2010 Primaries Thread (It's all over now, baby blue)

[nhmagic]

A little primer for AZ:

McCain wins comfortably - which isnt surprising
Brewer wins in a blowout - also not surprising - more interestingly, once her first elected term is over in 2014, there will have been a female governor in Arizona with Jan in the name for 18 years. (Jane Hull, Janet Napolitano, Jan Brewer - how weird huh?)

Competitive CDs 1,5,8
CD1 (Tossup/Tilt D)-Rusty Bowers will win the primary and go on to face Kirkpatrick, who is the least vulnerable of the vulnerable AZ dems.  This race should have been much easier considering the big conservative tilt of the district, but Bowers is old and doesn't present that fresh face aura that would help him this year. At the same time, immigration politics and a large Brewer win should sweep her out.  (R+6 PVI)

CD5 (Pure Tossup)-There are a bunch of republicans running in this Scottsdale/Tempe district and they are continuing to practice the art of self destruction.  David Schweikert and Susan Bitter Smith continue to snipe, while former Lucasarts bigwig Jim Ward is quietly fundraising and building friends in Scottsdale.  If Ward wins, this goes to tossup/lean R.  If Bitter Smith or Schweikert win its tossup/lean d with an emphasis on the lean d.  Harry Mitchell is lucky that hes in a district that is mainly made up of white collar employees, wealthy people and college students.  That makeup may end up saving him in November.  Democrats in working class/blue collar districts are having a much harder time.

CD8 (Tossup/Lean R)-Jonathan Paton will win the R primary and go on to face Giffords in the general.  Giffords has damaged herself bigtime with votes on healthcare and by being a high profile Pelosi acolyte.  That is a much harder sell in a working class/rural district.  Paton's opponent Jesse Kelly has had some damaging news come out about his family's construction company having actively sought stimulus money for projects.  Kelly also has went negative on Palin, who will likely endorse and provide some serious fundraising power to Paton (who is already a decent fundraiser).  Paton has a top tier ad campaign about to come out (I know because one of my best friends creates the ads and you have certainly seen them in national media) and is going to give Giffords one hell of a fight.  Interestingly, Paton and Giffords dated in high school.  Giffords will need a huge hispanic turnout to save her.

*A note about all the three competitive dem cds-Brewers impending win this fall and the immigration debate could sweep them all out.

Slightly Competitive Seat But Not Really CD3 (Likely Republican)-Its probably going to come down to Ben Quayle or Vernon Parker.  Ben Quayle is dumb for running an ad that most republicans agree with, but was executed in an idiotic way.  Vernon Parker is the black mayor of Paradise Valley and has a lot of monetary support.  Quayle has the name ID.

[nhmagic]

Each of the three competitive AZ dems are going to lose their seats.  That is as clear as ever from the republican turnout so far in the primary. 

AZ1-30725 DEM / 55314 REP
AZ5-18230 DEM / 39687 REP
AZ8-33979 DEM / 47590 REP

[nhmagic]

Each of the three competitive AZ dems are going to lose their seats.  That is as clear as ever from the republican turnout so far in the primary. 

AZ1-30725 DEM / 55314 REP
AZ5-18230 DEM / 39687 REP
AZ8-33979 DEM / 47590 REP

A little presumptious, considering that Democrats had no primary and no reason to show up.

If you knew the democrats had even a 50/50 shot you would have blasted my comment - the fact that you only call it a little presumptious is almost evidence enough you agree.  I know that you cant interpret primary results and apply it to the general, but there is enough of a turnout gap to show an obvious wave incoming.  You have to also remember that dems rarely if ever have a contentious primary in AZ, they just solidify around a candidate and hope into the wind that they get lucky - its just the way AZ works.

