Posted on 10/16/2014 1:49:04 PM PDT by Kaslin
The contrast between New Hampshire’s two candidates for U.S. Senate couldn’t have been clearer this past weekend. In one town, Senator Jeanne Shaheen spoke to the International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers over a pancake breakfast, and in another, former Senator Scott Brown received a rowdy and enthusiastic reception at a tailgate organized by College Republicans at the University of New Hampshire.
It sounds like a normal weekend in October, so why the significance? I can’t help but marvel at the juxtaposition: a traditional, pre-planned campaign event with the candidate as the main attraction and the other, a tailgate loosely organized mainly through text messages and social media, where the candidate dropped in to greet students. Here’s why it matters: the former represents the campaigns of Republicans’ past, while the latter exemplifies where we need to go in the future.
I understand the appeal (in theory) of the pancake breakfast: it’s a tame crowd contained within four walls, thus mitigating the possibility for the kind of unscripted moments that have sunk entire campaigns. In the age of smartphones and sophisticated research entities employing hundreds of trackers, however, is this still a reasonable expectation? We’re living in an age where just about anyone is capable of capturing the next Bruce Braley-“[just] a farmer from Iowa” gaffe at any time. And yet, it is precisely this fear – however unsubstantiated – that keeps our candidates away from campuses.
It means something to this generation when candidates come to their communities to talk to them. It’s what shows newly minted voters that our Party believes that their votes are worth earning; it’s what helps College Republicans and other conservative students expand their influence despite the pervasive liberalism in academia, and it’s what will help us win back points in the all-important “cares about people like me” category.
Reaching older voters is certainly important and this is where Republicans excel. We reach these generations with a great deal of thought put into television, radio, direct mail, and calls to landline phones, as well as relevant community events. In fact, I think we can all agree that as a function of both strategy and magnanimity, our Party should always aim to reach voters where they are. This, however, must necessarily include millennials, who decided the last presidential election and are playing a key role in midterm races. A candidate who doesn’t take money out of the budget or time out of the schedule to reach young voters presents much more than just a practical problem for our Party; it signals a dereliction of duty in passing our principles on to the next generation.
Scott Brown and his campaign team ought to be commended for getting it right. He came to campus with an open and artless demeanor and started a dialogue with young voters. When extraneous and inappropriate remarks were made in the raucous crowd (a foreseeable hazard of being on a college campus, and not at a College Republican event, I might add), his campaign appropriately condemned them, but didn’t allow it to detract from the prevailing message: Scott Brown is committed to reaching all of New Hampshire’s voters. I couldn’t be prouder of his courage to reach my generation in an unconventional way.
A campus by its nature is a loud and colorful kind of place – an energetic environment that should be enticing to candidates and campaigns, not objectionable. Millennials generally agree with our Party about limiting the size and scope of government and they become more disenchanted with President Obama and Democrats by the day. While they’re not entirely sold on Republicans, it’s because we have not made our pitch directly to them. With less than three weeks to go before the election and most of our elections being decided on the margins, my advice to candidates is to be bold, be disruptive, and go where young voters are – online and on campus. We can help.
I would suggest you never live in New Hampshire. I do not know where you live, but if you ever lived in the Northeast you would understand what us embattled conservatives must do time to time. In order not to lose every election, we have to accept less than a whole loaf to win once in a while, and hopefully move the ball a few yards down the field. If we ignored reality and ceded the whole field to the Democrats by fielding candidates who would never get more than 40% of the vote, what would that accomplish. So yes, we sometimes have to look the other way on some cultural issues so maybe we can not get taxed out of existence. It is easy to be pure when all around you feel the same way, but it is not easy when reality tells you that you are in a minority of 30%. So what do we do, we vote for the most conservative candidate available, even if that person is just slightly to the right of the Democrat. Why, because the only other chose is losing. And losing is for losers.
There are obviously some Democrat trolls posting on FR. This should not be any surprise.
LOL!
/bingo
/bingo
Routinely you are full of c*ap with your idiotic fantasies. No Republican voted for Obbamacare. It’s called reality. This bs of ignoring Obama and going on and on about Republicans is a cancer.
Isn’t it amazing you don’t live in any of these states, so what you would do if you did live there is about as relevant as your nonsense about how the GOP “would have” passed Obamacare, whereas in reality no Republican supported Obamacare.
Well, the ones that root for the democrats to win deserve it.
Thanks for the exact numbers on that.
The imbalance will only get worse.
Incredibly, a majority of Republicans still strongly supports LEGAL immigration:
2013 - Green Cards - 1.1 million
2013 - New Citizens - 750,000
The Democrats have legally added 20 million immigrant or first generation voters since the Reagan Amnesty in 1986.
But, if we lose in 2014, or lose in 2016, the pages of Free Republic will be filled with claims that:
(1) Conservatives stayed home.
