Brent, I respectfully disagree. Social issues had very little to do with the final results.
Baldacci one because of these three results
A well oiled Democratic Party Machine (which I give the Dems credit for)
A crowded field
A national wave of opposition to Republicans because of Iraq and on issues like spending and immigration an [b]abandonment of conservative values[/b]
We keep losing in Maine because we don't have the guts to stand behind people who support conservative values. We are quick to second guess conservative candidates' stands when the Democrats just worry about getting out the vote.
Look at Mike Michaud, he is moderate to conservative on social issues and he wins just fine.
Exactly, but i would make the arguement that Emery would have been the better candidate.... Peter was too far left economically too... and that I WON'T compromise on.
Chandler Woodcock did not fight back when attacked. Merrill crapped all over him and he ignored her. National politics be damned, the only one that lost the election for Woodcock,,,,, was Woodcock. He wasn't dealing with a classroom full of kids or a sports team, he was dealing with the taxpayers and voters or Maine. Chandler could have been very specific on issues that last week with little fear of reprisal. He decided to be a nice guy and take the high road. In politics, nice guys finish back in the pack and there is no prizes for second place.
Jem, that's a lot of clichÃ©s to fit into a single postâ€¦
Its all over but the crying :wink:
Jemhunter, If a politician will not take the high road during a campaign, is there any chance he will take the high road when in office?
Clich'es hell Jem just hit it dead on!!!!
A person can take the high road and still be aggresive to blatant and passive lies. I voted for Woodcock as there was no one else that I could consider. I waited once I threw my vote behind him until after the election to be critical. Now I will repeat what I did before the republican primary.
He was to lite for the challenge and to lite to be an effective leader. With Woodcock elected at least nothing would have gotten done, to me, that was a plus. He also said he would recind Baldacci's sanctuary state executive order and thats the main reason he got my vote. It was the only thing that he was actually ever specific on.
And to everyone that doesn't like this;
Some of you out there need to realize that a "leader" is not just something you stick on the end of your fly line.
[quote="lhsbluedevil200"]IWhen in the world are we going to learn that conservatives aren't electable in MAINE?!?!?!?!?!?!
If you flat out reject this notion, then you're really ignorant.
Brent A. Bowen[/quote]
Well, color me ignorant. I flat out reject that notion. There are so many reasons for doing so, but I do not have the energy today to discuss it. But the day will come. I just want to be on record as saying that I disagree. Quick reactions are usually not the best.
The national "anti" GOP tide had VERY little to do in Maine (otherwise Jean Hay and the other far left anti war libs would have done better)
The Maine GOP lost because they once again failed to have a united message and machine.
Chandler was the best candidate and had the best message. The GOP failed him. He had the guts to tie himself to TABOR when few others and the GOP as a whole did everything to hide from it. The GOP failed again to have a unified campaign and unified top of ticket down message and mantra. The GOP let the Dems and others frame the debate and frame the public view of Chandler and the GOP.
Mainers voted for Olympia but against everything else GOP - why - because Olympia did her own thing and the GOP let her go - I has nothing to do with her being a RINO - it has everything to do with the GOP failing to have a plan and a united campaign.
The much vocal "Evangelical Right" showed once again that they are not a player in Maine GOP politics and like the trade unions on the Dem side they can not and should not be counted on to deliver votes on the day it matters most. The GOP should stop cowtowing to them and do what the Dems have done with the far lefties - ignore them and let them do what they want as they will never have the numbers to help swing in any real way. Let them break off and try again for the Constitution Party or the like.
Bob is right, it's no point making excuses now. RElish this moment for a minute. The people in Maine have decided that they want the government to decide how much taxes go up as well as telling Baldacci his principles are fine as well as his leadership. I for one do not agree with them, however, if it fails even more, than we can simply say "I told you so"
We most definately put forth the perfect candidate that fits mostly with our principles and party platform. We lost on principle, not on electibility. Sen. Woodcock was electable...that is why he won the primary. What many do not understand is that Mills supporters are bitter that he lost to Chandler, and alot of them I was told voted for Merrill. SO don't kid yourself saying Chancler was not a great candidate. He was the closest to our ideals...period!
