Why Angle Lost
The reasons for Sharron Angle’s loss to Harry Reid in a GOP surge year, when other conservative candidates like Rand Paul of Kentucky and Joe Walsh of Illinois won victories, are not rooted in strategy. Nor are they rooted in a flawed ideology that was too conservative. Instead, the loss was a product of simple logistical failures by the Angle campaign, failures they often were unwilling or unable to understand.
“Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk about logistics,” said General of the Army Omar Bradley. Sure, he wasn’t talking about political campaigns. Yet the famous military axiom, more often than not, holds for politics as well. The terrible swift sword of the South, General Nathan Bedford Forrest, described it as “getting there first-est with the most-est.”
So here is a look at the “first-est” logistical reasons Angle lost to Harry Reid:
1) Lack of experience at the top. Three weeks after Angle won the Republican primary, top Angle advisors were still “looking for chinks in Harry’s armor,” as they put it. Really, they had absolutely no idea how they were going to take on Reid. None. Zip. Seasoned professionals would have been ready to execute. You know that IT guy who lives across the street; the guy I wave to in the morning? Yes, that guy would have had a better idea how to take on Reid than Angle did. Some ideas would have been better than no ideas at all. “We just won the primary three weeks ago,” a top member of Angle’s staff complained when asked why the campaign had stalled out. In that time, Angle went from a double-digit lead to down seven percentage points. She squandered her “first-est” advantage.
2) No message discipline. There are three things that can happen when a politician opens her mouth and only one of them is good. She can be quoted accurately but off-message; she can be quoted inaccurately and off-message; or she can be quoted accurately and on message. The outcome is always the responsibility of the candidate. Too often Angle was quoted off-message. Angle was infamous for verbal gaffes on the trail. These were due to her getting off the message that the economy sucks and it’s Harry Reid’s fault. Every social-issue question should have been answered saying: “Interesting question. I think the thing Nevadans want to know about is why after Harry Reid spent trillions of tax dollars, Nevada still leads the nation in unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies.” It might have been a boring campaign, but Angle would have won by hammering her “best-est” argument.
“Getting there the firstest with the mostest” is usually associated with the military concept of ‘initiative’, not logistics. The people of Vicksburg had a logistics problem, not an initiative problem. Sherman’s army had a logistics problem, which they solved by living off the land, which permitted them to retain the initiative as they raced across the south without having to be held up by a baggage train.
I thought the same thing. What he’s really talking about here is getting out the vote, which unions help Democrats to do with industrial efficiency. The vaunted grassroots of the tea parties just couldn’t match those vans ferrying SEIU members to the polls.
I suspect vote fraud as well, but preventing that has not been a Republican priority for fear of offending Hispanic citizens. If you let them get away with it, it’s your own fault. We can’t rely on patriotism to keep elections clean. The only thing that will work is a counterfeit-proof, tamper-proof national ID card.
Good points in a cautionary tale. If eveyone thinking of getting involved in 2012 reads this article, we’ll no doubt do much better.
Ol’ Bedford got misquoted as well-there was a little ‘homespun’ embellishment with the suffixes. The most important thing about Forrest’s axiom (“get there first with the most.”) is frequently left out:
He knew where ‘there’ was.
Not just winning the war, but what he wanted out of every tactical situation. For our puropses, every debate, every interview, all the ancillary stuff of campaigns-precinct workers, lawn signs, coffees…etc. Always think, “What does thisd do for the campaign?” “Are we getting the most out of this?” “Can it be done better?”
The war/politics analogy is silly but I will play along just for laughs. Ha Ha.
” I would rather face a full German army head on before I would have a French army at my back”
Before the first German/Democrat shell was in a breach The TEA party candidates were receiving fire from French/RHINO Quislings. Where were the Republicans with experience to help Angle? Busy loading friendly fire.
Ron Paul Won! He’s not _TOO Conservative? Hell no!
Absolutely right! Michael Steele and the entrenched powers that be (Karl Rove…) in the republican “leadership” cost us several races. Angle, O’Donnel, Fiorina, Miller, for example. If they’d jumped in there and supported the candidate the people picked instead of back biting and second guessing them, they might have had a chance. They appear more interested in their own power and good times (Michael…) than in supporting the people in their wishes.
The GOP has some stinkin nerve to decide “against” who the people have decided on. To decide they are not going to back a certain candidate, even if they have the votes.
Rove,McCain, Steele etc need to take a step to the back of the room , they are no longer relevant in my view. We need new conservative blood that keeps the decisions of the voters in mind.
Nevada listened to crazy wild ads and rumors instead of the looking at the actual facts of Reid’s record and their unemployment. Stupid people got their own “lame duck’ senator who is no longer the power house he use to be.
Bring home the bacon?…ain’t gonna happen Nevada..there is a new broom in town.
