Posted on 08/02/2005 10:20:51 PM PDT by Dane
That was what I meant to imply-Hackett never had a chance in this district and still made a race of it. I think spinning this as a big slap in the face to the Dems as it's being characterized on this thread is a mistake. There are lessons to be learned here that we should remember for 2006 instead of slapping ourselves on the back.
No, they didn't win, but it's hard to be thrilled about a 40 pt. advantage turning into a 4 pt. margin. The demographics concern me as well-the fact that the rural districts preferred Hackett is not a good thing.
"rural districts preferred Hackett is not a good thing."
yeah but again he ran hiding the fact that he was a Dem, wrapped himself in Vets clothing even had Bush in his campaign ads in a nonnegative way. Also remember OH Rs have a bit of a scandal right now and Taft is unpopular. Hackett did a good job of linking Schmidt to Taft so there is a heck of a lot more going on here than just a referendum on Republicans across the country. Yes i agree we need to be vigilante and work our butts off in 06 but it is not the victory the Dems are claiming.
"There are lessons to be learned here that we should remember for 2006 instead of slapping ourselves on the back."
Amen to that. Among them, be careful of whom you choose when picking an ad agency.
And remember the Republican Golden Rule from the lips of the man himself, "the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."
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.