Skip to comments.Saxby's Win: 08's Most Intellectually Pure Contest
Posted on 12/04/2008 5:41:38 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
For all of the talk about "bi-partisanship," the Georgia Senate run-off was nothing if not blatantly partisan. It was, simply, ALL about the party, and by extention, was the most intellectually sound and pure election in all of the 2008 cycle.
Six years ago, Republican Saxby Chambliss routed incumbent Max Cleland by running a partisan and aggressive campaign that "infuriated Democrats" at the time. Since then, Chambliss has often wandered off the conservative partisan plantation and infuriated mainly his own base. He even got chastised for a "reach across the aisle" energy vote in an appearance on the Rush Limbaugh show when oil was over 100 bucks a barrel. (If you heard the interview, you probably remain undecided as to whether Chambliss even realized he was being mocked.)
This philosophical meandering had the conservative base less than thrilled with Saxby to the point that a libertarian candidate polled strongly and kept Chambliss from winning 50% plus one on election day in November.
This rightward bleeding, plus Obama mania and the attached voter drives, had him in a run-off against a charismatically challenged and unknown state legislator named Jim Martin.
As we know, it has been trendy for years for voters to claim an aggressive lack of party affiliation and to proclaim that one "votes for the man (or woman) and not the party." It sounds so darned enlightened and open minded. When turnout is high, many who fit this category vote.
But with respects to the Congress this makes almost no sense. After all, a vote for any single Democrat in 2008 was effectively a vote for one of only two people: Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The dems poured a lot of national organization in this race and lost.
BS, there are several southern democrats that I would gladly trade a couple of Rino's for.
Cuda went down to GA and fired up the base to get out the vote. Saxby saw the crowds and the enthusiasm and knew it, and to his credit, he publicly credited Sarah with taking him over the top.
The Left has tried to destroy Palin, but it obviously simply has had no effect on the conservative base. I think she is the most popular politician in the country — even more popular than OBamBam. But I guess we will find out the answer to that in 2012.
I noticed the author's spell checker must have been off: ''extention'' is actually spelled ''extension.'' Kind of an embarrassing error for a publication titled American Thinker.
Join teamsarah.org if you haven’t yet.
You have to realize, like many of us Georgians do, that if Saxby had not handily defeated this ‘wharf-rat’, he would have retained so little credibility he would have been better off floating out to sea.
my message to chambliss
The predominant difference is no Obama coat tails.
It was a waste of time for the DNC to do so. Georgia is, mostly, a Red State. Unlike some folks, no matter how dissatisfied we may be with Chambliss, we’re not going to replace even a Mediocre ‘Pubbie with a Liberal Democrat.
I was on a flight from ATL to DCA and some dem operative was his cell yacking about how the troops were called in for this race.
Re your graphic in post #9:
Who is blue and who is red?
The predominant difference is no Obama coat tails."
I beg to differ, but you are both right and wrong to a degree. I'm not splitting hairs for the sake of it, as the conclusion is very important for 2010.
First, Obama DID have coattails. That's why he won Virginia, Florida and NC, and why Georgia was so close. Net turnout was unchanged from 2004, but blacks were energized by the prospects of a black candidate. That's also why the Senate and House majorities for the Dems grew -- why Liddy Dole lost. Second, the primary reason why Saxby won with an expected margin of 58 to 42 is that turnout in the runoff was much smaller, like an off-year election. On November 4th he won a plurality versus Martin of 1.8 to 1.6 million votes. On December 2nd he won by 1.2 to 0.9 million votes. Turnout was 1.3 million fewer people. That's a lot of voters. And they're the type who never really vote anyway, don't really care much about the Senate, and only voted because of the black man. Many wouldn't have turned out had Hillary been the candidate.
Sorry to differ, but Obama did have coattails. If the Dec 2nd turnout had occurred nationwide on Nov 4th, McCain would have won the Presidency and the Repubblies might've had a chance taking back the House.
I'm not discounting Palin's time spent in GA. I think she's wonderful candidate. But looking at the details, it was turnout that mattered most.