If what Mr. Ransom said was true, instead of a massive nationwide wipe-out not one Republican would have won election in Congress, state gubernatorial seats or legislatures.
Sharron Angle was smeared royally by Harry Reid’s machine, the mainstream media and worst of all the establishment Republicans.
The inability, gullibility and stupidity of the Nevada voters did the rest. What kind of logistics effectively plans for; then defeats that? If you can answer that question then you know how / why Obama was elected, but not necessarily how to get rid of him and his cronies.
Nine out of ten times Monday morning quarterbacking sucks.
Don’t know if you are in NV, Mud, but the points in the article are right-on. She had no leadership and tried to run a kitchen-cabinet campaign and it failed. Please don’t compare others to Angle. Reid spent millions to defeat Angle’s primary opposition.
Angle was stubborn and immature. It took months to get her to stop lecturing us like we were 6th grade civics students. Those working for her campaign were equally stubborn. They lacked a game plan and logistics. Campaign materials were scarce and harder to get. Those busting their butts never saw her campaign strategists. Some say she’s a slow learner, we called her a no-learner, and a no-listener.
Worse, they had no plan to deal with the LV union, mob, and casino troika. They spent millions to trash Angle and lie about Reid. Reid is one sleazy bastard and with his union, mob, and casino mud-slingers, it will take someone willing to take Reid on and unmask those who have bought him. They came close this time and it will be interesting to see if Harrah’s IPO gets contested at the SEC as emails show their executives instructed all managers to get all employees to the polls to vote for Reid. It likely happened at other casinos, too, like MGM where the CEO appeared in Reid’s ads.
Politics in NV is run by a kernel of lobbyists, and Reid has served them well and they have paid him well. Let’s hope is is the last of a dying breed. And, yes, he lives in the Ritz so they can keep close tabs on his elusive wife – he pays extra security at the Ritz to keep her locked-up.
So, Mud, you made a nice try, but you needed to be here on the streets to get a more complete picture.
clearmind – So Angle could have used the money poured into the Fiorino debacle, couldn’t she? But I guess she was too stubborn to accept it. Oh, that’s right, the geniuses at national never offered it, did they? Please continue to lecture us like we’re ninth graders about how unqualified stand what happened.
Angle always had a tough road ahead of her because of the unions in Nevada. There are only two major population centers in Nevada, Reno and Las Vegas. The majority of the voters in both areas are union workers in the casinos and they were not about to go against their union bosses who were in bed with Reid. Simple as that. Angle got most of the votes from everybody else, but it wasn’t enough to overcome the loss of the black vote and the hispanic vote, most of which is tied to the unions.
True, her message could have been delivered much better, but if you think that a conservative Tea Party candidate is going to do well in any part of the main stream media, dream on. The main stream media will always hate the Tea Party candidates, and we just have to deal with that. But to think that if Angle was just “nicer” to the press they would have loved her is to be living on Fantasy Island. That’s like saying if Sarah Palin were simply nicer to the New York Times they would adore her. Please, the main stream media has its own liberal agenda and always will. No, ignoring the press and having a consistant political message would have helped a lot more. But the unions will continue to be a problem for all Tea Party candidates in major urban areas.
The gist of the happenings in Nevada are best stated here by “Liberty”. Ransom tends to blather about things in Nevada he fails to completely understand. The upside of this tragedy is the electorate will definitely not forget Little Lord Harry’s despicable role in the obamacare affair. Better in my Nevada to watch Harry wither when the right kind of republicans take over the senate and oust the obama family from the whitehouse. 2012 ! The
work starts today.
I trust that this author *intentionally* chose to comment upon *only* those issues on Angle’s “side”…though this is not explicitly stated. Otherwise, this author would be disingenuous…at best. I’d have added:
VOTER FRAUD
SEIU (being redundant)
…no?!
Angle had a consistent 4 point lead in the polls, and then lost by almost 5.7 points, a 9.7 percent spread.
It looks to me like her loss was due to union monkey business, even if all the points of this article are also true.
I am sticking to the premise that the democrats and harry reid cheated and it was mainly voter fraud that determined the out come.
those who think there is even a basic integrity in the election program of many of the states are naive.
welcome to africa
Good luck with that theory. The same people who voted Angle out voted a Republican governor in — by a 12-point lead.
..do you think Reid was going to use his fraud vote on some one other then himself ??
Well considering that the losing Gubernatorial candidate was Reid’s son, it’s a legitimate argument.
Just as easy to get away with stealing 2 elections on the same ballot as it is for stealing 1
no doubt but I don’t give them that much credit. would need to see all the results to make that determination and I haven’t.
