Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here's what Paul Hackett is up against today in Ohio

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:42 AM
Original message
Here's what Paul Hackett is up against today in Ohio
I took a look at the previous election results in Ohio's 2nd District today. Based on past history, Hackett has an uphill climb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Results,_U.S._Representative_from_Ohio,_2nd_District

No Democrat has won this seat since 1980. You have to go back to 1984 to find a Democrat polling more than 30% of the vote.

(Winners in red)

(R) (D)
72% 28% 2004
74% 26% 2002
76% 24% 2000
76% 24% 1998
76% 24% 1996
77% 23% 1994
70% 30% 1992
no data 1990
72% 28% 1988
71% 29% 1986
69% 31% 1984
65% 35% 1982
41% 59% 1980

However: even if Paul Hackett loses today, the margin of victory will be worth paying attention to. Hackett has run on a very anti-Bush, anti-war platform (he publicly called Our Great Leader a chickenhawk), as well as on issues such as Social Security (don't mess with it), the economy (no tax breaks for big corporations, assistance for small businesses, anti-outsourcing), and universal healthcare, against a Republican running on all the classic 21st century culture-war red meat (anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war, etc.).

If Hackett loses but takes a significant number of votes away from Schmidt it will still be a big deal IMO. There are some mitigating factors: Hackett is an Iraq war veteran, and Schmidt has been implicated in an ethics scandal. But it will be intriguing to see how well a Democratic candidate can poll running on core blue values in this deep red district.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. It was probably changed after 1980.
The reason a Democrat won and then a Republican won was probably a redistricting that shifted the designation of "2nd district" into a Republican area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:46 AM
Original message
sounds about right...
look at how much the Dem won by during Reagan's first election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
49. Yet another reason errymandering needs to be done away with in favor of
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. it will tell more
about how the machines R rigged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cassandra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. According to Steve Gilliard...
that district doesn't have Diebold machines. It was considered so solidly repuke that they thought they didn't need them.
"Oddly enough, the district doesn't have Diebold. Solid red ones don't need them, I guess.
steve_gilliard "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
55. Probably
Of course. It makes sense. If you knew for sure you would in an area why would you waste money there instead of going to a place where you knew you wouldn't win? That is why these machine's are mostly in democratic areas. My area still does paper ballots but they are counted by some machine. I haven't ever heard of any problems though personally. Our last mayoral race went along side polls that was being done. The person who was ahead in all the polls but one leading up to the election won the mayoral race and we have a democratic governor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. EarlG...we're on the same track this morning..
I was thinking the same thing... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. Hey kentuck
I just saw your other thread along similar lines :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. But his opponent...
seems incapable of any kind of thought. In interviews she comes across as completely vacant, and he comes across as very sharp. I don't know how anyone, even in such a red district, could vote for her.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guckert Donating Member (946 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Bush ..... Good ...... Libs ....... Bad...... Must.... .eat ......Brains
AAAAARRRRRGGGGGG....

they are mindless ZOMBIES. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. LOL
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Sad but true...
Party first, reality last.

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
27. with them it's party first, country last
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. let me translate 'angry' or 'motivated' Republican
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 10:02 AM by Lexingtonian
to American English for you: adamant, resentment-driven, idiot.

These are people who don't care much about the arguments or the candidate, it's all about their sense of entitlement to a certain kind of society and certain way it is made to work.

Jean Schmidt is in no way an aberration- she's the epitome of a major subspecies of Republican these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
25. Three G voters like my relatives in rural Georgia.
God, guns and gays. Nothing else matters in their tiny little isolated corner of the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. Someone with a lobotomy could probably figure out how to vote.
Oh wait. They already do.

LBP = Lobotomy By Propaganda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhinojosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. and if he wins...this can be the template for future victories.
You beat me to it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. This is precisely why I am sitting here with my heart pounding.
If he wins maybe it will inspire more Democrats to get out there and boldly speak the truth rather than pander to what the Republicans have trained them the electorate wants to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhinojosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. :salivating: :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. If Hackett loses, after all the corruption charges on Schmidt
it paints a very dismal picture of our country

what it says is that people are more for their political party then for the good of the state or the country

That is blindness, and it will take years, and much pain before it is turned around

Look at 2004, and CAFTA. People were more concerned about gays then their jobs, that says everything

If Hackett wins, it will be huge. It will mean that the country is actually understanding what has been DONE TO THEM.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. Yes, but...
Even if he loses, the margin will be important. If Hackett, running on traditional "blue issues" can take, say, 40% in a very Republican district (where no Dem has scored more than 30% since 1984), against a Republican running on culture-war "red issues", it must bode well for races in 2006. Think about all those districts out there in which the Republicans don't have such a large margin.

