More Proof We Can Beat the Left: They Beat Themselves Too

Even Mentos Eaters Want in on the Act

By Thomas Posted in Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

While you're getting out the vote, let's focus on why we're doing this. It's important not to let the insanity embodied by the Nutroots get any races for which they're actually trying (as opposed to the ones that we hand them). Fortunately, they're already in self-destruct mode, at least in Connecticut:

Down more than a dozen points in the polls, Mr. Lamont has practically become a self-financed candidate, pouring $12.7 million of his own money into his campaign to compensate for lackluster fund-raising. He is sorely missing the grassroots fervor and national attention he enjoyed early on, when he was the darling of the blogosphere and the bellwether of Democratic politics. Mr. Lamont is making a last-ditch effort to refocus his message on Iraq and regain his prior momentum, but it seems to be too little, too late.

Democratic strategists and consultants, some of them sympathetic to the campaign, are already talking about it in the past tense.

“I think it was possible for Lamont to pull it off,” said Bob Shrum, a veteran political analyst. “There were moments right after the primary where it was basically a tied race.”

The apparent end of the much-ballyhooed Lamont phenomenon is causing a great deal of soul-searching and recrimination in all corners of the Democratic Party. The bloggers that once championed Mr. Lamont as an awkward but earnest savior now alternately blame Washington’s strategists for hijacking their candidate and Democratic leaders for abandoning him. Beltway consultants fault the Lamont campaign for failing to move the candidate beyond his left-wing celebrity and define him for a greater electorate.

Dear Nutroots:

Although I could point out that we told you so (aw, heck: We told you so), I'd instead like to point out that you really should have known that Ned was toast (we told you so), and not just because of Nutroots-intensive Mentos commercials (we told you so), because, and learn this rule now, If Bob Shrum ever judges a candidate viable, that candidate is doomed. Ya'd think you'd've learned that in 2000 and 2004. (And 1980, and 1984, and 1998, and...)

Oh, yeah: We told you so.

Sincerely,

T.

The hat tip to the Brothers Judd. The comments open to RedStaters.

Now get on the freaking phone and drive some nails in the Democrats' coffins.


« When Negative Ads BackfireComments (4) | Your 109th CongressComments (27) »
More Proof We Can Beat the Left: They Beat Themselves Too 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

But we did:

Kos thinks we "backed" Lieberman. He's sure that we aren't happy to see a three-way race in Connecticut, in which the huge war chest of Lieberman and the hordes of the nutosphere will do battle over one Senate seat in a Blue State, a seat that was so solidly theirs that it wasn't even on the radar.

Sigh. One day, the Democrats may learn the power of compromise, and will accept their most substantial national figure whether he or she properly intones all the lyrics of the mantra or merely hums along, except for the chorus.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

I hope Bob Shrum lives to be 150, and consults for Democrat candidates until his very last long-lived breath. He's the Washington Generals of politics. May his health, mind and body be forever young. I toast to his well-being!

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

Thinking about it more... Kos is just Shrum 2.0 (or the eShrum if you prefer).

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

Just counting the money Nud Lamont has dumped into his losing campaign: He has spent $3.73 for every man, woman and child in CT.

The 2000 Census shows only 2,565,991 people of voting age.

Only some 80% of those eligible to vote are registered and only some 60% of those registered actually vote.

So that's $12.7 million for 1,231,676 people who are likely to vote--or $10.31.

He's pulling 37% so he has spent $27.87 per vote to get 455,720 votes.

What a return on investment . . .

pays about $150,000 plus graft. Don't think I'll let him manage my few farthings.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service