Posted on 11/03/2010 7:23:28 AM PDT by cartervt2k
Look, this was a good night in the House, but I can’t look away at all the missed opportunities in the Senate.
First off, we should be thanking our lucky stars John McCain won his primary in AZ. He sucks and is a RINO, but how would you like reading this morning that the ‘rats picked off Hayworth along with Angle going down and Christine O’Donnell losing by 17? This is a state that installed Big Sis as governor – you’re telling me they couldn’t have picked this up?
I’m taking odds on anyone who thinks Buck is going to pull it out in purple CO. Whatever you think about gay marriage, what the hell is he doing talking about it on Sunday morning talk shows when the ‘rats are sprinting from their record? Their agenda is imploding and you give them a sound bite on gay marriage?!
This is a year where our senate margins should have been wider than normal. Candidates matter. If the media can find anything on you, they will exploit it to the hilt – never more so the case in statewide races. If you are perceived as a weak candidate, the media will make you weaker. If anyone thinks beating Obama is going to be a breeze in 2012, they’re dreaming. Look at the way all of Harry Reid’s machinery and corruption carried him to victory last night. When was the last time Rasmussen showed him ahead? You’re telling me Obama is going to play it straight up? He’s just as sleazy and corrupt as Reid.
With the exception of Rubio (arguably our best new conservative ambassador) and Johnson (another strong candidate), look how close these pretty safe R pickups in PA and IL. The only reason Kirk won in blue IL is because he is a RINO that was fortunate enough to get the nomination before RINO hunting season opened, or we’d be talking about Senator Giannoulias along with Senator Coons. Rossi is an establishment guy, and look how close he’s been able to keep it in blue WA. If Angle were running against Murray, this one would have been called when the polls closed.
I’ve been on the record here about this before, but if you seriously value social issues, as I do, then you need to fight to win: get as many fiscal hawk R’s in power as possible (along with the social R’s in solid red states) to hold our majorities. They will appoint originalists to the courts, and we won’t have Sotomayors or Kagans creating abortion and gay marriage laws by judicial fiat. Or would you rather have smaller, concentrated numbers of R’s who will be helpless against activist courts? You decide.
Look, I’m from NY. I have lots of family up there, including my mother, so please don’t take offense when I’m talking about the electorate of these states in general terms.
Obviously, NYC is the fly in the ointment when it comes to sending these corruptocrats to Albany and Washington. We know they would never, ever elect a Pat Toomey as Senator, but I’m not even convinced you could go across the Hudson, clone Chris Christie (an indifferent social conservative but fierce fiscal hawk) and elect him in that state anymore. They are so entrenched in public sector unions that it is near impossible to win there. It wouldn’t have been a blowout like with Paladino, but I think he would still lose.
So "ideological purity" has to win 100% of the elections to be useful?
Last night was a blow out- even in the Senate and the complaint is it wasn't enough because a few candidates ran amateurish campaigns.
We won elections, your way, in 2004 and exactly what did it get us?
>> we were able to do all this without having Sarah Palin visit and help select our candidates <<
A very interesting observation, with an unmistakably negative overtone for Sarah’s political fortunes-to-be.
Now to be sure, when it comes to her most highly publicized endorsements, Sarah hit a home run with Nikki Haley in SC. But some of her high profile endorsements bombed out big time — as with Christine O. in DE, with Sharron A. in NV, with Tom T. in CO, and probably with Joe M. in AK.
So at least in some states, it seems that Sarah’s blessing was worth approximately the same as the endorsement of Virginia’s Congressman Periello (sp?)by the TØTUS, which is to say the effects at best were “dubious.”
Bottom Line:
I gotta wonder what this string of strike-outs portends for Sarah’s 2012 prospects. Maybe the impact will be neutral for her, maybe it will be bad. But in any case, it’s very hard to see how she’s been helped by the outcomes of these races.
“That’s really was the big story of the night.”
That, and redistricting control in OH, PA, and Texas, among others.
Maine isn’t exactly SC, so I’m kind of hoping not. I don’t know how you upgrade to a true conservative in that state without putting the seat at risk. I’d prefer her to tack right in light of this election’s results.
Uh, hey, wait just a minute. . . . I didn't think we were supposed to say that on FR nowadays.
