2014 Senate Races

[itshappening]

I don't think very many Republicans intentionally bring up the abortion issue. They just get asked about it by the media, and they have to answer the question.

Republicans asked about abortion should change the subject and be evasive. That's the bottom line.

Buck lost his race because Bennet scared enough CO women about his positions on abortion and whenever he was shown on TV or the news the reporter was asking him about abortion and he was happy to talk at length about it. Big mistake. Voters do not want to see that, especially women and suburban moms.

A candidate's answer to his position on abortion is simple: "This election isn't about abortion, it's about the 8% unemployment rate, it's about how we bring jobs to this state and keep hard working families taxes low and that's what I intend to do when I'm elected" and keep talking until the reporter gets bored or runs out of time.

 

[AJ Antimony]

I wish we could find good liberty candidates that don't scare the pants off of the GOP regulars. It would be much easier to fund candidates using their money.

Who typically runs for US House? State legislators. Why? Because they already have shown that they are capable of raising money, organizing, and being 'electable' candidates. Why are the regulars typically scared of outsiders who've never held office before? Because there is no evidence that those candidates can raise the money, recruit the volunteers, and 'speak' correctly in order to win. In other words, the regulars fear that the inexperienced, outsider candidates will always pull Todd Akins, and say something stupid, and throw the election to the Democrats.

Rand Paul is a great example of how an outsider can actually be embraced by the regulars. True, he hadn't ever held office before or even ran before, but he's from a political family and could tap a national network of donors and volunteers. Even though it was his first race, he wasn't a noob. He didn't scare any regulars despite being the son of Ron Paul.

If we want an easier time finding candidates to run for Congress, then we have to elect them to state legislatures first.

 

[Adrock]

Who typically runs for US House? State legislators. Why? Because they already have shown that they are capable of raising money, organizing, and being 'electable' candidates. Why are the regulars typically scared of outsiders who've never held office before? Because there is no evidence that those candidates can raise the money, recruit the volunteers, and 'speak' correctly in order to win. In other words, the regulars fear that the inexperienced, outsider candidates will always pull Todd Akins, and say something stupid, and throw the election to the Democrats.

Rand Paul is a great example of how an outsider can actually be embraced by the regulars. True, he hadn't ever held office before or even ran before, but he's from a political family and could tap a national network of donors and volunteers. Even though it was his first race, he wasn't a noob. He didn't scare any regulars despite being the son of Ron Paul.

If we want an easier time finding candidates to run for Congress, then we have to elect them to state legislatures first.

Agreed. The establishment regulars are mostly worried about winning. Part of why Rand was accepted was that he did a good job fundraising and didn't have any Akin like gaffes. We need quality liberty candidates at all levels. Having people in the local county and state level leadership positions is important too.

 

[AJ Antimony]

And who are Cruz, Toomey and Flake? 2 of them have been in Washington forever, they will do very little to stop anything unconstitutional and when Mitch McConnell and the leadership demand their votes they will go along with it.

We need to focus on real liberty candidates, don't waste your time with people like Flake and Toomey, Hotair/redstate/freerepublic have enough funds and resources to support that type of candidate.

You really should research these people before bashing them. It makes you look stupid.

Toomey and Flake have been in Washington forever? Really? Toomey was a Congressman from 1999-2005. Yep, 3 terms is just awfully long. Flake has been in DC from 2001-present. Yep, 6 terms is even worse. They've been in Congress longer than John McCain and Robert Byrd combined!

Then you really go off the deep end by claiming that Toomey and especially Flake will just go along with leadership on any and every vote that McConnell wants. Someone else can defend Toomey on this issue who knows more about his record than I do, but claiming Flake always votes with leadership is just entirely ignorant of his 12 year voting record. Even though some people on these boards don't like him--we've discussed his voting record ad nauseum--he has voted against plenty of Bush's big government bills. See my post in that thread for a quick summary. Hell, I'd say in the last 12 years, only ONE member of all of Congress has voted AGAINST Democrats and Republicans more than Jeff Flake and that's Ron Paul.

So yes, there are definitely people more libertarian than Jeff Flake and Pat Toomey, but to speak of them so negatively without knowing anything about them is just silly.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Agreed. The establishment regulars are mostly worried about winning. Part of why Rand was accepted was that he did a good job fundraising and didn't have any Akin like gaffes. We need quality liberty candidates at all levels. Having people in the local county and state level leadership positions is important too.

The establishment regulars are ONLY worried about winning IMHO. Or, at least, that's their #1 priority. I mean look at Rand... did the entire GOP ditch him after he won his primary? Were they 100% opposed to the 'nutjob' son of 'nutjob' Ron Paul? Would they rather see the big government Democrat rather than another Ron Paul? NOPE. They united around Rand and helped him take a landslide general election victory, and he has high approval ratings back home as a senator.

Too many people on these boards believe that our candidates are opposed in the primary solely for ideological reasons. I don't think this is true at all. Even though some people here don't like him, I think the liberty movement can learn a lot from the 2012 Jeff Flake senate election. Here's a guy who, like Ron, voted no alllllllll the time. Every attack ad on him, especially in the general, was about his voting record. The Democrats claimed Flake was against veterans, women, and puppies because of some of his no votes. Ouch! Yet despite this, Flake won his primary by 50% and then won the general over one of the strongest Democratic candidates they have ever ran in AZ. Here a candidate was embraced by the GOP and elected senator despite staunch opposition to his own party.

We can make our lives so much easier by learning from some of these supposedly 'insider' campaigns.

 

[Adrock]

I remember the ads. I thought Flake was in trouble for awhile. I really hope Rand rubs off on him in the Senate, especially on civil liberties.

The big difference between Flake and someone like Akin is that he wasn't inflicting wounds on himself. Viable liberty candidates are key.

 

[Adrock]

duplicate

 

[Smart3]

There will always be Flakes and Toomeys.

There will not always be Pauls.

I do agree we should help Flakes/Toomeys through their primaries, but we should focus on general election candidates who actually share our values.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

Fair enough.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/races?c=5c000a7684e3d166ac5670ffaab649e8

The Senate Conservatives Group sent out an email to their list asking for recommendations for Senate Candidates. I sent them some info about Tom Davis.

 

[RonPaul25]

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/...s-saxby-chambliss-in-primary-84567.html?hp=f2

HAR MAN CAINNNNN

 

[realtonygoodwin]

So, Tom Davis isn't going to run. And it looks like Paul Broun will run in GA. Do we get behind him?