Saturday, November 11, 2006
|
|
Just The Numbers Please
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:36 AM
|
|
The Washington Post has its first of many articles on how the elections prove the GOP majority is disintegrating: "Democrats Win Bigger Share Of Religious Vote." Pew has its first take out as well: "Centrists Deliver For Democrats."
Before too many such spins fly out of the MSM's many fortresses, get the numbers out and look for yourself. Easy to use data bases are here for the 2006 vote and here for the 2004 vote. What you are going to find is that huge numbers of voters simply stayed home, as is typical for an off-year.
In the 2004 presidential election, George Bush gathered 2,859,764 votes in Ohio, 1,178,649 more than Mike DeWine's 1,681,015 earned on Tuesday, and 726,059 more than Sherrod Brown's 2,133,705.
Nearly 1.6 million Buckeye voters stayed home last Tuesday than turned out for the presidential election.
In the 2004 presidential election, 1,101,255 Colorado voters picked Bush, but on Tuesday only 566,303 chose Bob Beauprez and only 779,741 chose Bill Ritter.
More than 600,000 voters who cast ballots in Colorado in 2004 did not vote on Tuesday.
President Bush was the choice of 1.716,959 Virginia voters in 2004. John Kerry gathered 1,445,014 votes. On Tuesday George Allen received 1,165,440 votes, and James Webb 1,172,671.
This off-year turn-out gap is why Republicans are not very gloomy about their prospects in 2006 though they are sorry to lose some talented people. To have energized the electorate to turn out in numbers sufficient to build on the base of 2004, the GOP needed to have drawn compelling distinctions between themselves and the Democrats. Those distinctions are there and they are indeed incredibly significant, especially on the realities of the war and on judges.
I have already written at length why those differences were obscured.
Presidential elections bring clarity between the parties and turnout. Which is why many of the freshmen House Democrats should rent rather than buy.
(The turn-out gap is also a reason for off year states to consider shifting their gubernatorial elections to presidential years: More voters means a more representative governor.)
|
|
Hugh's comments are interesting and well documented. While so many are blaming the failure on every conceivable pet peave, Hugh came through with a factual analysis and related it to other elections. There were some great suggestions in the comments and I appreciated the opportunity to read them.
We all know many Republicans were turned off by the actions of the members of congress. But we the public have stood by for years now and allowed the present situation to develop and placed elected officials in temptation of huge benefits,high priced elections,lobbyist donations and control and pork barrel rewards.
But we let them do it.
I choose to vote for party members and work for change within the party. I also like to support people like Hugh who have influence and can help make a change. |
|
|
Get a Kick out of the self proclaimed Base Voter's. Here is the Deal, any one who voted this year must be considerd the "BASE". Pretty sure the base voter vote is tabulated just like everyone else's vote. Democrats won this year cuase they turned out more voters, period, nothing fancy. 2004 GWB turned out 59 million to JK's 56 million, he won imgaine that. The President can not sit back and allow the media to relentlessly attack him for years and expect people to get off thier couches and go vote for him during a Mid term. You cant keep saying stay the course and not offer more detail to the people. I didnt need an explanation but many did. People associated the apparent lack of leadership for Katrina with the lack of perceived leadership on Iraq and concluded that somthing was wrong. Fair or not People did not believe that our government was working. Republicans were hiding instead of campaigning, Takeing Lobby cash instead of doing their Job, Who stood for the President, and why, when he would not even stand for himself. Americans just are not believing it, Part of the JOB of the Executive is to ralley the home team. Too little to late. |
|
Russell writes: Saturday, November, 11, 2006 11:03 PM
Response to Blue and Joe
1. Tancredo is 100% more of a man than any of the current "popular" choices who are being mentioned. I'd rather drinking turpentine and urinate on a prarie fire than support either Mcain or Gulliani. (Gosh Russell you gotta be kidding me, what worked for Tancredo in Co wont work in PA or Any other North Eastern state because the Union's look at Illegals as future members and are fighting against enforcement efforts. Wont work in South West because Latino's take any illegal immigration talk as a threat against them, its called backlash. They will most likely be the majority in 2050. African Americans are NOT going to vote for candidates who talk tough on immigration because they believe those same folks are Klan Members. I like Tancredo, sticks to his guns. Not going to annoite him more MAN than others simply because I agree with him on immigration, that war is lost. Nancy Bush and George Pelosi will see to that next year.)
2. Gulliani?? You're kidding, aren't you? The womanizer will drive even more of the RW Christians out of the party than this year.
( Wow, guy cleaned up New York, I was serving on Governors Island in the 90's, saw it for myself after the Dinkens fiasco, and remeber no one's perfect. Seems to me My Chirstian Upbringing taught me about forgivness. Remeber that God was awfully fond of King David.)
3. The war in Iraq is over-Kaput! We raised the white flag on Tuesday night and everyone knows it. If you don't know it than you're like one of those Japanese solidiers who fought for more than 30 years after the end of WW2. (I hope your wrong, I'm not ready to give up)
Its ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION above all, now. ( Dead Issue that is the real war that is over, Azatlan is already in the making, you and I can not stop it)
|
|
"My not voting was quite well thought out, and well reasoned, and it will be 2 years before we know if I was right or wrong, so lets not cast aspersions on those of us who opted to stay home this one time - to save this country."
