Redstate

Kos is talking how turning around the margin from 2004 to something this close is a victory. Shallow victory. Coming close is still losing, especially since this candidate had to forsake his liberal core to the public face. It therefore follows that in order to be competitive in 2006, they need to do a celeb makeover of all of the hard left candidates so that they look.... Republican?

• Fundraising in a vacuum
  
• No up/down ticket races
  
• Laser focus by liberal bloggers and local media

Still a loss. All rules of political science out the window, and they come close.

60 votes is looking better all the time.

That was the kiss of death for Howard Dean so I figured maybe Gore jinxed Hackett, too.  

Then again, he didn't need the Gore jinx or the Bob Shrum jinx.  He had "THE KOS JINX"!

"pants around their ankles"?  what are you insinuating?  

anyway, thanks for your "analysis".

if a guy who refers to the president as stupid wins 48% in a very republican district, i'd say you would  be foolish to ignore it.

so one cannot move aggressively or run. You might have gleaned the meaning from the prior sentence.

Our local Air American affiliate has just declared that we (Republicans) stole "another election."

Heh, that Karl Rove, what a scamp! ;)

GOP Margins of victory over the past 5 races:

2005. 52% to 48%
      
      
2004. 72% to 28%
      
      
2002. 74% to 26%
      
      
2000. 74% to 23%
      
      
1998. 76% to 24%

The Dems at the KOS are saying that this is "proof" that the Dean strategy is working. Is the Dean Strategy to run people who pretend to be Republican? Have you guys watched his commercial with the President? They are saying he did well because he bashed the President, he did well because he pretended to SUPPORT the President.

Many more times than dissing the President he used his ads to feign support and gain votes.

A true DU, Moving-On faithful candidate would have come full bore with his Bush hate; you must be dissapointed.

Remember these numbers 316 to 93.

That's turnout in thousands vs. last election and this special election.

For real...  No excuses.

Sending money to progressives across the south and the west and other "red" districts.  Why focus on places you can win?  There has to be a progressive Water Sanitation Board Member somewhere in Mississippi who needs Kos money to beat Trent Lott in 2006!

He called the president "stupid".

. . .that state GOPs need to re-learn the lesson of Bill Simon and Alan Keyes:  don't run stiffs for important offices.  Bad things happen when you do.

Although, not so much this time--hope they don't get the wrong message from that.

A 70-30 district got turned into a 52-48 district, and all the point by point snarky blustering in the world won't change that.

I honestly think you guys would be a little bit more openly worried had the result been 58-42 or so, and had Schmidt never been down during the ballot count. But it appears to me that the 52-48 result was so close that you've been forced to adopt a mocking and ridiculous "big lie" to excuse the Ohio GOP's performance. Had it been a wide margin there would've been comforting, constructive, and interesting talk about how you could ensure your smaller margins nationwide were maintained. Now, instead, a panicked defensiveness is manifesting itself in this bizarre delusional glee over simply retaining a seat you already had, but with a 20 point swing that nearly let a Democrat win.

I'm amazed -- and gladdened considering an oblivious and puffed up opponent is easier to beat -- by how some of you refuse to see the gravity of this situation. But go ahead, laugh it up, you did in fact win this time and managed just barely to retain a seat you already had, but we'll see what happens in 2006.

2006: 65-35

But the Republican won't be Schmidt.  She loses in the primary to a Club for Growth candidate.  

But to pretend that this is something to be proud of does not make a lot of sense. Schmidt should have buried the Democrat, regardless of endorsements.

Also, consider the contents of the diary, most of which is spent taking shots at DKos, who does not represent the Democratic Centrist Mainstream, and the other half spinning an election victory. Oh, and talking about elections that took place more than six months ago.

Scoreboard, is usually all that is said in such a situation, odd to see otherwise here. If I were a Rebublican, especially an Ohio Republican, I would not draw comfort from this result. It could be a blip on the radar, and no sign of things to come, but that is not usually the case with these sorts of things...

. . . because it was a special election and he didn't have to spend a long time campaigning or even developing a political platform beyond "I'm a veteran and I own guns."

Chances are if it was a longer race and the voters in the district got a chance to know the candidate and his positions, he wouldn't have done nearly so well.  

Erick's correct; this guy tried to do it on the basis of his bio and came close during a special election when the Ohio GOP was embroiled in scandal.  This may have been their one bite at the apple.

But Hackett's loss reinforces the fact that the dems have a branding problem (similar to the one the GOP has in California).

Until someone with some guts steps up to the plate and addresses this brand problem, the dems will continue losing elections.  Even to Republicans that no one feels really passionate about.

Howard Dean won't address the problem.  and dkurse's answer to the problem is to move the party to the far left.  Neither of these alternatives will solve the problem.

Just keep telling yourself that there is no problem.  The democratic party is in good hands.  In a hundred years there may be another depression and then, maybe, the dems will pick up a few seats.

Serious trouble down the road and this backbiting isn't fixing any of it.

Yea, i'm sure this commercial was supposed to show his strong hate for the President:

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/7/18/62411/9376

right?

yea....

but does she at least get a chance to prove her credentials as a CfG conservative?

uh...not.

As in the previous story.

Might I recommend my most recent work on the OH GOP and its major problems.

I think it's obvious that there are a couple things that happened here.

1. Bad Republican candidate made it through 4-way primary with 31% of the vote.
   
2. Leftist Veteran Democratic candidate excited the leftist partisans in the district (and online)
   
3. OH GOP is in a poor state right now and their hand chosen candidate came in 4th of the 4 major primary candidates.

How much each of these factors matters is hard to ascertain.  I think that 2006 with its GOV and SEN races will up turnout from 91K to closer to the 300+K that happened in 2004.  Thus the 20-30K hardcore liberals in the the district will be drowned out by the Republican tilt overall.  Hopefully one of the GOV, SEN, CON candidates will excite conservatives in 2006.

The main two leasons I got from this are:

1. In a staunchly conservative district, run a staunch conservative not a moderate.
   
2. The OH GOP needs to wakeup, now.

You usually do well around here, but you seem to have either not read, or ignored points 1-6 in the OP.  All of which are reasons for the close result, all of which won't repeat at the next turn (one would hope).  So, in a fairly bad position for an election, to still win, is a good thing.  Margin of winning is all fine and dandy to talk about, but its fairly pointless to yap about it in a special election.


You are welcome to claim a moral victory.  I don't know anyone who is gonna stop you, but I will continue to enjoy a -real- victory.  I suspect others will join me.
-bro

Remember, he boasted after the election that his efforts forced the GOP to expend much effort and money to actually pull off victory over the Kos Dozen?  He boasted "mission accomplished."

If Kos had been a US cavalry staff officer in 1876, he probably would have spun Little Big Horn as an Army victory.  After all, Custer did force the Indians to tire out their horses and expend much ammunition as they annihilated most of the 7th Cavalry.

Will the left stop internet funding?

Nope.  We are going to continue supporting our candidates.  

Gloat all you want about a 70-30 district turning into a 52-48 district.  Continue making excuses that Schmidt was just a bad candidate, Hackett a good one.

While I would have preferred that Hackett won this election, the fact that he came this close in such a heavily republican district is quite a nice suprise.  I never expected it.

So go ahead and get your ha ha's in.  Savor this moment.

Republicans received a shot across the bow tonight, and if your too busy to notice, that is fine by me.

This was the first test of Dean's 50 state strategy, and it exceeded expectations.

They already ran ads against her this time.  But with 4 primary candidates, she won with 31%.  If it's a two-way race with a CFG candidate and her, she's toast.

I already stated my preference that Republicans believe this isn't important, that they remain gleeful and oblivious. I don't think 1994 would've been a banner year for the Republicans had Democrats anywhere actually believed the GOP when they said they were going to lead a grassroots charge throughout the nation. Why would they believe it?! The GOP's full of crazy people, and Clinton just won the election, so who cares about the polls, about the issues, no way will they defeat us since they haven't in the past!