[nhmagic]

You know - Im happy that O'Donnell won.  Im sick of this bull and Im tired of listening to people tell people that conservatism can't win in states like Delaware.  You have countless examples of socialist democrats winning in states they "shouldn't win".  What does that say about democrats - they have to lie and connive and pretend they are moderate just to win?  Is that how you feel about your party?  Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad have won in states where their views are absolutely incompatible with their state's bent.  North Dakota is about equally as conservative as Delaware is liberal.  It's time for the party to change and we need to be more radical if we are ever to repeal Obamacare.  We are going to win the senate in November and it can be done without Castle.  We've got plenty of other states that are on the bubble - Johnson will beat Feingold, Rossi will beat Murray, Angle will defeat Reid and I even have a feeling that Raese might beat Manchin and even that Fiorina will defeat Boxer.  We need a change and we need a mighty conservative power to fight these bastards to kingdom come.  You want to go along and get along, then join them.  If you want the country to succeed you join us.  Democrats need, nay, deserve to pay dearly for what they have done.  We will be a stronger party and we can differentiate ourselves enough from them to give voters a real choice.  They will choose us and reject the democrats.  Democrats are unpatriotic and hate this country.  They call people stupid.  We're tired of it.  We're tired of them making our lives miserable.  We're tired of stagnation caused by the liberal policies of both Bush and Obama.  We're tired of young liberals perverting the constitution and lying about who we are.  We're tired of mushy moderates co-opting the party.  It's time this country decided who we are and we're going to win because our values are right.  Our values are better and extend freedom to the maximum amount of people.

[nhmagic]

Who's throwing the temper tantrum now?  ajc, you are exactly the problem in our party.  We can't change anything that they are doing with your views.  Yet, with every weasely defection like yours (like Crist, like Specter, soon Murkowski and soon Castle) we gain new people who were once democrats realizing that we are for what they stand for.  Do you see democrats switching parties because their candidate didn't win?  No, they don't and if you want to know why, it's because even though they have petty rivalries, they are always united on their end goals.  Conservatives are not united on our end goals and we need to be.  Those goals must be different goals from the democratic party.  We have to flush out people like Castle and Crist and Murkowski in order to do that.  All throughout the Bush years we had democrats and republicans joining together in an unholy union to pass spending programs and invasions of privacy.  We had democrats and republicans joining together to increase the power of the executive and weaken the power of the people.  That time is over.

[nhmagic]

Who's throwing the temper tantrum now?  ajc, you are exactly the problem in our party.  We can't change anything that they are doing with your views.  Yet, with every weasely defection like yours (like Crist, like Specter, soon Murkowski and soon Castle) we gain new people who were once democrats realizing that we are for what they stand for.  Do you see democrats switching parties because their candidate didn't win?  No, they don't and if you want to know why, it's because even though they have petty rivalries, they are always united on their end goals.  Conservatives are not united on our end goals and we need to be.  Those goals must be different goals from the democratic party.  We have to flush out people like Castle and Crist and Murkowski in order to do that.  All throughout the Bush years we had democrats and republicans joining together in an unholy union to pass spending programs and invasions of privacy.  We had democrats and republicans joining together to increase the power of the executive and weaken the power of the people.  That time is over.

Just tell me where does the "I'm more conservative" idea stop?
Ultimately how are are you willing to go to have this "conservative" purity that you want?

We don't have to be pure, but there are things going on in this country right now that we must change if the country is to survive.  This is a year to stand on principle and set a line in the sand that people must cross.  If the democrats win on their ideas then they're going to win, and we all lose.  If the democrats win because we allowed a moderate republican leadership to lead us on the slow path to decline (a moderate republican leadership that even in times of party control joins with democrats), then they still win and we all lose - and that's a damn shame because we could have done something about it like we are now.

[nhmagic]

Who's throwing the temper tantrum now?  ajc, you are exactly the problem in our party.  We can't change anything that they are doing with your views.  Yet, with every weasely defection like yours (like Crist, like Specter, soon Murkowski and soon Castle) we gain new people who were once democrats realizing that we are for what they stand for.  Do you see democrats switching parties because their candidate didn't win?  No, they don't and if you want to know why, it's because even though they have petty rivalries, they are always united on their end goals.  Conservatives are not united on our end goals and we need to be.  Those goals must be different goals from the democratic party.  We have to flush out people like Castle and Crist and Murkowski in order to do that.  All throughout the Bush years we had democrats and republicans joining together in an unholy union to pass spending programs and invasions of privacy.  We had democrats and republicans joining together to increase the power of the executive and weaken the power of the people.  That time is over.

Just tell me where does the "I'm more conservative" idea stop?
Ultimately how are are you willing to go to have this "conservative" purity that you want?