So, let me see, helping to allow folks like Tancredo and Sensenbrenner to now be in the minority party in the House and, as a result, unable to to control committees and block the Bush amnesty scheme is "saving this country"?
If it takes having to vote for a RINO or two in order to keep the good guys like Tancredo and Sensenbrenner in a position of power than that's what has to be done.
By the way, I happen to be a proud Buchanan Brigader, but also realize that in politics it comes down to choosing between the better of two candidates, not always getting everything that I may want, which is why I put alot of effort in to get my GOP candidates elected. That being said, the wing of the GOP that constantly insults the Buchanan types like me shouldn't be surprised if some of them stay home on election day.
As to Hugh's analysis; His point about voter turnout is a very good one. However, the main reason for that and also why some voters switched from R to D last tuesday is first and foremost the Iraq war problem. Bush needed to realize that after he won in 2004 that he no more than a year to get things straightened out over there before the electorate became weary of all the American soldiers dying for an ungrateful Iraqi people. All the other things mentioned (gang of 14, Foley etc.) were only the final straw on the camels back. Unfortunately, Republicans should have challanged Bush a year ago on the handling of the war. Their lack of doing that cost them big time on Nov. 7. And I say this as someone who made at least 500 calls for the GOP leading up to the election to Republican voters. Iraq was on their mind more than any of the other issues. |
|
|
|
|
Which DEAD PEOPLE didn't get to vote for the Dems in '06? |
|
|
Voter suppression??? Honey what cha' smokin' in that pipe of yours! |
|
Agent 86- "For years now, I've listened to Hugh's really, really bad predictions. Last weeks was only the most recent and glaring installment."
Best I can remember, Hugh was right in the last four elections at least, when the so called pollsters were wrong... Stop listening to Savage et al. |
|
As in 2004, 2002, 2000....okee dokee. Geez, you uys win the Congress and still whine about voter suppression--when does it end? Please identify those cases where there was suppression and I'll send my crack team to investigate--I'll bring plenty of crack to sharpen the memories of your Democratic voters.
Funny how the urban black holes of Chi-town, Milwaukee, St Louis, & Philly seem to swing in just the right number of votes for the Donks. Good thing we suppress some of those votes or the margins would just be out of whack. Oh, yes, and don't forget that requiring an ID to vote is discriminatory toward...you guessed it, Dems committing vote fraud.
I imagine we'll sort out this mess in 2012-2014 when the next census displays just how much of the population growth has shifted away from the Rust Belt/Northeast where the Donks made all their gains. Sounds to me like the Donk-voters are the ones whistling into the graveyard.
Oh, and BRob, our advertising has to be mean-spirited, because deep down, we're mean! Jim Talent wants little girls to die of diabetes and Michael J. Fox to never play Jenga again. I cannot wait for Claire McCaskill to cure the sick--once she singlehandedly cures all disease, we'll have no need for Dem socialized medicine. A new age of peace and tranquility is upon us!!! (Just remember, you better keep your nutroots at bay during 2008 when you fail to live up to any of your promises). |
|
The majority of the Democrats that were elected (by small margins in many cases) ran on a Pro-life, Pro-marriage (between 1 man & 1 woman),Pro-gun, anti-amnesty,pro-homeland defense/support the troops platform. As a result the Dems got 1/3 of the Christian evangelical ( you know, those hate-mongering bigots) vote.
THERE WAS NO MANDATE in 2006! |
|
The CONSERVATIVE Americans all over the US in this election voted for:
The Marriage Amendments in all but one of the states that had ballot initatives; the one that didn't pass had problems with All civil unions.
They voted against emminent domain
They voted against afirmative action
They voted for raising the minimum wage
They voted for investing in larger international markets for Soc. Security
They voted against "no parental notification"
They voted against abortion
They voted for English language only
just to name a few!
This country is at it's core a conservative nation!
|
|
|
or rather the only mandate was common sense and change. Voters have low tollerance for a war not moving in a direction they liked and a perception of corruption. This was no liberal resurgance and the Dems know it. The country is more conservative than the Dems nutroot base. They will be expected to be moderates and if they don't perform they will be out next election cycle. Yeah, their base wants them to be more liberal (and they can't help themselves), but they know if they go to far the advantage swings back. |
|
The wipeout of 2006 is even more foreboding than Republicans and the corporate media acknowledge. Had there not been active vote suppression, Dems would have picked up 35-40 seats. The vote suppression also made races closer than they were. Fortunately, they can't cheat if it ain't close--and it wasn't close.
The days of electoral shenanigans are over. Going forward, laws will be put into place to encourage voting and punish vote suppression.
Also, Republican base came out in force. You still lost. Why? Because the model doesn't work anymore. The independent and politically disengaged middle is not going to be bamboozled while you pander to the base. They caught on, finally, in 05 and 06, to the fact that Republicans speak with forked tongues: one voice to the broader public while winking and nodding to the base. Ya gotta win the center in this country, and the Republicans are now marginalized.