The Republican candidate for governor was the candidate of the lobbyists, just as Reid was the candidate of the lobbyists. They lured him away from a federal judgeship with a promise he would be the Senate candidate in 2012. You had to be here in NV to see them eliminate the best candidate, the sitting Lt. Gov., with a law suit that took 2 years to get thrown out of court.
Your ridiculously inept, hodgepodge, of out of context appeals to military authority aside, I reject your premise; and additionally your armchair quarterbacking offends me. If you want to play the Military History game, I’d say that saying Sharron Angle lost is as valuable as saying the Spartans at Thermopylae lost. While technically true, the argument would only be made by someone not willing to admit that their loss was the cornerstone to Greece’s overall victory.
Sharron Angle may have lost, but it wasn’t by much, and it was against one of the most entrenched politicians in the liberal leadership. Why no analysis on why Sean Bielat lost to Barney Frank, or Carly Fiorina’s loss to Barbra Boxer. Is it because Sharron Angle came so close to usurping Harry Reid that her amazing attempt is considered such a loss? Of course the Media was against her, is this some kind of shock to anyone who has a cursory knowledge of American politics.
We should remember her like we do the men who fought at the Alamo. We celebrate their fighting spirit, not their enviable demise against forces seriously stacked against them.
Angle was shown leading from many polls the day of the election When you allow SEIU to manage the voting machines, what do you expect? Ronald Reagan in his prime would have lost by 2 points. Angle was ahead by 4 points in Rasmussen’s last poll, and she loses by 5 points? Like they say on ESPN’s Monday Night Countdown, “come on, man”.
‘You live and you learn, or you don’t live long.’
Lazarus Long, Heinlein’s 3000 year old man, said that,
and it applies to politics just as well as the rest of
life; Learn fast, because there will not be more than
one, or maybe two more chances to win elections before
it no longer matters who Captain of the USS Titanic.
There are some good points here, but I don’t agree with the overall premise. I believe Sharon lost because she lost with women. You can be pro-life and still win an election. You can be a poor public speaker and still win an election. Sharon is not a good public speaker, but she was good enough to beat Reid, who’s own speaking skills have faltered in recent years. The reason she lost was she said “rape victims should make lemonade out of lemons”. This is an extreme view for many, if not most, pro-life voters. It is the kind of position that would appeal only to the single issue pro-life voter on the religious far right…….. and not all of them. She could have survived all of Reid’s extremist characterizations except this one, because all his others weren’t true. This is the issue that really sunk her with the female voter… and cost her the election.
I’m one of the Notre Dame 88, a dedicated pro-lifer.
If Angle said that and it was on video, I might have voted against her for that alone. Reprehensible thing to say. In fact, that remark would have disqualified her from getting my vote against even Lowden in the primary.
sapwolf: I am an atheist. I have no God to tell me what to do. There is no hereafter for me, I have to get this life right. No priest can absolve me of my transgressions, I have to live with them.
With respect to that unborn child that resulted from a rape–why in your view does that child have no right to exist?
One wrong does not justify another.
rpm,
Allow me to attempt to answer your question. The unborn child, the embryo, the viable fetal tissue, the tiny speck (take your pick) has as much right to exist as that raped, violated, assaulted, transgressed upon (take your pick) mother-to-be wants to give it. And that’s the way it should be. Sharon Angle, a Judge, a Police Officer, a Lawyer or a Politician should not have a thing to say about it. Nor should you or I or anyone else. If that mother-to-be decides she doesn’t want to rear the transgressors child, or even carry it to term, that is her decision alone. That’s the way it is now, and that’s the way it should stay.
I am an agnostic, and like you, I have no God to tell me what to do. I too struggle and strive with how best to live my life… which could well be my one and only. It appears the difference between us is that I would not judge that woman and you would. Would you agree?
The Republican losses in blue states are a good thing. Now when California, Nevada, and Illinois come pleading to congress to be bailed out of their fiscal messes we can ignore them.
“Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk about logistics”
This is true in EVERY aspect of life – business, life choices, football, politics, war, etc etc. Great ideas poorly executed ALWAYS lose to good ideas well executed. That’s why really smart peole usually get their butts handed to them by really hard workers.
“Angle would have been wise to see the press as a delivery mechanism that is better managed than challenged.”
She did, but the only “press” she could manage was Fox, as has been well documented in her and O’Donell’s case. Interesting that the two candidates who wholly embraced the “speak through Fox” advice of Palin lost and lost big. Hubris, it’s a dangerous thing.
Ah, more of Sensei’s hyperbole (and soliloquies).
C’mon, oh sentient one, TRY to be honest (for a change). Marco Rubio and Rand Paul were on Fox frequently, and both of them won big time. (Although they would have won big time anyway, even if they hadn’t been on with Neal Cavuto and/or with Sean Hannity.)
