It has been said that 2008 should be another very good year for Democrats as far as elections are concerned. As I was checking out some Senate campaign sites today, I found one that really attested to the strength of the Democratic party.
It is generally agreed upon that just about all of the Democratic Senate seats up for reelection in '08 are safe, except for one. That one Democratic seat that many have said could go to Republicans is that of Senior Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu. What shocked me is that although that sentiment is that Landrieu very well could lose in '08, she has raised five times the amount of cash she did in the 3rd quarter during the 2002 campaign. During the last two quarters, she has raised $3.4 million. That, for a small state Senator who many expect to lose, is extremely impressive. It is just another sign of the Democrats' strength, especially considering Louisiana is trending more and more Republican.
It is also important to note that the GOP has not yet announced a candidate to challenge Landrieu in 2008. From what I've heard, Republicans are having a problem finding someone with enough electability to go up against Landrieu. So, if the Democrat who is most expected to lose in '08 has raised $3.4 million so far, and doesn't even have a challenger, I guess that says a lot about the Republican Party----it's in shambles.
On a side note, Sen. Landrieu's brother, current Lousiaina Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, is rumored to challenge David "I'm a family man even though I higher prostitutes" Vitter for the Senate in 2010.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Do Endorsements Matter?
With all the talk of Al Gore possible endorsing a candidate for president, I asked myself, "Do endorsements matter in today's world?". Here are my thoughts:
Would a Gore endorsement help any candidate? My guess is not significantly. Remember, Gore endorsed Howard Dean in '04, and Dean didn't win a single primary except for Vermont. While a Gore endorsement might give a slight boost to either the Obama or Edwards' campaign, there won't be a long term impact. Voters are looking to the candidates themselves these days to determine who to vote for. They are not looking to another politician to, in a sense, tell them who to vote for.
What I just talked about was a "national" endorsement. There are "local" endorsements that do matter and are significantly more important to a candidate than a national endorsement. Local endorsements matter because the national candidate gets local resources. A perfect example of this is former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I give a lot of credit to Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary for her rise in polls in Iowa. Just six months ago she was about 10% behind Edwards. Now she is polling 3-10% ahead of Edwards, depending on what poll you look at. Endorsements from mayors and councilmen give even a greater advantage to candidates. All their local connections and resources are essentially given to the presidential candidate to use at their disposal, and that can be a huge advantage in early primary states and in swing districts in the general election.
So, do endorsements matter? Yes and no. National endorsements don't really have a long term effect. Local endorsements, on the other hand, can make a difference. Thats why it is always more important to look at the local organization of these campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, than their national organization. The perfect example of this is the situation between Rudy and Romney. Rudy might have many national endorsements and might be leading in national polls, but Romney has much local support in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. And, if Romney can use that localized support properly, he can, despite Rudy's large national lead, win the GOP nomination. My point: national endorsements are often nothing more than symbolism; the local endorsements are the ones that win elections.
Would a Gore endorsement help any candidate? My guess is not significantly. Remember, Gore endorsed Howard Dean in '04, and Dean didn't win a single primary except for Vermont. While a Gore endorsement might give a slight boost to either the Obama or Edwards' campaign, there won't be a long term impact. Voters are looking to the candidates themselves these days to determine who to vote for. They are not looking to another politician to, in a sense, tell them who to vote for.
What I just talked about was a "national" endorsement. There are "local" endorsements that do matter and are significantly more important to a candidate than a national endorsement. Local endorsements matter because the national candidate gets local resources. A perfect example of this is former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I give a lot of credit to Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary for her rise in polls in Iowa. Just six months ago she was about 10% behind Edwards. Now she is polling 3-10% ahead of Edwards, depending on what poll you look at. Endorsements from mayors and councilmen give even a greater advantage to candidates. All their local connections and resources are essentially given to the presidential candidate to use at their disposal, and that can be a huge advantage in early primary states and in swing districts in the general election.
So, do endorsements matter? Yes and no. National endorsements don't really have a long term effect. Local endorsements, on the other hand, can make a difference. Thats why it is always more important to look at the local organization of these campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, than their national organization. The perfect example of this is the situation between Rudy and Romney. Rudy might have many national endorsements and might be leading in national polls, but Romney has much local support in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. And, if Romney can use that localized support properly, he can, despite Rudy's large national lead, win the GOP nomination. My point: national endorsements are often nothing more than symbolism; the local endorsements are the ones that win elections.
We Are All Americans (special editorial by John Lucia)
**Note: from now on, all posts written by John Lucia will not have his name in the title, but his name will appear at the end of the posts as a signature**
Through all walks of life, the American people have always wanted what is best for themselves, their children and grandchildren. A steady job to earn a decent wage, a home, those things that are necessary to live life and the safety to move about freely without harm.
So why are we such a divided country? Are we not all Americans first and foremost? Our political persuasion may be Liberal, Conservative, Moderate and etc, but we all seek the same security and freedom for our family. We are supposed to be in the age of advance technology, how can this be happening? Is this the future we are passing on to our children and grandchildren?
We are bombarded 24 hours a day by the news media, especially television and it is sad to say, but the news is more negative than positive. Why? And why do we accept that? Why do we believe everything we hear even though they are too many times when no evidence is offered to support the stories? Why not tune out the negative news media?
Our political system has become poison in the last 20 or so years. Personal attacks rule the day. It is standard procedure now for some politicians to attack others character and patriotism just because they disagree. The worst part of it all is that it works. Has it produced better leaders? I think not, with the President's approval rating at 29% and congress even lower. So what has divisive politics accomplished for the people and our country?
Has it made our country fiscally sound? Not even close. Has it made our country safer? Not a chance. Has it produced a better quality of life for our people? That also would have to be answered in the negative. Will we continue to choose division or ideology as a way of being governed? Or will we stand up and be counted as Americans first. The choice is ours to make and I hope we make the right one.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)