The Hartford Courant reports that according to Kevin Rennie’s Facebook page, one of his friends says that:
GOP Senate hopeful Tom Foley told the West Hartford Republicans last night that he is considering hightailing it into the less competitive race for governor. He’ll decide in 2 week’ developing…’sounds like decision has been made
Wow. I feel like I’m back in kindergarten playing Chinese whispers. But The Courant’s Daniela Altimari has confirmation that Foley did, indeed address the West Hartford Republicans last night.
Justin Clark, West Hartford RTC Chairman wasn’t directly confirming the governor run though.
“I’ll let Tom speak for himself,” Clark said “I think he’d be a great candidate and he’s a terrific guy. I look forward to working with him whether he’s running for the Senate or for governor…The stronger the Republican field the better.”
Perhaps this explains the deafening silence from Lt. Governor Mike Fedele, who was expected to officially announce his run for the top spot yesterday. And one wonders if this will make Sam Caligiuri’s decision for him.
Wow. It’s like watching a game of musical chairs these day. And then we’re left with the Simmons/McMahon/Schiff Cagematch Smackdown in the Senate Race. I’m going to Costco to stock up on popcorn.
53 responses so far ↓
Tom “Mumbles” Foley is a fool. Does he really believe the CT GOP will rally around him as their candidate for Governor?
Far better for him to have hung out in the Senate race and played Mr. Nice Guy as Simmons and neophyte McMahon bash each other to the death.
Or maybe he’s smarter than we think, and is first out of the gate for Governor because he realized he was about to be facing Blumenthal and not Dodd?
What do people think? And my guess is that running for Himes’ house seat is beneath Mr. Foley. So it’s more or less governor or bust for the ex-Bushie.
Scooper, just admit it, the thought that the Republicans may not blow all their money on a single major race in the state bothers you. Foley sees an opportunity with a weak field on the GOP side and is taking advantage. If I were in his place I’d do the same, rather than blow a lot of money in a fruitless exercise for the Senate.
No one but you ever accused Foley of being a fool Anderson, except you. That should probably tell you something about your analysis. Foley isn’t the kind of guy that makes decisions on a whim.
The Governor’s race is a good spot for Foley, being an executive and all. I doubt you’ll see him taking any public financing so he’ll have an opportunity to bury those that do.
A big day for the senate race. It will be interesting to see how this impacts the race if he does formally move over.
These moves are positive for several GOP races. It clears the decks for Simmons to go mano-a-mano with McMahon, which is where that race was headed anyway. It puts a deep-pocket guy in the gubernatorial hunt, which the GOP clearly lacked earlier. Foley has no shot to beat Dodd, but if the Democratic candidate is average enough — Susan Bysciewicz (sp?) has never dazzled anyone with her wit nor her warmth — he may have a shot to win the governorship (though it’s a long shot, true.) So maybe those cuddly commercials with the adorable babies will pay off after all. We’ve already noted that the Caligiuri switch takes a non-entity out of the Senate hunt and puts him in a spot he has a shot at, and adds strength to the CD5 contest. So a good deal all around.
As for those who have not shown their cards yet, I’m sure Fedele is in, McKinney is now even more of a ?, and Schiff really has not gained traction in the Senate contest.
Have you guys ever seen Foley on the stump? He’s P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C! (And that’s why he raised so little cash last quarter. Once he got through his Greenwich friends he connected with next to no one.)
Anyway, here’s hoping Mumbles is your gubernatorial candidate. I still think he’s getting played.
PS– his name recognition is about three times greater than Fedele’s!
You’re a blast Scoops, you only ever take the time to make posts about candidates who keep you up at night. You’re such a politico!
Mumbles doesn’t scare me Brownies. (like your spin-off handle, btw. very original.) The guy has neither the charisma, nor the track record, to go far in a race, despite his $$$ and connections.
Please, PoopyScoopy. You’re so painfully transparent you ought to bathe in Windex. If you bathed.
Meanwhile, you and Saramerica should gather your snarkbuds while ye may. You’d both like to see the effort to position strong candidates as some sort of sign of disarray … and I sincerely hope you keep on deluding yourselves.
Foley a strong candidate? That’s a laugh…
I do understand that after a lousy 2006, and a pathetic 2008, Healy and the CT GOP are trying to assemble a dream ticket under-written by Greenwich billionaire Linda McMahon’s WWE money.
