Virginia Senate: How Ed Gillespie could pull off an upset

Politico ^ | | 6/8/14 7:08 AM EDT | JAMES HOHMANN

[HokieMom]

ROANOKE, Virginia — There’s no doubt Ed Gillespie is the underdog in the Virginia Senate race.

He’s polled well behind the man he’s trying to unseat, Democrat Mark Warner. The incumbent is the richest member of the Senate and a well-liked figure in the state. Meanwhile, many Virginians still don’t know who Gillespie is.

But Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, is an old hand at campaigns. And now that he’s the candidate, he insists he can pull off the upset.

“I assure you I have never analyzed a race more carefully than this one, and it’s a very winnable race,” the 52-year-old said after nabbing his party’s nomination at a convention this weekend.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-ed-gillespie-could-pull-off-an-upset-107569.html#ixzz345bW8Scf

[Carry me back]

I dont think Ed is against Obamacare. He agrees with Warner on some major issues like the bailouts ,cap and trade. Would he be better than Warner, yes I think he would. But he is establishment imo, and we all know what that means.

[Carry me back]

True, the Bushes promoted the downturn. Im not sure a true American has been in the white house since Reagan. The others are globalist, America was not first with them imo.

[HokieMom]

I dont think Ed is against Obamacare. He agrees with Warner on some major issues like the bailouts ,cap and trade. Would he be better than Warner, yes I think he would. But he is establishment imo, and we all know what that means.

He says on his website that he'll work to repeal it. There is a two minute video to watch for an overview.

http://edforsenate.com/

[Carry me back]

Hokiemom , I thank u for your work in Virginia. I was at the convention, I hope Im proven wrong but right now I dont see Ed as being conservative. When he spoke I didnt hear specifics, I heard platitudes and dodging to give what he really believes. He is another liberal, lets face it. Probably not as liberal as Warner, but liberal . He might win and it may help the senate, but this guy is status quo all day.

[1010RD]

Nonsense and bad analysis.

[HokieMom]

I am starting a pro-Gillespie ping list. Please message me if you’d like to be on it

[CharlesWayneCT]

Mark Warner thanks you for your support.

[1010RD]

Your vote is never blank, you’re just imagining that. By default skipping a vote is simply voting with the majority. Any Democrats elected in those races had your vote.

[1010RD]

The big difference is that Romneycare is a statewide disaster. That’s federalism and a good thing. Let’s learn from that mess. Obamacare is a nationwide disaster made possible by a Democrat controlled Congress. You don’t get there from here.

Wherever you can elect the most conservative candidate. That’s going to be different from MS to IL. In MS dump Cochran and put in McDaniel. In IL if we had two Kirks in place of a Kirk/Durbin split the entire country would be better off. Is Kirk a conservative? NO. But he votes with us way more than Durbin does. He gives us control of committees and the agenda. It forces Obama to heel.

Let Obama keep up his dictatorial ways after a GOP Congress is elected and see how many really good bills get passed not only tying up Obama’s Ex. Authority, but every POTUS to follow. Bush did a lot of dumb executive orders as well. It’s got to stop.

[HokieMom]

Catch Ed on Fox & Friends tomorrow morning (Monday June 9) at 8:15 a.m. Eastern, live from Charlottesville.

[1010RD]

Maybe you two should talk. You’re telling totally opposite stories.

[Carry me back]

I agree the fix was in for Ed. It was pretty obvious the GopE was going to put him in. One of the clips at the convention for Gillespie before he spoke was him getting along grand with Chris Mathews on Mathews show. Them laughing ect.

[1010RD]

Cruz/Lee will not win. We need a Gov./Gov. ticket to defeat Hillary. Two strong GOP governors from successful states. Wisconsin, Texas, etc. all look very good and capable.

[1010RD]

In politics only winning counts. There is no “long term”. You’re making the perfect the enemy of the good. You’re confusing politics with the free market. In the free market you can pick from the smorgasbord and fill your plate with only the items you like. It’s customizable.

In politics it’s a 1 or a 0. Zeros don’t get to play. They just get to post to FR. Start thinking. Winning for decades, just like Democrats did starting with FDR is what is needed. It’ll take a generation to slowly, but steadily right the ship of state. There are big changes that take time, but you need majorities to implement them.

