Wednesday, June 07, 2006

The drop-out Primary

I happened to listen to The Voice for a few minutes yesterday morning, and there was a lady on there who was a supporter of Van Hilleary. I didn't catch her name and I regret this a great deal, because I turned the radio on after she began to talk.

It was quite obvious that she was a serious Van supporter, because she kept talking about how Van had racked up more votes than Ed Bryant and was the only candidate who could beat Bob Corker. What's more, she attempted to say that Ed Bryant's attacks on Bob Corker's record had no merit because they were not based on substantive issues. (Apparently, having a pro-aborticide politician running for Senate claiming to be pro-life on the record that Corker has is not a "substantive issue.") This latest silly notion comes on the heel of an internal poll from the Corker campaign in which Corker claims to be 20 points ahead of Ed Bryant and 26 points ahead of Van Hilleary. Now, I'm not saying that Corker polls are paragons of accuracy-far from it. However, last week a Corker poll was used by the Hilleary campaign to try and convince Ed Bryant that he had no chance to win. Privately, some Hilleary people admit that they do not want Bryant out of the race because they believe that having him in the race is the only chance they have to beat Corker.

As I blogged here, Ed Bryant asking Van Hilleary to drop out was a bad move. We don't have any need to look desperate here as the Bryant campaign in East Tennessee is about to begin in earnest. However, Van Hilleary saying that Ed Bryant could not beat Bob Corker in a two-man race is disingenuous-Bryant would thump Corker because there would be no doubt in such a race who the real conservative would be.

One thing about these internal polls: If you've ever worked a campaign, you know that in a Primary poll, two questions are asked. The first polls likely voters as to who they are voting for or would support in the Primary. The second number is how the potential candidates would do against the possible or presumtive nominee of the other Party. I am certain Corker's pollsters asked this question, but it is interesting that they have chosen not to release that information. It would seem they do not want us to know how Corker would do against Harold Ford Jr.-the only good reason to hide that is that the numbers must have Ford giving Corker a real drubbing.

6 Comments:

At Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:03:00 AM, Blogger Charles Badger said...

David,

You wrote:
"This latest silly notion comes on the heel of an internal poll from the Corker campaign in which Corker claims to be 20 points ahead of Ed Bryant and 26 points ahead of Van Hilleary.?

The poll you're talking about doesn't exist. Rob Huddleston misquoted Bob Corker and twisted his words. Corker was referring to the exact same poll he has already released which has him ahead of Van by 20 and Ed by 26. Did you notice, he got the numbers exactly backward?

It was a slip of the tongue, on Corker's part--a verbal gaffe. There is no poll showing Corker leading Van by 26 points. Corker was talking about the poll he's already released. He just got the numbers backward. What Huddeston quoted him as saying is not what he meant to say.

I hope that you will correct your post to reflect this.

"...last week a Corker poll was used by the Hilleary campaign to try and convince Ed Bryant that he had no chance to win."

I done recall that ever happening. When was that done, david? Can you provide me that link? A press release? A video clip? A statement by Van or Jen Coxe? Where are you getting that from? Otherwise, it appears you, too, have it backward. It was Ed Bryant that called for Van to drop out; not the other way around. Show me where Van caled on Ed to drop out.

 
At Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:15:00 AM, Blogger Rob Huddleston said...

Charles -

Maybe you should ask your English teacher what the word "misquoted" means.

After that, ask for a definition of "libel."

Cheers,

Rob

 
At Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:44:00 AM, Blogger Charles Badger said...

Rob,

Way to spend 22 words without actually saying anything at all.

All that irrelevant circumlocution and you never even addressed my arguments. One can only conclude, therefore, that my statements were corrent.

 
At Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:22:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

I will do no such thing, since (as I have said here on a number of occasions, so many that I have now lost count) that Corker polls are not necessarily reliable, and that I find it interesting that Corker is not releasing his internal information on how he would do against Ford.

Rob's point about "misquoting" and "libel" is correct. Perhaps you should invest in a copy of Black's Law Dictionary-I have one in my home, and it is certainly a great help to me in my writing.

I find it interesting how (some) Hilleary supporters think we all need to march behind Hilleary like robots. He is the only one who can win, they tell us. Funny, Corker's people say the same thing.

Van has yet to prove he can win a statewide race, so does Coerker, and so does Ed Bryant, so the argument of "my man can win" is a wash-we don't know who can win yet.

I support Bryant because he is right on the issues, he is solidly conservative, he is pro-life-and has the Tennessee Right to Life endorsement to prove it. As a long-time pro-life advocate, if you don't have a RTL endorsement, you don't have my vote-period.

You'll have to be happy that if Van wins the nod we'll fall behind him. Unless he does, there is little you are going to say to convince me or anyone else to drop the support of a man who I believe is simply the right man for the job in favor of Van Hilleary. Sorry, no dice.

 
At Friday, June 09, 2006 11:30:00 AM, Blogger Charles Badger said...

he is pro-life-and has the Tennessee Right to Life endorsement to prove it. As a long-time pro-life advocate, if you don't have a RTL endorsement, you don't have my vote-period."

That endorsement means nothing. Van has a 100% pro-life voting record. The thought that because Van didn't get it means that he is somehow less pro-life is a position deviod of logic. Van is as pro-life as Ed is.

The only reason Ed got that endorsement is because he's friend with the leadership of TRL. That is a well-known fact, Mr. Oatney.

Beyond TRL, though, Van did recieve the endorsement of National Right to Life in all four of his Congressional elections. But even a rudimentary reading of TRL's endorsement of Ed reveals that they intend to endorse Van when he wins the nomination.

 
At Friday, June 09, 2006 8:06:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

The candidate that receives a Right-to-Life endorsement receives mine....

Did National-to-Life endorse Van Hilleary in this Primary?

And I was under the impression that we shall all endorse anyone who gets this nomination except Forker, so your statement lacks relevance.

As for your surety that Van Hilleary will be the nominee-I admire your persistence in your support of your candiate Charles-but were I you, I wouldn't be so certain at this juncture.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map