Tell me why, if in a primary election that had a record low turnout and was billed as a referendum on illegal immigration, the border zealots couldn't defeat the incumbent they certainly had the motivation to take advantage of the low turnout.. They couldn't even get close. Jacobs didn't carry a single county in the district. If the issue was that red hot then Jacobs should have sailed to victory.
You may still be a pro-shamnesty fool. But Cannon is no longer the arrogant open borders numbskull he was even six months ago. We'll be watching to make sure the lesson "took" long term.
You, we don't give a flying fig about.
Cannon ran as a border enforcement candidate.
His ads at variance with some positions he's taken in D.C.
This on top of incumbency, party apparatus support and otherwise conservative record against an untested relatively unknown novice. A novice that made a statement about Satan in the final days of the campaign that was questionable.
You may find if your review my posts that I never said Jacobs would win, though some others did. I contributed. I supported him. I prayed for a different outcome, but had doubts he'd win. The reason? Not that I doubt the strength of the issue, but I have a healthy respect for incumbency.
I'm a student of the Toomey/Specter campaign. Toomey didn't win, and he ran a batter campaign then Jacobs. I'm honestly not even sure Laffey is going to win though he has the best chance of all of them...provided the recent increase of Dems registration shifting Republican there isn't a significant factor.
Perhaps this means I have a bit more faith in the power of incumbency then the power of the issues..at least right now? Probably, and probably that attitude will exist until we finally succeed in beating the power of "incumbancy". It eventually will, it's only a matter of when. Losing doesn't bother me. It's a setback, but lessons are learned hopefully, and keep trying till success is achieved. This is why the loss may have depressed some people, but you'll notice they are back fighting for what they believe in. This won't change.
BTW, to address your question further you need to understand something. I've never claimed the GOP was in danger of losing it's slightly above 40% base support in elections. Both parties have a significant number that will vote Dem/Rep no matter what. It's that other 10-15% they struggle to win over. The GOP isn't in danger of losing districts that have voted 60-70% for them in past over this issue. If they win by 56% or 70% they'll still win. They can afford to lose a few disenchanted constituents. It's the closer districts where that 2%-5%-10% can make a difference. You saw that in the Bilbray race. It was closer then it should be because about 4% went to an even stronger border candidate and 1% to an overall more conservative candidate. And about 2% stayed home. A small percentage of people upset CAN upset close districts and state races and that should concern you.
Also, You cite low turnout as though that's a good development. It's not. It denotes apathy. Forget the actual issue on display, apathy is the worst nightmare in a year where base turnout is critical. In 70% Rep districts it's surviveable. But in districts like Bilbray's or even when hackett was running and came close to winning by running a conservative campaign and people staying home...that isn't a good sign.
Whether or not you support the Bush plan, or Pence's plan...if enough don't they could tilt close races by staying home and you can't dismiss that.
As events would have it, the base of the party's mood has somewhat improved as amnesty stalled, positive developments in the WOT, and the Dems repeated treason. But they are playing with fire if they start pushing amnesty again.