Posted on 11/06/2013 11:48:56 AM PST by jimbo123
It is not our party but the party leaders who are against us. We need to dump them ASAP.
These commies best find a deep, deep hole to crawl into because when the patriot storm descends on them not many leftists will survive.
Great idea! Going to copy you!
It’s interesting to read the debates on DU about the “50 state” strategy. The idea of contesting everywhere, even if it seems to be unwinnable was in interesting one; it forces the other party to fight everywhere and there is always a chance that the other candidate in even an apparently unwinnable election blows up somehow.
It’s also the EXACT same debate on FR and DU : do we go with a DNC/RINO or a true ideolog. It’s been going on as long as factions have vied for elections- the person with a greater chance of winning or the person whose values match yours. I think it’s why Reagan is so revered, as is FDR for the Democrats.
I do not like either the 50 state strategy used by the DNC or the targeted strategy currently employed by the NRC.
I think if you have a good candidate, you fund them well enough to get the message out. If the candidate is an inarticulate boob like Hoffman in NY 23, you don’t fund that candidate.
Basically, my theory is you can lose an election with a good candidate with a lack of money and that should never happen.
But if your candidate is really good, he needs just enough to compete and he will still win even if outspent by a large margin.
My theory is just fund well spoken candidates without skeletons in the closet who are of good character and the winning and losing will take care of itself.
Oh and thanks for making a post that is not “f the rinos” or “f the (fill in the blank with the person of your choice)” post.
You’re welcome.
It’s always an interesting debate (and again, the same ideas and often language on left and right) - is a ‘RINO’ better or worse than a Democrat? Which can actually do more damage? Hillary is *LOATHED* by a lot of Democrats who will vote for her if she wins the nomination, believe me; my Dem friends are Grayson and Warren fans- but some would rather have a President Cruz than Hillary since it would be much easier to rally opposition.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner! Cuccinelli was down double digits. If McDonnell had been down double digits, would the RNC have thrown $9m into the race? No need to guess what McDonnell's poll numbers were:
Poll | Date | Sample | McDonnell (R) | Deeds (D) | Spread |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Final Results | -- | -- | 58.7 | 41.2 | McDonnell +17.5 |
RCP Average | 10/26 - 11/1 | -- | 54.6 | 41.2 | McDonnell +13.4 |
SurveyUSA | 10/30 - 11/1 | 574 LV | 58 | 40 | McDonnell +18 |
PPP (D) | 10/31 - 11/1 | 1457 LV | 56 | 42 | McDonnell +14 |
Times-Dispatch/MD | 10/28 - 10/29 | 625 LV | 53 | 41 | McDonnell +12 |
Rasmussen Reports | 10/27 - 10/27 | 1000 LV | 54 | 41 | McDonnell +13 |
Daily Kos/R2000 | 10/26 - 10/28 | 600 LV | 54 | 44 | McDonnell +10 |
Suffolk University | 10/26 - 10/28 | 400 LV | 54 | 40 | McDonnell +14 |
SurveyUSA | 10/25 - 10/26 | 502 LV | 58 | 41 | McDonnell +17 |
Roanoke College | 10/21 - 10/27 | 569 LV | 53 | 36 | McDonnell +17 |
PPP (D) | 10/23 - 10/26 | 729 LV | 55 | 40 | McDonnell +15 |
Washington Post | 10/22 - 10/25 | 1206 LV | 55 | 44 | McDonnell +11 |
VCU | 10/21 - 10/25 | 625 LV | 54 | 36 | McDonnell +18 |
SurveyUSA | 10/17 - 10/19 | 595 LV | 59 | 40 | McDonnell +19 |
Clarus Research | 10/18 - 10/19 | 605 LV | 49 | 41 | McDonnell +8 |
PPP (D) | 10/16 - 10/19 | 666 LV | 52 | 40 | McDonnell +12 |
Rasmussen Reports | 10/12 - 10/12 | 750 LV | 50 | 43 | McDonnell +7 |
Virginian-Pilot/CNU | 10/8 - 10/13 | 506 LV | 45 | 31 | McDonnell +14 |
Times-Dispatch/MD | 10/6 - 10/8 | 625 LV | 48 | 40 | McDonnell +8 |
Washington Post | 10/5 - 10/7 | 1001 LV | 53 | 44 | McDonnell +9 |
SurveyUSA | 10/2 - 10/4 | 608 LV | 54 | 43 | McDonnell +11 |
Rasmussen Reports | 9/29 - 9/29 | 500 LV | 51 | 42 | McDonnell +9 |
SurveyUSA | 9/26 - 9/29 | 631 LV | 55 | 41 | McDonnell +14 |
PPP (D) | 9/25 - 9/28 | 576 LV | 48 | 43 | McDonnell +5 |
InsiderAdvantage | 9/23 - 9/23 | 602 RV | 48 | 44 | McDonnell +4 |
Washington Post | 9/14 - 9/17 | 1003 LV | 51 | 47 | McDonnell +4 |
Rasmussen Reports | 9/16 - 9/16 | 500 LV | 48 | 46 | McDonnell +2 |
Daily Kos/R2000 | 9/14 - 9/16 | 600 LV | 50 | 43 | McDonnell +7 |
Clarus Research | 9/10 - 9/14 | 600 RV | 42 | 37 | McDonnell +5 |
SurveyUSA | 9/1 - 9/3 | 611 LV | 54 | 42 | McDonnell +12 |
Rasmussen Reports | 9/1 - 9/1 | 500 LV | 51 | 42 | McDonnell +9 |
