Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Impy

Actually, Keith was largely forced out. Weeks challenged him aggressively in the ‘70 primary and came close to beating him (losing just 55-45%, which is a poor showing for an incumbent). Weeks was also freely spending all the while Studds, who was fairly skilled at GOTV, was aggressively going around the district, especially courting Portuguese Americans. Keith seemed to be caught unprepared for both and only won by 2,000 votes in ‘70. If Keith had run again, he might’ve been defeated in the primary (and Weeks still would’ve lost to Studds) or had he prevailed, he may have been crippled enough and had his resources depleted that he might’ve lost by a wider margin than Weeks did. So, I wouldn’t call Keith a wuss, he was in a difficult spot and chose to graciously get out of the way, probably surmising that Weeks’s money and aggressiveness would keep the seat in our hands. Sadly, it didn’t.


79 posted on 12/07/2008 5:23:04 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: fieldmarshaldj

What was Weeks deal do you know? Think Kieth was too conservative? Too liberal? Or did he just want to buy himself a seat?


87 posted on 12/07/2008 10:31:11 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson