Without the massive support/funding from activists all over the country, Hoffman wouldn't have done nearly as well. In 2010, their attentions will be divided, and Hoffman would be lucky to poll in the mid 40's.
You forget that he did as well as he did with just a short burst of funding and campaigning agaisnt two other candidates. While the Republican candidate dropped out just before the election, her name was still on the ballots. If Hoffman is nominated by the GOP in 2010, he'll have more time to campaign, he'll have the GOP funding (and not have to rely solely on contributions), and he'll be running against a candidate that voted for the House health care reform bill after campaigning against it. I don't see how that is a bad position for him to be in. Sounds almost like a better deal.
Dude, as much as I don't like it when someone gets called a DINO everytime they stray from liberal orthodoxy, you actually support a nutty tea bagger like
Hoffman over a moderate like Owens?
Can you name a single Democrat in a federal race you would support for election over any of their potential GOP rivals? If you're supporting Hoffman, it's clear you'd vote against Dan Boren or Gene Taylor in favor of whatever ultra-right winger the OK or MS GOP put up against them for their "liberal" support of Pelosi and Obama.
There's "conservative Democrat", then there's Zell Miller-like attention whores. Just give it up.