By the way, it is true that 06 vote was more renunciation of Republicans party than conservatism. Tough luck for you that the two are the same in the minds of Americans |
|
McCain and someone that appeals to the religious right (maybe Romney assuming there are not too many Scarletpimpernels out there with mormonphobia).
Personally I would go with McCain/Guiliani because both of them are strong on my break-deal issue, willingness to take on Islamofascists, electability, and a strong libertarian streak (although Rudy needs to lighten up on 2nd Amendment phobia--NYC could use more legal guns). |
|
Rice? You're kidding, right? What has she done to qualify her to run the United States? She was an "academic" most of her adult life.
We don't need another Bush II cabinet member who's been poisoned by serving in his administration.
I saw Romney on TV last week, he appeard very charismatic-something Rudy and Mcain lack. I will investigate his stands on the issues before I render an opinion on him.
|
|
|
|
Ok--I get that you don't like McCain. Rudy is out for social immorality and pro abortion stances, but Romeny is out because he is a Mormon? So that is a deal breaker too? Why?
Good luck on finding someone. Just make sure they can win and no more Jimmy Carters people without track records are dangerous. |
|
McCain = Heck No! Never! Ever!
Guiliani = No. womanizer, pro-abortion
Romney = No, he's still a Mormon, right?
Please. Bring unto us SOMEONE else! There has to be someone w/o baggage that we can feel good about voting for. Zell's too old. Lieberman, not quite right.
Remember, as far as the public goes it would only take 12 weeks (same as American Idol) to make someone a star. I'm not kidding. Remember JimmaCarta, Bill (most boring long speech at a Convention) Clinton, and George Who Bush?
P.S. can we use Chuck Shumer and Harry Reid's faces and voices in every commercial next time around? That motivates me every time. |
|
"Suicide - no, long term gains - yes
Hi, My refusal to vote for RINOs this time is not a suicide pact, nor a "snit", hoping for better results with Democrats at the helm.
I fully recognize that things will only get worse with Dems at the helm, but there is no way to unseat an incumbent Republican. Not possible. Give it up, etc.
Given the fact that the RINOs lied and lied to us on Illegal Immigration - which I firmly believe is going to destroy this country in my lifetime, and certainly within my children's lives, I had no other option but to try to unseat these traitors as quickly as possible.
Since removal is impossible unless the opposition wins, this was my best opportunity to do the deed, with the least damage to the country.
Immigration was already lost, and no promises made by Liars would change that. The tax cuts won't lapse until 2010, so that was just another LIE the RINOs spun, to scare us into voting for them, and Iraq could not be handled any worse, regardless of who is in Congress. "
Good on you KM. Given that now we see Bush lied to us on the border "fence" I'm almost with you on wishing I hadn't bothered to vote for these liars.
|
|
I actually like Tancredo for his candor (even though I don't agree with him) and I think he raises some good points on illegal aliens and dealing with the problem.
But that is not going to win any national elections (at least not now). It was not a serious factor in this election and most people do not care that much about it.
Seems like an easy problem to fix if there is political will to do it. We do not have to export 11 million illegals. Prosecute and penalize businesses that hire illegals. If we can manage to collect sales tax in most states--we can do that. End the reason the illegals come here and they will stop coming. At the same time, offer expanded legal immigration. As for those who jumped the line and are illegal, no amnesty but let them get on line with everyone else and get processed if they want to stay. Immigration is not a bad thing, so long as it is not illegal or uncontrolled.
Frankly I think we should be recruiting the best and the brightest all over the world to come here (while avoiding muslim immigration).
I want a candidate who can win. Tancredo has zero chance of winning. Got anyone else? What about a McCain-Brownback ticket? Would that fire you up? |
|
Hi, My refusal to vote for RINOs this time is not a suicide pact, nor a "snit", hoping for better results with Democrats at the helm.
I fully recognize that things will only get worse with Dems at the helm, but there is no way to unseat an incumbent Republican. Not possible. Give it up, etc.
Given the fact that the RINOs lied and lied to us on Illegal Immigration - which I firmly believe is going to destroy this country in my lifetime, and certainly within my children's lives, I had no other option but to try to unseat these traitors as quickly as possible.
Since removal is impossible unless the opposition wins, this was my best opportunity to do the deed, with the least damage to the country.
Immigration was already lost, and no promises made by Liars would change that. The tax cuts won't lapse until 2010, so that was just another LIE the RINOs spun, to scare us into voting for them, and Iraq could not be handled any worse, regardless of who is in Congress.
BUSH is the one with the limp wrist on the trigger, and until he grows a spine, and is willing to accept civilian casualties (from the enemies ranks), we will lose this War, regardless of how much blood or money we put into this pig.
Did I vote this time - NO.
Do I regret not voting this time - NO.
My not voting was quite well thought out, and well reasoned, and it will be 2 years before we know if I was right or wrong, so lets not cast aspersions on those of us who opted to stay home this one time - to save this country. |
|
"But I still stand by what I say. If you don't think the conservatives in office are not conservative enough, it's irrational to sit out an election and not vote and let the party on the left take over. You'll get nothing that you want from the leftists in office."