And if I thought Dodd was going to be at the top of our ticket I might be worrying…
Instead I see an invincible Blumenthal leading the way, with Ned or Susie having a great shot at the governorship, and you wingers’ hope of winning even a single house seat fading quickly.
But by all means, enjoy your circus for the next month or so….
What IS the color of the sky on your planet, Poopy?
Invincible Dick barely has the sack to hang on to the job he has.
SuperNed was a one-issue candidate who couldn’t win a one-issue race … And sure as hell can’t win a race that involves state-level issues he knows jackshit about.
And Susan? Susan? She’s loathed by people all across the poltical spectrum — people who will make it their personal business to make sure she is humiliated on Election Night. She has no more chance of being elected Governor than Queen for a Day.
You are living in a dream world. I couldn’t be more amused.
I noticed on Tom Foley’s website (for the Senate) he described himself as a “Washington outsider.” Just out of curiosity, how does one become the ambassador to Ireland? It’s all merit right? Or would one need to raise money for, say, a presidential candidate?
So now Fedele gets upstaged by a Greenwich millionaire throwing his hat in the race for Governor. If you think you are the front-runner and you boldly (foolishly?) state in the press that you “will be the party’s nominee,” shouldn’t you jump into the race with guns blazing? By any measure, it has been a terrible couple of weeks since Rell announced she would not seek re-election for Fedele and Co.
ABF, I agree. I had thought the Lt. Gov. was the establishment pick. Now, I’m not so certain. Foley seems to be about as establishment as you can possibly get.
Also, what are the chances of seeing a GOP Gov. candidate without a Fairfield County zip code?
Dodd vs Simmons or McMahon: On one side, you have a corrupt and disgraced U.S. Senator running with a failed President and that head of his ticket and on the other side….well, it really won’t matter. Dirty Dodd loses.
Failed President? OMFG, in what way has Obama failed? Was he supposed to click his heels together and fix the messy Bush recession overnight?
And you wingers want to harp against unemployment, but what would things look like if Dems hadn’t pushed through the stimulus package? That’s right, your strategy was to cross your fingers and do nothing.
>>Failed President? OMFG, in what way has Obama failed?
Let me count the ways….
Unemployment Dec. 2008 – 7.2%
Unemployment Oct. 2009 – 10.2%
Up almost 50% in nothing flat! Superb, well done, bravo!
National debt?
Do you really want to go there too?
ACR–
Are you that intellectually dishonest, or just that stupid?
Do you understand a basic mathematical curve? The economy, unemployment and the stock market were well into a cyclical downturn long before Obama took office, thanks to Bush.
Perhaps we can keep it simple, and you can explain for us what Obama should have done to turn the economy around more quickly, stem unemployment, and magically, I guess, lessen the deficits?
Oh, that’s right. Tax cuts for the rich would have done the job!
LMAO!
Patiently awaiting your prescription for a quick economic cure…
ABF –
Since Cafero boldly formed his committee in late April , you’d think that with a herd of state-funded political hacks working for him, it’d be more appropriate to bring to light his less than blazing $6k raised in the last 7 months?
I’m sure Fedele only found out less than two weeks ago that it was time to step it up and run now that Rell is bowing out…Cafero has been “seriously considering exploring running for higher office” for quite some time now…you tell me how long it takes to explore before it becomes foolish?
Again, the Reagan analogy is appropriate here.
Unemployment Dec. 1980 7.2%
Unemployment Dec. 1981 8.5%
Unemployment Dec. 1982 10.8%
….with similar dramatic increases in the national debt.
The point is we measure presidents at the end of their terms not at he beginning.
Obama is not a failure. However:
He ran as a fiscal conservative and has been anything, but one.
He ran on a platform of transparency, yet he remains silent on Auditing the Fed while others (Dodd) get their hands dirty fighting people like Ron Paul, Alan Grayson & Bernie Sanders.
He ran opposing the Iraq War, and what exactly is changing in foreign policy? Ah, yes. We now have Bush on steroids.
He ran on “judgment,” yet he strongly advocated Geithner, reappointed Bernanke and now defends them.
Obama’s not a failure, largely because he was given such a bad hand. But in one year he has made a number of poor decisions that could have been much better decisions.
I’ve seen Keith make a similar argument in favor of the last year’s bailout. But what I’m wondering…
How is this argument different from the one put forward by Rs in defense of Bush’s Iraq War policy?
I disagreed with the “but what would things look like if” argument under Bush and I disagree under Obama.
The reality is that America is broke. Anyone see SNL this week? (The video is online). Even American pop culture is mocking Obama for being a spendthrift.
