TOTAL Bull Shit. What is their major malfunction. Thank you Paul Hackett

[autorank]

NYT: Popular Ohio Democrat Drops Out of Race, and Perhaps Politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/politics/14ohio.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
By IAN URBINA
Published: February 14, 2006

Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

WHAT IS THEIR MAJOR MALFUNCTION

=============

Total

BULL SHIT.

Compete and total bullshit!!!!!!!!! Idiocy, foolishness, political malpractice.

Hackett was only one of the best candidates our party had. Total crap.

Why not just let Bob Taft run the party.

DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN?
DEMOCRAT HACKETT LOSES A SQUEAKER IN
OHIO’S 2nd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:
THE NEW VOTING RIGHTS STRUGGLE 2004-2005

by autorank (Permission to quote liberally granted by the author, me)
DemocraticUnderground.Com
2004 Elections Results and Discussion Forum
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm
Hackett runs a strong campaign.

Hackett had three major advantages that many Democratic candidates lack. He had just finished an active duty tour in the military, he aggressively engages in intense political combat without flinching, and he has a concealed weapons carry permit. In addition to that, he opposes the war in Iraq with firsthand knowledge, is strong on national security, and has harsh comments for his Republican opponents. In a Cincinnati Post statement, Hackett said of Schmidt, “If you think America needs another career politician steeped in a culture of corruption who does as she’s told and toes the line on failed policies, then I’m not your candidate.” He referred to Schmidt as a “rubber stamp” Republican. He called Republican supporters of the war “chicken hawks” and he was harshly critical of President Bush. Just before the election, Hackett said of Bush, “I don’t like the son of a bitch who lives in the White House but I’ll put my life on the line for him.”


Hackett greets fellow vet former Sen. Max Cleland, D, GA.
Cleland was injured in Viet Nam. Cleland lost a questionable
Senate election in Georgia in 2002.

Hackett raised significant funds locally and from Internet activist Democrats, and had some support from the national Democratic Party. Schmidt received an infusion of over $500 thousand during the last few days of the campaign, which allowed her a significant media advantage just before Election Day. The candidates had two formal debates and several joint appearances on local television. Hackett gave strong performances during the debates and appearances and was described by some as charismatic.

<snip>

Hackett sweeps rural, lower-income areas, while Schmidt takes those wealthier, more populous.

"On the face of it, this is odd. The demographical blue-red maps for the 2004 election showed a positive correlation between population density and Democratic (Kerry) votes. Yet in the 2nd District of Ohio in 2005, the exact opposite was true. Hackett dominated the least populated areas of the district, while Schmidt prevailed in the more populated areas. One observer said that Hackett performed as strongly as he did in rural District 2 because his handgun carry permit was publicized. This ignores the fact that the National Rifle Association endorsed Schmidt; it also ignores the generally prevailing positive attitude towards gun ownership in Southwest Ohio. This argument has one major problem. The NRA has one of the most disciplined political operations in the country. The members are consistent in following endorsements. The endorsement of Schmidt by NRA did not mean “think about voting for Schmidt” it meant “vote Schmidt.” Opposition from the NRA is a major impediment in rural areas.

The following chart shows the seemingly odd disparity between Hackett and Schmidt based on population density.

(Chart in original documenht, read it it wol blow your mind. Hackett carries conservative, rural, Kentycky border counties by 60%-40%. And he is unapologetically liberal!!!)


Note that there is a sharp distinction between Hackett’s winning counties, which are all low population density and rural, and Schmidt’s winning counties, which are more dense and typically suburban. The difference in voters’ choices also shows up for income level. In Hackett’s four winning counties, median family income averages $31,818; in Schmidt’s counties, it averages $49,434. Median family income and population per square mile correlate positively, with each distinguishing Hackett from Schmidt counties.

There is another distinction between Hackett and Schmidt counties. Clermont and Warren Counties, both carried by Schmidt 58% to 42%, were involved in highly contentious 2004 election controversies. The Warren security alert was either a lie on the part of their Board of Elections or a collective delusion. The FBI flatly denies any alert. Clermont County did not distinguish itself during the recount, displaying inconsistent practices, secrecy, and general rudeness to the recount teams. In addition, both Warren and Clermont showed highly questionable registration patterns for the 2004 election. The Hackett counties were not mired in any major controversy during the 2004 election or recount. "