Look, political animals such as myself vote-even if we don't like the Republicans who are representing us. We realize that a liberal Repblican is better than a Democrat any day of the week, BUT that doesn't sell with the rank and file who don't read blogs, the Washington Times, etc.
If the rank-and-file of conservative base percieves that there is no difference between the Republican candidate and Democratic candidate then they'll just sit at home and watch re-runs of Friends. Look at the numbers Hugh posted. Turn-out was the key and the Republicans lost because they failed, horribly I might add, to energize their base.
And now we see that Bush and the Republicans haven't leanred their lesson yet with their acceptance to Bush's "comprehensive immigration package" he's gabbing about.
I have yet to see a single Republican stand-up to this lame-duck and tell him that it will die in the Senate via a fillibuster. Okay, if that is how the game is played I'll not even bother to vote in 2008 because if you're going to legalize these criminals than the disenfranchised are correct;there isn't a dime's difference between the two parties.
The Republicans are Cowards for not standing up to this amnesty program that will be sent to congress. |
|
|
|
I couldn't figure out where the county or state GOP was, or what either was doing. All week up to the election, the phone rang off the hook, and every one was a robocall from Democrats. I didn't get one Republican call (and this is a party registration state, so I'm on the party rolls). They were out to lunch somewhere, I guess, but they weren't trying to get out the vote.
|
|
|
I have nothing against Christians, especially if they vote Republican. But I still stand by what I say. If you don't think the conservatives in office are not conservative enough, it's irrational to sit out an election and not vote and let the party on the left take over. You'll get nothing that you want from the leftists in office. If your conservative values are what matter, then it's irrational to sit idly by and allow the left to take over. And once they gain power, they won't relinquish it easily. |
|
"I don't understand your thinking. If the immigration issue is of primary importance to you, it seems completely irrational to sit out the vote in a snit and allow a Democrat party that is unapologetically pro amnesty and pro open border to take over with a President in office who is more than willing to go along with them. At least the Republican House listened to the voters and we had a 700 mile fence that was funded to boot."
While immigration is/was the primary issue it was but one of many other issues-issues we were abandond on.
We also know a shell-game when we see it and it turns out we were right. The fence may not be a "fence" at all but maybe a line of sensors, etc. The vile and disgusting scent of amnesty is in the air my friend.
The Republicans, by all the Monday-morning quarterbacking I've seen on the blogs and in the news, still don't get why their base stayed at home. The Republicans were insufficiently conservative while in office.
We know that a fair number of Republicans hold people like myself-a right-wing religious conservative- in contempt. Look at all the trash-talking Dick Armey engaged in about the "Christians" in the Republican party days before the election! And you guys wonder why you're now the minority party?
Looks like 2008 will just be a replay of 2006 but on a larger scale and with Hillary taking the brass-ring. |
|
|
I don't understand your thinking. If the immigration issue is of primary importance to you, it seems completely irrational to sit out the vote in a snit and allow a Democrat party that is unapologetically pro amnesty and pro open border to take over with a President in office who is more than willing to go along with them. At least the Republican House listened to the voters and we had a 700 mile fence that was funded to boot. All you have done is reward the Democrats who promote the opposite agenda that you value most. And I expecct it won't take them long to defund the fence. Your thinking, and the result, is as irrational as a suicide bomber. In fact, for a lot of us, your irrationality has, metaphorically, the same disastrous results to bystanders as a suicide bombing. |
|
For years now, I've listened to Hugh's really, really bad predictions. Last weeks was only the most recent and glaring installment.
This was a good one: (Hugh) 'The something going on out there, Republicans have the momentum!'
Yeah, hugh. Momentum from Park into Reverse is the wrong kind of momentum for winning elections.
WE (the angry base) beat the GOP, becuse the GOP ain't us this time, baby. When we tell the GOP to close the borders, we actually mean it. When we say 'do the war right or don't do it at all', we really mean it.
Hopefully 28 lost seats will get it through your thick skull since millions of us calling in and telling you didn't. |
|
The tougher a GOP incumbent was on illegal immigration, the more likely they were to win. The facts speak for themselves.
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/
9.6% with an A grade lost
25.0% with an F grade lost
Mike DeWine. Career grade of D+.
DeWine was running in a state which has a manufacturing base which has been decimated. What is the DeWine/Bush country club GOP message to the manufacturing base in Ohio? We need more workers imported from 3rd world nations to do the work you don't want to do in the state of Ohio. Great message GOP! Try that again in 2008 in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Tell the workers in those states it is going to be good for them is if we bring in more slave labor into your state. |
|
While I appreciate everyone's interpretation that the War and Corruption were leading factors, I would have you all know that Corruption is perrennial, and the War was going badly in 2004. What changed this time was Illegal Immigration betrayals - repeatedly! Iraq, Foley, and Abramoff were indeed straws on the back of this camel, but the decision was made on the basis of the failure to secure our borders, plain and simple.
I, and a good many voting Republicans I know, all made a conscious decision right after the Illegal Immigration debacles of last summer, that we would not vote for any Republican who "claimed" to support Enforcement first, but then voted to block funding of the fence (or, obviously, anyone who voted for Amnesty - by any name!).