>>Are you that intellectually dishonest, or just that stupid?
Neither – building and selling domestic build cars and trucks as that is most labor intense product, would have kept those manufacturers out of trouble and spurred the economy.
Why Dodd Will Not Resign, And Why Blumenthal Will Not Run Against Him.
There has been some jockeying among Republicans in the U.S. Senate race. Sam Caliguiri has shifted his campaign from U.S. Senator to U.S. Rep, which leaves U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd to the tender mercies of the three remaining Republicans in the race: former CEO of World Wide Wrestling Linda McMahon, former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons and Peter Schiff, a libertarian economist. Former ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley has decided he would rather be governor than senator.
On the left side of the Democratic barracks, some progressives are dissatisfied with Dodd, though the senator has move very far to the left to placate them. Dodd’s “good,” however, is not good enough to satisfy unappeasable progressives. There is a palpable anguish in the progressive camp, much of it turning upon the dread suspicion that Dodd, should he remain in the race, will lose his seat to a Republican. The senator’s polling negatives are dangerously low. Therefore, it is being urged by some progressives that Dodd should quit the race, leaving the senatorial position opened for the perennial favorite of the Democratic left, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.
There is an assumption involved here that has not been closely examined: first, that Dodd, however precarious his polling negatives a year before the election, will quit the race; second, that Blumenthal will accept a draft from his party.
It’s doubtful Dodd will quit the race. Faced with the charge he is in the pay of wealthy campaign contributors, Dodd has sought to defang his opposition by capturing them and pressing them to his bosom in what yet may turn out to be a fatal embrace. By his enthusiastic support of President Barack Obama’s plan to over-regulate pretty much everything in the Unites States, not excepting the air we breathe, Dodd has pretty much hoisted his middle finger to the much despised captains of industry in the country.
Dodd’s father was forced out of office on charges that he turned$116,000 in campaign contributions to his own use. But that is only the surface of the story. The son is no chip off his father’s much more conservative block. Dodd senior was a rigorous anti-communist at a time when softies in the mainstream media – does anyone remember the mainstream media? – were collectivity doubting that Alger Hiss was a commie and a spy. Tom Dodd’s enemies on the left were happy to see him caught in the brambles, and Jack Anderson did not mourn his passing. The chief lesson his son learned from all this was to so conduct his public life that the same fate would never happen to him.
At the time of the dedication of the Thomas Dodd Center during the Bill Clinton administration, a reporter for the New York Times noted some piquant asymmetries:
“With the help of Mr. Dodd’s sons, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the current general chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Thomas J. Dodd Jr., the United States Ambassador to Uruguay, Mr. Clinton dedicated the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, a new library at the University of Connecticut here…
The festivities were a gentle coda to the tempestuous life of the elder Dodd, an old-fashioned Irish politician who mixed passionate anti-Communism with fervent early support for liberal domestic causes like civil rights and gun control, but whose career petered out in disgrace and defeat after his censure in 1967 for diverting about $116,000 in campaign funds to his personal use.
“By Mr. Clinton’s own college days in the 1960’s, Mr. Dodd stood as a symbol of hawkish stolidity on the Vietnam War, immortalized in Phil Ochs’s protest anthem, ‘The Draft Dodger Rag,’ whose ironic verse begins: ‘I’m just a typical American boy from a typical American town/I believe in God and Senator Dodd and keepin’ old Castro down…’
“In fact, as a Yale Law School student in 1970, Mr. Clinton was a campaign worker for the insurgent candidate, Joseph D. Duffey, who had wrested the Democratic nomination from Mr. Dodd, who then ran as an independent, splitting the vote and opening the way for the election of the Republican, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. Mr. Duffey now works for Mr. Clinton as director of the United States Information Agency.”
For the younger Dodd during his career, strident anti-communism was out, and fraternizing with the enemy was in: Dodd and Weicker, also a strident pro Vietnam War anti-communist at the beginning of his political career, were close friends.
The arc of the younger Dodd’s political life, in many ways, bends in a direction opposite to that of his father, rather as if the Dodd the younger were determined that what had happed to Dad would never happen to him.
And now – under an indictment from the left, not the right, that the younger Dodd has been corrupted by campaign contributions – Chris Dodd is expected to go, as his father had done, quiet into that good night.
This will not happen.
And Blumenthal will not likely wage a battle against Dodd.
