Reply #126: I would disagree

[insane_cratic_gal]

I would say that Hackett's ability to cross over party lines and get republican votes what the reason he was successful.

Brown didn't have anything to do with Hackett's ability to raise 60,000 in 1 day... through grassroots.. when his target was 30,000. Brown didn't have anything to do with Hackett's likability, nor his stance on issues that won him republican supporters (guns, it's always about their guns) Brown didn't have anything to do with Hackett's fire and fight which is missing from this party.

The reason he was successful in getting votes from both parties, he fought and said what meant and meant what he said. He didn't wavier, he didn't flinch, he was willing to call it like it was even if it were ugly. People trusted him to look after their best interest, not those who look after their own (like career politicians). People related to him! PEOPLE not party! Hackett was the reason Hackett was so successful, Brown merely attached his name to it.


Either way you slice it, the voters should of decided, not the party or the "think tanks". A choice taken from Ohio, that is just wrong.

Does the Democratic leadership fear the influx of new blood into the party?