(2) Or, the Democrats committed vote fraud.
I “nationalized” my comments on youth voting, but forgot the article was actually about Scott Brown.
Here's a fact that will shock you if you don't already know it:
In 2012, among all white voters in California, Romney beat Obama 53%-45%!
SA76,
Please be clear on two things:
Do you vote in NH: I hope not, if so you are part of the problem here
Do you really think Scott Brown is an honorable man?
Scoot Brown D Carpetbagger from mAss will lose... it will be another Eric Cantor event... with a ton of idiots going “how did that happen” The unknowing which is the majority of posters on FR do not understand the NH election fraud and willingness of the NH GOPe to enable it... Has nothing to do with ID at the polls and everything to do with independent voter registration and the domicile rules...
The democrats vote bombed the primary and Scoot Brown -D from mAss is now the so called repbulicant candidate. conservatives in NH will not vote for the man and his morals... he is just to far away from us on many issues, guns, marriage, sodomy and killing children.
Come election day 18-24,000 college student will show up in Durham, Plymouth and Keene, claiming domicile rights, shown an ID, sign a paper, vote democrat... couple at with Scooty Brown D carpet bagger from mAss and you will have Jean the Abortion Queen Shitheen as Senator ... again.
Sorry but there are zero conservatives and Christians in NH that will with a clear mind and conscience move their morals on the hope Mr. Brown will some how represent or be a part of a bigger picture that will help Christian beliefs be valued and part of a better America. They will choose neither on election day. There will be write ins and blanks.
Thank you.
Way too many Freepers don't understand that in the Northeast a Scott Brown is the best we're going to get right now. We aren't lucky enough to have an electorate up here to give us a Ted Cruz.
Does that mean I want him (or Christie or Romney or Jeb) as the GOP nominee? No. Does that mean I want people like him running the national party? Hell no.
But it does mean I'd rather have someone in office who votes the way I think 50% of the time than someone who votes that way NONE of the time.
As you said, let's move the ball forward when we can, not hand it to the other side and forfeit.
Are you talking about his Rye Beach Home? Sorry but I know the family he bought it from... ain’t been 30 years amigo..or was it the home in Portsmouth he inherited from his grand parents that he subsequently sold after he rented it out for years...
So what tax lot # on the map has his name associated with it as a primary residence for the past 30 years? Hellooooo or are you too busy calling Karl Rove or John Sununu Sr for a reply?
Although Brown makes me itch in unmentionable places, I would vote for him I would not have chosen him in the primary, if there was one. Running center Left, he has already lost to Princess Fauxcahontas, even with the excellent excuse of running in Massholia, that is not a great recommendation. Plus, his short term in the Senate didn't do anyone any good either.
Seriously, think about what you’re saying.
Scott Brown is the reason you’re not on mandatory universal Medicaid. That was what Martha Coakley wanted and what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were ready to pass. Then Scott Brown got in the way and Reid rushed through a terrible bill that actually would have been even worse if Brown didn’t walk on their big-government lovefest.
Show me one of your “true” conservative senators who has done as much service for this country as stopping a TOTAL government takeover of health insurance, delivery, and rights.
Stopping Obama from getting a judicial Express Lane for his court nominees requires a GOP Senate. We need every seat we can get, or else Obama will have free reign to install liberal SCOTUS drones. How does having a permanent Democratic branch of government installed over the next two years help us conservatives?
I used to live in NH and can tell you that Scott Brown is probably the only person on the planet who could send Shaheen into the private sector. They want their candidates “just so” and Brown hits the mark.
If Shaheen wins, I don’t want to hear any complaining when we have far-left law school professors who love Warren (Elizabeth or Earl are just as good to them) on SCOTUS. Seriously, don’t comment here or anywhere. The “RINO” trolls who can’t do math will be to blame if we have another Harry Reid Senate in January, when the Senate SHOULD be investigating Obama.
Scott Brown is the reason you’re not on mandatory universal Medicaid. That was what Martha Coakley wanted and what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were ready to pass. Then Scott Brown got in the way and Reid rushed through a terrible bill that actually would have been even worse if Brown didn’t walk on their big-government lovefest.
TEA Party support was the only reason Brown was elected. When he turned his back on the TEA Party he lost.
Too bad the GOPe refuses to learn from this.
Hold your nose and vote for Scott. He’s not as bad as Shaheen. Plus we gotta get rid of Reid.
Hold your nose and drink this. It’s only 10% raw sewerage. It’s not as bad as 50% raw sewerage.
Nada, none, Null, Zero, Zilch
Only because they weren't needed. If they needed more votes you can be sure “Maverick” McCain and his “Gang of Eight” would have ridden to the rescue.
Now, tell your GOPe buddies they area welcome to go the way of the whigs; that is, if they can pause from performing fellatio on their friends across the aisle long enough to hear you.
What a gracious post.
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.