And if he wins, well........ :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I hope you are right, but I am quite skeptical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. Honestly, it sounds like what the Libertarian Party told my brother....
before he ditched them....

We don't care if we win or lose as long as we get 2%.

We cannot be satisfied by "moral victories". We need wins! Red state or not, blue state or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. You misunderstand
I'm not saying that if Hackett loses it's a moral victory. I'm saying that the "swing" from red to blue may be an indicator of the 2006 congressional races.

For the last couple of decades, Republicans have held this district with a very comfortable margin. They usually get around 70% of the vote. If they only get 60%, or 55% this time, they will have lost 10-15% of their vote to a Democrat running on traditional "blue" issues.

After the 2002 and 2004 elections common wisdom stated that the way to win was to be anti-gay, anti-choice, and pro-Bush. That's what Schmidt is running on. But if there is a big swing to the Democrats this time - even if Hackett doesn't get enough votes to win - it may indicate that people are growing tired of the red-herring culture-war issues and are ready to look again at Democratic candidates running on sensible issues which actually make a difference to people's lives.

If Hackett can take 40% of the vote in a district where Democrats have only managed 30% for the last twenty years, think of all those districts where Republicans hold much slimmer majorities. We should pay close attention to the way Hackett has run this campaign and see if we can emulate his success across the board.

Of course, if the results come in and Hackett hasn't done any better than his Democratic predecessors, we're back to square one. But as far as I know, the polls indicate that the race may be quite close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I understand and I'm glad you further explained....
We need to use Hackett's method as the measuring stick for all 2006 elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Let me add.... that we must be careful though not to.....
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 12:00 PM by Darkhawk32
get into that "moral victory" mode. You agree?

edited for speeeeeeling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. I do agree
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 12:28 PM by EarlG
A win is a win and a loss is a loss. I guess I'm interested in what can we learn from this. If Hackett loses by a narrow margin, it certainly won't be a "moral victory" - but if he bucks a long-standing trend (even while losing) we should pay very close attention to what happened and see what it means for next year's elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Aye. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. Here in NE...I have seen open support for bush dry up amazingly
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 12:59 PM by rasputin1952
fast. I would never say NE would go Blue, but Fortenberry, my Rep (R),
is in some pretty deep stuff, and there is no scandal at all; he's just seen as a rubber stamper, and that ticks a lot of people off.

As I've said before, the '06 Mid-Term will set the stage for '08. It is the '06 election we should all be working on, retaking the Senate is doable, the House will take more work, but it too is doable; one can feel the disgust in the air, and it is coming from the RW. bush is losing support, and RW'ers will be beaten for this....:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #31
53. Also,,, if the race is close
that will say something for statewide races like Senators. If they lose 10-15% of the Repugs in the Red District, then they will lose statewide, IMHO in 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
63. (CAFTA actually went down)
The Repugs kept the vote open long enough to twist arms & threaten until the necessary couple of votes were choked out to pass it...
(This is the same as their tactic on those stupid prescription cards boondoggle)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. This is really great. This is a great test for us.
He's got "the message" DOWN. Let's see how it does.

If he wins- things are gonna CHANGE in our party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
9. Hmm
Look down at 1970, Jerry Springer was the Dem candidate that year, and had a decent share of the vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
12. Please enlighten me. Why are there elections taking place on
a hot August day in Ohio?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Tis open
Because the incumbent, Repub Rob Portman has left to be Bush's trade representative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
20. Give 'em hell Hackett!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
22. I have heard the theory
That the Republicans might be willing to let this one go in order to deflect the spotlight off the continuing election corruption problems in Ohio: "See, things are just fine if a Democrat can win in a district like this."
So that's a possibility to consider as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Hmmmm....something to consider.
A chilling thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. Why bother? We're all part of the "X-files wing of the democratic party"
They don't need to sacrafice a house seat until the press unhooks the GOP/Mockingbird coolaid drip IV and reports on all of the election fraud red flags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
58. That thought entered my mind today.
But then I read on this thread that Hackett's district is Diebold free. They thought it was a "safe" Repuke stronghold. No need to steal the vote there! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reciprocity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
28. What the hell happened in-between 1980-82?
It's all down hill from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Looks like a redistricting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
34. Hackett is not for withdrawal
Hackett would be a great Democrat and very helpful in getting a better Iraq policy. But he does not support withdrawal. I just really get tired of misinterpretations of various politicians position on the war around here. Tell the damned truth, the whole truth. That's all.