Never mind that Angle and O’Donnell were such lousy candidates that they would have lost anyway, regardless of whether or not they had appeared on Fox, and what’s more, you know that.
You need to expand your horizons, goofy. You need to watch more different shows on Fox, instead of limiting youself to watching the DNC’s propoganda on NBC and its affiliates. How can you expect to gain any credibility here if you’re going to continue to be so shallow, dense, disingenuous and ignorant of the issues which you struggle to raise and/or to address and/or to fumble here?
BTW, your own, um, “hubris” is just plain ditzy.
“lousy candidates that they would have lost anyway”
You weren’t saying that before the election. Those two ladies were the darlings of the Tea Party. Endorsed by the Tea Queen herself. Mama Grizzlies who were leading the charge of conservative women. The future of the Republican party. Taking down the old white boy network. Literally running away from simple questions. Given free reign on Fox News to tell their story and raise money. And yet now you call them lousy candidates. Of course, you refused to accept that explanation about the Democrat who lost to Scott Brown.
There you go. Gnaw on that with your mind teeth for a while.
LOL – You have no idea what I was thinking or saying about Fiorino, Angle and O’Donnell before the election. All Republicans are not monolithic. Some of us had sense enough to recognize that all three of those women were poor choices for a wide variety of reasons too numerous to list here, and its academic now anyway.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a Sarah Palin fan either, and although I appreciate, admire and respect many of the conscientious efforts which many Tea Partiers have made, I’m still reserving judgment on their practicality and overall effectiveness, also. They’re not the new phenomena that the ditzy MSM is portraying them as being.
With respect to Scott Brown and Martha Coakley, I was ambivalent about that race at the time, because I recognized that Scott Brown was a Rino. In retrospect, however, I am now glad that Brown won, only because it will be better to have a Rino who votes with Republicans at least some of the time than a Democrat like Coakley who never would have voted with Republicans.
You really shouldn’t make assumptions, conjectures and accusations which are not supported by the facts. That appears to be a contagious trend on this site.
No opinion you’ve offered suggests I’m mistaken about anything. To make your ruse complete, you should add, “In fact, Im a reformed liberal” . . . former Democrat . . . ex-hippie . . . your choice.
Actually, until I got out of college and had to deal with the real world rationally and accept the responsibilities of a mature adult, I [was] a liberal, and one that knew a helluvalot more about politics, current events (and life) than you do. LOL
Aw, poor baby, Sensei, too lacking in character to admit that she was wrong. LOL
I know enough to predict exactly what you would say. How did I know? How did I know you would say that? Because you (r kind) are so utterly predictable. You act as though having a job gives you some pass on principle and accountability. “Hey, I have a job, so I get to mouth off without anyone calling me on it.”
Well, as you mature you’ll realize that life doesn’t work that way. Be patient. And if you finish your days without coming to a fuller more rewarding state of being, fear not, god is a merciful god.
I could continue to push your buttons, and watch as you get loonier and loonier.
But screwing with your mind is what it must be like to take candy from a baby, or to roll a drunk in a dark alley. So let’s play another game, okay?
Let’s play, “Let’s Make Believe”. You can pretend that, in your embarrassment upon reflection, you got PJM to delete your last four blocks of comments, and because I’m a compassionate Conservative, I’ll pretend that I didn’t read any of your ditzy comments, okay?
I’ll give you the last word. Now that your ditzy comments have been retracted, would you like to take a stab at trying to make a rational comment?
Be patient. Not the kid with a pack of Marlboro’s taped to your open-back gown, the other kind – thoughtful, honest, deliberative – willing to acknowledge the dissembling and hypocrisy of the right when it comes to how they assess candidates before AND after the election.
Retract? Nope. I offer you the same opportunity – to put forth an honest opinion, one that I can’t predict.
Marco Rubio. Alan West. Nikki Haley. Jim Renacci. Seems to me the Arctic Fox had more than her share of success. She endorsed 25 candidates and 15 of them won. Since I know Your Senseless cant add, thats 60%. Id take a 60% win Pct in most endeavors, especially the first time. BTW, Your senseless, how many candidates the moslem commie endorse that won -maybe 5 out of 100?
Fraud, the Nevada machine.
To be articulate and compelling is a big step further than passionate and committed… She was the second but didn’t manage the first…. In the end, we need to sharpen up all ourskills in this area, candidates and voters alike.. Because we all must be good at arguing our case… We change the country one person at a time…
Extinctus Rinosaurus, A.K.A. Establishment Republicans, should enjoy the view from the swamp while they can. The Tea Parties aren’t going back to their day jobs now that the DPUSA has taken it on the collectivist chin. TPers intend to run for state and local committee slots across the country. Most will operate under the radar for the next two years. When the GOP convention takes place, don’t be surprised if a near majority–or outright majority–of delegates are TPers.
when you find yourself in a hole quit digging. maybe her message rubbed people the wrong way. housekeeping votes apparently.
