Posted on 05/14/2008 12:00:13 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
Democrat Kay Hagan, a state senator from Greensboro, easily won the Democratic Primary last Tuesday night and starts the general election campaign essentially tied with incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in North Carolina Hagan attracting 48% of the vote statewide while Dole earns support from 47%. A month ago, Dole led Hagan by thirteen percentage points.
Hagan currently leads by three points among women while Dole wins by three among men. Hagan leads among voters under 50 while Dole leads among older voters.
Both candidates are popular with the state voters—at least before the campaign season gets under way. Fifty-six percent (56%) have a favorable opinion of Dole while 53% offer positive reviews of Hagan.
Dole is supported by 85% of Republicans, Hagan by 80% of Democrats, and Dole leads by nine points among unaffiliated voters. The incumbent is hurt by the declining value of the Republican party label. Nationally, the number of people who consider themselves to be Democrats has risen to record highs in recent months. The partisan gap (the number of Democrats minus the number of Republicans) has grown to a full ten percentage points in the early phase of Election 2008.
Hagan apparently intends to take full advantage of this partisan reality. She recently reminded Tar Heel voters that " Elizabeth Dole votes with President Bush 92 percent of the time…. you are not representing the interests if you are voting straight-party like that with Bush all the time. That is not what North Carolinians want."
A number of people have said this, and they’re not necessarily wrong in my opinion. I just think that the two issues cannot be separated - see my post #7. I probably should have been clearer in my original post.
Don’t worry, I’m familiar with the expression - I didn’t take it personally. ;)
Personally, I prefer to fight them 'over there' than 'over here'. They have sworn to kill us - I would rather kill them ---- over there.
There is NO civil war in Iraq - until the dims get in control. Then they will see to it.
So how is trying to keep Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other in a country that never posed a threat to us “fighting them”? Why didn’t we do more in Afghanistan? More importantly, we didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia, the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers? Follow the money...
More enemies dead then our soldiers. No attacks on our homeland.
“War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula”
- General George Patton Jr
You're right in that it can't be pinned down to one issue. As far as I'm concerned, a central theme is complete disenchantment with our elite political class inside the Beltway. They've plumb worn me out with their political gamesmanship at the expense of doing the right things for our country.
Today is simply another straw to this camel's back, with the announcement of protected status for bleeping polar bears.
Rush did an excellent job of voicing my/our frustrations today.
What are you going to do about these radical Muslims that either want to convert us or kill us?
You know, for the manpower and money that these groups have, they’re pretty damn pathetic. If we stop using the oil from over there, we’ll diminsh their money supply, and if we stop further fueling the fires with our constant intervention in their affairs, they’ll lose their recruiting power, thereby reducing their manpower.
So, in short, withdraw both economically and militarily from the Middle East. That’s the only real long-term solution.
So, stop using oil and let Iran nuke Israel.
You would make a great Democrat!
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.