Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Republicans to Be Placed?

Over at NLS an interesting post is up regarding a possibility that the Republican Caucus plans to move certain '05 candidates into different districts for '07. If this plan is true, I believe it has many holes..but I do not disagree with it entirely. Certain candidates seem strong enough to run again in different districts, as Delegate Tim Hugo did up here years ago. For the most part though-seems like a bad idea.

16 Comments:

At 2/07/2006 08:43:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

That kind of strategy depends totally on the candidate. However, in this case I think not-Chap is pulling people's legs.

 
At 2/07/2006 08:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We Republicans are pretty dumb but not this dumb. Try again Not-Chap.

 
At 2/07/2006 08:54:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Well, let's just adopt England's methods and let the party run candidates in any district that they please. Of course the candidate will have no choice...he/she has to go where the party says he/she goes...and the candidate has no vested interest in the well-being of electorate...they're just passing through.

 
At 2/07/2006 09:01:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Tim Hugo did it though..

 
At 2/07/2006 09:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

True, but Hugo was a good candidate in a tough district (Watts). I do not see much in Craddock, Golden, Hyland, Meunier (good guy, however), Cheung, Scoma, or Gregerson, etc that recommends them for another race.

 
At 2/07/2006 10:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How anyone can lump Golden and Hyland with Cheung, Craddock, and Gregerson is beyond me. You don't know much if you don't recognize the fundamental differences between those two groups.

 
At 2/07/2006 10:35:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was the one that lumped Golden and Hyland with the others, and I can tell you exactly why. Yes, both are great guys and were serious candidates, but running them for another office (assuming they were among those who would be asked to move and run again) would be a stupid idea also. Hyland has run for 3 different offices (Congress, BOS, and HOD) and has lost each time. Golden ran and lost twice for HOD. I think we can agree that the voters were not buying what these two were selling.

BTW, this is a silly argument because I doubt the RPV is stupid enough to ask 2005 losing candidates to move and run again.

 
At 2/07/2006 10:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see if meaningful recruitment efforts will produce viable candidates for GA races and Board of Supervisors.

 
At 2/07/2006 11:05:00 PM, Anonymous Bill Kuster said...

It's actually not that bad a strategy from an RPV point of view, you have a known quantity who apparently played well with the party. It beats an unknown and in a more favorable district, who knows?

 
At 2/07/2006 11:08:00 PM, Anonymous gopkdh said...

anon-

I had heard the same thing about RPV doing this

 
At 2/08/2006 08:46:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 910, 1035: I buy your underlying point, but I have met all of the people you have mentioned, and Hyland and Golden are the ones in which I see at least something that recommends them for another race.

I mean, if Wolf and Devolites can come back from a couple (few?) losses and succeed the way they have, it's hard for me to DQ others who have substance, have some professional maturity, and who "get it," simply because they lost a couple in really tough districts (in some tough years).

 
At 2/08/2006 09:01:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Several people have said that Golden is looking at running against Caputo in '07.

Also, Wolf and Devolites did run many times. Wolf won the third time and Devolites ran for several things (including Fairfax GOP chairman) and lost before winning the HOD seat.

 
At 2/08/2006 09:56:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

I'm agnostic about this. While, in general, I think it's a bad idea to move anywhere simply to satisfy one's political ambitions, motive is a difficult thing to peg in an area like this, where people are quite mobile.

 
At 2/08/2006 12:07:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

35th (Hyland)district is only marginally more Democratic than 41st(Golden's) District, which is only marginally more Democratic than 67th (Craddock) District. About a 3 point swing.

To say that any of these candidates are such stellar candidates that by moving districts they would win is rediculous. There may be a two point positive difference, but all of the candidates lost much more than that. I would have to look at the numbers again, but I would think that all of the candidates lost percentage-wise in proportion to their districts.

 
At 2/08/2006 01:48:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TM,

I would question your assessment of the 67th. Craddock lost by large numbers more because of the successful smear campaign used against him because of his inarticulateness, Reese's back-stabbing, and Craddock's driving record. I don't think the others faced any kind of negatives like that. It had alot less to do with Craddock's issue positions I would think.

I'm not saying that it makes sense to do that, but if no better candidates can be found in the 67th, bringing someone in might be a good idea.

 
At 2/08/2006 02:28:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's much more than a 3% spread between the 41st and 67th. More like 5% or so. I don't know the 35th as well, but it can't be much better than the 41st, if at all.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home