Posted on 08/03/2005 11:49:59 AM PDT by crushkerry
Kevin Hackett, Democrat candidate for Congress in Ohio’s Second Congressional District wildly over-performed in his attempt to win yesterday’s special election against Republican Jean Schmidt.
Hackett earned 48% of the vote in this heavily Republican district, which George W. Bush won in 2000 with 63% and in which he performed even stronger in 2004.
Lefty blogs – who helped fuel Hackett’s coffers with small dollar donations – are celebrating another “almost win.” And, of course, they are again playing the victim card. Here’s John Nichols blogging for The Nation:
Remarkably, in a district that favored George W. Bush over John Kerry by almost a 2-1 margin in 2004, Hackett won four of seven counties and only narrowly lost the most populous county, Hamilton. Only an overwhelming vote for Schmidt from her home county, Clermont, secured the district for the Republican. Hackett might well have pulled the ultimate upset had he not been "swiftboated" by Republican operatives and right-wing talk radio hosts in the final days of the campaign. Even nationally-syndicated hosts such as Rush Limbaugh devoted time to attacking Hackett's military record, patriotism and sincerity. Despite the battering from right-wing media, and despite being overwhelmingly outspent, Hackett achieved the best Democratic showing in the region since the Watergate election of 1974. Indeed, on Wednesday morning, the Enquirer referred to the Democrat's showing as "nothing short of astounding." This was not a simple Democratic surge.And of course, the ever-poisonous Kos had his two cents:
From the looks of it, the margin was under 4 percent, or per Cook's analysis, a "very serious warning sign" for the state GOP. Indeed, this is probably the only district in Ohio in which Paul would've lost.So, is it time for Republicans to panic?So the state GOP avoids a "devastating blow", but only by the hair on their chinny chin chin. OH-02 saw the resurgence of the Democratic Party, the GOP had to spend $500K they hadn't otherwise planned on spending, and a Democratic star is born (next stop for Hackett -- statewide elected office). So much for "burying" Hackett...
Well, no. Paul Hackett losing a House race in Southern Ohio is not the oracle of doom for Republicans in 2006 as, say, Rudy Giuliani winning the Mayor’s race in New York City was for Democrats in 1994.
In fact, if they could stop celebrating yet another defeat, Democrats might learn a valuable lesson or two from this race. If they ever shut up long enough to pick up the vibe, that’s when I’ll get nervous. Herewith:
The corruption leitmotif can only go so far. Democrats have played up an obscure rare coin scandal in Ohio involving a significant GOP donor in recent months, claiming it will bring Republican domination in the buckeye state to an end. This of course, played nicely with their “all Republicans in Washington are corrupt” message. And, of course, Hackett tried to trump up more phony scandals around Jean Schmidt herself.
Democrats have made no secret that “Republican corruption” will be their tack in 2006. They thought they had three strikes against Schmidt, one federal, one state, one local. They still lost.
A good candidate can’t necessarily win a seat, but a bad candidate can almost lose one. The world of ex-congressional candidates is populated with folks who were great contenders on paper. Hackett joins them. He is tall, good-looking, smart. He’s a lawyer and a vet. He has a lot going to him, no doubt. But it takes more than that to win a Congressional seat.
On the flip side, all reports indicate Jean Schmidt was a disastrous candidate. A highly placed GOP operative informed me that she would not return phone calls to the National Republican Congressional Committee and wouldn’t even tell them the name of her campaign manager.
To further my point that he was a clever boy and she a dim gal, just look at their respective websites’ “contribution” features:
Don’t believe the Bush-hating hype. Because Hackett openly called President Bush a “chicken hawk” on the campaign trail, some leftwingers such as the above mentioned John Nichols now believe Bush-hating is a winning campaign strategy. Don’t believe it. First, Hackett lost. Second, while Hackett had a few caustic Bush-hating outbursts on the campaign trail, he carried his message on television, and in that medium he presented himself not as a bitter anti-war leftist, but rather as an American patriot fighting for freedom. In short, he ran as a Bush Republican.