Angle was a less than polished candidate, but the deciding factor was the lack of a ground game in Nevada. For the last decade the democrats have been building effective GOTV machines while the Republicans have not. Races in IL, OH and PA were affected as well. The states where Obama continuously returned to campaign were the ones with the most extensive and effective machines. We have much work to do in that area and relatively little time.
Good call tincket, but that ground game is carried out by paid staff and paid unions. The last 3 elections they had busloads of CA unionists coming in from CA, and I mean busloads. LV casinos cooperated with very low-rate rooms. Tough to beat when the republicans are all volunteers.
…besides the voter fraud on the democrat side there is the fact that many americans are progressive parasites. …looking for free “obama: money.
the article shows the authors progressive elitist tendencies. like Rove and Krauthammer …smart people but also wrong on this and other issues regarding human decency.
She went with a “rookie” crew, and lost.
Just think how much better she would have done utilyzing the services of experienced pro’s such as those that guided Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina…
Ill bet Marco Rubio and Rand Paul werent taking much advice from Rove and Gillespie-the two who brought us GW Bush, the reason we had Piglosi in 2006 and Zeroforbrains in 2008.
“Victory in the next war will depend in execution not plans”
Every great quest requires plans, even planning for logistics,
and the ability to rapidly switch to “Plan-B” when the need arises;
But, even the greatest plan needs proper execution!
Angle lost because she was an incredibly poor communicator, and she was truly unprepared to defend herself, or myself. That also describes Reid, which is all that gave her a chance. Then you can talk about amateurs and professionals.
I agree with John Ransom and the same can be said of women like Carly, Meg and Christine. They needed to stay on message about this lousy economy to their voters that are not real smart. How can I say the people of Nevada, California and Delaware are not smart! How dare me! Look at their unemployment rates and home foreclosure rates as just two metrix. The worst, second worst and way above the national average. To win with a populace like this you have to be on your game. And where was NOW when these women were getting abused by their opponent and the media. They were busy setting back woman suffrage one hundred years.
Ill definitely agree with you about Commiefornia-I left there in 1978 and have never returned. Even THEN I saw where Moonbeam, Willie Brown and the rest of the Leftist nutcases were taking them. And Ah-nold just made it even worse. He was Gray Davis with a celebrity background.
In a complex human endeavor, the truth is rarely simple.
The author is probably correct that the Angle campaign was poorly run, but there are certainly other important reasons for her defeat.
- the vast amount of money the Dems threw in
- the Unions
- the media
- Reid’s political clout in Nevada (read that…money and kickbacks)
- voter fraud
- Angle wasn’t as adept at deflecting criticism as are the best politicians
- She wasn’t supported very well by the Republican Ruling Elite
The author lumps much of that into his thesis of a poor campaign. Again, that is simplistic. In most states that are not deep-blue, Angle would have won. She came close in Nevada, to her credit.
The lesson should be that a conservative message isn’t enough when the opposition is united and experienced. The Tea Paryiers AND the Republican establishment better learn the lesson, or elections like Nevada will be routine. Democrat activists with experience at running major campaigns probably outnumber conservative activists by 10 or even 100 to 1.
What we need to do, and quickly, is to unite the operational experience of the Karl Rove’s of the world with the enthusiasm of the Tea Partiers. If Rove is too committed to being a Republican Ruling Elite, then we have to find others who have similar experience and can work with the grass root conservatives.
On the surface your question is a good one. The problem is, will Rove even try to work with grassroots conservatives? Id bet if Rove had been running Christine ODonnells campaign she would have won, but his trashing of her, Angle and Joe Miller didnt help. Rove is the one who needs to put his ego aside and work for what the primary voters voted for. ODonnell, for whatever else you can say about her, is quite telegenic for example.
As I recall, Angle’s opponent in the primary was a very pretty, young woman, and smart, too.
Maybe the dumpy housewives in the Tea Party resented her, preferring one of their own.
I’m ambivalent about Angle. But I bet that her opponent in the primary could have defeated Reid.
Tea Partiers showed very poor judgment in selecting their candidates. Their only candidates who won were their candidates who were already way, way out ahead in the polls long before Tea Partiers endorsed them, and who would have won on their own merits anyway, regardless of whether or not Tea Partiers had endorsed them.
Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers should stick to having rallies, and they should leave the selection of candidates to the professionals who know what they’re doing. Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers have got to recognize their limitations.
That young, pretty woman was a grandmother whose husband is in his 70s (much older).