Ugh, that delusional confidence just very very recently died and it served us poorly. So anyway, the less serious resistance, the more defensive mocking, and the more you take on all the woeful attributes of underestimation and ridicule that used to belong to the Democrats the better.

I lived in the Cincinnati area for 10 years.  I lived in Westchester and worked with lots of people from 02.  Those folks are conservative over there.  I figured it would be 67%-33% Schmidt.  

And KOS 0-16?  I live in South Dakota now and I seem to recall Kossacks supporting Herseth who is now my rep.  I also recall the NRA endorsing her and lots of people around here citing that when the said they'd vote for her.  Hackett is another seemingly pro-gun Dem.

Take the gun issue away and it's a big loss to the GOP out here in rural America...

I'll put $50 down that Republicans control the House after the 2006 election.  You can talk a big talk about this being a harbinger.  But I want to see you put your money where your mouth is.

Do we have a deal?

very hard, because she was a weaker candidate.

Nope, they were in fact 0-16.

"Will the right now recognize that it needs social conservatives who are also fiscal conservatives?"

I agree with that entirely, but I think it's more important just to have all-around good candidates.  I think getting into the label game is dangerous.  You end up with guys like Tim Pawlenty being litmus-tested out of the party because of some silly cigarette tax as part of a midnight budget compromise.  Instead, I think we should run the best candidate we can find for any given seat, being careful to find candidates that stand for conservatism as a package but not freaking out about any single deficiency.  And more leeway should be given on many issues to Republicans trying to win in liberal states/districts, of course.

But as a general principle, I agree that this could be the revenge of the fiscal-cons.  While the nat'l GOP has definitely given us pro-growth policies over the last five years, their drunken-sailor spending is clearly inexusable and has to stop.

Put me down for $75 that we keep both the House and the Senate after the 2006 elections.

If she sticks to her stated positions on Social Security reform, RTKBA, pro-life, and securing our borders then I can see her exciting the base in 2006.

My preference would be that she start to develop some credentials by redeeming her reputation for supporting higher spending otherwise I hope she's defeated in the primary by a CfG-style fiscal conservative who will.

Don't get me wrong, I would've LOVED a victory. And there is going to be spin on both sides now, but the end result is there's another R from Ohio.

Schmidt was unappealing, absolutely, and that played a large part in the enormous shift in the vote from 2004. But a LOT of Republicans nationwide are big spenders and pork barrel fillers. Some, especially in Ohio, are involved to varying degrees in the sort of scandals that come along with entrenched incumbency.

On the Dem side of the aisle, nothing is stopping other Democrats from using Bush in ads, however much that drives you nuts. Nothing is stopping other Dem war vets from running, even if you think it's disingenuous flag-draping. Nothing is stopping reasonable and forceful platform Hackett adopted -- I admit it wasn't fleshed out due to the quick turnaround of this race -- from being the new norm for the Dems in the South, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain West. Nothing is stopping a more winnable race from accruing similar cash from the lefty grassroots.

Nothing is preventing these same conditions, though likely to a lesser degree, from being present in 2006 races.

So yes, I agree there were many factors in this race -- so many it's impossible to parse -- and Hackett came so close to winning I now wonder if he should have won. But the race he ran was not extraordinary and he isn't some one-shot deal. The reason this can be spun at all is that his opponent was just repulsive and yet still won, barely. My point is merely that there are a LOT of districts you guys think are safe that have margins much less than 70-30%, and you shouldn't pin all the shift on Schmidt, nor should you assume there aren't other Hacketts, at long long long last, in the Democratic stables somewhere.

But tonight you all DID retain your seat, and so gloating about that in particular -- as opposed to what I think will be a stormy future if you don't take this seriously -- is perfectly understandable.

Rep. Herseth is basically a DINO - she's probably to the right of some Republicans. She's generally good on every issue except abortion - and unlike Hackett she didn't engage in blatant Bush bashing. (Unlike Sen. Tim Johnson, who should have known better.)

The average voter doesn't see quotes, they see commercials.

For the record, Herseth and Chandler were strongly supported by DailyKos and won their races.  The Kos strategy is a long-term one - building up the Party by competing where the GOP is favored so the GOP isn't the default choice for voters.  A win by a previously unknown Democrat in this race would have been a stunning upset in this district, so a narrow victory is hardly something to celebrate.

A 2006 House shift is something the "Hackett by 10" crowd was pushing. Even with that supposed GOP analysis (if Hackett comes within 10 Dems may take the House) was authentic I still wouldn't believe it. Keep in mind I had predicted -- earlier today on Kos -- a 58-42 Schmidt victory. So, I'm not mad with delusions of a revolution, and despite my referencing it I don't think Dems will likely have nearly the number of victories of Newt's GOP in '94.

But, hey, $50 ain't too much, so even though I'll likely lose it, you're on. Unless I do, in fact, get into the Peace Corps -- second round of  medical stuff now in their hands -- and am in Botswana or something. If I can't actively campaign I can't make assurances and I won't bet money. I'll let you know what happens with that. There are, after all, far better ways to lose money than by betting in your side. Well, at least psychologically.

The CFG should help, but it will need to be a longtime local - not a first timer.

The new angle for Schmidt is that she's not from Cincinnati - Clermont county is once removed, and she's not from the Hamilton County (Cincinnati) GOP family. There is a long rich history there, going all the way back to the beginning of the party. If the CFG convinces one of their folks to run, they should win.

Schmidt's advantage, though, is that the district is no longer dominantly Cincinnati - still a majority, but when I lived there, and going back 100 years, it was one of the 2 seats which Hamilton county had. Now, it's about 30% rural east of cincy, and only a little over 50% still in Hamilton County - the other 20% is far suburban Cincinnati.

All together, a series of discrete changes, which the democrats came as close as they'll likely get for another 20 years.

He's pretty well cemented his place in history as the Joe Shlabotnik of lefty political gurus.  Perhaps someday, he'll hit that one bloop single (a 50.5% win in a 70% Dem state legislative district) and we can all give him a standing O for his moment in the sun.

Nothing is stopping other Dem war vets from running, even if you think it's disingenuous flag-draping. Nothing is stopping reasonable and forceful platform Hackett adopted

Since I am hardly an across the board R, I would welcome the above.  Two strong parties is a good thing.

My point is merely that there are a LOT of districts you guys think are safe that have margins much less than 70-30%, and you shouldn't pin all the shift on Schmidt, nor should you assume there aren't other Hacketts, at long long long last, in the Democratic stables somewhere.

I would say this is the case on both sides of the aisle, which again, I think is a good thing.
-bro

with your 20-something seat margin, and shiny new districts to boot.

I'll take 2 to 1 odds on the Dems gaining both house and Senate (despite slim pickings) seats next year, and even odds on more than 5 house seats.  You gotta like those odds, you overconfident Republicans you.

Ready to escrow?

I am.

Candidates need to be evaluated as a package including their position(s) on an array of issues, competence, character, and electability.  All too often it seems that the larger and more complex person is missed in an effort to fit someone into a pre-constructed little box and it doesn't help that our MSM and both parties have operated for long by defining someone by a prewritten narrative (e.g. Bush is stupid, Kerry is weak, etc.).  One of my hopes for the blogosphere is that rather than serving as a bullhorn for this paradigm, it challenges it by allowing people to access real information to get a more complete and accurate picture of issues, events, and the people involved.

Thanks BTW for your comments about our governor. He's genuinely an all-around good guy and right on the issues 95 percent of the time.  I'm not going to let this one setback define him and I hope that most of my party does the same.

Will the left stop internet funding?

Nope.  We are going to continue supporting our candidates.

And those candidates will continue to lose.

Gloat all you want about a 70-30 district turning into a 52-48 district.  Continue making excuses that Schmidt was just a bad candidate, Hackett a good one.

Except Schmidt was a bad candidate, and Hackett was trying to play the donkey in elephant's clothing. If you think that OH-2 will stay a 52-48 district given a halfway decent candidate, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...

While I would have preferred that Hackett won this election, the fact that he came this close in such a heavily republican district is quite a nice suprise.  I never expected it.

