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 ...
Once more you use the occasion to spout obscenities, abuse, and juvenile names.
Like I said before....if all you have is names to call people, zip it.
It's not name calling when it's true, ZIPPER!
Last figures I saw this morning: Campbell (R) 45%, Young (D) 28%, Gilchrist (I) 25%.
No one should make the mistake of assuming that all of Gilchrist's votes were from self-styled "real" conservatives. There is a percentage of the electorate which always votes third party. There is always a percentage of the electorate which is registered independent and are likely to vote for an independent. Lastly, some percentage of registered Dems, knowing their candidate couldn't win, likely voted for Gilchrist just to cause mischief.
Although we will never know the actual percentage of self-styled "real" conservatives who voted for Gilchrist, several percentage points in his 25% total were not among them.
It's California.
John Campbell is for immigration reform, and he just got elected. However, he wasn't the latest electoral gimmick supported by the self-styled "real" conservatives.
Speak for yourself.
Some people can't take yes for an answer.
Not when one of the biggest talk radio stations in the country flacked day and night for his candidacy, held benefits -- er, "town hall meetings" -- for Gilchrist, and had those two afternoon drive-time loudmouths, John & Ken, shilling for him continuously for months.
Isn't it curous how John & Ken have found only Republicans to oppose since the recall election, never Democrats who dominate politics in this state. However, J&K have struck out yet again.
That has GOT to be the dumbest statement I've ever read on FR, and I've been here almost since the very beginning.
No one is forcing anyone to listen to John & Ken. If no one cared about illegal immigration, John & Ken would have no ratings, and their shilling would have been worthless.
Horse puckey! There are always registered independents and other people in every election who vote third party. Gilchrist also drew some votes from Dems who knew their guy wouldn't win in a heavily Republican district, so they voted for him just to cause mischief.
Even running in a heavily Republican/conservative district, with the benefit of truly huge free media coverage for Gilchrist from KFI radio, and the $500,000 his campaign spent, Gilchrist still couldn't finish 2nd. He was beaten handily by an underfunded Dem candidate who was all but ignored by the media.
I heard I think on KFI or KABC that this vote according to John Campbell was a big message against the extremist views regarding the border. (which we would call securing the border and following the current laws about apprehending illegals).
This bum has to go next election in principle just based on what he said in calling the border issues extremists ones.
This guy seems bought and paid for by the no-change collective.
Who said anything about being forced to listen? My point was quite the opposite: that Gilchrist lost despite their constant shilling for him. KFI is one of the biggest radio stations in the country, and J&K do have big ratings. That's one big reason why Gilchrist's 3rd place showing should be considered very weak, no matter how much his supporters want to spin it otherwise.
Hugh Hewitt is behaving like an unprincipled dolt here. American sovereignty means nothing to him.
Oh, nothing, I just wanted to see it bigger.
I am not in any crowd, but am my own person. I don't know what you mean by "false flag OBL." However, I am a bona fide Constitutional conservative first and foremost. I am opposed to the Left is all its many guises. I would like to see the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution repealed (although they never will be). I would like to see a Congressional term limits amendment pass.
As for NAFTA/CAFTA and other such free trade agreements, I am more interested in fair trade than pseudo-free trade.
As for illegal immigration, I am opposed to the guest-worker program because we already have H1B's, green cards, etc.
Could go into more detail about my political point of view, but the above should make my point. And I still think your statement is the dumbest I've ever seen on FR.
I'd agree that single-issue candidates don't win elections, but it's still an important issue. I'd say there's a better than 50% chance than the 2008 Republican nominee will be a supporter of border reform.
My point is that the illegal immigration issue is potent, as evidenced both by J&K's big ratings and by a third-party candidate managing to obtain 25% of the vote.
Show me where any third party candidate (save Bernie Sanders) has gotten over 15% of the vote in 2004's 435 Congressional elections, and I'll agree that Gilchrist's showing was weak.
Grin...good to see someone else who gets it about J&K.
Didn't they also fail miserably in trying to take out Drier?
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.