Bruising primaries are still a problem for Republicans. Despite talk of the GOP being a ‘machine,’ the fact remains that there are altogether too many aggressive GOP primaries, which tend to weaken the eventual nominee. That was the case in OH-02. Democrats very often will anoint a single candidate to run for a competitive seat, dedicating all their resources to him or her. Maybe it’s our individualistic mindsets, but Republicans tend to duke it out. And that can often be counterproductive.
Here’s the bottom line. A vastly inferior Republican candidate won a Republican seat against a well-funded Democrat who pretended to be a patriot in a patriotic part of the country. Lesson; Republicans need to recruit stronger candidates and Democrats should stop lying about what they believe.
Ping
great piece, as always...BTW it says here that Hackett will be back..He'll parlay this "almost-victory" into the 2006 Dem senate nomination...Off topic, but di you read Byron York's latest.."America Coming Together Coming Apart?"
I believe people like a contested primary. They don't want the state or national party annointing the nominee. It's healthy for the party in the long run.
In addition, contested primaries yield free publicity -- free media saves lots of $$$ -- and a boost coming out of the primary.
Now if there's a short amount of time between primary and general, division can be more of a problem. If certain candidates base their campaigns on tearing down other Republicans, completely ignoring the 11th, that can really be a problem. If bitter losers make it their mission to defeat the GOP nominee, that can be a problem.
Now some people may think that annointing a candidate avoids those problems, but I submit that it may lead to a backlash against the annointed one, a bitter primary, and people unwilling to support the annointed one in the general should he win the primary. You can't enforce unification.
Liberals ranging from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi down to your average Daily Kos blogger are celebrating Ohio Democrat Paul Hackett’s strong showing last night against Republican Jean Schmidt.
The point many on the left seem to be dwelling on this morning is the “great” turnout Hackett received.
However, Buzz reader Melissa writes in with some interesting data from the last two congressional cycles:
2002-184,100. R-136,523 D-47,618
2004-310,000 R-227,102 D-89,598
2005-111,000 R-57,974 D-54,401,
Comparing 2002 to 2005, the Republicans stayed home, the Democrats, if reports are true, invested millions to get 6,783 more votes. Relative to 2004, they lost 35,197 or 40% of the voters they had only 9 months ago. The backslapping that is occurring is far from reality.
That's right, all the hubbub is over 6,783 more votes. Delusional lefties take comfort from the results at their peril.
I live here. Schmidt ran a poor campaign. She had the major paper endorsement, the name recognition after the primary, and the republican base.
In response, her plan appeared to be stealth or "rope-a-dope."
She counted on the base and on saying very little. She gave her opponent's record to go unchallenged in very rural Adams, Scioto, and Brown counties. As a result the turnout was low, the interest was non-existent, and the older voters who then turn out will respond to a male soldier contending with a female politician.
In short, she put no distance between herself and her opponent. I expect Hackett to run against her again after picking through her silent bones over the course of the next year.
swiftboated
She must have been dancing because the dem's have found a way to almost maybe possibly win in an election. And that's to mislead the voting public, pretend that you are a Republican and they might maybe possibly win one. LOL!!
Jimmy Johnson always used to warn the Dallas Cowboys that there is no such thing as a moral victory. You either win or lose. He was right. When you start being satisfied with "moral" victories, you have accepted losing.
All you have to do is look at the Oklahoma Republican Senate primary in 2004.
We had an establishment candidate in Humphreys, not so sure what type candidate in Bob Anthony (very boring), and along comes Dr. Tom Coburn who got in the primary late. Humphreys and Anthony were nasty campaigners and started throwing dirt. That nasty primary made Dr. Tom a stronger candidate IMHO and he needed everything he had to defeat Carson, the Hillary candidate who pretended to be conservative.
Dr. Tom ignited the Republican grassroots and the rest is history -- didn't even need a runoff in the primary. Absolutely awesome campaign to be associated with and one I will never forget.
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.