[wardaddy]

Mexicans are practicing Catholics

So what?

That was 1997-2008 logic around here....see where that got us

Majority Catholics vote Dem and always have except Reagan and 2004

Speaking of which Gillespie is all in on amnesty

Yes is better than Warner

Like colon cancer is better than a megaglioma on the cerebellum

Small favor

I still recall how Ed called us racist over amnesty and sexist over Harriet Miners

He’s a turd wrapped in brooks brothers...

[CharlesWayneCT]

We hold conventions in Virginia to control the democrat influence; it is primarily a method by conservatives to get true conservative candidates, and it was how Cuccinelli ran Bolling out of the contest.

This was a convention, and Ed won easily. There simply was not a lot of conservative outrage over his candidacy. He isn’t the “conservative” pick, but he is a good bridge between the chasm that exists that kept us from winning any statewide races in a state where our last governor won by 16%, and where our local races throughout the state also went republican by double-digits (the democrats held the senate because of some world-class gerrymandering, winning 50% of the seats with less than 45% of the vote).

And then they held the senate by 10 votes in a special election.

We have to win the immigration fight by scaring the elected officials — we can’t win by sinking every republican nominee who isn’t already on our side, because there will be NO democrats who won’t support the most radical amnesty they can get.

[kabar]

Not only that. The night before the vote, Friday, there was a big GOP gala dinner with Paul Ryan as the keynote speaker. Ryan proceeded to say that he endorsed Ed Gillespie for senator. The audience was shocked and silent. It was supposed to be unity affair, not a partisan one. I guess someone forgot to tell Ryan that there were three other candidates in the race and the vote had not been taken yet.

[kabar]

In politics only winning counts. There is no “long term”. You’re making the perfect the enemy of the good. You’re confusing politics with the free market. In the free market you can pick from the smorgasbord and fill your plate with only the items you like. It’s customizable.

If only winning counts, then there really should be no difference between the candidates and the parties. The political consultants have won. Just say and do anything because the ends justify the means. I prefer Reagan's description of what a political party is supposed to be:

“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”

In politics it’s a 1 or a 0. Zeros don’t get to play. They just get to post to FR. Start thinking. Winning for decades, just like Democrats did starting with FDR is what is needed. It’ll take a generation to slowly, but steadily right the ship of state. There are big changes that take time, but you need majorities to implement them.

You are living in a fantasy world. Demography is destiny. We have entered the era of tribal politics and white tribe is getting smaller and the other tribes are getting bigger. By 2019 half of the children will be minorities as defined by the USG. The U.S. is projected to become a majority-minority nation for the first time in 2043. Every cohort that turns 18 each year is more and more Democrat.

We have brought in since 1990 29 million legal permanent immigrants, 87% of whom are minorities. In 1970 one in 21 in this country was foreign-born; today, it is one in 8, the highest in 90 years; and within a decade it will be one in 7, the highest in our history. Minorities and immigrants vote more than two to one Democrat. In the last election Romney won the white vote 59% to 39%, but Obama got 96% of the black vote, 73% of the Asian vote, and 71% of the Hispanic vote.

International migration is projected to surpass natural increase (births minus deaths) as the principal driver of U.S. population growth by the middle of this century, according to three new series of population projections released by the U.S. Census Bureau. This scenario would mark the first time that natural increase was not the leading cause of population increase since at least 1850, when the census began collecting information about residents' country of birth. The shift in what drives U.S. population growth is projected to occur between 2027 and 2038, depending on the future level of international migration

In 1970 89% of this country was non-Hispanic white. Today, it is 63%. Minorities make up 37% of the electorate. By 2060 non-Hispanic whites will be 43% of the population. We are not the same country during the days of FDR or for that matter, Ronald Reagan. I am sure Reagan could not win in California today. By 2050, the US will resemble the current demographics of CA today.

And what do Reps like Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and many more want to do? They want to triple legal immigration over the next decade to 33 million and double guest worker programs from 650,000 a year to 1.3 million a year.

The current inflow now adds roughly one short-term foreign worker and one immigrant to the labor supply for every four Americans who turn 18. If the Gang of 8 becomes law, the government will add roughly one guest worker or immigrant for every single American who turns 18 in the next decade.

