Primary Night Results Thread (AL, CA, IA, MT, NJ, NM, SD)

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Well, it's the only contest I'll let myself be optimistic on, so Ose's negative ads will surely carry the day.  And then Charlie Brown will win in November.  And then California will fall into the ocean.

I suspect the carpetbagging whacko McClintock will easily defeat the responsible and sane Ose and Charlie Brown will win in November.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

At this point, it really is McClintock's to lose.

and Charlie Brown's to win.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Called for McClintock in CA-04

Thank you California GOP...

That's the person the CA GOP should want running in that CD.  Sorry.

But, but, Don said...

Don supports moderates of the GOP.  Not necessarily the best candidates.

He used to argue that he was supporting the candidates with the best chances of winning. Then he ended up supporting Kirk Humphreys in the OK Senate primary and Lisa Murkowski in the AK Senate primary back in 2004. I challenged him on why he would say he supports the candidates with the best chances of winning and then actually support two weaker candidates. I don't recall the answer.

As far as a political party is concerned, electability must be the primary objective, but not the only objective.  As far as I am personally concerned I, like you, have to consider my own personal values when deciding whom to support.

Politics is about building coalitions to get candidates elected.  In general, a centrist candidate is more capable of building a larger coalition and is therefore more electable.  This is not always the case, it's just predominant.  In the Oklahoma electorate that has returned Inholfe to the Senate on a number of occasions, perhaps Kirk Humphreys would have been unable to build a coalition deep enough in order to win.  As far as Alaska is concerned, I think Lisa is serving just fine in the Senate

If an extreme candidate can win more easily in one district, but embarrasses us in the other 434 districts, then it is a setback.

In CA-4, I am at least pleased that there were 39% decent and honorable Americans voting in a California Republican primary.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

If you believe that an Abramoff-connected moderate will do better than a straight-forward, non-scandalized conservative in building a coalition, not to mention simply winning elections in Republican seats, you have quite a bit to learn.

If you consider Ose to have been an "Abramoff-conneected moderate", he'd be just about the only one. Abramoff was a well-known conservative activist.  Even going back to his term as CRNC Chairman, Abramoff "changed the direction of the committee and made it more activist and conservative than ever before." One campaign donation alone does not equal a connection.

Do you have something against McClintock,

Yes. He tried to make Cruz Bustamante your Governor.  Fortunately, like most of his electoral endeavors, he failed at that mission.

or do you just not know California politics?

I know that California Republican primary voters have a suicidal streak of promoting candidates that are too far to the right to win statewide.  Thank God that Schwarzenegger was able to get elected in the recall without a partisan primary - otherwise you might not have any statewide elected Republicans.

McClintock is a Republican icon in California. 

You should get a new icon.  I'd recommend one that can win a statewide election.

He's by far the 2nd most electable Republican statewide.

Wouldn't someone need to be elected statewide (like Steve Poizner, another moderate) in order to claim your honor?

The 4th CD is a safe Republican district either way.  So what's the deal?

The words "safe Republican district" almost can't be said this year, but I see your point.  If one of these Club for Growth types is going to be elected, this is the kind of district to do the dirty deed in.