We don't have to be pure, but there are things going on in this country right now that we must change if the country is to survive.  This is a year to stand on principle and set a line in the sand that people must cross.  If the democrats win on their ideas then they're going to win, and we all lose.  If the democrats win because we allowed a moderate republican leadership to lead us on the slow path to decline (a moderate republican leadership that even in times of party control joins with democrats), then they still win and we all lose - and that's a damn shame because we could have done something about it like we are now.

So would you be happy with Castle in the senate?
If not, explain?

Because he isn't conservative enough?  
the smaller you make the party the less influence you have, therefore it becomes harder to reach your goals. just my opinion

Would I have supported Castle if he won the primary - sure.  Would I be happy with him being there - no.  We are trying to handicap the leadership in the party - our party shouldn't be led by moderates.  Moderates should be part of it, absolutely and even contribute, but they shouldn't lead our party as they have for so long and they certainly do not lead in the democratic party.  The democrats know this and isn't it funny that you don't see anyone debating O'Donnell about the issues?  Instead they call her a bitch, a slut, a hoar, a liar, a thief and an empty suit.  If moderates are leading our party when we get the chance to repeal Obamacare (and we will get one and only one opportunity in the future to do it, which will not come when some dumb congressman simply puts a resolution up) or stop cap n trade, we will surely fail with them in charge.  

[nhmagic]

That's not true NCYank.  Denny f-in Hastert, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Livingston, Dole, Frist (who supports Obamacare) and porker Mitch McConnell spent our way out of office, added new regulations and FDR-like invasions of freedom like the Patriot Act (which Obama quietly but enthusiastically supports).  The leadership doesn't just consist of those individuals however.  It also consists of entrenched individuals like Snowe, Collins, McCain and now Grahamnesty.  They were all working together not just to simply pass moderate policy (as something like a middle class tax cut would have been), but to add BRAND NEW entitlements and put a very liberal immigration plan together for pete's sake.

[nhmagic]

That's not true NCYank.  Denny f-in Hastert, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Livingston, Dole, Frist (who supports Obamacare) and porker Mitch McConnell spent our way out of office, added new regulations and FDR-like invasions of freedom like the Patriot Act (which Obama quietly but enthusiastically supports).  The leadership doesn't just consist of those individuals however.  It also consists of entrenched individuals like Snowe, Collins, McCain and now Grahamnesty.  They were all working together not just to simply pass moderate policy (as something like a middle class tax cut would have been), but to add BRAND NEW entitlements and put a very liberal immigration plan together for pete's sake.

Most of them are Conservatives who lost their way.


Its hard to put them in the same group with Castle, Simmons, Kirk, Chafee. They may annoy you on issues but they certainly were not "in charge" at the time either. Quite the opposite.

Plus my defination of conservative differs from yours substantially, especially on defense. Some of the people who lost to the Tea Party like Norton, and Grayson were fine on Immigration and every other issue to be considered Hard Core Conservatives by myself and perfectly adequate ideologically. I am not an anti-war zealot, but I will agree Iraq was a mistake in hindsight, unless you have a time machine though so we could know then what we do now. I supported the Patriot Act, also. This is all the more surprising considering I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war in 2003.

NCYank what is the difference between a conservative who has lost their way and a liberal?  Those individuals have certainly not found their way back and do not deserve leadership.  That's why O'Donnell's victory was so important as a symbol.  It revealed how much they are against conservatives (whether of my stripe or yours).  They immediately announced that they were dropping financial support for her in the race - I guess that one couldn't wait for a quiet press release a couple of weeks later.  Norton is one of the few establishment endorsed individuals this cycle who has endorsed her winning opponent and held decent views.  Grayson has been such a sore loser that he hasn't even been able to endorse Paul and as he was being groomed by McConnell (who in order to win in 08 campaigned on the virtues of pork), I fully suspect that he would have been sending pork straight back home to KY.

I probably hold closer views to you than you think, but differ on the means.  The Patriot Act in a trustworthy person's hands can be a great tool to fight terrorism, yet in Obama's hands is an opening to an invasion of privacy like none other.  That's why it should not exist.  With that said, I think we need a decent defense structure that can also be offensive (particularly in Israel's case).