Ann Coulter--Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree. No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as "liberal Democrats." While 47 percent of self-described "liberal Democrats" hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government -- also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent. How are Republicans going to square that circle? It's not their position on amnesty that immigrants don't like; it's Republicans' support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism. Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation's No. 1 priority?

It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, "You can't vote." But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction? Republicans have no obligation to assist the Democrats as they change the country in a way that favors them electorally, particularly when it does great harm to the people already here.

Yes, it's great for the most powerful Americans to have lots of cheap, unskilled labor. Immigration definitely solves the rich's "servant problem."

(Approximately 5 million times a day, MSNBC expresses bewilderment that any Republicans oppose amnesty when it's supported by the Chamber of Commerce. Wow! So even people who profit by flooding the country with cheap labor are in favor of flooding the country with cheap labor!)

It's terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have. And it's fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as "the land of the free."

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.

The Democrats agree with your assertion that "in politics only winning counts" even if it means the destruction of the country. They are willing to remake totally the electorate to ensure that they are the permanent majority party, if they are not already. I guess if the Reps become more like the Dems in policies and principles and embrace Big Government and an expanded welfare state they could start winning again, but to quote the next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton, "What difference does it make?"

[kabar]

This was a convention, and Ed won easily. There simply was not a lot of conservative outrage over his candidacy. He isn’t the “conservative” pick, but he is a good bridge between the chasm that exists that kept us from winning any statewide races in a state where our last governor won by 16%, and where our local races throughout the state also went republican by double-digits (the democrats held the senate because of some world-class gerrymandering, winning 50% of the seats with less than 45% of the vote).

You seem to paint a rosy picture of VA, but it doesn't match reality. The 2009 statewide races were anomalies. There was an historic low Dem turnout. The Dems, fresh from the Obama massive victory and total control over Congress depressed Dem turnout. They were still basking in the glow of victory. Since then, they have dominated statewide elections. NoVA is increasing its influence and many Reps have already been defeated in the General Assembly elections in NoVA. The ones who have survived did so narrowly by just hundreds of votes. It is only a matter of time before the numbers of Reps in the General Assembly from NOVA can be numbered on one hand.

As far as gerrymandering is concerned, the Reps have used it much more to its advantage than the Dems. Still, the seat held by Frank Wolf will be difficult to hold. Connolly and Moran's replacement will face little opposition from the token Rep candidates. Right now, the Reps control two thirds of the House of Delegates, but that is a high water mark.

We have to win the immigration fight by scaring the elected officials — we can’t win by sinking every republican nominee who isn’t already on our side, because there will be NO democrats who won’t support the most radical amnesty they can get.

The elected Rep officials are scared by the other side and the changing demographics. They are being stampeded into believing that if they cave on amnesty, they will win more of the minority vote. They are deluded. We already had 14 Reps sign on to the Gang of 8 bill. The Rep "principles on immigration" that came out of the retreat is just surrender. The Reps are being pushed hard by their corporate paymasters to get immigration reform (aka amnesty and doubling the number of guest workers) done this year.

Why is the GOP leadership in the House pushing immigration reform prior to the midterms? Are they trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Eric Cantor, in response to the current Mariel boat-like dump of unaccompanied illegal alien children on the Southern border is to pass a GOP version of Obama's unconstitutional backdoor amnesty for the Dreamers now. The big issue prior to the midterms will become immigration and not Obamacare and all of the other Dem scandals. The Reps have a death wish or they are colluding with the Dems so that the political and corporate classes can retain their power and control.

I don't know how you define a "radical amnesty" as compared to a non-radical one, but it is still a win-win for the Dems no matter how it turns out. The big loser is the United States of America--just like the Bergdahl deal.

[iceskater]

Because John Warner is a senile old coot and probably thinks Mark is his long-lost son.

JWarner has a history of supporting dems. This endorsement means nothing to me. It will mean something to the low-info voters, however.

The jury’s still out on Gillespie’s conservative creds, IMHO.

And as I said before, the window for him to reach out to the conservative/constitutionalist grassroots is closing. His GOPe supporters have vilified me one time too many. *I* am not the enemy. The dems treat me and my fellow constitutionalists better than the R’s.