John Elway for US Senate

[Keystone Phil]

Schaffer wouldn't have won in 2004 and won't win in 2008.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

[Keystone Phil]

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

We need +1 to tie, +2 to win.  You do not even allow for that to happen.  That is not playing smart.

Sometimes we have to realize that we're in a game to minimize damages.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Uh, yeah, I wish it was that simple to make everything red vs. blue. We have to actually look at the candidates. Incumbents Smith and Sununu are much stronger than Schaffer.

[Keystone Phil]

Smith and Sununu are incumbents and so they're naturally 'stronger.'  But of course you have to look at the states they're running in.  Oregon is very liberal and New Hampshire is becoming rapidly blue.  That means that demographics just don't favor those guys.  I think they'll both win--by the way--but the GOP has to make sure Colorado and the west stays red.  Colorado is much more favorable to Republicans than NH or OR--so why would you leave Schaffer in the dust?  When you factor in demographics, trends, and the incumbency advantages of Smith and Sununu, Schaffer has every bit of good chance at winning as the others.

A few things...

1) Schaffer is weak.
2) Udall is strong.
3) Colorado is turning to the Dems.

Sorry if that seems overly simplistic but it's the truth. I don't like it but that's how it is.

[Keystone Phil]

Right, that's how Democrats didn't pick up Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Except 2006 was a much different year. As of now, looking into picking up states like Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, etc. is very foolish.

And even if it wasn't the type of year that it was, going after Missouri, Rhode Island and Ohio made a lot more sense than us going after Baucus, Harkin, Lautenberg, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mature    When you want to discuss these races in a serious manner, get in touch with me. Otherwise, keep the stupid jokes to yourself.