Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: truthguy

Fiorina was a bad candidate, but at the end of the day, I don’t think Tom Campbell had a chance. In the primaries, he always sounds like someone who can get moderates to vote for him, but it would never materialize in the general election. There was no compelling reason for them to vote for Campbell. The fact that he realizes Republicans are evil is nice, and it cuts down on the criticism, but it’s not going to make people pull the lever for him. I heard him speak- he’s very serious-minded and sincere, but at the end of the day, he can’t offer one reason for people to vote for him, except he will save them from the partisans. And in the general election, not matter how far to the left the GOP candidate is, they will still be portrayed as a radical wingnut. But hey, it would have been worth it to see the smug Mr, Campbell, who is better than everyone, have to deal with it. But Campbell had 0% chance of winning.


12 posted on 09/19/2011 2:07:25 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: nickcarraway
Campbell was polling ahead of Boxer and Fiorina was polling behind Boxer. I respectfully disagree that Campbell had zero chance of winning. He was an excellent Representative when he was in the House. He also had quite of bit of money behind him. He is well connected.

Of course nothing is 100% in politics but he had a much better chance than Fiorina of defeating Boxer. You may think that there was no compelling reason to vote for him but who did or does have a compelling reason to vote for? Give me an example. Isn't defeating the wretched Boxer a compelling reason enough?
14 posted on 09/19/2011 2:19:07 AM PDT by truthguy (Good intentions are not enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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