That's the whole point Matt and Bob, he is the candidate closest to your ideals and the electorate rejects your ideals. Don't you get it even now? Maine people do not want and will not elect someone with those ideas and ideals. Olympia won because she does not share those ideals. She is not a social conservative. Woodcock was unelectable from the beginning even with an enormously unpopular governor.
The only way that GOP leadership failed was by not talking either Mills or Emery into bowing out so that Woodcock would not be your nominee and lead your party to defeat across the board. When a candidate gets less than thirty percent of the vote, it's hard to imagine that he's the "perfect candidate".
You all stood behind a candidate with socially conservative values. However, a majority of Mainers don't share those values.
If that is the reason people did not vote for him, then people are extremely shallow. He made it clear his social values were not his political agenda. I voted for him, and as a Libertarian I don't want gov't meddling in these areas. I voted for him because I took him at his word and looked beyond the obvious deceit of his detractors, both D and R.
If what you are saying is true, then I have even less respect for 70% of Mainers than I did yesterday.
[quote]The much vocal "Evangelical Right" showed once again that they are not a player in Maine GOP politics and like the trade unions on the Dem side they can not and should not be counted on to deliver votes on the day it matters most. [/quote]
To whom should the "Evangelical Right" have "delivered votes on the day it matters most"?
To whom DID the aforementioned group deliver their votes?
BTW, trade unions have traditionally delivered votes to the Dems.
There's a reason why Baldacci is down at BIW greasing palms today.
You just don't seem to get it. Chandler didn't lose because of a social agenda. Mitt Romney gave him the best advice he ever could have gotten and he ignored it, that was "Be Bold". Merrill was and her numbers tripled. Maine was looking for a leader out of a field of 5. Baldacci won because of the presents he passed out last year in his state of the state address and the others that benefit from him being in there. Chandler needed to be a lot more pointed on fiscal issues and pointing out the "Enron style" accounting and the bold face lies that were put forth by this administration. He decided not to, he took the high road, trouble is, that race track started and ended in Farmington.
Chandlers campaign should be the perfect model in the future on what not to do.
I agree with you Marc.
I think had Peter Mills won the primary, we would have seen a higher rating for him yesterday than what we saw for Woodcock.
The Party as a whole, and this applies to any party, can only effectively hold a number of issues as the party line that's inversely related to the size of the party. What Maine as a whole sees in Republicans is isn't just smaller government, lower taxes, but also social legislation, a push to hold a war without a defined enemy (you in all honesty can't say "Terrorists" is nearly as defined a target as "Britain"), and a Federal government full of scandal (not that the scandal is any better under a Democrat run government, but it's not much of a deviation in either direction -- both parties fail).
We want politics to be local, but when National politics takes far more of our money and appears to have more of an effect in our daily lives, we're going to suffer the stigma from it everywhere. Turns out the 17th Ammendment was a bad idea -- we try to make everything National, but there's no reason any other state should be trying to tell the other 49 what the rules of marriage will be.'
Edit: Jemhunter: I also agree with what you're saying. If anybody's curious, Woodcock did get my vote this year, but it was more because I didn't want to see Baldacci back playing Maine State Enron.
There are 2 Maines and I don't mean north and south of Bangor.
It's urban vs rural.
Check the election results on the web pages of towns near you. The closer you get to an urban area, Woodcock and TABOR go down in flames.
Woodcock and TABOR won in Standish and Windham; lost in Gorham. Westbrook hasn't posted their results yet. Portland offered no surprises.
People work for whoever they think wants the job the most and who they like and trust. Issues are secondary. Until we understand this we will continue in the minority party trying to either marginalize our base or our contributors.
We don't need the "country club| Republicans to leave or the "evangelical" Republicans to leave. All we need is the people who constantly attack one of those two groups to leave.
Need proof about hard work winning....
[b]Lois Snowe Mello[/b]
BTW, trade unions have traditionally delivered votes to the Dems.
There's a reason why Baldacci is down at BIW greasing palms today.[/quote]
Don't get sucked in to this idiocy LMD. nascarfan is just bitter. Must come from either watching cars go around in circles all day and get nowhere or from not having the courage to run for office.
Either way, Mike Michaud is proof of both the power of unions and the power of pro-lifers in Maine.
jemhunter, I don't disagree with you when you say that Woodcock wasn't bold enough. He wasn't. But if you think that his social views didn't impact the results significantly, then it's you who just doesn't get it.