I am stunned by the lack of thinking going on with all the talking heads out there, who are constantly attributing the Republican rout to everything BUT Illegal Immigration (invasion), when I sincerely believe it was the Only reason they lost.
You're all basing your assessments on Exit Polls, of people who VOTED! You neglect to comprehend that a great many of us DID NOT VOTE - just as we promised. You will never get a head count on us in any exit poll, because we were not at the polls.
How do you explain the first time ever lower turnout of Republican voters, than Democrat Voters. Could it be that Republicans were disgusted, and DID NOT VOTE?
We said it clearly at the time : No enforcement - No vote.
No enforcement is what we got, and no vote is what they got. Case closed.
This election was about getting rid of RINOs, not about sending a message. The only way to get rid of a corrupt incumbent is to let the other side win. That sucks, but it had to be done. Better now, than in 08.
Suck it up, let the Dems show their stripes for a while, and watch us come back with a vengeance in 08.
Think about it, really - we're thinking way more than you're all giving us credit for.
|
|
That was what the non-voters voted for, and they are about 60% of the registered voters nationwide. Their message: "We don't care. You 'voters' do what you want; most of us couldn't care less who's in charge, because it won't make any difference to us. We'll still get to see 'Borat' and play with our new PlayStation 3's."
Of the 40% who did show up, a majority voted for the Dems, so maybe we had somewhere around 21 or 22% of the registered voters who want us to lay down before our enemies and show our bellies and be "humbled." That's a small percentage, but it was decisive because the rest of the electorate didn't show up.
Now, perhaps that other 60% feels the same ways as the 40% that did show up. Doesn't matter. They didn't show up at the polls. But if you let someone else do the driving, you have no control over route the car is going to take. The apathetic electorate has handed the car keys to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy ride. |
|
JohnCar/JohnDoe,
My friend, since the Pennsylvania electorate knew very little about Junior other than he is his father's son, wouldn't it have helped re-affirm Casey JR in the eyes of the electorate to see him going toe-to-toe on numerous occasions with such a veteran, highly regarded Senator (and likely GOP Majority Leader) as Santorum ?
If Casey JR were articulate, knowledgeable, and inspiring, then, the answer is YES.
After all, Casey JR didn't have a lead in the polls by his own accord, rather, it was due to daddy's accord.
But Junior wasn't interested in the electorate 'getting to know him.'
'Getting to know him' would expose himself to the electorate as "not-quite-ready-for-primetime."
Casey JR just couldn't risk having a reporter ask him about any particular legislation, or foreign policy angles.
He was a train wreck on "Meet the Press," and Santorum embarrassed Junior with direct questions regarding Iran during their televised October 13 debate.
Thus, Casey JR's strategy was wise, and it enabled him to win.
And JohnCar/JohnDoe, surely there have been times in your life when you didn't want to, or were incapable of answering a question---it happens to all of us.
But we just expect better of those who declare themselves fit for the US Senate.
respectfully yours.
|
|
1. Tancredo is 100% more of a man than any of the current "popular" choices who are being mentioned. I'd rather drinking turpentine and urinate on a prarie fire than support either Mcain or Gulliani.
2. Gulliani?? You're kidding, aren't you? The womanizer will drive even more of the RW Christians out of the party than this year.
3. The war in Iraq is over-Kaput! We raised the white flag on Tuesday night and everyone knows it. If you don't know it than you're like one of those Japanese solidiers who fought for more than 30 years after the end of WW2.
Its ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION above all, now. |
|
|
I just like to hear someone, anyone make sense and Mr. Hewitt, I believe you did. There is no purpose in going over the edge of that cliff. I suspect that liberal Democrats will perforn in their usual manner, assume the voters are ignorant and continue to insult our intelligence daily. As conservatives, we can politely disagree and tell them that every syllable they utter is absurdity and why. Their so-called mandate they have deluded themselves into believing is not there. Their daily performance will allow us to chuckle and there may even be moments, when a good belly laugh will be the appropriate response. This is a very unserious political party and they have demonstrated for twelve years how unqualified they are to lead. Children at playtime. Poor losers and even poorer winners. Some serious business; they have managed to destroy lives and reputations along the way and I know God will get them, in His own good time. I hope I am here to witness it. A very unpleasant bunch. |
|
|
Fact is, down south, more pro-life Democrates were elected. As someone who is pro-life, I think that's great, and if the Democratic party does move to the right on this issue, I'm all the more pleased. However, it is yet to be seen if the Democrates are postering or moving to the right for real. The Judge issue will tell. Crimson2; I disagree, this nation has been creeping toward the pro-life stance and is very close to being the majority position. Now, SD tried to resirict every type of abortion accept in case of the mother's life; that's why that was voted down. If the state comes back with a law leaving rape and incest, it will state a better chance of passing. I for one would have voted it down. You do realize if Roe V Wade is overturned it comes back to the states. |
|
I agree that Casey's campaign played defense to Santorum's offense, but think it had less to do with the challenger's failing as a candidate than it did his position in the polls.
Because Casey was ahead comfortably there was no reason for him to accept additional debates. That Santorum felt the need as an incumbent to challenge Casey showed that the traditional advantage of incumbency had been annihilated and that the Santorum campaign had in fact become a shambles.