That battle would be too precarious for the glass-jawed Blumenthal. And the attorney general is not yet willing to leave the skeletons in his office behind him to pursue other public opportunities – unless he could designate his successor.
Scooper – you are actually going to blame the entire recession on President Bush – give me break.
While he is partly responsible why don’t you read something written by any mainstream economist and there is plenty of blame to go around.
Here is a list –
1. Republican Congress with their deficit spending – 2000 to 2006
2. Mortgage Campanies for predetory lending, especiall Dodd’s pal Angelo
3. Stupid people who took out loans they couldn’t afford to purchase a house.
4. Fannie Mae – run by many from the Clinton administration.
5. President Clinton – placing heat on banks to loan to low-income people who couldn’t afford loans.
6. Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin and Lawrence Summers – PBS has a documentary about their hands off approach to the economy. You should watch it.
BTW – the Obama Adminstration claimed the stimulus would create over 3 million jobs and unemployment would never go above 8%. How did that work out? – 10% unemployment and a very questionable creation of over 600,000.17 jobs.
Actually I think Dodd’s main problem is that most of his proposals for regulation are met with deaf ears in the Obama administration, and such things as Dodd’s proposed rate freezes on credit cards get shunted aside by more business friendly Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. If he can’t hang his hat on anything in the Senate which would be looked upon as favoring consumers, despite his thirty years there, then voters could rightly question his effectiveness as a U.S. Senator.
JC– yes, I blame “Bubbles” Greenspan for the current mess, as well as two Presidents, (Clinton and then Bush), who were happy to put short-term prosperity in front of long-term stability. Both the tech and the housing bubbles should have been reined in well before they were. But then again Wall Street and the banking industry were making fortunes for themselves.
But to blame Obama? Again, I challenge any of you to tell me what he should have done differently. Foregone the stimulus package and just hope that the rampant fear didn’t crater us into the second great depression? Because that was the Republican plan. Go to your church and pray…
Scooper, arguably the only facet of the Stimulus plan that has worked was pushed by the GOP in the Senate, in order to get their votes — the $8,000 tax credit has helped to create a floor in the housing market. The rest of the bill was nothing but a bunch of grants to states to keep SEIU workers on the job and paying their dues. That’s the whole of it.
Done differently? I would have (a) eliminated the payroll tax for a year, putting more cash in everyone’s pockets and maybe avoiding some foreclosures; (b) I would have increased depreciation in order for small businesses to buy more hardware and (c) I would have done the credit for housing. That’s it. It would have cost about 1/3 of the Stimulus and done more to actually ring cash registers and increase hiring of someone other than SEIU members.
“Arguably” is the operative word there. The measure was introduced originally by Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia last February. Isakson operated Northside Realty in Atlanta for many years, one of the largest real-estate firms in that part of the country and of course still has many ties to the industry through political donations.
Artificially propping up housing sounds more like an idea the Democrats would have dreamt up than Republicans. An extension of the program to April 30, 2010 was just announced. What happens after the taps gets turned off remains to be seen, as it’s believed there won’t be another $20-30 billi0n giveaway to be made. With fully 1/4 of all U.S. mortgages now underwater, and only one area (the South) is showing an increase in new home sales, the housing market is still a sore spot in a shaky and fragile economy.
Don…good post..
I don’t believe that Dodd will resign for a moment,nor should he, and I suspect that he will be monitoring the polls every day.In this business a significant polling shift can occur anytime and Dodd is working hard on the Democrats agenda faithfully. Yet to come out publically is Dodd’s noble work…at least I think its noble…on the financial services sytem’s legislative changes,which along with other things he is working on might well cause a shift change.
In addition I do believe that Blumie will not challenge Dodd and you are correct there.
Where you arent correct is your belief that the Left is disenchanted with Dodd to the extent that they will rise up and attempt to push him out.While a few leftists might be wringing their hands over Dodd’s polling numbers many more are actively helping him in the towns where they reside.
Your posting that Blumie wont move until and unless he can name his successor is interesting.However, there probably would be several qualified applicants and it is the delegates to the state convention who will make that determination, not Blumemthal.If the AG position went to a primary,which is where I think it would go,it is my belief that Blumenthal wouldnt designate a favorite.The democratic voters would in fact weigh and sift the democratic primary candidates and select someone, free of any nodding of the head from any elected democrat.
A couple general points:
Obama’s approval ratings have fallen beow 50% in Gallup and 45% in Rasmussen’s polls. Gallup claims its the fourth worst fall in a First Presidential year.