On to 2010 and what this means. The party in power always loses seats in the first off-year election. ALWAYS. After Clinton's first two years the GOP took over both houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years. Why? Because the nation has never been as liberal as the Democrats in Congress -- that's always been America's political scam -- and when the Dems had both branches plus the Presidency, plus a fawning media, plus the wisdom and truth from Rush Limbaugh, the voters saw the truth.
The nation will be somewhat weary of Obama after two years. He will not be the Messiah or magician that the voters thought he was. That idiot woman in Florida will still be paying her own rent and gas bills. There will still be war and violence in the world, and I'll bet dollars to donuts that there will still be tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. Obama will have made some mistakes and look like the inexperienced buffoon that he really is. Obama will have uttered a few more of those precious gaffes that he did on the campaign that show his true colors. World politicians will realize that he truly is a lightweight. CIA and special forces budgets will grow, not shrink -- no peace dividend. God forbid there is another terrorist incident and a weak response, or another Hurricane Katrina, and the nation sees that the Gov't was as unprepared for these new incidents as before.
Democrats will be dispirited. Leftists will be howling. Socialists will be screaming. Talk radio will be gleeful. And the blacks and other low-probability voters will lose their joy about the first black President.
That means a huge Republican victory in 2010. Low turnout, motivated conservatives, angry and dispirited Dem voters, and the marginally-motivated blacks stay home. Both houses of Congress back, or at least the House of Representatives.
The Dems KNOW this. That's why Obama is pulling together a centrist Cabinet. That's why Nancy Pelosi has announced that she will be leading a centrist House (see today's Drudge Report -- "On the day after the election, Pelosi assured that the country must be governed from the middle"). They Dems know that if they swing left in Obama's first two years their fate is like Clinton's. They hope that a first term that is centrist might keep the electorate happy. Yes, they have to beg their constituents to still show up in 2010 but they hope that the marginal voters will too.
I don't think this ploy will work. The voters who showed up only for Obama will still not vote in 2010, like they didn't on 12/2.
Sorry for the long-winded reply but I find the results in Georgia to be very good news, but for different reasons than you two gents.
Red is the commies, blue is the Americans, they way it is supposed to be before the enemedia confused the issue.
Even a centrist stampede back to the GOP will not produce 1994 style results unless we can stop shamnesty.
The actual method of choosing red/blue used to be
incumbent = blue
challenger = red
After that, the media figured out that assigning red to the democrats was just too much of a reminder of their socialist/communist leanings.
I differ with your differing with me. I don’t see where we disagree, in part because I presented such a small and unassailable target with which to disagree. But perhaps I wasn’t clear. I meant to say that the predominant difference between the general election and the runoff in Georgia is there were no Obama coat tails in the runoff. There are a number of other, lesser factors, such as Jim Martin is a total weenie, Saxby had a focused, disciplined and effective message, and the independent groups poured resources into Georgia and blanketed the base with their messages. And, Sara. In any case, you offer a sound analysis. Although I am beginning to think Obama is more shrewd than we have been giving him credit for.
Good point re Shamnesty. But I’m pretty sure that it won’t happen, like Hillarycare, because the blue dog Dems who voted for Obama are not in favor of awarding illegals with citizenship. Even the remaining liberal Republicans like Arlen Spector, the two ladies from Maine, and the fellow from Nebraska, will listen to their constituents. The chorus from the conservatives will be huge. Amnesty could well be Obama’s Hillarycare, delivering the Congress back to the GOP.
Ahem. 1934 and 2002
Oops. Shouldn’t have been that categorical. Forgot that 2002 curiosity. Well, I hope you think that my general point was true ... [/blushing]
I've just finished reading Burton Fulsom's "New Deal or Raw Deal" ( which I highly recommend as a primer for what's going to happen in the next two years ) and the Dems 1934 increase was mentioned in the book.
I agree with your general point so long as the Repubs can identify and publicize the causes of the coming recession. It's difficult to believe some of the exit interviews after the last election e.g. the widespread belief that the Repubs control Congress. A few simple messages need to be re-enforced and re-enforced.
Damn right. It’s sad it has to be explained to Republicans who swallow the Orwellian media newsspeak labelling. They can take their RED and shove it up their Commie asses.