If repukes were smart: Why bother running someone against Hillary

LynneSin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 02:47 PM
Original message

If repukes were smart: Why bother running someone against Hillary

Seriously, Clinton is going to win in a landslide for her senate re-election race. In 2000, her opponent Rick Lazio outspent her by like $10million and he still had to continue fund-raising after his lose because of the debts he incurred.

Unless Alan Keyes wants a stab at Hillary or some other self-made brazilliare, wouldn't their money be better spent on other races where they might actually have a chance of winning?

This is to not advocated having people running against her even in the primaries. This is just saying it seems like a waste of $50million dollars for something they can't win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Egalitariat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 02:51 PM
Response to Original message

1. They have to get her on the record committing to serve her 6 year term

They can't get her on the record unless they run somebody against her.

Otherwise, you're right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gidney N Cloyd

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. Unopposed races bug the hell out of me.

I understand it doesn't make sense to spend the money sometimes but if only for the sake of getting some promising candidate a little campaign experience for next time, it seems worth putting SOMEone's hat in the ring.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

emulatorloo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 02:56 PM
Response to Original message

2. Pukes have money to burn

I mean, think about it.

:toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

iconoclastNYC

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #2

11. Yes. 8 billion missing from the CPA

Other sources.

Drug money funds horrible things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Benhurst

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 02:58 PM
Response to Original message

3. Having someone to run against Clinton brings out the party faithful

to vote against her and at the same time vote for other Repubs on the ticket. Without someone running against her, many might stay home.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leveymg

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message

5. Yes. Someone who's a pushover. That will add to the chances she's

nominated. They really WANT HER to be the Dem candidate in '08, you know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

safi0

(993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 03:15 PM
Response to Original message

6. All they want

Is someone to rough her up for 08. If this Yonkers Mayor runs and she wins with 65% it only increases her momentum going into 08.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jobycom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 03:17 PM
Response to Original message

7. Can you imagine explaining to their followers why they didn't?

It's only money, and it's probably stolen from 401K plans, anyway. They don't mind wasting it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Beer Snob-50

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 03:20 PM
Response to Original message

8. it would be stupid to not run someone against her

she is the boogeyman of the democratic party and she cannot be beaten. that is why they run some shmuck against her. she is a great moneyraiser for the republican party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 04:41 PM
Response to Original message

9. Or conversely, no difficult runs for office

Edited on Wed Dec-21-05 04:42 PM by karynnj

means no practice for a tough election. Think about it, last year, no one mentioned that Kerry got 81% of the vote in 2002 (when his opposition was not significant), but they did mention the 1996 run against a very popular moderate Republican Governor who was loved by the press. That run gave him the skills to almost win an impossible race. It certainly helped him hone his debating skills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

iconoclastNYC

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 06:47 PM
Response to Original message

10. Because if she doesn't have to raise money

She can fund raise for other candidates. Supposedly that's how the theory goes. That's also part of the reason for the 50 state strategy the DNC is persuing. Plus...the race allows the GOP to get thier talking points out in the NYS media ether. There is no way they won't run a candidate.

50 Million is nothing to these people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

radio4progressives

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-21-05 06:53 PM
Response to Original message

12. why are you embracing $$$$$ to prove a candidates worthiness

to be in office?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:12 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.