If the left can support Hackett and his position on Iraq, they ought to be able to support most of the Democrats in DC too.

"But now we need to face the reality of the situation there. Our country has gone to war and every American must share in that responsibility... if we pull out now the entire region will spiral into chaos and present our nation and military with a far more difficult challenge than we currently face."

http://hackettforcongress.com/index.php?page=display&id=69
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. True: he's not for immediate withdrawal
From his appearance on Hardball:

Well, first of all, let me highlight.

This is a point that I happen to agree and have for some time with the president. We should not leave Iraq at this point. And I also agree, we should not set a date by which we intend to leave. What we need to do is focus all of our attention on training the Iraqi security forces.

Having said that, he then gives the clearest explanation I've heard yet about training Iraqi security forces:

Now, I have a disagreement with the way the military is being mandated by the civilian administration on how to train the Iraqi security forces. Right now, the way Iraqi secure forces, as you and your listener know, are being trained, is, they send out three or four advisers, a couple of interpreters. And they are challenged with training a battalion-sized Iraqi security force unit, say, 200, 300, 400 sometimes Iraqi security forces.

Guess what? That's not working. It didn't work in Vietnam. It's not working in Iraq. My simple, straightforward solution, which I happen to have, in effect, thrust on me when I was in Fallujah, was, a unit-to-unit match, as much as that can happen. In other words, if you are a Marine battalion, guess what? Today, you've got an Iraqi security force battalion. You sleep together. You eat together. You shower in the same showers, the whole nine yards. You train together. And you fight together, 24/7.

That will allow us to impart our great skills on the Iraqi security forces, so that, in a year-and-a-half to two-years time, they will be capable of defending their judicial system, their government, on their own. And then we can begin to reduce our military forces in substantial numbers.

In the same interview he also had this to say:

MATTHEWS: If you had been in Congress back in 2002, right before that election that year, would you have voted to authorize the war in Iraq or voted against it?

HACKETT: I would have voted against it.

MATTHEWS: Why?

HACKETT: Well, I thought it was a misuse of the military. And I think time has demonstrated that. I mean, what we're doing in Iraq right now is nation-building. And, if you remember, back in 2000, President Bush ran his campaign in part on the premise that he would not use the military to nation-build. And that's exactly what the military is doing in Iraq. We're asking the military to paint schools. I frankly think that's an inappropriate use or misuse of our great fighting forces in Iraq. We shouldn't be painting schools over there and just simply shouldn't be nation-building. That's what we're doing over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. This is the Dem position
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 12:55 PM by sandnsea
This is the exact position that the left hammers Democrats for and calls "stay the course", "same as Bush", "warmonger", etc. The inconsistency, disconnect from reality, whatever you want to call it, is stunning. If Hackett manages to win, and I hope he does, but doesn't support the immediate withdrawal resolutions; how long before the blogosphere calls him a DLC whore? He is from a right wing district after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. I see your point
and I'm sure it will happen to a certain degree. But Hackett has not been shy about expressing his personal feelings about Bush. He's called him a dangerous chickenhawk among other things - and didn't even apologize. None of this "standing shoulder to shoulder with the president" stuff while lamely trying to create some distance from Bush's policies.

I think that makes a big difference to voters - they're looking for candidates who will come out fighting and say what's on their minds. Then, even if they don't agree 100% with every one of his positions, they at least feel like he will fight hard for them on the positions they do agree with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. At least he doesn't bash Dems
I don't have a problem with him bashing Bush while recognizing there's a danger in allowing a failure in Iraq. If he starts bashing other Dems, when his policy is no different than theirs, that's when I have a problem. Too many on the left give the impression they have an anti-war, immediate withdrawal agenda; when if you read the guts of their proposals it isn't true at all. The fog of war applies to more than just the Bushies.

