Republican candidate endorses Democratic opponent for Congress - Page 2

fundingfather · 11-02-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Remember what happened when Lincoln Chafee and Wayne Gilchrest got primaried?

Let me see, Chafee was re-nominated with the full support of the Republican Party - but then went on to lose anyway. Is that what you mean?

lockn · 11-02-2009, 02:41 PM

Yes. He never recovered from the primary fight.

LakeWashington · 11-02-2009, 04:44 PM

And Fundingfather, Chafee's own sober words in the months following his loss in the general election were full of discontent with the national (i.e. southern and southwestern) Republican Party.

catahoula · 11-02-2009, 06:08 PM

Lieberman, rather than whining about a primary loss to an opponent supported by the fringe of his party, simply left it.

Seems to have turned out okay for him.

LogicWarrior · 11-02-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

The biggest mistake the Democrats are making and will continue to make is clinging to the notion that the moderates and independents are in FULL support of a leftist party.

They clearly prefer liberalism to conservativism though, going 2 to 1 for Obama in 08.

geeps20 · 11-02-2009, 07:25 PM

^ they chose the salesman obama, not liberalism.....40% of Americans say they are conservative, only 20% liberal...

xiggi · 11-02-2009, 07:31 PM

^^--^^

Only until they find out that the version of liberalism they were sold is quite different from today's reality, and even worse, a pale representation of what is coming in the next future. Liberalism is one thing; a leftist party another!

Fwiw, it's good to remember that a so-called liberal is happy to support a leftist as long as the spending comes from other people's pockets. And, no matter muck lipstick adorns the pig, few americans like an over-reaching government.

This will become more clear as the current crop of misfits attempts to push their plans down the throat of Americans.

catahoula · 11-02-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

They clearly prefer liberalism to conservativism though, going 2 to 1 for Obama in 08.

And the erosion in his poll numbers can be largely attributed to independents that were confused by that "hope and change" message.

Who was it, btw, that sang... "I can see clearly now, the rain is gone"? With a word change, or two, it seems so... appropriate.

catahoula · 11-02-2009, 11:26 PM

The NY Times weighs in on the issue of '08 vs now, and where the decay in support has come from:

Quote:

Pauline McAreavy voted for President Obama. From the moment she first saw him two years ago, she was smitten by his speeches and sold on his promise of change. She switched parties to support him in the Iowa caucuses, donated money and opened her home to a pair of young campaign workers.

Quote:

In Iowa, Ms. McAreavy fears that the president’s health care plan will shortchange her Medicare benefits and mean infrequent mammogram examinations. She worries that his decision on Afghanistan will mean that her son, a member of the Iowa National Guard, will return to the battlefield. And she believes that too many of Mr. Obama’s actions are rooted in Democratic politics.

“All my Republican friends — and independents — are sitting back saying, ‘Oh, what did we do?” Ms. McAreavy said. “I’m not to that point yet, but a lot of people are.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/us...cs/03year.html

poetsheart · 11-03-2009, 12:38 AM

God himself could come down to earth and campaign for Cree Deeds, and he'd still lose. Deeds is just an awful candidate who has run a terribly inept campaign. His image couldn't be any worse. He reminds me of the kid the school bully use to beat up in gym class, and he comes off as a loser, a strident whiner. Plus, what does he propose to do for Virginia? All I see are his negatives ads that strike the same tired note, which Bob McDonald has neutralized very effectively.

Now McDonald, on the other hand, is a very impressive candidate. My gosh, I hardly even know where to start. He's got charisma to burn with his clean cut, golden boy, all-American good looks. His ads feature him looking straight into the camera with sparkling blue eyes and calm confidence, telling Virgina what he'll do for us. And he appears as trust-worthy as the day is long. All his opponent has been able to throw at him are allegations of extreme religious conservatism, and sexism stemming from a thirty year old thesis. His counter-ads have been very effective, setting people's minds to rest on that issue. My H and I were watching one of his ads during the evening news hour recently, and I said, "You know, that Bob McDonald looks positively Presidential. If he plays his cards right, he may be just the thing the Republican Party needs in either '12 or '16. He agreed (sorry Sarah

). The guy is just plain impressive.

If he were the Democrat, he'd still be way ahead in the polls, because for us non-partisans, moderates and Independents, it's not the party, it's the candidate. I believe Bob McDonald will make a very good governor. We've been very fortunate in our state to have pretty good governors, whether Democratic or Republican in the last number of years (I believe Virginia is ranked as one of the best run states in the union). Mark Warner was great, and I believe Tim Kane has been very good also. They're both Democrats. Moderate Democrats.

poetsheart · 11-03-2009, 12:55 AM

Oh, and I wouldn't say that a McDonald win would signal a "referendum" on Obama. Deeds is just a dog of a candidate. From what I understand, Corzine hasn't been Mr. Popularity for a long time, either.

bulletandpima · 11-03-2009, 10:02 AM

I agree Deeds ran a poor campaign, and what hurt him was the mud slinging. McDonnell choose to put a positive spin by running ads of high level women he placed and were democrats that showed it was his youthful ignorance that caused him to have that belief. His commercial of his DD sering in the military also helped. Deeds did not get it, at least in No VA people are tired of the negative ads. What will actually worry the WH is if No VA (fairfax county especially) goes Red.

mam1959 · 11-03-2009, 11:16 AM

Christie is a weak candidate. The only reason he is in the hunt (and might win) is that Corzine has overseen bloated tax and spend policies. Even New Jerseyians are not exempt from a tax revolt.

bulletandpima · 11-03-2009, 11:30 AM

I just heard that the Democratic party did robo calls to voters supporting Daggett against Christie. I am sure it was in hopes that the republicans would vote for him and Corzine could win that way.

Dems try to boost Daggett in robocalls - First Read - msnbc.com

Quote:

In New Jersey, the state Democratic party appears to be running robocalls targeting Republican base voters, bashing Chris Christie (R) and urging them to "Remember Chris Daggett's words: 'It's never wrong to vote for the right person.'"

Which brings us back on topic, but reverse...dems support an independent...in a round about way. If this is what they have to resort to get a W in the column for Corzine that is pretty sad.

LakeWashington · 11-03-2009, 12:05 PM

I'm skeptical of the NJ story alleging that Dems are making robo calls asking Republicans to support the Independent Daggett. That's a strategy with no clear benefit but lots of risk of backfiring once it hit the news media, which of course would ultimately find out. Corzine's problem today is his base and Independents who typically vote for Dems. The base is NJ's urban core, Essex County [Newark], Camden County and Hudson County [Jersey City]. That's were he's spending his time. Corzine won't find much support raking for votes in NJ's horse county, Highlands, or in the Beverly Hills Mansion neighborhoods of the north.