Both show the GOP ahead on a generic Congressional Ballot. Those are new developments this year as the last 4 years were pro-Democrat
Democratic strategists do not use Pollster or DailyKOs polls. If they did they would claim victory for every Democratic candidate in the country and never spend a dime on an election again.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122627/Obama-Job-Approval-Down-49.aspx
Macro-economics are in play here and any President would likely be polling low at this point.
Obama is bleeding non-Black and Indy voters over 30–the type that go to the polls in off years.
Obama has a rough second year ahead due to the deficit, his increased commitment to the war budget, ongoing stimulus policy, and the health care debate which won’t result in any benefits over the next year but will create plenty of bad press.
Obama can continue making promises but another (or continuing) run on the Dollar into Gold and interest bearing currencies and a government default like the rumblings from Dubai and Obama will be tied to dollar deflation and price inflation from imports through 2010.
The 44% of the country that will alway vote for Obama can spin it any way they want. The non-Black Indy vote is shifting towards a conservative change in fiscal policy.
This isnt’ good for State Democrats by any reading.
How far have things gone? Ron Paul’s son may win a Senate seat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26kentucky.html?_r=1&hpw
Pollster averages all polling available –including the crappy ones on both the right and the left. Realclearpolitics.com does a similar thing, except I think they do discriminate slightly, removing some of the more suspect pollsters. I would use either site regardless rather than rely on any one single pollster out there, including Gallup or Rasmussen.
Obama’s main loss of support, in percentage if not in numbers, seems to be among Liberal/Moderate Republicans who deserted the party that ran a McCain/Palin ticket with the baggage of the Bush presidency. Those people seem to have come back to the Republicans now.
Obama’s numbers among Independents are about even now (43.8/45.0) but the trend is against him and the Democrats. The question is whether the Republicans can field a convincing alternative.
I believe Ron Paul is the only R to have authored any significant legislation – Audit the Fed – this year.
Unfortunately, the GOP won’t accept Ron Paul as an alternative
… at least not yet anyway… 
Depends on the Pollster poll.
The Approval Ratings polls is weighted to The DailyKOs numbers which don’t reflect voting percentages.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php
The Job Approval Ratings Poll is more balanced and reflective of voting numbers.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php
Hey Tim, you’re backing Schiff now right
>>Unfortunately, the GOP won’t accept Ron Paul
Not electable; it’s amazing he holds his congressional seat.
A century ago, before media he might have done fine – but he has no delivery and suffers from a dour personality.
Gary Johnson on the other hand could maybe go somewhere.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
Favorable and Job Approval Ratings are different measurements, with favorability ratings usually, but not always, quite a bit higher. Both have their uses and I wouldn’t assign one a greater degree of importance than the other in every instance.
Bruce,
A couple of things: We should make a distinction between the popularity of persons (non-transferable) and the popularity of positions and programs (transferable, sometimes).
President Barack Obama personality continues to resonate with many people, though there has been some slippage lately. His programs, largely radical, are iffier. Obama’s luster is not likely to rub off on Dodd; the disparities are too great. But there is no question that Dodd has attached his fate to the fate of the Obama agenda: a highly regulated economy and the nationalization of heath care, to mention but two points.
Dodd’s fate is also attached to what might be called the wellness of his state; and, here again, the programs to which he has attached his political kite are doubtable, if not doubtful. He has also shifted to the center in foreign policy, which is very odd in his case. Dodd is not a pro war candidate – never has been. In economic policy, he has in the past remained somewhat moderate. In the last few months, we have seen a paradigm shift in both these areas. Obama is now pursuing a Bush policy in Afghanistan, an area of the world that very well could be a quagmire for American troops. All these things are arguable, and the fate of Afghanistan will depend upon the facts on the ground, which have yet to emerge. What is not arguable is the paradigm shift on Dodd’s part. Generally, voters react negatively to sharp shifts and late conversions in politicians who have been in office a long time. In a politician of long standing, shifts of this kind are looked upon by the general public with a baleful eye, and they leave politicians open to damaging criticism from political opponents.
That is why Dodd is in trouble. He would be in more trouble if Republicans were in a position to criticize him for his silence on Afghanistan. He was outspoken on the first Persian War, which he thought would be a quagmire resembling Vietnam. He was wrong. His position was muted during Bush’s war in Iraq, until Bush stumbled badly, at which point he once again found his tongue. President Obama very nearly won election on a promise to bring the troops out of Iraq shortly after he became president. Bush found his Grant in Petraeus, and the general’s strategy made the current withdrawals possible. But the war goes on in Afghanistan, and every argument used by progressives in their opposition to the war in Iraq applies as well in Afghanistan. Now that Obama is president, the opposition is less fulsome.