Most everyone else did. Schmidt was a very weak candidate. The Kossacks poured $400K into this race - and they still couldn't win in a swing state against a terrible candidate.

So go ahead and get your ha ha's in.  Savor this moment.

Hey, anytime Kos once again gets humiliated it's a good day...

Republicans received a shot across the bow tonight, and if your too busy to notice, that is fine by me.

A shot across the bow that missed by a mile...

This was the first test of Dean's 50 state strategy, and it exceeded expectations.

Talk about lowered expectations then - having the blind leading the blind in a stategy that has produced loss after loss after loss.

Sometimes I think that the Democratic Party is secretly being run by Karl Rove...

Move RS offshore so it can set up a book for offers like this.

Or we could all adjourn from RS and readjourn here - http://www.tradesports.com/

in different forms of media.  for those voters who are scared of gays and don't read, you're all set...  that's extreme, but you get my drift.

I lived Cincinnati the first twenty-years of my life, first in West Chester, than in Anderson Township.  The fact that Schmidt could only pull of a 2 point win in this reddest of red district has to be a wake up call to the state GOP.

I mean, Hackett called the president an SOB and all kinds of other names and still almost pulled off a win.  I'm not saying the sky is falling, but for statewide races, the GOP has to put up strong numbers in Southern Ohio to offset the more Democratic areas.  I hope they wake up and start cleaning out the corruption in Columbus.

I'm always impressed with the amount of knowledge we have stored up as a group.  Thanks for the details.

I think McEwan could take it with CFG support.  Otherwise, a local State Rep or Sen will be prodded into running.  It is an ideal CFG district.  The incumbent won't lose in the general (even if the re-match happens).  So they don't tempt fate like they would against someone like Chafee.  The candidate is already a target of CFG with ads alread run against her.  And the district showed that they barely support her (and the base was no where to be found).  It might not happen, but if I were at CFG* my eyes would be on this district.

*I do write for their Social Security Blog and I am a member.  I do not have any say in their decisions as an organization.

I don't get it. He's fiscally conservative, is a 2nd amendment supporter, and is pro military. Oh, I see, since Bush is only the second one these days, Hackett must be something else that Bush is not.

Does this make Bob Shrum the Kos of Consulting, or Kos the Bob Shrum of supporting? It's like the chicken or the egg question.

The real story of the night is the liberals' redefinition of "victory".  For those interested, I have posted about that here: http://republicansenate.blogspot.com/2005/08/liberal-victory.html

I placed a bet on the Rove indictment.

It's just great when people tell you what you know and don't know.  Love it.

OK, here: I'll pony up 50$, Adam C 25$.  If the Repubs make a net seat gain or break even in EITHER the house or Senate in the 2006 midterms, I'll, say, donate my 50$ to redstate or other charity to be chosen by Adam C.  If Dems make gains in both, Adam C gives his 25$ to... johnkerry.com!  We can print out donation receipts to prove it.

Sounds fair?  I just hope this site is still up in a year and a half.  I'll be here unless you go on a  anti-liberal jihad and finally ban me.

Share with the evidence that Hackett is either a Second Amendment* supporter and a fiscal conservative.

* Keeping in mind that we've all learned a long time ago that a candidate who talks about "hunting and gun collecting" rather than "gun rights" and "RTKBA" is often just another name for "Al Gore" and "John Kerry."

so a narrow victory is hardly something to celebrate

A "win is a win", so that is worth celebrating.

But no one around here is celebrating the margin of victory. Everybody here realizes there are problems in OH.

The question is what to do about them.

But the DKos crowd will be sorely disappointed if they think Republicans are just going to "go to sleep" after this narrow win.

And they'll be in even worse shape if they spin this as a "win" for themselves...

He called the Commander and Chief a "chickenhawk."  I'm not sure how that is pro-military. He didn't get ardent lefty blogosphere support for nothing.  Sure he has left his actual position on most issues ambiguous on purpose, but his demeanor is not exactly hard to parse.

And the NRA endorsed Schmidt, FWIW.

"fiscally conservative" is now code for "I will raise your taxes (and then spend even MORE)"

I forget where, but somewhere else here in RS someone pointed out that CFG backed DeWine Jr, against Schmidt in the primary - at first glance this made sense, but only at first glance. The primary was basically a series of parts of candidates - run their strong points all together and your fine, but no one of them is strong alone.

CFG can find a better pick the next go round.

And if you do go to the Peace Corps, please be sure to email at doverspa {at} doverspa.com before you go.  I enjoy imparting my learned wisdom to outgoing PCV (Peace Corps Volunteers).  And I'm quite envious of your Botswana placement.  It is an interesting country that many other African nations could learn a lot from.

So you're off the hook if you're not stateside.

And you redeemed yourself in my eyes after backing off the 1994 comparison.  I can see a situation where 06 breaks for Ds, but not by much especially considering the "6 year curse" on the President's party.

My way too early prediction is R +1 in the SEN and D +3 in the CON... which by the way is a trade I'm happy to make.

In football and politics, when you have a team defeated, you need to put them away.  For all the tut-tutting by the Democrats that they made the 2nd Congressional District competitive tonight, they still failed to seal the deal.  In politics, a week is a lifetime.  The 2006 election is over a year away and the political climate in the 2nd CD will undoubtedly change -- and not to the benefit of the Democrats.  They had the perfect opportunity to steal a relatively safe Republican seat, yet couldn't deliver.  The conditions -- a weak GOP candidate, a strong Democratic candidate, and dissatisfaction with the state GOP -- were ripe for a take-over, yet they couldn't do it.  

As in football, in politics you never play the same game twice.  Don't fool yourselves into thinking that this opportunity will exist a year even a month from now.    

I was unaware of Poolitics.

I also have no idea what you know or don't know - take that up with Krempasky. But I cannot see RS going away in the next year or two, and banning seems in order only for the profane, or those stuck in "Known Fact" ruts.

Too much can happen.  I was calling the bluff above because of the big Dems in 2006 = Reps in 1994 comparison that is making waves on the leftosphere.  It seems too much like the Kerry's going to win by a landslide predictions coming from the same people (in general).  I'm an optimist, but sometimes parts of the "reality-based community" provide a nice irony.

"Losers always whine about doing their best....Winners go home and ** the prom queen" - Sean Connery in The ROCK

I heard him state these positions on the radio. I chose to take them at face value.

Pride cometh before the fall my friend.

Come back next Spring and we'll see how the matchups are in the Senate.  I think Ds will pick up in the house, but the SEN looks good this far out.  With Hoeven, Steele, and a strong candidate in either FL, NE, or TN I think Rs gain.

It seems like if you are counting this special election the Kos candidate lost in the "0-16", you ought to also count the two special elections where the Kos candidate won.

Wait, you're doverspa? We've talked about the Peace Corps before when I first posted at RedState a month or so ago. And here I was hoping there were TWO reasonable people here, and it turns out they were both the same person! (Kidding).

Botswana was just my hypothetical stand in for a "far away place." Since I haven't been medically cleared yet I haven't been invited so who knows where I'm going, if anywhere.

From Hacket's campaign site:

Social Security - against personal retirement accounts and wants to raise taxes

On the economy he's echoing the protectionist "they're outsourcing our jobs" line and seems to be defining "what makes America great" in terms of industrial policy.

Environment - gave no specifics on his site but talks about "4.5 percent of the people using 25 percent of the world's energy" which is the sort of factoid that only impresses the hard core left since most of us realize that using energy to create things like wealth and prosperity is a good thing

Health Care - he gives no specifics other than that he wants to spend more tax dollars on it and seems to be trying to resurrect the "I'm for the people, they're for the powerful" line.  Also the apples-to-oranges comparison about what countries spend as a percentage of their GDP on health care without looking at what they're spending it on is generally a sign of someone who's setting us up for a "every other nation has a nationalized health plan and so should we" line, particularly since he talks about health care in terms of government rather than things like association health plans.

Also, the guy's a personal injury attorney which while in itself is not dispositive, is usually a fair indication of where someone's politics lean.

dedicated Kossacks flew in from all over the country to help Rodney Alexander win a House seat.