But, as a student of politics, I'm sure you'll agree we're both spinning here. The truth is rarely so absolute and can inevitably be found between the two extremes.
Best,
jc |
|
JohnCar/JohnDoe,
As a student of politics, you know that challengers traditionally seek as many debates as possible, while incumbents usually seek to limit the number of debates.
In this particular Senate race, it was the opposite.
Casey JR turned down several ADDITIONAL challenges by Santorum to debate---and after his humiliating peformances on TV, I don't blame Junior for wanting to hide under the covers so the people of PA would not be further exposed to what an empty suit he truly is.
Casey JR made extremely limited public appearances---especially following his debaucle on "Meet the Press,"---whereas by contrast Santorum was constantly on the campaign trail, on the radio, on TV, etc.
Casey JR was the stealth candidate.
His strategy was to 'run out the clock' and hope daddy's name and the national anger at the GOP & Congress in general would enable him to win.
The strategy worked.
By the way JohnCar/JohnDoe, what line of work are you in ?
I'm just asking out of curiosity.
respectfully yours.
|
|
It is funny how many Christians are misled every election to follow the sugar coated lies of the Left but Canada and the USA are true democracies so we have the right to make mistakes.
But China truly thanks the USA for this result because it allows the more financial freedom and more nuclear freedom. With Bush as a strong President this was not possible so all of China's manuevers in the USA have paid off and the gullible American public believed the lies. Now Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia and China will regroup and plan how to use their power in the USA. The Muslim agenda of world power uses the Chinese/Russian weaknesses to their advantage.A dirty nuclear is easily within reach now for Iran because they have 2 years to work unhindered. They have successfully tied President Bush's hands. Such is life. |
|
What am I missing here? Besides being obstructional
as always-what power will they have besides committee
chairmanships? Yes, subpoena powers; but, that will lead
them down the road to complete ruin-it was moderate, even conservative democrats that were elected. The electorate booted the republicans because of high-spending, do-nothing on immigration and social security
and their "do as I say, not as I do "behaviors. If this
new democratic majority goes "old union school" on America, they will become a footnote of history. |
|
If:
"That is why in this election cycle, the Democrats hid Casey JR from debates, public appearances, press conferences, etc. because they realize he's an empty suit who cannot articulate a vision to voters."
Where did the evidence come from to say:
Santorum trounced Casey JR in their debates, and Casey JR was an embarrassment in his joint appearnace with Santorum on "Meet the Press" several weeks ago.
----------
You jammed the quotations above into one paragraph and it doesn't make much sense. Is national exposure on MTP hiding?
|
|
are conservatives who don't understand politics. Party trumps person and if you can't understand that, you'll sit on your hands in a hissy fit during election after election because the candidate is not pristine. The same thing happened in Colorado in 2004. While Bush won Colorado, Pete Coors was beat by a zip Democrat because conservatives would not vote for Coors. Some conservatives complained that Pete Coors was not conservative enough, and besides, he owned a beer brewery and they were against drinking alcohol! Sheer stupidity!
According to Hugh, the same thing happened again, only on a national scale. How naive and unsophisticated these conservatives are! Hey, you may think it's fine to sit out an election -- in the middle of a war against Islamists -- and just let the Democrats take over, but those Democrats are not giving up power any time soon. It may have been different with a 2 or 3 person majority in the House, but forget it now. You've handed those Democrats power, and they have nothing in common with your values. They will defend that power with all their vicious might, with a little cheating thrown in here and there. No, those Democrats won't be going anywhere for a long, long time.
So, thank you, everyone who sat out this election. I'm looking forward to untrammeled immigration with no enforcement, higher taxes, untimely retreat from Iraq, logjam on judges and -- well, we see what else they have in store for us. |
|
George Connolly,
With all due respect, my friend, you are making assertions which are simply not backed up by the evidence of recent elections in Pennsylvania.
A twice-elected incumbent Senator (Santorum) does not all of a sudden drop down to 41% in an election simply because he faces a 'pro-life' opponent.
It's true that PA has a lot of Catholics, but not all Catholics are pro-life, as illustrated by current Senators Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Dick Durbin, and John Kerry.
Fact is, PA voters consistently vote for PRO-CHOICE candidates such as Arlen Specter, Ed Rendell, and Presidential aspirants Al Gore & John Kerry---YET in this particular Senate race, you believe the voters decided, "we want Casey JR., because he's pro-life !"
And if PA voters are so enthusiastic for pro-life Senators as you claim, why do they keep re-electing the pro-choice Specter time and time again ?
Specter's opponent in the 2004 primary was pro-life Pat Toomey.
For heaven's sake, the Republican primary voters didn't even favor pro-life Toomey over Specter.
In fact, in 2000, PA voters re-elected Santorum to a second term, yet at the same time went for pro-choice Gore in the presidential election---how do you account for that discrepancy ?
The fact is, both Casey JR and national Democrats were hoping he could win on his daddy's name. That's why he was recruited to run.
It's just as you said---people knew little about him other than his name.
And the Democrats aimed to keep it that way.
That is why in this election cycle, the Democrats hid Casey JR from debates, public appearances, press conferences, etc. because they realize he's an empty suit who cannot articulate a vision to voters.