I think that #26′s point was that Sue Lowden is a very attractive woman, and she has class, and a somewhat impressive history, and she has many other credentials which Angle didn’t have, including a noteworthy career, a rich husband with all of the right connections, and, most importantly, the full backing of certainly most if perhaps not quite all of the Republicans and many of the Independents and the well established Republican Political Machine in Nevada, all of which made her a MUCH more appropriate candidate than Angle was.
Let’s face it, ALL that Angle had going for her were the endorsements of Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers, not exactly the structure, nor the ringing endorsements that one needs to win an election to the United States Senate.
I admire and respect most of the Tea Partiers, but in view of some of the bizarre comments which they have posted here, we should face another fact, which is that some of them have their heads so far up their asses that they don’t have a freaking clue as to what is going on out here in the real world.
Maybe if lowden hadn’t suggested bartering chickens for medical care she would have been able to remain unknown enough to be one of the Tea Baggers who actually go elected.
In any democracy, the choice will always be between two flawed people. It is rare to read a George Washington, vs. Benedict Arnold ballot. Due to chance, the people of Nevada had to choose between Harry Reid, and Sharron Angle. I do not envy them.
The other axiom of democracy is that the person with the most votes, wins. They may be an idiot, a scoundrel, or both, but they get the biggest vote count. By all accounts, the economy in Nevada is on its knees. Jobs and realty values are collapsing. By choice, they reelected Harry Reid to lead them out of the pit. They did not hold him accountable for their busted economy.
I do not envy them. Every gambler in the state knows that sometimes you draw a bad hand, or play it badly.
I don’t see how the voters of Nevada can take such a dramatic stand against illegal immigration, look around at the unemployed among them while Wasington is spreading pork everywhere, basically outlaw Obamacare and yet return Dingy Harry to Washington. Something is not right here and there ought to be an investigation. Whether they find campaign incompetence, fraud or just the Nevada chapter of EDVA (Easily Duped Voters of America) – at least we will know.
Let me spell it out for you: Harry..Reid..was..the..incumbent. Hence, Nevadans were stupid enough before – what makes you think they wouldn’t do it again? This is, after all, the home of the fake Tour Eiffel. Confucious say : “You ask me how to get to Nevada? I say go west until you smell it, then south until you step in it.”
But I bet that her opponent in the primary could have defeated Reid.
Just like Carly Fiorina could have defeated Barbara Boxer.
Maybe the dumpy housewives in the Tea Party resented her, preferring one of their own.
Which just goes to show the inability of establishment Republican types to learn the true lesson of this election which is don’t pointlessly insult or dismiss the tea party people whether they be housewives — who, btw, make up a far larger voting block that corporate career women — or anybody else.
Bill, you give too much credit to Tea Partiers, and in your understandable bitterness and cynicism, you don’t give enough credit to the established heirarchy of the Republican Party, the latter of whom are dedicated, experienced and savvy professionals who are much smarter and much more talented and much wiser than you or any of the Tea Partiers are, and who want what’s best for this country, and, more importantly, who know how to achieve it, too, and who are just as patriotic as you are, perhaps even more so.
I’ve seen people here ridicule Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer, and by doing so, they only show their ignorance and they look foolish to anyone who understands the dynamics of politics.
Those three men are the creme de la creme, and even the envy of many Democrats. Karl Rove, for example, was Lee Atwater’s favorite protege for reasons too numerous to list here, and like Atwater, he is a brilliant tactician and strategist who has won many elections for Republicans. Newt Gingrich was the Speaker Of The House, which speaks for itself as to to his leadership qualities, and few people are as savvy and as well informed on the issues and as wise as Charles Krauthammer has been for many years now …, and, in fact, few people in their fields are as admired and as highly respected as those three men are. Only a fool would question their judgment.
But that’s off topic. Just thought that I would throw that in there for the hell of it.
My point here is that the comments that you post here show that you don’t know anything about the issues, but you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, no matter how daffy it may be.
Republican Party, the latter of whom are dedicated, experienced and savvy professionals who are much smarter and much more talented and much wiser than you or any of the Tea Partiers are,
Charlie Crist certainly thought so as did Arlen Specter for that matter.
Anyway, who exactly are you channeling? Vizzini from the Princess Bride?
Those “savvy professionals” got their heads handed to them just about every time they went head to head with the tea partyers. Maybe it’s just that they are too “savvy” to count “dumpy housewives” as voters.
1)Karl Rove has never stood for a right-wing ideology. In fact, his primary role as Bush’s advisor was to get the GOP to reach out to minorities via subprime loans for Hispanics. He also worked to naturalize illegals and supported Affirmative Action programs targeted at Hispanics.
2)Newt Gingrich in June, 2009 in one breath, lauded both former Vice-president Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Colin Powell as worthy “Republicans.”
3)Charles Krauthammer writing about candidate Obama said, “This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.”
Thinking like their’s and yours will destroy this nation.
