Posted on 06/22/2005 12:16:59 PM PDT by AzaleaCity5691
That can make a pretty big difference. Where I grew up wasn't any further than that from Huntsville / Decatur, and it doesn't get any much more rural than my house
Plurality elections are such crap
For example, Jesse Ventura, yes, Jesse got the most votes. Thing is, 64% of Minnesotans still voted against him.
And I dispute that Moore will recieve 51% in the primary, if its 3 candidates or more. The reason being that, not all of Moore's "support" is because they want Moore to be governor. They're just supporting Moore because he's not Riley. If an intermediate candidate came in, they'd probably take alot of those votes away from old Roy.
Not to mention, Adrian Johns is still handling probate in Baldwin, and he's not exactly the most on the level guy. Johns is not a Roy fan.
Why do you think Moore has such a rocky relationship with business.
Etowah County is probably, per capita, the most unionized county in the state, in gubernatorial elections, it's always Democratic. Therefore, Moore had to be able to sell himself to Etowah voters.
AC, I gather that you don't know Judge Moore, and I don't either.
I can only say that people I respect who have spent lots of time with Judge Moore have no question about the sincerity of his convictions.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. Plurality elections, however, would've seen Georgia getting a Republican Governor as long ago as 1966 (Bo Callaway) and Louisiana a Republican Senator in 1986 (Henson Moore).
"For example, Jesse Ventura, yes, Jesse got the most votes. Thing is, 64% of Minnesotans still voted against him."
Jesse's win was useful to the GOP in the long run. First off, he smashed the last vestiges of the Humphrey machine to bits, and in denying Norm Coleman a win, set up his getting to the Senate and MN ending up with a fantastic Governor in Tim Pawlenty after Jesse's clownshow was done. Small-term for pain for long-term gain.
"And I dispute that Moore will recieve 51% in the primary, if its 3 candidates or more. The reason being that, not all of Moore's "support" is because they want Moore to be governor. They're just supporting Moore because he's not Riley."
What he receives we won't know until next year, but I do believe he is likely to get to that 51% threshold. And, of course, many would be supporting Moore because he isn't Riley. That's a fairly good reason in itself.
"If an intermediate candidate came in, they'd probably take alot of those votes away from old Roy."
Depends upon whom it is. But if Moore comes in 1st in the runoff (not getting that 51%) and Riley in 2nd (obviously), and we see "dirty tricks" ('Rats flooding the primary) to get Riley the runoff win, I can assure you that the Moore supporters will sit out the general (or skip voting in the Gov's race). You cannot vilify that large a segment of the GOP base without consequences. Moore does not need to engage in "character assassination" of Riley or his supporters, but merely need point out that Riley has been a constant disappointment in contrast to his excellent service in DC.
Excellent. He'll split the Dem vote.
Moore also needs to surpress the vote in Baldwin County.
You seem to forget one thing in this equation, the Jeff Sessions factor. If Roy Moore wins, and is able to put his ticket in office, Sessions immediately becomes an endangered incumbent.
Who was the chief grassroots backer of the re-elect Jean Smith campaign last year? Who was one of the chief allies of the Harold See campaign? Bill Pryor is a protege of whom? In general, who was part of the original lily Republican tradition?
Who attacked Roy Moore on the floor of the United States Senate in his efforts to get Pryor confirmed?
If Roy Moore actually puts up a full slate, that seems to signal that he is interested in power, and Jeff Sessions would fall in the category of foe.
Do you really think the 2006 primaries will pass with Jeff sitting quietly on the sidelines (I'm not saying he will run)
The fact that Moore actually put up a slate last year shows he's vindictive and Sessions knows this.
Actually, as I've explained before, this really ain't the case.
In a Baxley v Moore race, he will siphon off many more Republican votes than he will Democratic votes.
This all demonstrates why you should not go all-out in alienating large constituencies within your party. I don't hate Moore, I don't hate Riley, and I don't hate Sessions. They all have something to offer in their proper places (apparently Riley's forte was DC and not Montgomery) and the state is big enough for all of them. What I've seen on this board and others are these vitriolic attacks on fellow (relatively) Conservative Republicans (though I tend to save my vitriol for RINOs). Maybe we ought to stop engaging in these petty personality contests and hack installations in offices, it's embarrassing and it's childish. Do I favor running Sessions out of office all because he's not supporting my guy ? Of course not. Sessions has done a great job, period. So have all of our Republican Congressmen from the state. We're all Conservative Republicans here and we all out to be able to get along as best as possible.
