When long-time incumbents begin attacking their opponents, they either have no class or they think they're in trouble.
So it was with no little sense of surprise that supposedly secure Republican Mike Rogers was caught conducting a negative push-poll earlier this week to smear Democratic challenger Bob Alexander in the 8th Congressional District race.
Now, the Michigan Republican Party has been caught sending negative fliers to voters in the 8th District attacking Alexander for supporting health care for all.
If Rogers' job is so secure, why he is attacking Alexander? If he has done so much for the people of Livingston County and elsewhere, why doesn't he just run on his accomplishments?
The answer is pretty clear, isn't it?
5 comments:
Rogers was elected by a narrow margin in 2000, and has been secure mainly because of a Republican gerrymander. This time around, with Republicans spread thinly in part because of that gerrymandering, there are no secure Repub seats anywhere. They are all scared spitless that Obama's coattails are going to sweep them all out, hence the surge in attacks.
I love it. And I can hardly wait for the circular firing squad that will be deployed on Nov 5.
Is Rogers in trouble?
Let me ask you a question. What would you consider to be a respectable showing for Alexander on Nov. 4? Do you think he can win? Or would it be a good showing if he did better the 45 percent of the vote?
I doubt that I will get an answer because it forces you to concede to reality. If you say that a good showing will be 45 percent or higher, then you would have to admit that Rogers squashed him if Alexander comes in below that. But if you set the bar too low...say 40 percent...then you are conceding that there really hasn't been much of a Democratic gain.
So..are you up to the challenge? What percentage vote should Alexander take in order for you Democrats to being able to honestly say that your party is making strides.
For extra credit, do you think Alexander will take 40 percent of the Livingston County vote?
Dear Anonymous:
I think Rogers IS in trouble. He'll win, but it will be closer than you think.
Alexander has absolutely no money in the race, is not funded, and is going to take at least 45% of the vote anyway.
IF the dem ledership had any sense at all in this election, they would have run a moderate such as Marcinkowski again- but this time a pro-life one- such as in the Dale Kildee and Bart Stupak mold.
And backed them with money- because even though gerrymandering has given Mike a lot of advantage, this is what is different this time around:
1. Mike is divorced since last election. That matters to some. Running a pro-life dem who is married only once, would have drawn many "reagan dems", who now only have Mike to vote for.
Bob is not pro-life, so he'll loose an important chunk of the vote that could have been his.
2. Mike is facing a sea-change Presidential election, in which the sea is decidedly uphill.
Mark this-
Alexander will pull at least 45%, even without the money.
You can count on it.
Being a "Dem" will get you 38% of the vote in this district normally.
Being in a "sea change" election will get you 45%.
Being pro-gun will gain you 4%.
Being pro-life will gain you 8%-10%.
Alexander doesn't have enough without being pro-life.
But it will be a closer election than you think.
For extra credit, do you think Alexander will take 40percent of the Livingston County vote?
In past elections:
2006: Rogers 48,000
Marcinkowski 26,000
(some funds)
2004: Rogers 64,000
Alexander 24,000
(no funds)
This time around- I would not be surprised to see Rogers only capture 50,000 and Alexander get to 30,000, just because everyone is so ticked off at the republicans.
Not enough to win- but progress.
Little by little- they will figure it out.
One good pro-life, pro-gun, well funded conservative military veteran, Union member dem, and this seat can be turned.
If not this time- then in the 2012 re-election of Obama. :-)
If Rogers has a huge lead, why is he attacking his opponent?
Post a Comment