About 2 years before Alexander switched to the Republican Party.

Keep up the good work!

Particularly when they try to unseat moderate Republican incumbants?  

On this thread.

It's really quite simple. The GOP had a divisive primary, were up against a well-funded Dem in a low-turnout special election, and had a weak candidate. And the Republican still won.

I'm not surprised by the furious spinning-- though few people actually care. The Democrats need to believe they are "winning" to motivate their wastes of time and money. And guess what: more power to them. If they think they should spend hundreds of thousands in solid GOP districts, not only could I care less, but I applaud them.

Now, smart Democrats mostly realize they are still in some pretty deep crap as a party. But don't tell kos and his minions-- they are great for Republicans. They go all-out to elect candidates that either a) lose or b) turn out to be fairly conservative (Bean, Herseth), at which time they turn on them and devote hundreds and thousands of posts to bashing them.

In any case, apparently kossacks and various other loonies are convinced they are going to retake Congress in 2006. Good. Intelligent decisions rely more on accurate information than anything else (with a given set of information even wackos often can assemble something close to rationality). So a nice little portion of the left now misunderstands the political climate even worse than they did before.

In fairness, the left is desperate. Dying creatures always are.

Just call me Token.

You've got some time if you aren't medically cleared yet.  It takes a few months after that to give you a bid and then a few more to leave the country.  I probably mentioned it before, but I was Medically Separated after two months.  I'd still be in Kenya if I hadn't gotten sick.  Best of luck with your adventure (and I encourage you to use a blog as your main medium of exchange).  That's how I started blogging.

Their focus is on open primaries like this one.  According to their website, they won 17 of the 22 races where they fully endorsed a candidate and recommended them to voters.

The two biggest wins for the CFG in 2004 were Sens. Coburn (OK) and Demint (SC) who both won tough primaries against better-known opponents (Mayor Humphries and ex-Gov Beasley) and then went on to win their respective general elections.  They almost knocked off Specter in a primary and the Representative who almost won (Toomey) is now in charge of the Club For Growth.

I'm not sure about their record against incumbents.  But this is a great opportunity for them to score a win against someone they have already come out against.

I am a conservative Republican, but I would very much disagree with this assessment. I was IMing with two conservative GOP bloggers this evening, as the results were rolling in, and they were very concerned that the Democrats would win this seat... Even as it appeared that Schmidt would win, they were upset at how close it was allowed to have become. I think that despite Hackett not winning, the results of this race may have been indicative of a serious disconent - not only among liberals and Democrats - but also among moderates, conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans, at the way that the GOP Establishment has been acting, at both the Ohio state as well as national levels... with regard to its embrace of leftist/neocon and statist policies on both domestic and foreign affairs. That was also one reason why the presidential election was so close... And Ohio was the pivotal state that determined the election. The close results of tonights congressional race - in a district that has been solidly Republican since the 1960s send a message to the GOP Establishment that their continued pursuit of the 'centrist' and neoconservative approach to national and international issues is costing them - not only among the public at large, but within our party base as well. If our party leaders don't take major steps to correct these problems, things may not turn out too well in the future.

And those candidates will continue to lose.

Really?  Thats what Democrats said in 94'.  But I guess you have that clairvoyance thing all worked out.  It must be awesome to be able to know exactly what is going to happen in the future.  Republicans will always win and Democrats will always lose.  Keep believing that, please.

Except Schmidt was a bad candidate, and Hackett was trying to play the donkey in elephant's clothing. If you think that OH-2 will stay a 52-48 district given a halfway decent candidate, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you..

No thanks on the bridge.  But I heard your boy Bush thinks Rafael Palmeiro didn't mean to ingest all those steroids.  I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that he might be interested in.  

Schmidt was a bad candidate.  But your missing the larger story of the Ohio GOP being engulfed in scandal.  But go ahead, chalk it up to a one time event.  Like I said, that is fine by me.  Either way, Hackett ran in the roughest part of Ohio and almost won.

But don't let that stop you from making your awesome predictions.  I mean, look at the district over the past 7 years:

2004. 72% to 28%
      
      
2002. 74% to 26%
      
      
2000. 74% to 23%
      
      
1998. 76% to 24%

Tonight?  52% to 48%

Most everyone else did. Schmidt was a very weak candidate. The Kossacks poured $400K into this race - and they still couldn't win in a swing state against a terrible candidate.

And?  All your proving is that the left is willing to stand by their candidates and fight the good fight.  You expect us to quit?  Sorry, that isn't going to happen.

Remember, the NRCC had to spend 285k at the last minute for an absolutely huge ad buy.  That was supposed to "bury" Hackett.  Oops.

Hey, anytime Kos once again gets humiliated it's a good day...

Actually, kos didn't throw his weight behind Hackett until 3 days ago.  He has been too busy traveling the country talking to actual people out there in the heartland.  You must be confusing kos with Atrios who has been linking people to the Hackett campaign for about a week and a half.  But it is nice that the left can raise huge amounts of money from small donations in less than 2 weeks, isn't it?  Thank you for noticing.  Get used to it.  Were not going away anytime soon, much to your chagrin.

A shot across the bow that missed by a mile..

If the election had been 60-40, or even 58-42, perhaps you would be right.  But considering that only one Democrat has gained more than 30% of the vote in this district over the past 20 years, this was a massive surprise to the Ohio GOP.  Hacket got 48% of the vote in what is arguably the most conservative district in Ohio.  Thats a 13 point swing from 2004.

Yah, we missed by a mile.  Thats it!  Keep telling yourself that, much like an ostrich buries its head in the sand.  Like I said, assume that everything is A-OK with the Ohio GOP.  That is fine with me!

I don't doubt that the Republicans will be back full force in 2006.  It remains to be seen whether they can contain the damage that the Ohio GOP coingate scandal has created.  Only time will tell.

Talk about lowered expectations then - having the blind leading the blind in a stategy that has produced loss after loss after loss.

Actually, this is the first test of Dean's strategy.  That makes your statement is incorrect.  Our expectations were for this election to go 56-44 at best.  Like I said we went from 70-30 to 48-52.  If you don't realize why we are so happy after this election, than you don't know much about politics.

I know, I know.  Schmidt was a bad candidate.  Hackett was a, what was it? Oh yeah, a donkey in elephants clothing.  Excuses excuses.

As for Karl Rove, talk to me after Fitzgerald announces the end of his investigation.

Well, you know, the Dems put on a really good show here. They played to win. Rome wasn't built in a day. It's a long season. They're gonna take it one week at a time. They need to go the extra mile; give it 110%... play like there's no tomorrow.

And Hackett must feel somewhat good. Tonight was the closest he'll ever be to winning a significant office.

I got $50 that Hackett is not OH-02 Representative after 2006.

And/or I got $50 that Republicans control at least one house of Congress after the 2006 elections.

I just want to see if you're all talk or not.  We got a deal?

just before this that the OH GOP needs to wake up.

But I think you (and many on the left) take it a bit far.  There are several aspects to this "perfect storm" for Ds:

1.  A bad Republican candidate who grass roots activists opposed won a primary with 31% of the vote in a 4-way split.
   
2.  An Iraqi War veteran Democratic ran ads that touted the President and hid his views on most issues in the short campaign season.
   
3.  A special election has low turnout allowing activists to make up a greater part of the actual votes.  Dem activists were excited.  Rep activists weren't.
   
4.  The OH GOP is in shambles.

How much do each of these contribute to the problem?  That's the real question.  I think we should focus on fixing the OH GOP, but I don't think that is the major cause for this shift.  If this was a national phenomenon, then polls would show 20% support for the President, not 45+%.  Remember that President Bush is only the third President to never drop below 40% approval (after Eisenhower and Kennedy).  Both Reagan and Clinton fell below 40, Bush never has.

Finally, I think the two major lessons are thus:

1.  Run a conservative who excites activists in conservative districts (especially in a special election).
   
2.  The OH GOP needs to wake up... now!

(oops!)

