Posted on 10/27/2010 7:05:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Edited on 10/27/2010 7:24:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Not "tone-deaf". Ignorant!
Fact is, most Democrats (and many politicians of both parties) have no idea how business works. They've never run a business, they've never worked in a business. They have no experience at actually creating economic growth...and the jobs that come with it.
Follow that with the way Democrats address any "problem" in a given industry. If there is a "problem" in the oil industry, for example, Republicans would rely on expert advice from people in the oil industry. The Democrats would instead rely upon the expert advice of academics and lawyers.
Some of the tea party candidates have cost us some seats we could have won unfortunately.
You use the term WE loosly. I’m not a Castle kind of republican and don’t consider that kind of candidate in the WE catagory when I’m included in the WE. You can embrace rinos if you want to. I voted for my last one in 08 and I’ll never vote for another one. If you don’t believe me, put Mitt on the ballot and see what happens.
Think about it ~ a Democrat district in Chicago is a Democrat district in Chicago. THEY NEVER go Republican, so you don't have to waste resources campaigning ~ you just decide who's going to win the primary ('cause it's his turn usually) and that's how it's done. For Chicago people local elections are OVER by June.
I think for some of those districts that's the first time an outsider like Clinton ever campaigned there.
Imagine how startled they were to find out the FIX WAS NO LONGER IN.
Makes me wonder just how bad the Democrat internal polls are ~ gotta' be an incredible disaster.
Something is not adding up and that makes sense because midterms usually leave the pollsters looking stupid.
....ahhhhh, don’t forget reddoperdiaper Axelrod told us it will be a LATE night, ie. MASSIVE VOTE FRAUD and close races will all go to the ones that COUNT the vote, not the actual votes... see Al Franken, Fraudqueen Gregoire, John Thune first time around etc. Election stealing is easier when you have the courts and the Sec of State in your pocket which is why Repubs will LOSE every close race. And the Dem pollsters know where the fraudsters are working and their polls will give them COVER in the press!
ymmv
It's a matter of campaign tactics.
Cook discusses it in the interview: "They gave up defending their record. Now they are going after the personal and career shortcomings of their opponents, some of whom are not very well vetted."
Hitting your opponent on qualifications -- or lack thereof -- is effective, especially if he's also a political novice who has no experience in staying on-message, and dealing with what the opponent has to say.
The Dems are good at that game, especially when it comes finding ways to attack that play into the media's biases.
The R's (especially Tea Party types) have been hurting themselves, too, by continuing to make their broad bumper-sticker statements, and sometimes tending toward hyperbole, while Democrats have been picking at the details. It's subtle, but to an undecided voter that sort of thing sows doubt about the Republicans' ability to deal with actual situations. Bennett in Colorado has been effective in that regard, as has Coons in Delaware.
So, yeah ... nothing has changed on the issues; it's just that the Dems have had some measure of success in calling into question the Republicans' chances of dealing with them.
Interesting that you should mention 1930. Because after 1930 came 1932 ...
1994 was the Gingrich/Limbaugh revolution. The House Banking scandal caused many House members, including my own Chalmers Wylie (RINO, Ohio) to retire, else they would have been thrown out. Plenty of anger.
Even more anger when they caved on media pressure. Our guys have to have the courage of their conviction, and add convictions to the record of the DemonRat machine.
Anger at Perot for splitting the vote in 1992. Still, you are correct. Nothing like the anger of having friends and family screwed by no jobs; the anger of desperation; anger of knowing that the Chicago Way has already shown us the graveyard of their failed policies.
Defund the Left!
RATs are counting on the dead, goons in prison, and their old standby voter fraud. They’re not counting on the eyes and ears of We The People who are dedicated to ensuring our freedom and our future.
Consider this election a war against tyranny.
Most of the trends I see, including the early voting (GOTV is huge this year), are pointing to a mega wave. 10 Senate seats, 70 House seats. 10-70, a nice ring to it for some reason, I wonder why. Oh yeah, SB1070.
Delaware is one, Colorado is another.
In Delaware, Mike Castle (the only US Rep for that state) had been winning state-wide elections for over 30 years, despite the disparity between R and D voters, and would almost certainly have steam-rolled Coons in the general. His loss in the primary is an interesting example of the fact that primaries are not the same as the general election.
Castle's replacement, Ms. O'Donnell, excited the GOP primary base, which is not the same as exciting a general electorate that is predominantly Democrat. Her background and experience are not exactly confidence-inspiring, which explains her lagging numbers among the independents whose votes she needs to win.
In Colorado, Mike Bennet is an appointed incumbent, and he's as dull a party hack as you're likely to find. He was eminently beatable by the right candidate, but he's in a dead heat with Ken Buck. Buck is a smart enough guy, and has real-world experience. But he tends to whine and shoots from the lip, which diverts attention from his winning issues. Buck also tends toward hyperbole and raised voice in debates, which doesn't sound good in comparison to Bennet's more measured approach.
Everything in the last 48 hours is pushing us up.
I know we needed to get rid of him, but she has ended up being a lightning rod.
Hey, Castle votes with the Democrats ~ letting him win a Senate seat is ridiculous. There’s no difference between Castle and Coon.
Excellent point you have there. Talk about a non serious candidate.
Think we may see between 60-70 just based on pure statistics.
Anything 60 or over is a true huge wave.
Yeah, Buck has squandered his lead.
I think he will still pull it off, but it will be very close.
Most of the tea partiers are good, but he has been an issue, as well as O in Delaware. Angle somewhat, but not too bad comparatively.
I say we assume and broadcast “about 50” as our official expectation. That way, if only get that, we’ll appear right and not look like we’ve performed “worse than expected.” And if we get more, it will look “better than expected” and far more meaningful.
Frame public expectations to work in your favor, regardless of what happens. Privately, believe whatever makes you feel good.
Vote-wise, yes.... but votes aside, Castle would have meant another R in the Senate, and that could end up being the difference between majority or minority status.
Considering the stakes in the larger game of stopping Obama, and considering the power over committees and agendas that majority status confers ... that's probably a lot more important than Castle's weakness on the issues.
But let's grant Castle's primary loss was justified by his stance on the issues. It still does not make Christine O'Donnell a good candidate for the general election. Cook's comments about attacking the background and qualifications of candidates is certainly true for her, and it's been effective.
I’d rather do the right thing, for the right reasons...and let the cards fall where they may.
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.