As Rush said, Rove is “yesterdays’s operative.”
Krauthammer is also wrong. This is not another swing toward Republican control of the welfare superstate. This endless alternation of Republican and Democrat “professionals” and wise-men taking turns at the trough will lead the country to ruin.
The tea party is not about that. The Tea Party is about a return to Constitutional limits on govt, a return to sound money, a return to the govt spending within its means.
The tea party is not going away. We realize we can no longer live our lives, letting the “professionals” take turns at the trough while we head for an iceberg. The fact that the captain of the USA Titianic has an R after his name is a meaningless victory.
One thing these Republican “professionals” forget about is this is the first election cycle the Tea party has had a chance to influence. And for a group of beginners, they did a whole lot better than Gingrich in 1998(lost 5 house seats in SPITE of Clinton LYING to the publics faces)or Rove in 2006(thanks Karl, for giving us Nasty Piglosi as speaker). Lets give the Tea party say 2-3 election cycles before we start to see actual results. Dont forget-the GOP(or the Tea Party) won over 600 seats in statehouses around the country-the farm team owes there allegiance, not to Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich, but to the individual americans determined to stop Marxist agendas.
Thinking like mine will destroy the nation, huh?
I’ll tell you what, you ignorant jackass. Let’s compare how my friends, family, neighbors and co-workers regard my judgment, my accomplishments and my contributions to my community and this country TO HOW YOUR friends, family, neighbors and co-workers regard YOUR judgment, accomplishments and contributions (if any) to YOUR community and your country, and let’s see which one of us comes up short.
My thinking will destroy this country, huh?
What an incredibily irresponsible and crazy assertion!!!
Let me rephrase my last post to put it in more practical terms.
If we could make those comparisons, I am confident that you would look even more ridiculous than your inane assertions were.
Geezez, I’m astonished by what passes for intelligent life forms here.
Thanks, Bill, you just made my point (again).
You never have any of your facts straight, and with good reason: You make them up as you go along. All that you ever post here are screwy assumptions, even screwier conjectures, goofy opinions and bizarre accusations – NONE of which are EVER supported by the facts.
You’re too dense to learn anything. I’m not going to waste anymore time with you. Have a nice day.
You’re too dense to learn anything. I’m not going to waste anymore time with you.
It ends when you decide
Those who play or have played wargames understand this. For instance, you must gather and hit with tremendous force the weakest spot of your enemy and already have your forces in place to spill through the gap and quickly overwhelm your opponent. Punching the gap is only the beginning. Everything must already be in place to EXECUTE the EXPLOITATION of your enemy so you never relinquish initiative.
Whoever understands this and emphasizes this will win the GOP Primary for POTUS in 2012.
Watch: In 2012, Republicans will field some dynamic presidential candidates, none of whom have ever run before and all of whom will be so impressive that you will have a very tough time trying to decide which one you like the most. Trust me.
Were I a Nevadan I would have voted for a warm body, any warm body, over Reid. Do you have to tell people they’re being raped for them to know they’re being raped? Apparently if those people are Nevadans the answer is yes.
Dont forget who first started Vegas as a desert gambling oasis-the mafia. It seems the mob mentality continues today with those who own casinos. Nothing wrong with self-interest as long as you are doing society good. problem is, casinoes provide little else than recreation and dont produce anything practical. In other words, a service industry without providing a real service.
For those well-meaning commentors who raised the point of voter fraud, let me tell you this: it is a fact of (political) life when you deal with Democrats. Conservatives do not have union thugs, agitators, black panthers or the old and new stripes, and massive numbers of unemployed, herdable, vote-bots. State voting apparatus is also mostly saturated with SEIU members and career liberals. Voter fraud, to Democrats, is like the welfare check to their constituents – it is an entitlement. Anyone who run against a Democrat in a close race has to factor this one in!
Everything in your analysis could also apply to Ken Buck’s loss to Michael Bennett in the Colorado Senate race. Mr. Buck is a very good man, but he did not convey his ideas well at all and couldn’t handle the press. He is not an astute politician and did not answer vicious attacks. In states with a balanced blue/ red electorate, simply being conservative is not a winner.
So here’s a thought – with all of the problems that nevada faces, and with harry reid’s apparent dodginess, how on EARTH was he not kicked out, and if Sue Lowden had won the nomination would that seat now be red? And what does that do for the tea party movement?
It’s not enough that a candidate be ideologically appealing to the base. They’ve got to also win the election.
I still believe that this election outcome is not a bad one for obama personally. The trouble for republicans now is that (despite an “epic” and “historic” winning of a simple majority in one house) they don’t really have any power to change anything, but they’re ALSO now inside the tent, and all of the democrats’ economic woes are now the republicans’ economic woes too. Palin’s “how’s that hopey changey stuff working out” now swings both ways (and banging on about how this is an “epic” win will only make that more apparent over time). Say you inherited the problems, sure – but you’ll just be echoing the democrats, who ALSO inherited the problems … from bush. And ultimately, all anyone back home cares about is whether they can get a job. That’s your problem, reps.
