Posted on 12/07/2005 7:56:36 AM PST by Checkers
...What to conclude? Despite massive media attention and around-the-clock boosterism from local radio flaks and know-nothings John & Ken, the candidacy of anti-illegal immigration single issue candidate Jim Gilchrist could only muster 23,237 votes --less than one third of the Graham vote in November of 2004. No "Minuteman" candidate will ever have more favorable conditions than this special election, and still the Minuteman candidate failed miserably. As will a Congressman Tancredo if he mounts a "run" for the presidency.
Hard truth: There is a small, but important anti-illegal immigrant vote. It is less than 10% in one of the most conservative Congressional districts in the country. (Gilchrist tallied less than 10% of the 2004 general election total vote of more than 290,000, even though his highly motivated, single-issue constituency was well-informed and mobilized for the special election. If that's the best this constituency could do in the best of circumstances, it isn't a "movement," it is rather a small, but important "constituency," but not an electorally decisive one.)
The key conclusions: John Campbell will be a Congressman for as long as he chooses to be (30 years?), and other GOP incumbents will study these results very closely and recognize that while there is a 5-to-10% that must be reassured on the security of the border, there is no national tide running that demands an exclusve and relentless focus on illegal immigration.
The twelve words are still the message:
Win the war. Confirm the judges. Cut the taxes. Control the spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.com ...
Well everyone should think of it this way.......
If there was an open seat in your district, how much effort and money would you have to put out to WIN the seat for yourself?
Think about that, if you really planned it well, off year election, or retirement, special election, knowing that there would be a low turn out, getting together with about a dozen family or friends, taking a saturday to walk the district and meet people. You could win a decent seat and innact some change.
Some people put more effort into running a garage sale than running for office. You could do it.
You need to break out the votes according to the mailed in ballots VS the show up at the poll ballots.
Gilchrist, and amateur, totally dropped the ball on this. Most of the Campbell votes were mailed in absentee ballots. Campbell, the pro, understood how hard it is to get folks to actually come to the polls for a special election. Every republican in his district received mail in ballots, with his spiel and so on.
Gilchrist might not have one even if he had matched Campbell in this crucial area, but he would have been close. Just look at the figures for the votes actually taken at the polling places, vice the absentee ballots.
One = won
Hugh has been really turning me off lately. I've never been a huge fan of his due to his liberal/moderate positions, but personally attacking competing radio hosts is completely unprofessional.
Absentee On Election Day Total Votes
--------------- --------------- ---------------
Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes Percent
----- ------- ----- ------- ----- -------
John Campbell (Rep) 30895 53.18% 10555 30.47% 41450 44.70%
Jim Gilchrist (AI) 10944 18.84% 12293 35.49% 23237 25.10%
Steve Young (Dem) 14697 25.30% 11229 32.42% 25926 28.00%
Béa Tiritilli (Grn) 915 1.58% 327 0.94% 1242 1.30%
Bruce Cohen (Lib) 644 1.10% 236 0.68% 880 0.90%
58095 100.00% 34640 100.00% 92735 100.00%
There it is. Among election day voters, Gilchrist won.
But he had no absentee ballot cammpaign, so he lost the election.
Thanks for posting the tripe from HH. He drinks rino coolaid every day when he wakes up. John Campbell will be another suck a** republican who tows the party line and doesn't do a dam thing that the voters want besides rubber stamping all of Bush's stuipid ideas on illegal immigration.
Yes......hardly a decisive win for JC. RINO's need to wake up because they are going down in 2006 unless they start paying attention to what we want, and what we don't want.
Among election day voters, Campbell even lost to the dem.
Is this like fake but accurate?
Nothing but trying to find a victory in a defeat. No different than when the Democrats said they won the special election Ohio because they only lost by 4%.
Exactly.
This is how I understand the election, and there is an important lesson at the end, and not the ome most folks are taking from this.
Campbell won the election purely on his slick and well-funded (RNC) direct mail absetee ballot campaign. That is beyond dispute. He lost on election day.
His literature portrayed the race as being between him, a tough on illegal immigration border defender, VS a liberal open-borders pro-amnesty democrat.
The pitch was this: if you don't vote for me, a liberal pro-amnesty democrat will win.
He got these ballots and the literature out early, and it worked.
Gilchrist never had a chance to come back, or get his message out, no matter how many radio ads his campaign bought.
Because 30,000 Republicans had already voted ABSENTEE for Campbell,
THINKING THEY WERE VOTING FOR THE TOUGHest BORDER DEFENDER IN THE RACE.
One lesson to take from this is: over 2/3 of the voters voted for the candidate they THOUGHT was the toughest border defender in the race, at the time they cast their ballot.
I agree. The media was also very favorable for Campbell, consistently referring to him as a conservative, despite evidence to the contrary. The fact that Campbell pulled in the big RNC guns at the end (Cheney and Mehlman) says that he was at least a tad bit worried.
And John Campbell, carsalesguy, has what issue that distinguishes him from the guy having coffee in the corner.....?
A lot. He's actually served in elected office before. Look his record up.
Agree with it or disagree, fine. But the bottom line is that you have absolutely no idea what Gilchrist is like on any other issue when it actually comes time to vote.
Nothing interesting. His votes on illegal immigration in the state senate have gone against his constituency.
If that's what you consider a distinguishing reason to vote for the guy, guess that's your opinion.
As far as knowing what Gilchrist is like on other issues, actually I'm well aware of them. Not so long ago he was able to answer most emails, and he did mine.
Some of his attitudes I disagree with. But on the issue of illegal immigration, which I consider the overwhelming issue, he's not just right, but he's the guy who led the pack on doing something about it. He's achieved a phenomenal amount in a short time - brought national attention to the issue, created a movement which provoked the wrath of the self-appointed elite, but the admiration and agreement of the common people, and now has made a good showing in a Congressional race which, as Travis McGee has pointed out, was most probably won merely by the Annointed One going out of his way to try and represent himself as Gilchrist's twin. Which he isn't - he's a pygmy compared to Mr. Gilchrist, who risked far more and came from out of nowhere to make all of this happen.
So you're wrong on both points. I'm well aware of Campbell's record and Gilchrist's views. And I'm still of the opinion that John Campbell is a lightweight who has no significant political viewpoint other than "what will get me elected so I can be a big man".
Folks like that are a dime a dozen.
Related thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535925/posts
Sad for us here in So. Cal.
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.