Replies

He's a credible loser. What has changed between November and March? Nothing. New Hampshire is still run by RATs, voters still dislike Sununu and still would vote for a RAT over him. (It's not like Hodes is trailing him in the polls). He wins his own base but independants prefer the RAT. Sure, he's a instantly known candidate with the ablity to run a "credible" race on paper, but it's that kind of logic that led to Jim Oberweis' five losing campaigns.

Yes Bob Smith did some screwy things in 2002, ended up trailing Shaheen in the polls, and that's why Sununu beat him in the primary. Too bad Sununu's ego showed he wasn't willing to do what he demanded Smith do is 2002 -- allow another Republican to run because the incumbent is damnaged goods. Not only did Sununu insist on running a kamakazi campaign in 2008, but now his fans want to run him again. This is now two campaigns is a row where Sununu is losing to a RAT and his fan club insists he should be the nominee anyway. (and if he refuses their next choice will be Charlie Bass)

If Bob Smith "should have stepped aside" when he was trailing to Shaheen, why not Sununu? What makes him so special? Smith was losing to consistantly losing to Shaheen by double-digit margins for monthes, so the party ran someone else. Sununu was losing to consistantly losing to Shaheen by double-digit margins for monthes, and the party continues to insist on running him.

Don't you find it ironic that Sununu refused to step aside for the very reason he ran six years earlier?