Santorum trounced Casey JR in their debates, and Casey JR was an embarrassment in his joint appearnace with Santorum on "Meet the Press" several weeks ago.
A Casey running in PA is the equivalent to a Kennedy running in Massachusetts.
Pennsylvania is already a solid blue state in terms of voter registration, there's an unpopular war going on, there have been some Republican scandals, and there's enormous national anger at Congress.
The Dems poured truckloads of money into this race, with negative campaigning against Santorum which began a year and a half ago.
respectfully yours.
|
|
Many many conservatives hate McCain. Most of the pro-lifers and real civil rights advocates (those who cherish the 2nd Amendment) don't trust Rudy. Who do you recommend the GOP run?
If the GOP buts forward a candidate who is good on the GWOT (believes in taking the fight to the enemy), is reasonably fiscally conservative, and believes judges should interpret not make law- that would be ok with me. What is your issue(s) that you feel have to be met? |
|
Here's what I've come up with thus far:
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/2006/11/09/moving-forward-part-i/
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/2006/11/11/moving-forward-part-ii/
Here's a couple things that I recommend:
6. We must reject timid, status quo policies. That doesn’t mean that everything on the agenda must be big sweeping reforms. It does require that conservatives confront liberals when they advocate the wrong policies.
Missile defense is something that I’d challenge Democrats on. It’s guaranteed that they’ll say that (a) it’s too expensive and (b) it doesn’t work. Our first response should include this question: What amount is too much for defending ourselves from North Korea’s, and eventually Iran’s, nuclear weapons? Another question I’d ask is this: We put a man on the moon. We’re creating life-lengthening perscription drugs and medical treatments daily. We’re building high tech things all the time. Why should we believe that we aren’t capable of building an effective missile defense system in the next 5 years if we commit to a robust research and development program?
3. We need to pick some fights on the most important issues of the day.
The first fight I’d pick is on national security. I’m hearing that the Democrats are thinking of ways of gutting the Patriot Act. It’s important that President Bush knows that ‘We the Activists’ will fight with him if the Pelosi puppets attempt to gut the Patriot Act. It’s important that conservatives everywhere bone up on who’s behind the gutting of this crucial anti-terrorism tool. It’s time that we exposed CAIR’s and like-minded terrorist-supporting groups’ agendas. Most conservatives know what CAIR and UFPJ, the Tides Center and other far left groups are about. When that debate starts, conservatives everywhere must get the facts out to everyone. |
|
One Hot Minute
I don't mean to make assertions I cannot back up. However, I assumed you had read my earlier post. In it I link to an article in the WSJ in which Schumer acknowledges that upon speaking with PA Gov. Ed Rendell that Casey Jr. was the only candidate dems could have recruited to beat Santorum and that Casey Jr. was hand picked for that very reason.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009233
As for the actual campaign, it seems the only thing voters actually knew about Casey Jr. was that he was pro-life and his daddy was the popular former governor of PA. Thus it follows that since Carey, Jr. never trailed in the polls, it was the only issue that mattered to those voters to whom issues matter (ie. don't reflexively vote straight democrat).
There is room for disagreement. : ) Certainly the issue of Santorum's support for Toomey comes into question. Santorum was also a stong support of the GWOT and the Iraq war (I would argue they are the same thing). Still, I stand with Schumer and Gov. Rendell in noting that it was Carey Jr.'s position on abortion that pealed enough pro-life voters away from Santorum to put Casey Jr. over the top.
As Hugh notes, this formula was also employed in Colorado where the Governor-elect, Bill Ritter, replaced term limited and popular Republican governor Bill Owens. |
|
Who would you prefer for a Rep candidate in '08? Your comments regarding McCain (who I'd prefer not vote for) and Guiliani (who I'd vote in an instant despite some social disagreements) lead me to believe you are one of those Pat Buchanan/Michael Savage types who seem perfectly willing to lose rather than confront the most pressing problem of our time: the GWOT and Islamo-fascism. Which ever Rep candidate best understands that issue and is willing to confront it gets my '08 primary vote.
It's the GWOT STUPID - not abortion; not homosexuality; not prayer in school; not flag burning amendments. (When did conservatives start believing that Big Brother was the best solution to winning hearts and minds? I, for one, prefer Locke to Hobbes.) And after the GWOT, the priorities need to similiary relevant: ensuring tax fairness, which leads to economic growth and making certain strict constructionists are nominated to the courts. I'm a Reagan/Goldwater conservative, which means paying homage to our religious heritage, which is part of our larger political and social heritiage, without wrapping ourselves in it or shoving it down people's throats. But more than that, it means paying attention to real issues: a strong foreign policy and the understanding of how to create economic growth. |
|
George Connolly,
Sir, you wrote: "Now democrats can legitimately call themselves neither pro-choice or pro-life and will continue to capture social conservatives nationwide."
*********
How do you calculate that 'social conservatives' will actually vote for a candidate who FAILS to call himself 'pro-life' ?
And how do you figure that Pennsylvania voters who are 'socially conservative' actually voted for Casey over Santorum ?