IBTZ?
“So you would rather have Giannoulias than Kirk? I would like to see you write that.”
No difference. Kirk votes just like my far left congresswoman. Hoorah for Kirk.
That’s the wonderful thing about free speech. You have the right to be stupid and wrong.
I was the FR Rudy chairman in 2007 and I’m still here :-)
No, I actually put ideological purity first. You only sacrifice it to the extend necessary to win elections. You run the most conservative candidate that CAN win in each race, each election cycle.
Example. Do you think we could win Nancy Pelosi's district with an outspoken social conservative? Certainly not. So for districts like that, we back candidates who maybe aren't very good social conservatives, but are excellent fiscal conservatives. Same thing should have played out in Delaware. We simply wasted an opportunity in that state. COD had no chance to win at all. Despite being a RINO, Castle would likely have won and voted with us at least some of the time. Now we have the bearded marxist who will vote with us none of the time.
No matter how right someone is on the issues, if they aren't good candidates or don't fit their district, it is pointless to nominate them.
That is no way to build a majority.
Last night was not the end game, but a big step.
The lesson learned is that when you run a Senate candidate, it takes a little more “gravitas” than for House races, because the stakes are much higher (6 years vs 2), voters are more willing to give an unproven House candidate the benefit of the doubt, than a Senatorial candidate, that tends to be more the “Vote for the Devil You Know” (hence Reid’s victory).
I view Sarah Palin as a “rich-mans” Sharon Angle or Christine O’Donnell. i.e. a decent person with the the correct viewpoints. But also not someone of enough substance to convince that 15-20% of the electorate in the middle to vote for her.
You must have that 15-20% of the middle to win the Presidency or win a statewide race like a Senate seat.
Palin has a huge vocal group of supporters. Probably the largest single block within the conservative/republican party. But she also has a hard ceiling on her numbers. And that is why she won’t work as our 2012 candidate IMO.
Again, we ran really competent Tea Party candidates across the board here and Wisconsin. And they all won. The voters in the middle want some heft to your resume in the big races. Especially after being burned on Obama as they were two years ago.
We are in a distinct minority here- and may be vilified- but I agree with you.
It may be a nice fantasy to see Palin as President but it is not likely to happen, certainly not in 2012. Putting her up is a near certainty of a disastrous Obama second term.
We don’t live in a Republican/Conservative bubble. Other people vote too.
The Angle and O’Donnell losses- and others- should be a wake-up lesson on the danger of overreaching. Unfortunately some prefer to hold to unbending opinions that make them zZealots at first and martyrs after.
And then they relish their martyrdom as the rest of us suffer with their choices.
Nothing in 2012 can be worse then Obama winning again and the most crucial requirement of his GOP opponent is that it be someone who can win.
An Insomniac's Recap of the Elections
As pointed out last night, a LOT of Dem Senators come up in 2012.
After last night (and knowing, despite all the foul treasonous lies to the contrary, how much Dingy Harry likely had to cheat and violate Federal Law to save his sorry ass in a small corrupt state), do you really think that these Dems are going to run far left?
Speaking of that -- we now have Dingy Harry as a focus for voter discontent, "the failed Obama-Reid policies" as a read meme. And it can't be expiated by voting him out, not for another six years.
And the GOP no longer has to hat in hand begging the Snowes and the like to "hold a fillibuster": of the 6 known GOP *PICKUPS* last night, four or five are to the RIGHT of the GOP leadership and will not give way.
In 2012, we only need to pick up 4 seats.
Given that Obamacare will just be picking up, and the decripit state of national defence, the deficit, and bowing to terrorists -- how hard will it be to pick up a second wave?
Hint: those elected to the House are not squishy RINOs. It will not be easy for the Teleprompter to transfer blame to them.
Cheers!
An Insomniac's Recap of the Elections
Cheers!
Palin’s views are also closer to my own.
I still don’t believe that she will is electable in 2012.
She can not win 270 Electoral votes today...or in 2012.
Sad fact.
This is not a fantasy game. It’s real life.
These people who win effect our lies and our Nation.
We can’t have everything we want. We have to be practical.
We have to support those who can win. Even if they are not our dream choice.
You want Obama to win again in 2012? Or do you want to choose someone who can realistically beat him?
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.