The Ohio 2nd Congressional District has voted heavily Republican in the recent past:

1994 Rob Portman (R) 77%

1996 Rob Portman (R) 76%

1998 Rob Portman (R) 76%

2000 Rob Portman (R) 74%

2002 Rob Portman (R) 74%

2004 Rob Portman (R) 72%

These results could be primarily due to a personally very popular candidate instead of an ideological preference so let's look at previous results:

1992 Willis Gradison (R) 70%

1990 Willis Gradison (R) 64%

1988 Willis Gradison (R) 72%

1986 Willis Gradison (R) 71%

1984 Willis Gradison (R) 69%

1982 Willis Gradison (R) 63% (4 way race)

I'd say that a 52-48 defeat was a remarkable achievement in this heavily Republican district.

Adam hits the nail on the head.  If this was a district that didn't have a average to below average candidate, a mess at the state party level, and a democrat who for lack of better terms ran a "unique" campaign -- this would be a majory worry.  Instead it is a concern that certainly needs to be addressed and monitored closely, but each party has these blips on the radar.

"Both Reagan and Clinton fell below 40, Bush never has."

Just wait.

But it will be played in the media like he was Nixon after watergate... instead of Reagan or Clinton before they become icons for their party.  

Better Nixon than Jimmy Carter.

IMHO neither Party nor candidate in the OH special election has captured the populist spirit. Even with a populist candidate who was a veteran, gun owner, and acted conservative, Hackett could not overcome the elitist aspects of his Party. Just as Kerry could not overcome his.

I don't think politically Bush has been a great leader, the way say Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, and Reagan were. He's failed IMHO to build the Party over key populist economic and foreign policy issues and seems to have settled for a seat of the pants strategy both foreign and domestic.

That being said, the legacy of Reagan is truly tremendous. Bush's victory in 04 is because of the grass roots efforts of the Republican Party and associated interest groups, like the NRA. It was this party structure that directly touches people's lives locally that got the narrow win, despite Bush being unexciting and disconnected from populist spirit.

The Dems are even worse. Kos is frankly part of the problem. A concentration of money in national structures mirroring the young, twenty something males and Soros millionaires that make up it's organization. Dems have almost NO local Party infrastructure and NO populist spirit.

For an expirement google Natalie Holloway, there is an obscenely named link which I will not reproduce here that IMHO accurately reflects the views (intensely hostile to the Holloway family, their tragedy, the South in general, and Americans as well as of course White people) prevalent in Kos. A more considered anti-Populist set of views could not be imagined.

Thus if nothing else changes, expect narrow but continued victories nationally by the GOP, coasting on Ronald Reagan's astonishing (regardless of left/right politics you have to respect the pure effort) Party building and the much greater marginal hostility to populist sentiment by the Dems in thrall to Kos/Moveon/Deaniacs.

Whichever Party wakes up first and seizes the populist moment (which is not left, right, nor center) will become dominant for a generation, IMHO.

Wait, i already saw most of these numbers on other threads on RedState.  Thanks for the Gradison numbers.

More important would be some description of Gradison and Portman.  I know Portman is a conservative and did quite well.  If Gradison was as well then we have more support for my theory upthread.

Finally, I think the two major lessons are thus:

   1.  Run a conservative who excites activists in conservative districts (especially in a special election).

   2.  The OH GOP needs to wake up... now!

I continue to expect two things in OH-02.  First, Schmidt is likely to lose in a primary in 2006 to a CFG candidate.  And second, that whomever the Republican is will win by more than 10 points (at the least) because turnout will be higher than in the special election.

But I have $50.00 that Republicans lose seats in both house and senate 06'

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think Hackett was essentially some form of progressive.  Don't forget that William Jennings Bryan (the godfather of populism) had such strong religious views/positions/rhetoric it would hard to imagine anyone with half his convictions being welcomed in to the Democratic party.  Progressives on the other hand had a certain ambivilence towards God and faith.  While not an athiest by any stretch of the imagination Bob La Follette couldn't reach as big of audience as Bryan. Could the democrats ever be truely populist outside of economic rhetoric?  Also -- what would a populist foreign policy consist of now days?  In a post 9/11 world that seems critical.

Republicans with Yankee fans.

That's not a compliment, obviously.

At some point, we actually need to start winning.

Mitt Romney (conservative Republican) won the Governorship in Massachusettes, which has only 14% registered Republicans.  Romney's win was truly skillful, honest and principled (unlike Hackett).

was a good omen that the Reds lost tonight. I do share your distaste for the Bronx Bombers though...

Go Braves!

A major rule of politics is that you don't get to govern if you don't win.

The Dems had alot going for them in this race:

• Very low turnout
  
• Open Seat
  
• Weak Opponent
  
• Divided GOP Base
  
• Good Candidate
  
• United Dem Base
  
• More money

... and they still lost.  I'm actually surprised the GOP won this one given the circumstances.

You can argue about how close it was, and you did a good job of keeping expectations low - but it was still a loss in a situation primed for a victory.  A close loss is still a loss - as evidenced by Al "not POTUS" Gore.

Kossers, believe whatever fairy tale you want - but tonight it was GOP 1 - Kos 0. Congressional seats don't get awarded for "nice try".

See you in 2006 :)

Alan Keyes, well, being a stiff wasn't his problem.  He had many ... err, problems, but being a stiff wasn't one of them. Getting into a tiff with Cheney's daughter for no apparent reason, running for Senate in a state he never lived in, never turning down a fight when a reporter tried to pick one ... you get the idea.

on that link.

and in life that is crucial to understanding situations like these:  "The win is the thing."

As I understand the situation, Hacket ran a scintillating campaign against long odds, so kudos to him for the effort.  But as Bobby Knight used to say, there is no such thing as a moral victory.  That's true in basketball, and even truer in politics.  But there is a silver lining to every cloud. For the next year Hacket will not be called "congressman," but he will also not be living in an overpriced apartment in a dirty, crime-ridden city. He will not enjoy free franking privileges, but at the same time he will not be obliged to use those privileges to send letters to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who might give him money next time around.  He will not have a big paycheck coming in every week, but he will not have to mortgage his soul to keep his job. And he will not be subjected to a browbeating by party elders every time he doesn't tow the line.

So really, this is a win-lose scenario.  Hackett is the latest cultural icon of the web-based left wing demographic.  As such he should be able to find a good job with some advocacy group, or maybe even rake in the bucks on the speaking circuit.  For the lefties reading this, I am making a genuine effort at good will and commiseration here, not sarcasm.

But I do have one word of advice for you guys: for about 20 years beginning with FDR's first term, conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular got their heads handed to them on a repetitive, predictable basis. We learned three lessons from that experience.  First, in politics you adapt or die. Second, tactics are no substitute for ideas. Third, if you're not careful, it is very, very easy to get used to losing.

and for very personal reasons I am also a Yankee fan. But I assure you that the two rarely go together.  In fact, outside of New Yorkers, I don't think I know a single Yankee fan who is a Republican.  For that matter, most Yankee fans in New York and elsewhere are Democrats.

But I take umbrage at your slight against my team.  It's really a good way to be.  You get to see your team win about one out of every five World Series (although they tend to win in bunches), and then there's that whole "house that Ruth built that was then remodeled by Joe D, Mantle, Maris, Reggie Jackson and Jeter" mystique.  

is that once you are banned you go away and stay away. Resurrecting yourself is not particularly original and it is annoying. Return to The Pile™

He was the Portman of the 60's to 80's. Fabulous background, thoroughly respectable Cincinnati republican, not a machine creation, independent businessman, not flashy, extremely serious and effective attorney.

The last democrat win was the contest before Gradison, the fallout of watergate, when the districts were reshaped from the 1970 census and Tom Luken won - he later served quite a while in the west side district, which is now Steve Chabot's (R) seat. I think Gradison began in the 1976 or 1978 race, or Bill Keating may have been the Republican predecessor. (Wiki has it all).

Took your best shot, threw in your big guns and lost.

L-O-S-T.

50 state Dean strategy?

Oh I get it.  