Wishful thinking is not conservative. She didn´t get the votes. It is tempting to blame the GOP establishment, the media and so on. Yes, Angle was smeared, but that could not have saved Reid: his approval ratings were already horribly bad. As for vote fraud, Democrats have a tradition of cheating, but there is simply no hard evidence in this case. Unlike Al Franken, Reid won by a big margin. I can´t just believe whatever feels good. I leave that to the libs.
The fact is that Angle managed to lose against a deeply unpopular politician, by a big margin. As the campaign went on, she fell in the polls. Female voters and Latinos shunned her. The most obvious conclusion is that she ran an inept campaign. As a result, the better person did not win.
I’m skeptical that she was the better person, just as I’m skeptical that old Obama-lite, McCain, was the better person in the 2008 election. We had lousy candidates, lousy choices and mediocrity in both of those elections.
I disagree. McCain’s biggest mistake was choosing Palin as his running mate. If he hadn’t chosen that loose cannon who hogged the spotlight for herself, he would have gotten his message out and he would have won that election IMHO.
No worries…here in ole’ Nevada we love us some unemployment. Hells 15% aint shit – with ole Harold Balzack back in the saddle we are gonna shoot fer 20%!! As if that old bird had a chance anyhow – heck Nevada is 17 multi-millionaires and 2.5 million redneck faux-leather boot wearing union hacks. Now run along and worry bout’ yo selves.
Here in Reno the simple truth was that in the final days longtime residents of ALL stripes started looking like zombies repeating “Only Harry Reid can bring home bacon from Washington.” Pure pork barrel politics. When I argued that we are top in the country in unemployment and foreclosures, and bottom in the country in stimulus spending over the insane last couple of years, all under Harry Reid, the glassy stare is all that came back.
Nevada earns its dubious place with no blame due to Sharron Angles’s staff.
Seems about right-I frequently have to travel to Massachusetts on business , and seem some of the same looks from followers of Barney Frank and John Kerry. As my wife says, you just cant fix stupid.
The Senate race had 703K voters, the Governor 698K and the three house races, 589K. The important comparison is between the Senate and Governor races. If the Reid campaign greatly inflated the Democrat turnout by pressure tactics, how come they didn’t break against Sandoval?
The exit poll data is interesting. In the Governor race, Hispanic/Latino voters broke 64% D, 33% R. In the Senate race, they broke 68% D, 30% R. That means Angle lost less than 5000 Latino voters compared to Sandoval. I don’t see a significant Latino backlash aimed at Angle.
What is surprising is that White voters overwhelmingly supported Sandoval (62% R, 32% D) but not Angle (53% R, 41% D). That’s where Angle lost the race. Around 9% of white voters voted for Sandoval and Reid, and that delivered Reid’s margin of victory.
The public sector – teachers, cops, firemen, administrators – went for Reid because he would deliver Federal pork, and Sandoval, because he would manage the state better than Reid junior. #39 nailed it.
Me thinks the Nevada senator race was stollen, as were a number of other western senate races including that joke of a race up in Alaska with Murky. The reason why you don’t hear much from the GOP about this theft is quite simple: had the Republicans won these races the 2012 GOP Nomination would be over before it started, and Sarah Palin would be the Nominee as of November 2, 2010.
Stealing the senate seats from Repubs, the Dems got two things: that BHO won’t be impeached and at the same time they supplied ammunition for the RINOs to hit Sarah Palin. It was a fix, me thinks.
The same way that me thinks too, the RINOs made a deal with the devil, and traded in the House for six more years of Obama.
Then again, maybe not; but since it crossed a few minds in the hinterland, can’t be too Machiavellian.
I never liked Ms. Angle or much of what she advocated. The several letters A DAY asking for contributions did nothing to change my opinion.
Sharron just didn’t close the deal. Rubio was also a newcomer to the Senatorial scene but he made it work. Right message, wrong messenger.
No, Sharon Angle was a very weak candidate, and Marco Rubio was a very strong one.
Rubio had credentials that Angle didn’t have, like a well known and impressive history in the Florida State Legislature which made him popular with Republicans, Democrats and Independents, alike, and he is much more savvy, much smarter, much better educated and much, MUCH more charismatic than Angle is/was, also. Rubio didn’t need any support from Tea Partiers. He was already way, WAY out ahead in the polls long before Tea Partiers endorsed him. Adversely, like O’Donnell in Delaware, Angle in Nevada was such a lame and anemic candidate that she needed all of the crutches and life support that she could get.