AOL Poll on Hackett-----participate if you like, but read and weep

[MoJoWorkin]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060214012809990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001

There are two polls on the page about Hackett. The one down the page a bit has 4 parts.

[xchrom]

1. the wording on both of those polls

prohibited me from voting.

[realisticphish]

2. ditto

one is very leading, and the other is irrelevent

[MrTriumph]

3. Hackett is different than Dems. in the Senate... He has a spine.

x

[bullimiami]

4. he dropped out. regardless if there was pressure or not, his decision.

i agree the polls questions sucked.

[jobycom]

5. He quit. That's not a spine.

The polls were meaningless, though, so I didn't vote.

[MercutioATC]

6. He was abandoned and told to withdraw.

He's a rookie candidate with no war chest. He was lobbied by Dem "leadership" to run for Senate and told that he'd be supported after Brown repeatedly said that he wouldn't run against DeWine. When Brown changed his mind three days later and decided to run, Dems abandoned Hackett and cut him off (and, by some accounts, actively sabotaged his campaign).

What sane person would stay in the race?

[jobycom]

7. He didn't just quit the race, he quit politics and lashed out at the entir

party on his way down. This is why I hate to see people run for statewide offices when they have no experience. You think he faced anything that three-fourths of the people in the Senate now haven't faced? The difference is, he quit, when they didn't.

And you are right that he was made promises by the party, but he also made promises to his supporter. When the circumstances changed, some of the leaders in his party broke their promises, and so he broke his promises to his supporters. You think Schumer or Brown feel like they did anything wrong, or bad for the party, or bad for the cause? You don't realize that they did what they believed best for the Democrats and for the voters? Brown has a better chance of winning than Hackett. With Hackett's actions yesterday, it looks to me like he has a much, much better chance of winning than Hackett did. Schumer and the other Democrats want a Democratic majority so we can actually fight the Republicans. They don't want a nice little moral victory with a candidate who made a really good showing. They backed the person they felt had the best chance to win. When that changed, they changed who they backed.

Hackett did the same thing. When it looked hard for him, he broke his promises to his supporters. Schumer and the others at least had the party's interests at heart. Not to mention liberalism, since Brown is a liberal and Hackett a moderate. Whose best interest did Hackett have at heart? The supporters he let down? The party he tried to burn on his way out? For Hackett, at least at his exit, it was all about him. "My party betrayed me. My country betrayed me." The victim. He wouldn't have been able to handle the job with that attitude.

Sorry. He quit. That's not backbone. I like him, I wanted to see him win. Intellectually I wanted to see Brown run because I am sick to death of Republicans and believe Brown has a better shot, but in my heart I wanted to see Hackett mount a strong campaign and prove he was a fighter and stun the nation. Being a southerner and a Democrat, I love underdogs. But he quit. I feel sorry for him, I know how frustrating it is to go through what he did. But Schumer was being true to the cause, Hackett was reacting out of self-interest. I don't see him as the hero in this.

[MercutioATC]

8. 3/4 of Senatorial candidates had their party abandon them?

Interesting statistic.


Maybe you could explain to me how a rookie candidate with no war chest who's asked to run and is promised support continues a campaign when the party abandons him and backs his opponent. I'd like to hear how "three-fourths" of Senatorial candidates have dealt with this.

[jobycom]

9. The "Party" didn't abandon him.

Some people in the party switched from supporting him to supporting the other guy when the other guy got in the race. You don't think that happens to most politicians sometime in their careers? Follow ANY primary and you'll see it. It wasn't the "party." Dean's the head of the party, and he seems reasonably upset by it. I'm sure there were others who supported him, too. Hackett let his opponents get to him.

As for how a rookie candidate with no war chest can continue a campaign, I'm sure you can think of other senators who have fought tough odds and underfunding and won. Wellstone. Patty Murray (she took on a Democratic incumbent against the wishes of the party). But the first step is you don't quit.

[MercutioATC]

10. Schumer and Reid (party leadership) abandoned him.

They lobbied him to run. They promised party resources for his campaign. Then, they pulled all support and backed his opponent.

The party, as an entity, DID abandon Hackett. Schumer and Reid are considerably more than just "some people in the party".

[jobycom]

13. He could have run anyway, he quit. And Schumer and Reid aren't

the party. They are two people the party lets represent them.

Hackett could have done a lot of things. He could have kept running and worked harder. He could have broken his word and run for the House seat. He could have dropped out gracefully and agreed to support Brown. He could have dropped out and launched a blistering attack at Reid and Schumer for betraying the party (or however he would want to phrase it). He didn't. He dropped out, said he was leaving politics forever, and called his party (the one I am a member of) betrayers. I'm getting real sick of being called a traitor. If his fight was with Reid and Schumer, he should have fought them. Instead he just flamed at everyone.

Reminds me of the newbies who leave the "I'm leaving DU because you are all a bunch of jerks" posts.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

11. Losing any chance to gain a Senate seat while simultaneously

risking a House seat is absolutely brilliant! (The check from Rove is in the mail, you whores)

[FreedomAngel82]

14. Done

Are you surprised Paul Hackett dropped his Senate bid?
No 53%
Yes 47%
Total Votes: 51,908

Are you more likely to vote for a veteran?
Yes 59%
No 41%
Total Votes: 83,847

If true, did Democrats make the smart move?
No 89%
Yes 11%
Total Votes: 38,582

Should he have run for the House?
No 60%
Yes 40%
Total Votes: 37,046

Should Hackett give up politics entirely?
No 65%
Yes 35%
Total Votes: 37,223

at 1:19pm est

[DainBramaged]

15. Another fine mess Reid has gotten us into

Sorry, they go for "their" ringer and abandon a man who could appeal to all three political bases? Stupid, foolish, and embarrassing.

If we want to play softball, keep Reid in their pitching.

More and more everyday I want to stand in front of his office and scream just who the hell is he representing, the Democratic Party and their craven interests, or the people who so desperately need a voice of strength and reason.

Reid represents no one I know. He should not be our leader. I keep seeing this vision in November as he tries yet again to explain how the Republicants snatched victory from defeat by being on message in spite of the corruption and failings of the Alien known as Bush.