Posted on 09/15/2010 12:01:59 PM PDT by csd
1-The People are hungry for a Fresh Face-In a year in which voters are looking for a fresh "non-establishment" face..she fits the bill. She has not held office before and the establishment's of both Parties dislike her-all a plus this year.
2-Politics is a Contact Sport-Politics-like, any kind of sales, is a contact sport-the more people you contact the more success you will have. Rather than waiting to be annointed, like Mike Castle, O'Donnell has been all over the state meeting people. She has a personal base of goodwill and is a good campaigner. This will serve her well in November.
3-She does not need a lot of Money-O'Donnell spent one 20th of what Castle spent in the Primary yet won big. Delaware is a small state without big media markets. $1-2 million will get the job done in the hottest of races...vs $15-25 in the big states. She can raise what she needs on her own even without NRSC help. Which, by the way, makeS her even more independent in the Senate if she wins.
(Excerpt) Read more at beforeitsnews.com ...
This thread title should he changed to “500,000 Reasons O’Donnel Can Win...”
How many times is she going to revise her fund-raising goal? Not that I’m complaining.
The Republican establishment's preferred candidate (who was not an Incumbent Senator), was voted out in a primary contest involving a small fraction of the electorate, all of it Republican, that will be in play on Election Day. That result cannot be extrapolated to the entire electorate.
If people wanted to make a statement with O'Donnell, that's fine. But one should make that statement with eyes wide open about the potential short-term consequences. The most common mistake people make in politics is simply assuming “most Americans” will fall in line with one’s own personal preferences. Elections invariably do not play to that assumption at regular intervals.
“I wish her good luck, but I’m with Rove on this one.”
Are you also with Rove and his vicious trashing of her character on national TV? I’m not with Rove on anything anymore.
People don’t want to continue Obamas policies. Tie your opponent to unpopular policies. You get 48% that way.
Be pretty. She gets 2% that way. She wins.”
No. State elections do not slavishly conform to Presidential approval ratings. There are a lot more variables than that. There's no question a lot of the people who are dissatisfied with the President, a number which includes Democrats just like it included Republicans when Bush was President, will still vote for the Democratic nominee. After all, I seem to recall Republican candidates getting well above 30% of the vote when Bush's approval rating was at its nadir.
That’s what Rove does. It’s what he always did, and I doubt you complained when he was trashing people you disliked. Each party has operatives like that.
Back in 94 we did well by “nationalizing the election”. That was the key takeaway. It wasn’t the specifics, it was the fact that all of these candidates were on the same message and what they were saying reinforced the other candidate. We had a message and we brought it home. We’ll stop the Obama agenda is solid, to me.
Ok, so it’s not always going to go with the President’s approval. But let’s start there.
Christine 48% - I mentioned where Christine can make gains. Young single females, elderly Catholic Dems. Straight men with eyes.
Coons 46% - Where does Coons take from Christines 48%, and why?
You saw the interview with Hannity last night didn’t you? Weren’t you appalled? When has Rove ever attacked any Republican like that? It was pure venom, and an outrageous gift to her opponent.
As they say, politics ain't beanbag. Each party has its a**holes, and they last as long as they are considered effective. Right now, Rove still commands the funneling of significant advertising dollars to Republican candidates, so by definition he is still considered effective. He'll even get a bump if O'Donnell loses now that his marker is down.
I just think your assumption on the numbers is wrong. I think Coons is ahead right now, and it’s Christine who has to take voters away from him to win.
She has her opportunity, and we’ll see how successful she is.
I don’t understand your logic at all.
Christine has 48% plus what she can get from Coons minus what Coons gets from her
Coons has 46% plus what what he gets from her minus what she gets from him.
I don’t see where Coons is getting votes from.
I know. Moderates and Independents.
If they don’t agree with Christine on social issues, will they vote for her anyway, because they know that Coons is a vote for Obama, and she is a vote to stop Obama.
How many? Where are they? These people that Coons are going to get from Christine, remember, are people who oppose Obama.
When the polling rolls in on the November match up, it is almost certainly going to show Christine behind Coons. How far behind is the question. But in any event, the person behind has to move votes over from their opponent to themselves.
The only polls that matter now are polls taken after the election. Taken tonight, basically. PPP has some general election numbers that were taken sat/sun. Things are much different now than they were on Sat/Sun. Christine is up 13 points on the s/s numbers (as compared to Glen).
Your argument is based on what polls say.
Then you go on to say that a person “might tell a poster (pollster?) that they are dissatisfied with Obama...” It’s not a “tells the pollster something that isn’t true” argument that you’re making? The 48% are people in Delaware that are dissatisfied with Obama. Not people who said that.
Unless you think they’re lying on polls. Which would mean that you shouldn’t rely on polls anyway.
Unless you think they’re lying on polls. Which would mean that you shouldn’t rely on polls anyway.”
No. I'm simply pointing out that it's a well-documented fact that how people feel about the President does not determine their vote down ticket. 48% of people expressing dissatisfaction with Obama at the moment does not translate into an automatic 48% of the vote for a Republican candidate any more than 70% dissatisfaction with Bush at one point translated into a 70% vote for Democratic candidates. The obvious reason is that the dissatisfaction number includes a nontrivial number of members of the President's own party who feel he hasn't been sufficiently right or left, as it were. Those people are generally still going to vote for the candidates of their own party, not the other party. And some fraction of the rest will still vote for a Democrat while disapproving of Obama. Or a Republican while disapproving of Bush.
Well, when you’re talking about 70% or 80%, you’re talking about losing the base. Typically candidates keep their bases at an election. Your base might not like you, but they won’t vote for the other party.
I’m talking about medium numbers, not numbers at the excesses.
You see, people are saying that Delaware is so liberal. Well, it’s 48% conservative and 46% liberal right now. That’s as good as any metric. I’m not promising the Obama fav/unfav numbers won’t change. I’m not saying the candidate won’t lose their voters or the other candidate won’t give up their voters to you. But I’m saying that a reasonable starting point to start the analysis is with those 48/46 numbers.
“she doesn’t need a lot of money”
As of 8:16 p.m. she reported donations pouring in to the tune of half a million.
6. She may win-she has a way of causing people like Rove to reveal themselves and their predilections for “moderation” and compromise.
7. She has established a perception of herself as a victim (even of her own party) and therefore will attract a virtual army of support.
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.