Posted on 08/02/2005 6:40:37 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Really.
How many alternative media sources followed this election until the last couple of days? You won't find many, if any at all. After Dewine's son lost that was the last attention paid. meanwhile the MSM has been promoting this guy unrelently over there.
I would advise that Rush Limbaught spent only two hours today taking down Hackett, and very well may have made the difference. Doesn't bode well for the Dems if he can overcome their lead of weeks in two hours.
This was one special election in which the Democrats poured a lot of resources. Apart from his Bush-bashing screed, Hackett was a pretty good candidate. I wouldn't make too much out of this one election.
You definitely make some good points, but still, we should have been able to motivate more than 51 percent (in a district like this) to vote AGAINST the Rats.
I would advise that Rush Limbaught spent only two hours today taking down Hackett, and very well may have made the difference. Doesn't bode well for the Dems if he can overcome their lead of weeks in two hours.
---
Excellent point.
so what is California's excuse for the "strong conservative movement"?
Get outta here - We just had a REAL poll last Nov and the majority of American's stood tall and supported the GWOT (which includes Iraq!) - This fool in OH ran ad's trying to imply HE supports the war in Iraq -
Furthermore to try and suggest that some of the MSM polls which currently try and show the war at a 50%/50% support level are junk!
Look at the internals...they are having to weight the polls with 44%D's and 30%R's to get their results - (the past election...past few elections have showed a 37%R -37%D breakdown...that is called a REAL honest breakdown).
Yet push polls the MSM throw out have ridiculous weightings in order to get a result they want! (but in reality to anyone who is intellectually honest the poll is junk!).
Well, then, the Rats HAD "a lot of resources" to put in.
And the Republicans didn't? Or they didn't bother to?
"Hackett was a pretty good candidate." Well, we can't control that either, can we? The fact that they got a strong candidate to run in a district like this tells me that the Rats aren't as weak as Hannity and Limbaugh and all too many complacent, dimwitted FReepers like to say.
Now that a Rat has almost won in a bedrock Republican district, look for a lot of "pretty good" Rat candidates to run all over the country.
Excuses don't cut it for me. This narrow victory is a bad sign, and the Mehlmans and Roves and Bob Bennetts (he's Ohio GOP chairman, if I'm not mistaken) need to wake up and smell the coffee.
I bet it will be on the front page of the NY Times tomorrow. And you know what? It should be.
Such hogwash - Thank God the majority of American's have moved into the 21st Century -
Oh, I agree with you 100%. This is very disappointing. I am just trying to make the point that both the White House and National Party are making serious miscalculations about what it is exactly the public is in favor of. Bush's positions on a couple of key issues threaten to split the party, perhaps not literally, but in a way that could very well damage our national standing.
"Winning" a 64 percent GOP district by 1,000 votes is a near-disaster.
Hackett was a stealth candidate. Only people living in caves still don't know who Hillary is.
And the DU/Deaniac crowd is none too hapy with Ms Rodham as of late, saying she is not left enough .
The GOP has won (on the whole) all elections since 2000 - We have picked up seats in the House and Senate in 2002 & 2004 (unprecedented in history to take back the Senate in an off election year 2002...like we did) -
The GOP has more Governorships and more State Houses to boot -
GWB received more votes than any President in history and won by over 3 million votes in one of the highest turnout elections in modern times (when everyone said he COULDN'T win with high turnout numbers).
The GOP is winning across the board. It is the DEM's that are imploding. When "coming" close but still LOSING is considered a "win"....that only shows you the true reality.
-PJ
"White House and national party are making serious miscalculations."
Yeah, I agree. They're not very bright. Either that or they don't care that much about winning.
Fair enough. But you must admit that the public is not going to put up with this forever. I stand with Bush 100% on most social issues, as well as many foreign policy issues. he is making some critical mistakes though by refusing to listen to his base on issues like illegal immigration. As for the Iraq war, I personally believe that the polls show approval a little lower then it actually is (have seen 44%). I would guess its closer to 50%, but it still should be better.
she is up by 4,000 votes at this point..
hacket: 55000 votes
schmidt: 59000 votes
You can't hold me responsible for the fact that California doesn't have a strong conservative movement. I have not held any poster on this thread responsible for the results in Ohio, have I? And there is less excuse in Ohio, which has many, many more Republicans proportionately than California does.
You will get nowhere with your California-bashing. It is a common sport on FReep, but one that adds absolutely nothing to the (normally low) intellectual quality.
The main problem in Ohio is NOT the war.
It is DeWine, it is Voinovich, it is Taft.
This is why the President wouldn't appear with Taft during the campaign. FIX the RINO corruption, and you fix Ohio. It's that simple.
People are getting complacent. Problem with talk shows is that they preach mainly to the converted. If all people hear are things that are reassuring, and are not out there doing the work, getting out the vote, expect these "surprises" more and more often.
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.