What evidence of that do you have ?
|
|
Crimson2 wrote:
As a case in point take Ohio, do you think all those extra voters would have come out to vote for Bush again, epsecially given his approval rating is about ten points lower?
Point well taken. Ohio was localized, Taft lost the middle for all Republicans. However, I contend turnout would have been better for DeWine had he not been part of the gang of 14. You will recall the gang was formed to thwart the proposed use of the nuclear option with regard to the filibuster of judicial nominees. This is where the pro-life issue converges with the strict constructionists and the property right libertarians. The promotion and propagation of strict constructionist judges is the glue that holds the coalition together. Most people see this. Only 20% of the 32% of the population who call themselves conservative voted for democrats. The problem as Hugh properly defined it was turnout. The turnout problem I believe was that when the going got tough, the party abandoned President Bush and more importantly abandoned the war.
Santorum is a better litmus test. Santorum did not abandon Bush and did not abandon the war, he lost because social conservatives voted for Casey, Jr.
Now democrats can legitimately call themselves neither pro-choice or pro-life and will continue to capture social conservatives nationwide. |
|
If the Rep's foist Mcain or Guliani upon us in 2008 the freshman Dem's might as well buy instead of rent.
We, the base, will not bother to vote for the nominee in 2008 if it is either of the two above or clones of them.
Tell that to your Republican "Kingmaker" friends Hugh when you're sipping cocktails with them at your parties this holiday season. |
|
|
|
Both the left and right need to get over it.
This election was neither a validation for the D's, nor was it a "minor" set-back for the R's. It was an honest, true, at-this-point-in-time reaction from crowd, a significant, historic vote that said, "Let's shake it up, because we don't like where it's going right now." That's all, nothing more, and (importantly) nothing less.
So the D's need to quit celebrating and get on with governing. And the R's need to quit rationalizing and get on to governing.
And BOTH need to learn, once again, to govern in compromise mode, just like the R's made the D's do in 1994. Balance is a good thing -- for both sides of the political spectrum, but especially for the rest of us who care less about party lines and more about what really matters: honest, balanced approaches to the innate complexity of this thing we call "living in the real world." |
|
Much ink has been spilled to outline the many reasons for the losses, but it should first be noted that it was by no means a mandate, and second, that President Bush may well exercise his veto pen if sufficiently incited.
With that predicate, the past several years under the unprincipled and opportunistic Republican leadership, recalls the scene in the film "Patton" after the massacre at Kassernine: George C. Scott said "you want to know why this happened? A blind man could see it in an instant. These men don't dress like soldiers, they don't act like soldiers, why should we expect that they fight like soldiers?"
There is a plethora of evidence that Congressional Republicans as well as President Bush have wandered off the conservative reservation in a misguided search for moderate votes and the approbation of the electorate.
We must never forget the axiom: When Republicans act like Democrats they lose; but when Democrats act like Republicans (which most of those who won did), they win.
That should tell us that our ideas, when brought to the market in the form of laws and policies, are superior--but we must have the confidence of our convictions to remain faithful to them.
For more about the election as well as observations and reflections on this Veterans Day, please go to:
http://clearcommentary.townhall.com |
|
Schumer's comments were borne out by the rejection of an abortion ban in South Dakota, a very conservative state. In the country as a whole, the pro-life view is the minority view. Trying to overturn Roe v. Wade will ensure democratic victory in 2008.
As to Hugh's comment about turnout, I think it bodes ill for Republicans, after all your base is more likely to vote than the Democratic base. In any case, I don't think you can make any sound conclusions one way or another about the differences in those hwo vote in midterm electinon versus those who vote only in presidential elections. As a case in point take Ohio, do you think all those extra voters would have come out to vote for Bush again, epsecially given his approval rating is about ten points lower?
|
|
You asked Mark Steyn on your radio program:
you can't get judges past Patrick Leahy. And a Supreme Court meltdown will be like Bork II. Should we be looking forward to that?
I disagree with Steyn. The Bork nomination is what really exposed people like me to the duplicity of the democrat party. Conservatives need not apply to the federal judiciary. The whole strict constructionist view that judges interpret law and not make law is a HUGE winner for Republicans. I would argue that a second bork nomination, say a Janice Rodgers Brown, to the Supreme Court would raise public consciousness as to the true constituency of the democratic party. Democrats are for all for the common good, so long as you define NARAL as the common good. : )) |
|
Hugh,
More than any other politician, including Ronald Reagan (the Man whom I first voted for in '84), Chuck Schumer made me a Republican for life. I was watching the judicial debate-a-thon on C-Span in November of 2003 and Schumer made me so mad that I could not breathe.
It was during the debate-a-thon that Schumer told Jeff Sessions that judges who held pro-life personal beliefs (including judges who believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided) were "so far out of the political mainstream" as to be unqualified to sit on the federal judiciary. This was the so-called abortion litmus test, writ large, to disqualify otherwise qualified conservative/strict constructionist jurists.
How long do you think it will be until Chuck Schumer's liberal bigotry resurfaces?
This is Chuckie today.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009233
If Republicans can't beat this Schumer/Emanuel triangulation strategery, we best start calling ourselves the Whig party. |
|
|
|