Even though he was a D before?
IC.
Well, whatever. I don't want Moore to become Governor anyway. I think he's a nut and would screw up our party.
Most Republicans in this state are ex-Democrats, and the fact that he referenced Charles Bishop.
Charles Bishop ran in the primary against Siegelman in 2002 and will be running for office as a Republican next year.
Plus, Mathis is basing his campaign on a single issue, casino gambling. Many Republicans in urban areas (me being one of them) would be very responsive to such a platform, especially if Moore wins the primary
And this is precisely what I mean. This is Roy Moore and not Michael Moore. This kind of hateful, simplistic rhetoric without a shred of proof to draw a conclusion is why we may very well end up seeing a 'Rat take back the Governorship in AL next year. I oppose Bob Riley, I think he has been a poor Governor and has made numerous mistakes. That's it. I don't need to engage in character assassination. I'm sure Bob is a good man, but he is not the right man.
What if Riley decided to drop out, and Spencer Bachus decided to take his spot as the "business" candidate?
"Plus, Mathis is basing his campaign on a single issue, casino gambling. Many Republicans in urban areas (me being one of them) would be very responsive to such a platform, especially if Moore wins the primary"
"(although, in actuality, I believe I heard it cited that even without Republicans voting in the runoff, that she still would've lost)."
I could be pursuaded to support Congressman Bachus, but I'd be mighty surprised if he got in. Of course, Jabo Waggoner would be excited, he'd finally have his "in" to win the House seat that has eluded him for 20+ years.
Ah, yes, you are correct about that one. I forgot whether that was a primary or runoff. Of course, it's all moot, as the anti-Semitic racist bitch is back in Congress.
"If Alabama's electoral law allows people to cross over to the other party in the run-off, that is something that should be changed."
It was enough back in 1986 when Conservative DINO Charlie Graddick obtained a win from GOP crossovers, but Bill Baxley, the liberal 'Rat, took it to court and they awarded the contest to him (and the Republicans finally came out of the wilderness).
First of all, the 4 people you mentioned were all to the right of Pataki
and it's not "easy money", it's called free enterprise.
Laws against gambling inhibit free enterprise, because they basically say a certain kind of free enterprise is not permitted to set up shop in the state, despite the fact that many people in the state want it.
"Gov. Riley tried to raise taxes up the wahoo" The only reason Riley had to do this is because of the ridiculous practice of earmarking, and I opposed the Riley plan. But at least Riley has guts to do something about it. I saw no one else proposing a plan to get us out of the hole, and I saw no one proposing the obvious solution of ending earmarking (thanks to Paul Hubbert)
You know, Riley helped lobby to get the Airbus plant at Brookley (there are still hurdles), Riley was a key force in killing the moronic LNG idea. Riley has been a much better industrial recruiter than Moore could ever be, and Riley has been willing to do something no one else in this state would do, and that is take on Paul Hubbert and the AEA.
Now, back to the 4 governors.
Zell Miller is the one who passed the lottery, and Barnes won primarily because he had all those heavyweights with him, and because he had two different campaign messages. One for blacks and one for whites.
Siegelman would have won anyway because alot of people were against Fob James just because he was Fob James
Beasley wanted to put my cousin (and the 25% cut I was recieving for giving startup costs) out of business, not to mention he slipped up on the flag. It didn't upset me to see him go, and I'm glad that DeMint beat him in the primary last year.
Now, as for Musgrove in Mississippi, gambling was made legal under Ray Mabus, and a majority of gambling money in 1999 went to Republican candidates. The reason Musgrove won is because of Fordice's scandal, and because of the fact that well, Mike Parker was not exactly the nicest guy around. These days he's regarded as somewhat of a political pariah
Back to Roy Moore, Roy Moore is bad for business, he doesn't present the best image of the state before the nation, and to tell you the truth, I think Roy Moore is the preferred Republican of trial lawyers.
In Alabama, you don't register in any party. You declare what party you are when you get to the check in desk at a polling place.
"They listed Humphrey as "National Democrat" and in 1948, they didn't even put Truman on the ballot."
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.