That must be the one that says "don't identify my party", "never talk about specifics", "get as close to a popular war president as possible in the print and tv media while bashing away in your blog postings".

Romney might be a conservative, but if he is, he certainly portrayed himself to be more to the left in his 2002 election in Massachusetts. Similarly, we know Hackett is a liberal, but in terms of his contact with the voters in the district, he seemed to be doing his best to try to portray himself to be more to the right. Just look at his ads, having himself appear with the President and not make reference to his Democrat partisanship at all.

You could find out what Hackett really believes if you looked on the Internet or probably even in some newspapers, but if you just saw an ad on television, which is pretty likely considering the election was August 2nd and that's not really a date that people get pumped up for in terms of voting, then you might think Hackett is the Republican in the race.

I think most of the people who voted yesterday knew what the candidates stood for and made the decision based on who they wanted to win. I don't think your average voter in OH-02 voted yesterday, and if they had, I think Jean Schmidt would have won with at least 55% instead of 51.74% or whatever it is.

The Democrats basically got every last vote they could get out of this race, and the Republicans barely even worked for Schmidt's election. The Democrats were proud of it for some time, too, talking about how they were working so hard and the Republicans were acting like there wasn't even an election going on. As it turned out, it didn't matter, and perhaps the GOP down there knew that, but I for one wish they had worked a bit harder and made this a real blowout. When it's narrow, the Dems make excuses rather than facing the facts that they are a minority party with little power and support in this country.

of electing GOP governors-that is about the only office in the entire state that a GOP candidate can win.  There are veto proof majorities in both houses of their legislature (and very easy veto proof majorities) and the DNC controls all the congressional positions.

But I don't see a typical GOP conservative appealing in Mass.  I am not even sure that Mitt would win in Mass in a general election.

the more conservative votes got split, and the weaker candidate won in the primary.  Sounds like the GOP mostly shot itself in the foot on that one.

But a partial incumancy doesn't sound like it is going to give her much advantage-so hopefully a true fiscal conservative will step in for a primary challenge without several other people running.

does not get you votes.

One frustration I had with Kerry (granted he wasn't getting my vote anyway, but frustration all the same) was that he never really seemed to have a concise position, and when he did have one, about the only thing you got from him was "I have a plan" rather than "this is how . . ."

he doesn't win the entire state. He seems too much to be "tweaking" his position in order to play to the nation's voters rather than doing what he really believes. Most politicians do it anyway but I hate people campaigning on things then doing a 180 once they get in office. It just irks me because so many candidates do it.

grassroots effort on the part of the dems.

Their only real position is "Bush is evil, and we're not."

If you remember the contract with America wasn't about how evil Clinton was, it was a pro active promise to move legislation forward in the house that appealed to the American people.  

I think there are definitely some States where the GOP is struggling to downright failing, but you the dems to date still aren't getting it-they think all they have to do is attack Bush and the votes will come-that only works for the base.

sometimes it seems like the parties are drawn to weak candidates like moths to a light.  

a fair number of Republican Yankee fans.

in 2006 you'll win, right?

lol. Ah the dregs of kos.

The dem had huge national money from Soros, etc. He was a better campaigner. But he dissed the Prez, he is a liberal so was perceived as a phony, and lost.

IOW, the dems can't win in a cake walk because even with the wind at their backs people see through to the fundamental weakness they want to inflict on this country.

And in even better news, I hear ACT, Americans Coming Together, is folding tents.

to date I haven't seen any real grassroots effort on the part of the dems.

It appears to have collapsed. Unlike the R's, the D's outsourced the grassroots effort to the Soros-funded "America Coming Together," which spent a fortune on get-out-the-vote efforts and so on. Look what happened.

See the comment preceding yours.

Once Fitzgerald's investigation is over, he plans to tell all about this story.  I'll bet that includes some juicy details about how Dems and their media allies twisted this story.

We'll see you then, Kosfriend.

center the move left when you get to office-especially if that office is congress.

The GOP plays the game to some degree as well, although I don't see it nearly as much as with the dems.  I think part of it is that many dems have tomove a whole lot further to hit the center than the GOP does.

Leon made a good point in a thread a while back regarding the fact that pro life dems stop voting pro life when they get to the senate for most cases-even when they have a pro life record from a different office.  

If she simply votes the way she did in her campaign, she'll be fine.

If Hackett hadn't pandered to the DailyKos wing of the Democratic party, he might have won.

dressed up with a new name.

But I think you have the right of it-the GOP grassroots efforts were in general the GOP members getting out the vote (I know because my 9 year old daughter and I spent a lot of time walking our City passing out literature and enouraging people to vote).  Nobody paid us a single dime to do what we did, and my daughter had a blast (she also got to see the president several times)-that is grassroots.  Paying somebody 7 bucks an hour to sign up new voters is not grassroots.

Yeah, I am sure Novak will have all sorts of spin.    

Of course, if he wanted to, he could talk about his testimony right now.  But I guess since its an "ongoing investigation" or whatever talking point you guys are using this week, he will stay mum.

Rumor is, he sang like a canary to the grand jury.  His hip just couldn't take the stress of a pmita  federal prison.  

Um yeah sure, I will play along with your hilarious funny joke.

So, I took my time machine and went back to 1876.  Custer hired me as a public relations manager for his military campaign.  Custer said "bring em on!" and the indians, er sorry - savages, obliged.  

credible that Cooper or Russert?  

Your bias is showing here.

And it is a good thing Novak sang like a Canary, if a law was broken, he should have sung, Russert didn't sing-he even cut a deal to limit his testimony, he barely sang at all.

Give me the guy who sings over the guy who thinks he should hide behind a shield law in order to protect somebody who is suspected of committing a crime.

They should look on the bright side: they'll qualify for a first-round draft pick. Considering their past draft choices (Dean, Gore, Kucinich), I suggest someone to the right of Karl Marx this time.

It is "Marine", with a capital "M".

This was the first test of Dean's 50 state strategy, and it exceeded expectations.

Usually one adopts a strategy with the expectation that it will lead to victory.

If Ohio Democrats didn't have an expectation of victory this time around, when will they?  Which seats will they aim to win, rather than just come close?  

Keep "exceeding expectations" like that, and the Democrats will have their taste of being minority party for 40 years.

Data from Wikipedia for election results in Ohio's second district. One can never be sure because we don't know exactly who showed up to vote, but this data seems to show it was Republicans who did not show up to vote.  

    Dem    Republican

2005*    55,151    59,132

2004    87,156    221,785

2002    48,785    139,218

2000    64,091    204,184

1998*    49,293    154,344

1996    58,715    186,853

1994*    43,730    150,128

1993*    22,652    53,020

1992    75,924    177,720

* Off year elections

* Special Election

of the future, I would say.

1972-73 went 0-14. I said I'd quit when we got to 0-10, but I stayed anyway.

In subsequent years, teams with many of the same players did very well. Three years after that disastrous season, my club team won the regional championships.

No Bad News Bears tales here, just an observation that with perserverance and work, losing streaks do end.

So stop chortling.

I agree with you for the most part.  It is really no use continuing to lose.  But you also don't quit.  Let's extend the basketball analogy.  A team that is a huge underdog that plays close to a reported powerhouse learns an important lesson:  the favorites are always beatable.  And there will be other games.  

I can promise you also that dems/progressives have thought long and hard about how beat up the rebubs were during their dark ages and are talking about these things right now.

I assure you we are tired of losing, especially in a climate where republicans should be getting kicked in the head.  We are studying language, semantics, framing, and will soon take back religion.  It's coming.  Tick tock...

you read the post?

Second, tactics are no substitute for ideas.

versus

We are studying language, semantics, framing, and will soon take back religion.

As has been said by a smarter man than I, the left doesn't loose because people don't understand what it stands for. The left loses because people do understand what it stands for.

to help the DNC.

However work, and actually realizing why they are losing, and what they need to do to win would serve them well.  If they would shed some of the looney left special interest groups, and actually move the party more towards the center, they could actually win elections.

The problem is that the dems think the center is somewhere to the left of Clinton (I know some liberals who actually thought Clinton was too conservative), the reality is the the true center is somewhere around the RINO's and a bit to their right.  

