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

To: Oblongata

It was closer than it should have been.

On the other hand, the democrats did not get nearly as many voters out for this election as they did in the 2004 election. Meanwhile, Schmidt managed to get more votes in this special election than Portman got in his first special election in 1993 (59132 vs 53020).

The two of them together got about 1/2 the number of votes Portman got in the last election.

You have to wonder why the democrats switched candidates. They already had a candidate (Sanders) who had lost the last 4 elections to Portman -- why switch horses in the middle of the battle? :->

It sure looks like a lot of republicans stayed home, not that a lot of republicans voted democrat. Although I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of republicans accidentally voted for Hackett, what with his pro-Bush ads. Would have been a shock to them to hear him cursing the President.


106 posted on 08/02/2005 9:25:31 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

Hackett will be on the stump with Hill in '08.


156 posted on 08/03/2005 4:12:52 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | 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