George Allen did NOT run a bad campaign. He used one word that was jumped on by the MSM as being racist and then he was continually pounded into the ground by that same media on a daily basis. Other than that, you tell me how he ran a bad campaign. Give me some specifics. He was beaten by the media and by a faux conservative Dem candidate running against him, while Allen was excoriated for supporting Bush on the Iraq war.
Hayworth was defeated in AZ because again the MSM and Dem pro-immigration groups pounded him continually, ran another faux Dem candidate against him, and his district is changing due to the influx of liberal Californians moving to Arizona to get away from the mess they created by their leftist philosophy there, and exporting it to AZ so they can louse up that state too.
I did not say he ran a bad campaign. I was responding to poster Truthseeker, who said Allen lost because of bad campaigning. My response was that the only thing I heard he did that was stupid was use a word that was portrayed as being racial in origin. I am not in VA, so I didn't follow his campaign all that closely, but I had an interest in it as it impacted our status in the Senate.
I think Allen lost because he portrayed himself as a "true conservative" and in many places last Tuesday "true conservatives" were rejected, for whatever reasons. My opinion, and it is just that, is that the overlay of an unpopular war and unpopular President on the national political scene hurt those candidates for national office who were aligned with the President. We've seen that before and it is nothing new. Johnson had it in '66, the Dems in general in '68, the 'Pubs in '74 because of Nixon and Watergate, the Dems again in '80 with Carter and the disastrous Iran hostage situation. Conservative candidates in this election were more naturally aligned with Bush and the pro-war position and paid a price for it. Those who tried to distance themselves were also rejected because they were still associated with it through the "R" next to their names, plus voters figured, well, if I want to vote against Bush and the war, why not go with the "real thing" (i.e., 'Rats) rather than an ersatz anti-Bush, anti-war candidate (the isolated 'Pub).
He kept the macaca mess alive by first being defiant, then being apologetic, while pursuing neither strategy effectively enough to bury the matter (the worst of both worlds).
His campaign came out with that silly stunt of scanning Webb's novels for the naughty bits, which just made people roll their eyes.
He tried to shift the campaign to the issues much too late (and then negated even that insufficient attempt with the aforementioned foray into literary critique).