If the dems would realize that choosing candidates more in the DNC center to center right, and actually coming up with ideas beyond "Bush and the GOP are bad, evil, and horrible, so vote for us" they will win.

AT this juncture I don't see that happening for '06.  They may pull off the presidential win in '08, but I bet they are still losers in both houses of congress.  

What the dems need to win, is not perseverence but a plan that involves more than hatred of the other side.

The plan was all there, it's just that you were sleeping by the time he got done with even the first paragraph.

Well, it's true we abandoned the traditional W formation, which focused play on the wings, and moved to the 4-3-2-1 alignment, a more centrist structure.

that if turnout last night were the same as it was in 2004 then Schmidt would have trounced whazzisname  73%-27%.

So if any lesson is to be drawn from last night it is that if the Democrats get out 63% of their vote and the Republicans only get out 27% then there will be a close race.

he could just endorse Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Bernie Sanders in the next election cycle, and I'd bet he'd go 3-0.

1994 probably isn't the right analogy.  A better analogy is probably 2001, when (after Sept. 11) the Democrats took away Republican governorships in Virginia and New Jersey.  At the time it was seen as a "warning" for the Republicans, but R's ended up doing well in the 2002 midterms.

Similar thing happened in June 2004 when Herseth won the special election in S. Dakota.  That was also seen as a "warning" to the Republicans before the fall elections.  But the R's again cleaned house in the fall of 2004.

I guess it's better to get your warnings early, in special elections, and learn from them, rather than suffer a big defeat on general election day.  In my view, this close Ohio win should serve as a warning for Republicans that they need to field stronger candidates, and not to take anything for granted.  However, as another poster showed, turnout here was less than 1/3 that of 2004, and you can't compare a low turnout special election to a normal general election result in this district.  

I haven't been following the race closely, but it sounds like Hackett was also running (essentially) as a "dissatisfied Republican" rather than as a normal Democrat.  It sounds like his views are largely to the right of his party.  If Democrats want to run very conservative Democrats, that's fine with me - so long as those Democrats actually vote conservatively once they get into office.

I would guess that this will be the high-water mark for Democrats in this district for some time to come.

that I know are Boston fans (then again I'm from Boston...but ok most of the Sox fans I know are conservative, perhaps).

I can't help but like the Sox' raggity uniforms, though. :x

I'll grant you TN, but that's it.  MD is too blue, Ben Nelson is too popular and even FL is an uphill climb.  I'm surprised you didn't mention Cantwell, she's the most vulnerable Dem.  And there's that MN open seat.  But no five southern democrats retiring this time, and no presidential coattails either.

I intend to personally assist in the removal of "Man on Dog" Santorum.  DeWine may also have a fight on his hands if yesterday's results reflect anything about the Ohio GOP.

I'm putting next spring on my calendar.

weren't that off-the-wall either.  Both Bush and Kerry got more votes than any candidate in history.  Had Bush merely matched his 2000 performance, it would have been a Kerry landslide.

Bush won by building the best campaign organization money could buy.  Very few (including me) realized how effective it was going to be.

I've been thinking about a political career for a while now, especially since I've been a lot more involved with what's going on and shit. The only thing is, traditionally I have been liberal. Mainly because of RS and a few other things, I've moved center. I really don't think I'd fit in with the GOP or the Dems if I ran, but I'd have to choose one if I wanted to actually have a chance of winning. If you remember our short volley of e-mails, you'll see how conflicted I am about morals. Especially with abortion. I do hold that life sacred, and at the same time I like people having personal freedoms and have trouble seeing the initial ball of cells as having a soul. If I was worrying about a pregnancy, I'd be torn apart between wanting to end it for economical reasons and saying "Wow...I created this. I now have a child". Do you see what I'm saying?

I pull myself in both directions, essentially. I take things on an issue-by-issue basis. Guess I'd suck at being a politician, heh. I'd try too hard to try and get hardliners on both ends to understand a compromise (whatever the issue) and end up getting ravaged by the far-right and left. I think I'm more of a Centrist/Libertarian. I tend to fall slightly left on many things, though. Again, my views change as I find out more since I know much less than most RS'ers here, even though one or two of my points may have been good. It's hard to not adopt a sweeping hard-line view on something and try to "wipe out" a problem. I could see myself updating our missile defenses to state-of-the-art, then starting a war with the UN because they pissed me off and nuking the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Of course,  then we would have no supply of Oil, and I'd probably cause a mass extinction of the planet if I did that. Just the urge is there to stamp something out with a drastic measure and it's a tempting morsel, regardless of consequences.

up around here being a Red Sox fan seems to be a universal requirement.

was stirring up the volunteer base, and also trying to reach the GOP voters who haven't voted for a while.

My daughter and I put in quite a few hours walking our city and knocking on doors of registered GOP and independants.  

One thing that can be said of the GOP they learned from the democrats the importance of getting out the base to vote, and they improved on it.  

You can study, study, study (as VI Lenin was quoted as saying) all you want, but that's not going to change the political landscape.

You've got to stand for something more than just "We hate Bush! He's Evil!"  The American electorate largely disengages from that rhetoric.

Don't take offense at this, but I want to break apart your last paragraph.  "We're studying" language..."

There's an implication here that talking the talk will win out.  No offense, but that seems a bit elitist and condescending that language will win out over substance.  Be the party of substance and how you say it matters very little.

Semantics...

IMO is really a corollary of language.  Its not how you say it but what you say that matters, although actions speak even louder than words.

Framing...

Ya'll have gotten a good start with Rove. (ok, low blow). But joking aside, you may have a point in that how the argument or POV is framed is an important point, but still is secondary to substance.

Religion...

The democrats would have to betray core constituents to make any real headway here.  The democrats have largely gotten a hold of the more liberal Christian denominations, who are largely shrinking in #, while the republicans are largely getting the votes of the more evangelical/conservative/traditional denominations which are experiencing some degree of growth.  If you want to cut into those groups you're going to have to decide which core group of democrats are going to get p'd off and go off the reservation.

To sum this up, I feel that your argument rests upon a presupposition that the democrats are "smarter" than the population as a whole, and that once you can gussy up the message that you'll be back in control, is... well... arrogant.

I remember a 52% "mandate."

That would shed light on whether there was shift or not.

If I had to predict this far out, here are my thoughts:

Probable Switch to Dem:

PA

Probable Switch to Rep:

MN, ND

Maybe Switch to Dem:

RI, MT, TN

Maybe Switch to Rep:

MD, NE, FL, NJ, WV, WA

Many of those are contingent on certain people running or not running (ND, WV, NJ especially).  But if my early analysis on partisanship and its effect on the Senate is correct, then Rs are on good terrain for 2006 to pick up 1-2 seats.  If, on the other hand, dKossites are correct that there is a tidal wave of discontent, then Ds could pick up as many as 3-4 seats.

The best news for Rs is that only really Santorum is being threatened right now.  Chafee doesn't matter to us on much (i.e. Nuclear Option, voting for judges, pro-life issues, confirming appointees, etc, etc) so losing him wouldn't affect the balance significantly.  Ds would have to win MT or TN to really claim a major victory and that is still unlikely at this point.  If Rs squeeze out every loyal voter, they could win FL, NE, and ND without the need of a tidal wave of support.

I'd much rather be the Rs at this point.

He doesn't pick people who are likely to win -- there wouldn't be any point in doing that since those candidates clearly have all the funds they need -- he picks people that are NOT likely to win.

Romney is very conservative.  There is not a single social issue that Romney disagrees with Bush, except embryonic stem cell research... where Romney said he'd support using embryonic stem cells ONLY when (1) the are discarded from in vetro fetrilization and (2) the parents affirmatively agree to donate them.

Everybody knows the guy is conservative but his charm and successful background in business and saving the Utah Olympics won the day.  Romney always stated he is personally against abortion and only agreed not to CHANGE the abortion laws because the MA residents approved of abortion by over 80%.  He just vetoed the RU-486 abortion pill.

pro life (and even his pro life position seems to have some wiggle room in it).

