Page 1 of 1

GOP Gives Up on Mike DeWine

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:17 am
by David Lay

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:18 pm
by DougHuntingdon
I heard that on Drudge last night. He has good inside sources, including at the NY Times.

One theory is the RNC has given up on Dewine. The other theory is that he has much more money than his opponent and doesn't need the extra money. I don't know what the polls are currently on this race, but my favorite commercial out of all the Ohio races is the one on Marc Dann where it is revealed that he DEFENDS criminals! :oops:

Doug

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:13 pm
by Colleen Wing
As usual, this is a lie.

The New York Times- We make news...literally.

http://www.rightangleblog.com/?q=node/985 [url]
[/url]

Dewine

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:37 pm
by Bill Call
Colleen Wing wrote:As usual, this is a lie.

The New York Times- We make news...literally.


This type of article is less news and more part of the MSM voter suppression effort.

For a good analysis of this article and others see:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politic ... ewine.html

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:51 am
by Grace O'Malley
Guess it wasn't a lie after all.


When your own party deserts you, you're in trouble.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1161938573225110.xml&coll=2

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:14 pm
by TIM CARROLL
Perhaps if you look at the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (through 9/30/06) Brown's campaign had $ 1,209,259 cash on hand and DeWine's campaign has $ 4,503.735, maybe that is why the RNC is reducing the ad buy. It would be hard to justify sending additional money when your candidate has at least a 3 to 1 advantage.

The question really is, does Brown have enough cash to last?

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:36 pm
by DougHuntingdon
Thanks for the vindication.

Like any organization, the RNC has a finite amount of resources. They can't give unlimited money to every race. They have to pick and choose.

Doug

Disclaimer: I am voting for neither candidate.

garbage

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:52 pm
by ryan costa
I am wondering why this amount of money is required to host intelligent democracy.

Nearly every campaign commercial I hear or see is uninformative or misinformative. And they play them multiple times an hour. Do people realize they are donating money to this? If you train people to be stupid the odds are you will succeed.

I saw this show called Dancing with the Stars. Jerry Springer is not a good dancer, but the audience kept voting him back in.

If Jerry Springer runs for office, he will be able to win with minimal campaigning. The public refuses to let him lose. Then we won't have to put up with so many campaign commercials.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:26 am
by David Lay
TIM CARROLL wrote:Perhaps if you look at the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (through 9/30/06) Brown's campaign had $ 1,209,259 cash on hand and DeWine's campaign has $ 4,503.735, maybe that is why the RNC is reducing the ad buy. It would be hard to justify sending additional money when your candidate has at least a 3 to 1 advantage.

The question really is, does Brown have enough cash to last?


Brown has stated he has prepaid for much of his advertising, that's why his cash on had is lower than DeWine's.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:40 pm
by DougHuntingdon
My guess is that Sherrod Brown will get about 90% of the vote of this board.

Doug