PPP (D) | 8/28 - 8/31 | 596 LV | 49 | 42 | McDonnell +7 |
Washington Post | 8/11 - 8/14 | LV | 54 | 39 | McDonnell +15 |
Rasmussen Reports | 8/10 - 8/10 | 500 LV | 49 | 41 | McDonnell +8 |
Daily Kos/R2000 | 8/3 - 8/5 | 600 LV | 51 | 43 | McDonnell +8 |
PPP (D) | 7/31 - 8/3 | 579 LV | 51 | 37 | McDonnell +14 |
SurveyUSA | 7/27 - 7/28 | 526 LV | 55 | 40 | McDonnell +15 |
Rasmussen Reports | 7/14 - 7/14 | 500 LV | 44 | 41 | McDonnell +3 |
PPP (D) | 6/30 - 7/2 | 617 LV | 49 | 43 | McDonnell +6 |
Daily Kos/R2000 | 6/15 - 6/17 | 600 LV | 45 | 44 | McDonnell +1 |
Rasmussen | 6/10 - 6/10 | 500 LV | 41 | 47 | Deeds +6 |
SurveyUSA | 6/5 - 6/7 | 1685 RV | 47 | 43 | McDonnell +4 |
Daily Kos/R2000 | 6/1 - 6/3 | 600 LV | 46 | 34 | McDonnell +12 |
SurveyUSA | 5/31 - 6/2 | 1701 RV | 44 | 43 | McDonnell +1 |
Daily Kos/R2000 | 5/18 - 5/20 | 600 LV | 45 | 32 | McDonnell +13 |
SurveyUSA | 5/17 - 5/19 | 1692 RV | 46 | 40 | McDonnell +6 |
SurveyUSA | 4/25 - 4/27 | 1396 RV | 44 | 39 | McDonnell +5 |
Rasmussen Reports | 4/15 - 4/15 | 500 LV | 45 | 30 | McDonnell +15 |
Daily Kos/R2000 | 4/6 - 4/8 | 600 LV | 38 | 31 | McDonnell +7 |
Rasmussen Reports | 2/4 - 2/4 | 500 LV | 39 | 30 | McDonnell +9 |
Rasmussen Reports | 12/4 - 12/4 | 500 LV | 39 | 39 | Tie |
So if a conservative is down in the poles the RNC pulls out. If a RINO is down in the polls the RNC spends more money. I get it.
If you examine the table I provided above, it should be clear that Bob McDonnell was almost never down in the polls, let alone by double digits. Do you recall a specific instance where a RINO was down double digits and the RNC threw good money after bad? Note that McAuliffe wasn't personally a zillionaire, but as former head of the DNC and someone tight with the Clintons, he had the contacts and political resources of a zillionaire. If the RNC had matched McAuliffe dollar for dollar, it would have had far less money to assist in other less expensive races around the country.
Ok, why didn’t RNC money get pulled from NJ and sent to VA? Are you REALLY defending the RNC? Really?
The RinoNC, the MSM and the Donkeys are all enemies of conservatism. So which side are you on?
The RNC can defend itself. They certainly have enough paid flacks on the payroll. I am merely pointing out that Cuccinelli, while overall a good guy, may be the kind of guy who blames everyone but himself for his defeats. It's not the worst character defect ever, but it means his beatification is a little premature.
I live here, the unanswered personal McAllSlime TV radio onslaught all summer and fall was hard to take. On general principles the RNC should have stepped in. It made the Republican brand look TOTALLY ineffective. It WAS a money issue. There will be bad coattails from this misguided and shameful RNC tactic. It really woke me up to the RNC, I knew it was bad but not HOW bad it really was and still is. The RNC IS THE ENEMY too.
It was a real heartbreaker, and I was following the returns right up to the point the Cuccinelli started falling behind. Stuff happens. Here's the RNC's defense - that Steele spent a ton of unnecessary money on McDonnell's 2009 race that put the RNC in hock until 2011. Look at Steele's resume, I'd guess that being from Maryland, he chose to spend more money on candidates in his home region who would be in a position to help him out once he was done with politics. Hence the $9m on McDonnell and $3m for Christie in 2009 (whose media market is ranked #1 in cost compared to DC's #9).
Republican National Committee allies are offering an interesting defense to critics saying the campaign committee could have done more to help the Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli: Blame former RNC chairman Michael Steele.
Steele dropped a staggering $9 million in 2009 into Governor Bob McDonnell’s race despite the fact that McDonnell never trailed in a single poll.
“In my opinion, it was just frivolous spending,” says a Republican source close to the campaign in Virginia. “We were paying off that race in 2011 when we should have been getting ready for the presidential,” the source says. “It handcuffed us.”
Contrast the $9 million figure with the 2005 Virginia’s governors race, when the RNC spent $1.1 million to help Jerry Kilgore, who lost to Democrat Tim Kaine by about six points.
Another data point is the New Jersey gubernatorial race in 2009, when the RNC spent around $3 million to help now-governor Chris Christie — about the same amount it spent on Cuccinelli, but in a more expensive state.
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.