You must've misunderstood me. Since we presume Democrat = Liberal, that means MA is 100% liberal federally and roughly 90% liberal in the legislature. You know and I know the state is not THAT liberal. I didn't say the state wasn't liberal-leaning, only that it is 100% or 90% so.
"Where has it worked in the Northreast? In 2006 many RINOs lost their seats because their Dem opponent was more liberal. Why settle for a liberal Rep when you can get the real thing. If Reps had run "real conservatives" in those races, they would have suffered even worse defeats. People who run for election must reflect in some degree their constituencies. If you don't, you lose no matter how passionate and forcefully you express your views."
In 2006, we lost a lot of Republicans everywhere because they were Republicans, RINO or otherwise. But yet, the success story in New England was RI Gov. Don Carcieri, a Conservative. I've seen lots of liberal rodents winning in areas they ought not to be, merely because they managed to either deceive the rubes, run against a damaged GOP incumbent, caught a wave, and then used incumbency to keep them in office. Iowa isn't a liberal state, yet it elects a Marxist Senator with Harkin. So liberal-leaning constituencies can't ever elect Conservatives, but Conservative districts can elect liberals ? Time to change that equation.
"For MA, Ogonowski is polling well for a Rep. He must be doing something right."
In that district, ANY Republican running a respectable campaign is going to get at minimum, 35% of the vote.
"Reagan understood the need to appeal to democrats as well as Reps. Ogonowski has to define issues that cut across partisan lines, e.g,, illegal immigration, and use that to distinguish himself from his opponent."
Reagan didn't run as a liberal. Isn't it funny that the most Conservative Presidential candidate to run in the past 40 years got the highest percentage of the vote of all those candidates running in MA ? RINO Wishy-washiness doesn't play.
"You overstate the level of dissatisfaction in MA. Here are the MA results in the 2006 mid-terms Five of the 10 Dems in the House ran unopposed [including Meehan] and only one of the other five won by less than 70% of the vote , i.e., Delahunt who won with 65% of the vote. That is domination by one party, my friend."
Um, that's the whole damn point. There's no viable Republican party in MA. You don't have an ideologically different party and offer the people a choice, you have no reason to exist. When liberal RINOs and liberal rodents are the choices, it's no surprise that you have no Republicans left. The Republican party of MA needs to repudiate this failed ideology and grow their numbers with a Conservative agenda and candidates. I don't expect them to become the majority overnight, but there is no reason to expect that with hard work, a viable and strong minority opposition could emerge. What would you prefer, a 90% rodent/10% RINO legislature out of whack with the state's actual political leanings, or a 70% rodent/30% Conservative GOP legislature that can visibly oppose en bloc bad legislation and sustain a Republican Governor's vetoes ? I know which I'd prefer. But like I said, we keep doing it the same way that has given us nothing but failures and further moribundity with each passing election, and MA will become the first state outside the South to elect a 100% Democrat legislature. It's pretty much de facto that already.
"Don't create phony strawmen. I never advocated surrendering."
Could've fooled me. Your posts are brimming with negativity, "it's all over." When I offer new ideas and solutions, you mock them. You're not helping, sir.
"My point is not to criticize Reps who are brave enough to run because they are not conservative enough. Instead, support their commitment and courage."
Running as a RINO is not courageous, sir. It's a cop-out. It's telling people, "Hey, I pretty much believe like the Democrats do, only that I want to run as a Republican instead." Sorry, that's why we've lost so many areas of the country, all for nothing.
"LOL. In 2004, Kerry won NJ by 250,000 votes. He won Hudson County by 67,000 votes second only to Essex's 120,000 vote margin for Kerry. In 2000, Gore won NJ by 500,000 votes and Hudson by 75,000. In 1996, Clinton won NJ by 550,000 and Hudson by 78,000. The bottom line is that Hudson County usually provides the Dems with the second largest margin of votes. Reagan was an exception and he only won by 18,000 votes."
Um, proving what I said. Hudson hasn't provided the margin of victory for a Dem Presidential candidate since 1960. Today, 4 counties are more populous than Hudson (Bergen, Essex, Middlesex & Monmouth), and Hudson just isn't all that important overall anymore as it was in Boss Hague's era.
A distinction without a difference. It is like discussing degrees of virtue among whores. MA is overwhelmingly liberal. It is not going to change any time soon.
I've seen lots of liberal rodents winning in areas they ought not to be, merely because they managed to either deceive the rubes, run against a damaged GOP incumbent, caught a wave, and then used incumbency to keep them in office.
Maybe that is what Ogonowski is trying to do.
In that district, ANY Republican running a respectable campaign is going to get at minimum, 35% of the vote.
Do you have any data to support that assertion? In that district, Meehan ran unopposed. In 2006 five of the MA Dems in the house ran unopposed and the lowest percentage any Dem candidate who ran against an opponent received was 65%. In that race the Rep candidate received 29%.
Reagan didn't run as a liberal. Isn't it funny that the most Conservative Presidential candidate to run in the past 40 years got the highest percentage of the vote of all those candidates running in MA? RINO Wishy-washiness doesn't play.
Reagan was running against Carter, the worst President we have had this century. Double digit inflation, gasoline shortages, the ongoing humiliation of the US in Iran, the fall of Afghanistan, etc. had a lot to do with MA going Dem in 1980 and still Reagan only won by 3800 votes, 41.9% to 41.75%. And Carter only won 5 states and DC.
Reagan won in 1984 on a record of accomplishment and barely eked out a victory in MA over Mondale by 2.79%. Mondale won only one state [MN] and DC. Eisenhower won by much bigger margins in MA than Reagan. And it is worth noting that Dukakis only beat Bush 41 by 7.85%. You can't attribute Reagan's wins just to the message he was conveying.
Um, that's the whole damn point. There's no viable Republican party in MA. You don't have an ideologically different party and offer the people a choice, you have no reason to exist. When liberal RINOs and liberal rodents are the choices, it's no surprise that you have no Republicans left. The Republican party of MA needs to repudiate this failed ideology and grow their numbers with a Conservative agenda and candidates.
The party was viable enough to elect Romney governor. That said, until circumstances change in MA, the conservative message is not resonating in MA, the most liberal and staunchly Dem state in the nation. That is the reason Reps are not winning in the state.
What would you prefer, a 90% rodent/10% RINO legislature out of whack with the state's actual political leanings, or a 70% rodent/30% Conservative GOP legislature that can visibly oppose en bloc bad legislation and sustain a Republican Governor's vetoes ?
How do you come up with the GOP receiving 30% of the representatives just because they may represent 30% of the electorate? That is not the way our representative system works. Each district/county etc. elects its representative. The Rep candidates must win the majority of votes in a particular legislative unit. We don't have proportional representation.