I don't think he is all that conservative, he isn't exactly a RINO, but he isn't exactly conservative either.

Not liberal, but more liberal than his supporters on the right claim that he is.

where I've been living (I go to school in Louisiana) being a Braves fan is required, so I know the feeling.

Re: "I assure you we are tired of losing, especially in a climate where republicans should be getting kicked in the head.  We are studying language, semantics, framing, and will soon take back religion."

Listen man, I hear what you're saying.  I half-way expected the GOP to lose in Ohio, and if there was any situation in which we deserved to lose a race, that was it.  You shouldn't be able to just lose part of a state pension fund and not get a kick in teeth from the voters. But that's exactly what happened.  The Ohio GOP got a freebe from John Q. Public.

But I have to tell you, you've got it all wrong if you think you're going to win with "language, semantics, [and] framing."  Look at George Bush. Would you have believed that a man with his mastery of the forensic arts could be one of only ten presidents in history to win two terms?  You wanna know why he wins? Because when he speaks to a crowd they know on a visceral level that he believes what he's saying. They know he'd probably still say the same things even if they got him beat.

What you see in Bush as stubborness and pride are, well, a lot of it probably is stubborness and pride, but it's also conviction.  It's the belief that the ideas he believes in are good for America.  And there's the rub.  To have conviction you've first got to have ideas, and to be brutally honest with you, most if not all of the ideas in your party are already worn out, played out, or debunked.  This is the 21st century and people no longer believe the government can solve their problems. That faith, like Elvis, is dead and it is never coming back. It's not that people don't find ideas like universal health care, or a laptop for every third grader appealing, it's that people don't really believe in them anymore.

To say Republicans stayed home is better than them voting for a democrat, but from what I have seen posted on Redstate about the Republican governor passing a large tax increase and big spending increases and the weak-knee Senators, Republicans just might stay home in 2006 as well.

Lets hope Ohio Republicans get their act together quickly, but I doubt it. George Bush Sr. could have saved his presidency if he had demanded taxes be reduced when Congress failed to cut spending as promised. (Remember Bush Sr. agreed to increase taxes in exhange for Democrats cutting spending which they never did)

I know. I was trying to pretend to sound smart.

What about the Patriots? I've loved them since I started playing football when I was 8, even though for a while I did like the Cowboys and Titans at the same time.

MY aunt just moved out to Kansas and I went to the Patriots v. Chiefs game out there. Was I amazed...the obsession KC fans have is unbelievable. Arrowhead Stadium becomes a near carnival during a game. Boston fans seem like ants comapred to how obsessive they are over the Chiefs. I almsot got killed (not quite killed) for wearing my Patriots hat. It's amazing. I wish I could have such dedication as to throw a 4 hour kegger in the parking lot before a game (slight sarcasm but that would be fun nonetheless).

I confess I am neither a Red Sox fan or a Patriots fan.

I am not really into sports other than NASCAR (and some would debate that as sport).  I grew up in KY so the Reds and Bengals were the teams of my childhood, and both mostly were terrible.

Then I was basically a fan of any football team Reggie White was on, and lost interest after he retired.

I have grown to like the Red Sox more (probably because my sons are being indoctrinated by all the natives up here lol), but I spend my Sunday afternoons watching racing not football.

but most people up here associate it as a redneck pastime. I don't watch it that often, mostly because I get bored watching the cars drive around like that. I'd like to see F1 come to the US, though. And I'd definitely drive for NASCAR fi I ever got the oppurtunity. Unfortunately, I kinda went from being realy into cars and got into computers, so my car-stuffs have kind of stagnated over the last couple of years. How old are your kids that they're being indoctrinated though lol; unless they were like 5 I couldn't imagine them giving up their native teams (but it's good that they did!)

Ah, I love the northeast...Even though the area is liberal as anything, I don't really mind it since I am willing to fall liberally on some things. Plus, being 20 minutes from Seabrook(e?) means it's easy to not pay sales tax! Abolish that I-95 tollbooth though. I hate that thing with a passion. Takes WAY too long to get through that.

by NE standards.  That was one of the things that surprised me, when we moved here, since I expected it to be more like Massachussettes light or something.  I love it up here in every month but January-my Southern bred bones do not like that extreme cold very much.

The kids are 11, 10, 8 and 6-very busy at out house lol, and turning into little New Englanders-we have been here 5 years, so this is the only home the boys really remember.

at least you can rest easy knowing they won't develop Boston accent. As soon as I became aware of just how annoying our world-renowned accent was, I quickly diminished it as best I could ^_^. I never really had a strong one, so it wasn't hard. For some reason people in Gloucester have thicker Boston accents and they're a good 20 miles north.

And you're right, NH isn't that liberal, especially next to MA. The only thing I never liked about NH was it very "hick" reputation and the property taxes to make up for every other lack of tax. Is it true that property taxes are still insane?

Other than I guess politics, I love Mass. Climate is generally decent, and the drivers aren't all that aggressive, unless you have a set of plates going 30 in a 40mph zone...I have trouble with that myself, I don't understand how everyone in Florida can drive in the left lane 45mph on I-95 with their left blinker on and not get run off the road by some other driver. Growing up here instills many a driving peeve. I could go on about driving stupidity...driving slow with your cell phone...not turning your headlights on at dusk...sitting on the right side of the road when you're waiting to make a left turn...and turning on your OPPOSITE blinker for the direction you're turning. That just confuses the bejeezus out of me and I've almost gotten into an accident because of people doing that.

January is probably my least favourite month, as well. It feels so dead. Other than that, I like the general climate, just not the fact I have to have two completely opposite sets of clothes for summer / winter. Not really, but I do try to minimize how often I wear shorts in Winter.

New Hampshire is cool because one can buy fireworks relatively cheap. Without sales tax. That's pretty much it. :D

are fanatics.  Living in Missouri for so long taught me that.  I prefer the Rams myself, but I generally avoid mentioning that in the company of Chiefs fans. Going to a game at Arrowhead is like going to a redneck bacchanalia. They drink too much, eat too much, fight too much, and after the games they barf too much.

and Democrats need to make some fundamental changes fast to keep up with the mighty machine you've built.

I think I've found one specific campaign sub-strategy that helped you overwhelm us in Ohio last year.  It was underused and underdeveloped though.  Properly harnessed, it will make Dean For America look like a PBS telethon.

Not telling what it is ;)

The only thing I never liked about NH was it very "hick" reputation and the property taxes to make up for every other lack of tax. Is it true that property taxes are still insane?

Well considering I am from the South "hick" reputations don't really bother me much.

I don't think the property tax is all that insane in our town (they do vary, so another community may have outrageous ones).

I think our property tax is about 3k a year, but we also don't pay a sales or income tax, so it evens out.  Our tax for our vehicles is lower than it is in almost every state we have lived in but Alabama (which is why dh kept his residency there while he was in the military and a student).  So I guess it isn't super low, but it ain't that high either, and it all evens out in the end.

becuase we just get blown around by taxes. One thing I abhor more than anything is our car insurance laws. The way it works out is suburbanites take on some of the risk posed by urban-dwellers so that people living in the inner cities can afford car-insurance. Why do they need to afford it if we have trains everywhere? There's no reason in heck that I should be paying 3 grand / year for a 1996 Camry. The "Step system" I think is wonderful, but the rates are all skewed because companies have to keep prices in cities down, so they must pass on the cost to everyone else. Oh, and Camrys are considered high-risk across the nation, so that means my insurance inches up another few hundred ::sigh:: Personally, I wouldn't mind living in Seabrook or somewhere in southern NH. The MA/NH border is like the US/Canada border, in my opinion. Travel north and do your business, then come back south. lol. It's amusing and I've heard of so many creative ways to sneak stuff back. A few of my friends got caught with Cuban cigars coming back from Montreal. Personally, I think those being banned are silly, since you paid for them in Canada so no US money is going to Cuba or anything. Plus, it just gives them more of a stigma. So why bother? I understand bringing home marijuana from there, but cigars? Come on.