Republican Edges Out Iraq Veteran for Ohio Congress Seat(NYT take)

New York Times ^ | 8/3/05 | James Dao

[Dane]

Can anyone explain why Hackett got so many votes in a supposedly Republican district?

He may have lost, but I find it worrisome he did so well

Special election in the middle of summer, a demo candidate trying to be Pubbie light(at least in public in the conservative district), he speaks what he really beleives when talking to the whacko national demo base.

The demos and MSM put all they had into this race and still came up short.

[Preachin']

"I see the Libs hitting the deficit spending angle pretty hard, even though anyone with any knowledge of their history knows they would be much worse."

Yet they can never find it within themselves to tell you that their fix action is raising taxes.

[finnman69]

See the Hackett TV ad here where it looks like he is a pro-war pro-bush/ "endorsed by Bush candidate".

http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/08/video_voter_dec.html


now follow up this ad with these Hackett comments:

Hackett told USA Today that Bush's taunting line, "Bring 'em on!" was "the most incredibly stupid comment I've ever heard a president of the United States make." He also told the newspaper that, while he was willing to put his life on the line for the president, "I've said that I don't like the son-of-a-[expletive] that lives in the White House."

[ChadGore]

"edge out" ? ? lol

[rwfromkansas]

Apparently he never really even said he was a Dem, either.

I was freaked out he got so many votes in a Republican district, but it appears that is largely the reason......people thought he was Republican.

[puroresu]

Supposedly this election was also a test run for the Democrats' new rhetoric on abortion. Howard Dean has been claiming that the 'Rats want to reach out to pro-life voters, not by actually fielding pro-life candidates but by deceitfully presenting their pro-abortion stance so that it sounds like something else. Hackett's ads never mentioned abortion per se. Instead, he said he doesn't want government making his family's private medical decisions. To most people hearing the ad, it sounded like Hackett was opposing socialized medicine rather than supporting abortion.

[Dane]

Hackett's ads never mentioned abortion per se. Instead, he said he doesn't want government making his family's private medical decisions. To most people hearing the ad, it sounded like Hackett was opposing socialized medicine rather than supporting abortion

You are correct, more demo focus group money down the tube.

[Let's Roll]

He's talking about going back - could he be assigned to real duty this time?

Or would he just endanger other troops?

[Graves]

"Apparently he never really even said he was a Dem..."

The sum total of his published positions comes across as Libertarian, not Democrat.

Interestingly to me, he ran in the Democratic primary. Why? If you look at all of his positions, he looks too conservative for the Democ-rats to be able to live with (except as to the big "A", ABORTION RIGHTS). Is that what it's all about now? Is this all that they can agree they stand for? How pathetic!

[HamiltonJay]

"EDGES"???? WTF??? Since when is 3% "EDGES"????

NYT is a liberale toilet paper factory.

Be serious guys, Dems through everything and the kitchen sink and couldn't get closer than 3% in an URBAN area... That's not an "Edging" that's not a huge margine, but its not skin of the teeth either.

I've seen this size of electorate be decided by a few dozen to a few hundred votes more than a few times.... Libs just can't handle reality.

3% is not an edging.

[rwfromkansas]

The GOP did do a good amount in the final weekend, but I presume the Dems did as well.

[stocksthatgoup]

Edges?

[Graves]

3% is not an edging. It's just MSM wishful thinking & hype.

[deport]

The Dems were able to get a higher percentage of turnout than the Reps, which made the race closer than it should have been.

---

I haven't seen the final percentage numbers but the race was expected to be a low turn out event.... somewhere in the 20% range and that appears to be what happened. It was a decision made by the GOTV capabilities of both campaigns. Also Hackett had former Senators Glenn and the one from Georgia that was a combat veteran on the trail with him. In a regular election, presidential/mid term, I think the numbers would have been much better for Schmidt. jmo.

[Lancey Howard]

He's talking about going back - could he be assigned to real duty this time?

The operative phrase being, "talking about".

[MinorityRepublican]

In the final days of the campaign, Schmidt accused the Hackett campaign of misleading voters by claiming that he would be the first Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress. In fact, the Schmidt campaign said, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, R-Ill., has been serving in the Iraq war as a Navy Reserve officer.

Congressman Kirk is a Naval Reserve intelligence officer who served during conflicts with Iraq, Haiti, and Bosnia. He served four tours at sea and three in Panama. The U.S. Navy named Kirk 'Intelligence Officer of the Year' in 1999 for his combat service in Kosovo. Kirk flew on missions over Iraq and continues to serve one weekend a month in the Pentagon. He is the only member of Congress to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom and was an air crewman over Iraq during Operation Northern Watch.

From Rep. Mark Kirk's website.

[SoFloFreeper]

YOU WON'T SEE THIS ANALYSIS FROM THE NEW YORK SLIMES!
I'm posting this info from the buzz blog on NRO on many of the Ohio Special election threads. Good stuff...the Democrats may be celebrating a "close election" for naught.

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.

[Dane]

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

Thank you SFF for the information.

JMO, but like any special non-incumbant House election the party out of power is going to be more motivated to get their voters out, and it looks like the demos failed miserably.

[Katya]

The guy is handsome and articulate...he's being groomed for much bigger things. His stint in Iraq reminds me of Gore's Vietnam service...looks good on a resume. He may have lost because he didn't exactly advertise the fact he was a democrat, but I wouldn't discount him for a Senate race.

The dems shouldn't get too excited by his prospects...they don't have an arsenal of Hacketts, and Hillary is NO handsome soldier.

[rlmorel]

SoFloFreeper,
That was excellent! This is the type of thing that makes the Internet (and FR in particular) so much more useful and appealing. We would NEVER see that particular type of analysis on CBS, NBC or ABC, and probably not on Fox either.

This is why I get none of my news from TV and Newspapers. It is one dimensional and predictable. I have found that I can learn of an event on the Internet, and predict nearly exactly how it will be covered and the headline worded by the Boston Globe (paper in my area, unfortunately)

Now, if we can find out exactly how much was spent by each side, we might be able to figure out just how much was spent for those 6,783 votes!

Thanks again!