For those of you who caught Flyover Country’s blog post today about Christopher Reed’s loosing margin you probably had about the same reaction as I did. You may click on their link to the right.
They try to say that Reed lost because he had an outdated right-wing message. They don’t mention the fact that he had no money. Most people have more money in their couch cushions than he ran a campaign on. He came from nowhere and in the primary beat a two time loser and a guy that was running for two years named Rathjcke or something – Last I heard he was going to primary Grassley next.
Anyway – Flyover – you guys have lost a ton of credibility in my book. You try to compare Lightfoot, Ganske, and Reed without mentioning money at all? How dumb do you think we are? You give Reed 10 million bucks and see what his margin is. I’m not saying he’d win, but he’d do at least as good as Ganske. Also, Ganske ran in 2002 where statewide registered Republicans outnumbered registered Democrats by more than 50,000. Currently we have a disadvantage of 106,000 registrants. You may also remember Republicans had the momentum nationally in 2002.
To compare Reed with the other candidates is completely ridiculous. Apparently conservatism is dead according to Flyover.
I'm betting there is something else behind this post. Keep an eye on Flyover - those boys have a gubernatorial candidate picked out and something tells me - he/she is a moderate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You know how you get money in campaign CD, people believe in you enough to give it to you. They recoginize a good investment from a bad one (not always a winning one). Hartsuch, Reed, King, VanderPlaats, and all the other extreme right wingers cannot raise money, because so few believe in them. Don't complain about money, go raise it from people who believe in you (if there are any).
Anon - you appàrently didn't pay attention too well. King raised over 800 thousand last report. We won't know his total until later this year but it is looking like close to 1 mill. That shows great suuport. You can't really be defending flyovers logic can you?
We need to accept that Reed is not a good case study for either side of this argument.
He was a horrible candidate. Case closed.
Reed with $10mm dollars? Not ever possible so not worth talking about.
Imagine then though he could afford John Edwards style haircuts and get out of the CostCutters.
Anon 8:52 - You are right - Reed with 10 million, not going to happen. A conservative with 10 million, very easily done.
Reed was an awful candidate from the outset. He was a puppet of the Christian right and people who were mad at RPI. Too bad he never realized he was a pawn in their game.
I agree that money is actaully a good test of support. Most candidates at any level start out with $0. It's with their own work, connecting with people, and message to a donor that gets them the moolah.
Reed was an awful candidate because he didn't raise any money. But he was an awful candidate because he couldn't sell his message. To voters OR donors.
period.
CD - Keep up the good work. Oh, and tell your dad to shave his mustache!
annon 11:33
tell your mom to wax hers
Post a Comment