I am sure his social views effected how some people voted, to not think that would be naive. I do believe however that the campaign needed to be about the money,, and ALL about the money. WLOB did not help with their endless commentary about social issues with Chandlers name blasted all through it. It seemed like a never ending whine of repetition. WLOB's commentators equalization of moral issues with fiscal issues hurt Chandler and his "humility" platform was one of the many nails that lost him votes.
Oh Stavros..... you really are a shining example of how to win a race now are you not?? Tell me again the break out of your race for the Maine Senate and then there was that Congressional bid of yours.....
Far from bitter - the numbers speak for themselves.
I think that Woodcock lost because of TABOR. If TABOR hadn't been on the ballot I believe a lot of people would have stayed home. Unfortunately instead of being a big come out and vote to eliminate taxes wave, I think the other side was successful in turning it into a come out and vote against TABOR (and GWB) issue. Once in the booth, it seems that a lot of people voted either the straight D ticket, or supported change meaning neither D or R.
I voted for TABOR. I wish it had been a separate ballot question, on a separate day.
Why do you other conservative people not, either admit to the truth and live with it or find another state to live in. Maine is a socialist state and it will not change in the near future, if ever. The people living on some form of state aid, the state workers, the municipal workers, the county workers and virtually all the school employees will continue to kill all plans to decrease our taxes. We are outnumbered. There is no way to lower taxes in a peaceful manner. There are only three ways to effect change. The jury box, the ballot box and the cartridge box. The ballot box is a lost case. Will you choose the jury box or the cartridge box?
Jemhunter, You are right that we need a leader and leaders needs to lead. Your point is well taken.
I too voted for Woodcock. Mainly he was the one I thought might possibly win against Baldacci.
The people blaming Chandler's social conservatism for his showing are just showing their own bias. We hear a lot of foolishness about the so called fiscal conservative/social liberal crowd. The only thing fiscally conservative about these people is their willingness to raise taxes to keep the budget balanced. Chandler was the only candidate, and that includes the sainted Mills, who offered any potential to put the bit in the government's mouth.
People didn't vote for Chandler because restraining government is not a priority.
I guarantee that if you had found a true small government conservative/social liberal to run that that person would have lost also.
[quote="nascarfan207"]Chandler was the best candidate and had the best message. The GOP failed him. He had the guts to tie himself to TABOR when few others and the GOP as a whole did everything to hide from it. The GOP failed again to have a unified campaign and unified top of ticket down message and mantra. The GOP let the Dems and others frame the debate and frame the public view of Chandler and the GOP.
I said that the GOP in Maine would do well to have a unified message up and down the ticket back in the spring. Country asked me how I'd approach things and that was my response along with several key issues to build the message on. I believe in a unified message in the face of an electorate that seeks change.
In my own race, I ran on the same three key issues Chandler did - control spending and lower taxes, lower the cost of health insurance through competition and build the business climate so we have a humming economy.
Chandler did almost as well in my district as I did. And I believe I could have won if this hadn't been my first, mistake filled, campaign. My bad we didn't take this seat. OUr bad if we don't learn a lesson about the need for party message and party machine.
I have been saying right along that it is 90% name recognition and 10% issues. I still believe that axiom.
Olympia has been in office for 28 years. She has a huge warchest, has been sliding more to the left as Maine has slid to the left, and has an organization. She provides good constituent service which translates into votes. Her opponent was a loony, shrill moonbat. Everyone knows Olympia.
Baldacci understands the 90% bit. He has been in office for over 20 years. Crystal Canney deserves a big bonus from his no strings attached expense account because she had him everywhere, using unearned media from a very willing MSM. On TV night after night after night, sometimes 2 or 3 times on one station. Baldacci really stands for nothing other than getting re-elected and he accomplished his mission.
It was Chandler's first time up for statewide office. His name recognition had to be built this time around. The MSM gave him n-o-t-h-i-n-g. He is a great fellow and the Democrats defined him as an evangelical monster that hated women. They had a hard time making it stick but he was damaged.
And, the poor people of Maine. They just don't know. Victims all, they fell for all the emotional crap spewed by Baldacci and will take one for the team again. Remember the debates... Chandler was talking about getting Maine turned around economically and Baldacci was saving a specific life via his Dirigo Health Plan.
Republicans win the debates, but the Democrats win the elections. Emotions rule the day.