The terrorist trials in New York – or some other venue – are upcoming. Those trials may be viewed as a practical example of Dodd’s previous positions on how terrorists should be treated. Dodd has long pressed for a Nuremberg stage upon which terrorists may be tried. The trials in New York are even now shaping up as show trials. Such was Nuremburg – with this difference: The German army had been defeated before the Nuremberg trial commenced. The terrorists are still active, and the trials in a civilian court, during which a terrorist who arranged the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York will be invested with all the rights of a citizen of the United States, will be an invaluable recruiting tool. All this is yet to play out.
And how it will play out will be one of the determinants in the upcoming elections.
Mark, yes. But considering that his name has not yet even popped up at my Town Committee… I don’t expect him to get the 15% to get past the convention… though I think getting the 15% at convention is possible… he’d just need to make sure he IDs his supporters… largely found at TCs… where I presume one could find a very high percentage of convention attendees.
So yes, I support Schiff as long as he’s in it. But I don’t expect him to be in it very long, unfortunately.
As for my guy, RP… he never claimed that people like him. When Jay Leno asked him about that, RPs response was that people liked the message, not the messenger.
Don….I notice that Dodd is really doing more in the domestic area and getting alot of media attention over it.I suspect that he will press ahead on the domestic agenda for which as Chair of the Senate HELP committee he was “in the room” for healthcare legislation and he will do likewise with the financial system overhaul.Both of these as you know are longtime Democratic agenda items and may resonate well with the public.On the other hand Afganistan remains a quagmire for anyone seen as advocating troop increases.If Obama increases the troops significantly then he is to an extent “rolling the dice” and hoping for a positive partial outcome there before the 2010 elections,a dicey proposition.I would ( and will) caution Dodd to stay far away from Afganistan, but continue to press ahead on the domestic agenda in hopes that his numbers go up.
Having said the above, I am aware of the anti-incumbancy mood among the general public and it might be that quite a few icon’s of both partys get caught in the undertow.
Cool, Tim.
Well he has been laying low for now, but his headquarters opens up December 1st and he says he is hitting the trail hard with a lot of great things planned for this month.
No way Peter gets 15% at the convention. I’d be surprised if he got more than 5%.
Borrowing the word from Dubya, don’t “misunderestimate” him.
>>……… I think getting the 15% at convention is possible… he’d just need to make sure he IDs his supporters… largely found at TCs… where I presume one could find a very high percentage of convention attendees.
Delegate selection occurs between March 23rd and the 30th.
How many town committees can be visited in that amount of time?
The more classic method of gaining delegates is to spend the previous fall lending whatever help the next year’s candidate can, to that year’s local candidates.
Then whether those people win or lose, they’ll tend to elbow others out of the way in a mad dash for the sign-up sheet once the local party chair asks, “Who wants to be a delegate this year?”
Those candidates that have failed to fulfill this norm, generally realize no one owes them anything, too late.
Schiff will be extremely lucky to break 10% at the convention.
Moderation, because why?
No idea – just ok’d
Will McMahon get her 15% at convention?
Based on what I read, most people credited Obama’s electioneering team with his nationwide primary victory over HRC. The concept was simple – determine where the votes are, then get them.
HRC went after (Dem) public opinion and won it nationwide. Obama went after caucus voters in Montana and Texas and won them.
HRC took the old-fashioned route of winning public opinion via the MSM. Obama took the really old-fashioned route – he counted votes and got them, one-by-one.
My point? If you have the money (and Schiff does), then getting the 15% at convention is potentially doable. But Schiff’s team will need to be smart to make it happen.
Linda should be a slam dunk for 15%. If she doesn’t get it, then no one on her political team should ever get hired in politics again… barring some sort of public meltdown on her part which creates an insurmountable hurdle for her political team.
argh! moderation!
Sara, was it the length of the post? I have no idea what I wrote that was inappropriate.
Tim I sprung your comment.
Thanks for springing Tim’s post. Tim – I have no idea why that came under moderation. The filter let through some words that I ended up moderating (ie/d*****b*g – we’re all intelligent enough to express ourselves without resorting to that kind of language here, no?) but then moderates seemingly inoffensive posts. Go figure.
You must log in to post a comment.