Also, I guess I'm more interested in what a candidate is really going to do then whether he throws in the requisite Bush bashing or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. Many, many people who were against this war
Can live with people who think cutting and running may not be the wisest course of action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #42
57. Hackett agrees with the two thirds of Dems who opposed IWR
so he doesn't agree with the DLC wing of the Dem Party. He agrees with the Dem Wing of the Dem Party.

The DLC wing -- Hillary, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry, Dodd, etc. -- voted in favor of IWR because they either wanted war, like Lieberman did, or they thought it would make them look presidential. Fools they are!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. He supports Bush's occupation
That's how you label those who don't call for immediate withdrawal, right? Not that there are any politicians really calling for immediate withdrawal anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Not me! I strongly opposed the war from the beginning but understand
why some oppose quick withdrawal and others support it. We are in a Catch-22 and as long as we, and I mean both Dems and Repukes, want to turn Iraq into an American satellite for Neo-gunboat policy in the Middle East, we will fail with rebuilding Iraq.

If Bush & Cheney had actually implemented a Marshall-type plan right after the invasion, we would not be facing the number of insurgent attacks that our troops are. But Bush & Cheney treated Iraq like corporate robber barons treat the hostile takeover of a rival corporation -- gut it, fire the workforce, and take the rival's assets for their own. Well, in America we have unemployment insurance and welfare. Iraqis didn't, but Bush & Cheney let them take their guns and ammo home. Seems that blind support of the US 2nd Amendment by this Admin is blowing back on our troops in Iraq.

Unless we have regime change in Washington, we will be eventually forced out by the Iranian backed Iraqi Shiites. It will only be a matter of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malmapus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #39
56. I happen to agree with his plan

I would go as far as a withdrawal. Maybe leaving behind a Division sized element in a base out of the way of major urban areas. All they will be concerned with is training Iraqi security forces and rapid deployments to "hot spots".

But of course, this administration doesn't care about putting Iraq back on its feet so it's not gonna happen. All they want is the oil and to keep Americans terraized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeanQuinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
37. Well said. Well said, Earl.
I've been thinking those thoughts this morning but never really compiled them, like you did so well. Good job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
40. Yes EarlG that is depressing, but how far do you have to go back
to find a governor polling at 17%, Coingate, and the general stink of corruption that has seeped into the daily consciousness of the Ohio Electorate? Not to mention the stories of buyers remorse in Ohio.

Paul Hackett has the best chance a Dem has ever had...if he gets in with the help of the GOTV folks from all over, the Repubs should shake with fear....

I hear talk from that area (my 24 year old son lives there)...it is positive as hell. I just hope there is some serious exit polling being done, with live video cameras documenting the polling.

I agree with you about his climb, but I think the money he raised BEFORE it was posted on DU in response to what the Repubs dumped in at the last minute, shows Ohio is paying attention to this one, and it is SERIOUS as a heart attack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
41. That means for every two Democrats that vote, one has to take another
voter with them to balance the numbers and give the Democrat a chance...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
43. I'll be watching this with a lot of interest.
Thanks for the thread, Earl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
46. Thanks for the numbes, EarlG.
Sobering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reciprocity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
47. Hackett coverage coming up MSNBC. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
springhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
50. However,
If it even looks like he might win, well, I'm sure the Republicans have ways of dealing with that, if you know what I mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Interesting
Apparently Rush Limbaugh is going to great lengths today to tell his listeners that this election isn't a referendum on Bush. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4243673

He's also saying that Hackett is "hiding behind the military." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #51
60. Protect chimp
at all costs. Pigboy can always be counted on for that. I'm glad he's feeling threatened by Hackett, and I hope it's with good reason.:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
54. Good luck to Hackett
If he does win that will be a huge victory. If he comes close that's still a huge victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
62. Of course, he's been swift-boated too:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/2005/07/oh-2_swift_boat.php

My fingers are crossed he's reached the "inner blue" in this very red district. Yes, the numbers will be interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
64. Oh good lord!
There's no way he could win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
65. Thanks for the information Earl.
Chewing my proverbial nails watching this race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
66. Wow - scary numbers.
What a brave man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC