This election could change the electoral map for years to come.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The point is that democrats winning local elections in the south are the same on cultural/social issues as their Republican opponents. Theyare the same animal in that respect. A political consultant/expert on NPR explained this today. He said the dynamic will be very different when it's McCain vs. Obama. He said that it's going to come down to are there enough blacks to counterbalance the fact that whites will vote McCain in droves. He wasn't partisan. He's from Emery University.

I think McCain will win and then we'll all feel icky about how it happened. IF the dems were running a traditional southern democrat they'd kill McCain. But they won't be.

Republicans can't win if they lose Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas or Georgia. And Obama is polling great in each.

And the very fact that a Democrat just won in Mississippi's 1st District is huge. MS 01 voted for Wicker with 66% of the vote in 2006. They voted for Bush with 64% of the vote in 2004. That spells trouble for Republicans (and they know it, which is why they spent 1/3 of the RNCC cash on hand on the MS 01 election).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You said this about Childers:

"The conservative principles that traditionally define the Republican party won, meaning those ideals are still valued by voters. Unfortunately the party is not embodying those ideals at the moment."

Now you are backtracking and saying that he was conservative on guns and life (what exactly is he going to do on either of those two issues in the US Congress, pray tell) which is enough to declare victory for conservative principles? What about the Republican who lost who held MORE conservative principles? Did that just represent conservatism not really trying, so it can't be chalked up as a loss?

You crack me up, Tex.

I'm not backtracking. I didn't say the man was Ronald Reagan, but he was more conservative than your run-of-the-mill Democrat candidate, even in the south. Most sane commentators outside the Obama cult acknowledge this.

I frankly don't know much about the Republican candidate, but I understand he ran a poor campaign. The ad of his you posted seems to support this.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not backtracking. I didn't say the man was Ronald Reagan, but he was more conservative than your run-of-the-mill Democrat candidate, even in the south. Most sane commentators outside the Obama cult acknowledge this.

I frankly don't know much about the Republican candidate, but I understand he ran a poor campaign. The ad of his you posted seems to support this.

You declared victory for conservatism. Then you cited two areas in which you think the man was more conservative than the run of the mill Dem. Victory indeed.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You declared victory for conservatism. Then you cited two areas in which you think the man was more conservative than the run of the mill Dem. Victory indeed.

*Shrug* We're all just giving our opinions here.