedy.
The placeholder candidate got 33% of the vote in a year in which the Governor of Massachusetts was running for President (and Dem turnout was extremely high). Despite spending vast amounts of money, Romney got a whopping 7 percentage points (and a whopping 10,000 votes) more than the 1988 placeholder did.
That's impressive? That's pathetic. Some polls indicated that Kennedy was in trouble. On election day, however, Romney got creamed.
LOL. Because you said so? Facts are stubborn things.
Kennedy senate races:
2006 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) (inc.) 69%
Kenneth Chase (R)31%
2000 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) (inc.) 73%
Jack E. Robinson III (R) 13%
Carla Howell (Lib.) 11.9%
1994 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) (inc.) 58%
Mitt Romney (R) 41%
1988 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) (inc.) 65.6%
Joseph D. Malone (R) 34.4%
1982 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) (inc.) 60.8%
Raymond Shamie (R) 38.3%
1976 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) (inc.) 69.3%
Michael Robertson (R) 29%
1970 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) (inc.) 61.2%
Josiah A. Spaulding (R) 37%
1964 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) (inc.) 74.3%
Howard Whitmore, Jr. (R) 25.4%
1962 Massachusetts United States Senatorial Election
Ted Kennedy (D) 55%
George C. Lodge (R) 41%
H. Steuart Hughes (I) 2%
Lawrence Gilfedder (Socialist Labor) 0.2%
The placeholder candidate got 33% of the vote in a year in which the Governor of Massachusetts was running for President (and Dem turnout was extremely high). Despite spending vast amounts of money, Romney got a whopping 7 percentage points (and a whopping 10,000 votes) more than the 1988 placeholder did.
In 1988, Bush received 1,194,644 votes [45.38%] against Dukakis 1,401,406 votes [53.23 %]. The so-called "place holder" didn't do as well as Bush 41. It speaks more to the unpopularity of Dukakis than anything else as it appears that plenty of people split their ticket to vote for Kennedy. Comparing a Presidential election year against a mid-term election is problematic in terms of voter turnout. Romney, a Rep, did remarkably well against an 32 year incumbent senator in one of the bluest states in the country. And we are talking about competing against the Kennedy political machine in MA.
You can try to diminish Romney's showing against Kennedy in 1994, but the facts just refute your argument. FYI: The voter turnout in 1988 was 2.6 million versus 2.2 million in 1994, a non-presidential election year. Romney was able to turn out the vote, quite an achievement.
You can keep saying it's remarkable, but is it actually? Romney spent far more money than any candidate ever to run against Kennedy. And he only got 7 percentage points more than the previous Kennedy opponent... he barely broke 40% of the vote.
Is that really remarkable?
Bill Weld did a hell of a lot better against John Kerry two years later in a much tougher political environment. Maybe we should run Bill Weld for President... /s
You attribute too much importance to the amount of money spent. It is remarkable for MA, perhaps the bluest and most liberal state in America.
Bill Weld did a hell of a lot better against John Kerry two years later in a much tougher political environment. Maybe we should run Bill Weld for President...
Bill Weld knew better than to go against Kennedy. Kerry is no Kennedy even though he likes to use the JFK image and initials. Kerry may have a hard time in 2008 being reelected depending upon who the Reps choose as a candidate.
“Our side desperately needs someone with military service”
No It’s not a prerequisite for POTUS. Just look at McCain..not a good candidate. However, we DO need someone who is extremely smart and extremely well organized. The qualifications of a leader. Mitt Romney fits that bill.
Kerry is certainly no Ted Kennedy, but 1996 was also not 1994. Bill Clinton was at the top of the ticket (and got 61.5% of the vote in Massachusetts) and the GOP lost 2 House seats in Massachusetts.
And yet Bill Weld still did a hell of a lot better than Romney had done in 1994, remarkable given the fact that Weld was running against a Democratic wave, and Romney had a Republican wave at his back.
Kerry may have a hard time in 2008 being reelected depending upon who the Reps choose as a candidate.
Don't count on it.
“we need an attack dog in order to pound clinton in the ground. Rudy is the obvious choice.”
LOL!! You’re kidding, right? I can just see him stammering and stuttering in Hillary’s shadow. She’d rip him to shreds. Mitt’s too calm, cool under pressure and smart for her. She’d look and sound like a shrieking fishwife next to him.
Those two Rep House seats were recent pick-ups. Peter Blute was elected in 1993 after defeating a 9 term Dem Congressman. Peter Torkildsen was also elected in 1993 and served two terms. They were aberrations, not the rule in Dem MA. Currently in the MA state legislature, there 35 Dems/5 Reps in the Senate and 140 Dems/19 Reps in the House. This is called total domination in what amounts to a one party state.
And yet Bill Weld still did a hell of a lot better than Romney had done in 1994, remarkable given the fact that Weld was running against a Democratic wave, and Romney had a Republican wave at his back.
Weld was a sitting two term governor at the time and had more name recognition than Romney. In 1994, Weld won reelection with an impressive 71% of the vote. He also was an extreme RINO. It is why Clinton nominated him to be ambassador to Mexico, but it never was approved. You can't compare Weld-Kerry to Romney-Kennedy.
Dream on!
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.