A Response to Carl DeMaio’s “New Generation”

Guest Column Guest Column 24 Comments

Share

Guest Commentary
by Jason Jackson

What distinguishes the Republican Party from the Democrat Party is that Republicans build our coalition around principles, while the Democrats build their coalition around identities. The Democrat strategy is to cobble together a coalition of African Americans, Hispanics, single women, gays, and union members and hope that group equals 51 percent of the electorate. That’s why identity politics are so important to Democrats. They believe that we owe our rights to government and that rights vest through our membership in collective groups favored by government. As such, their electoral prospects are hitched to dividing us up by our descriptive characteristics and making their party the benevolent benefactors of government largesse to as many identity groups as possible.

Contrast this with the Republican Party which stands for a few simple principles – that the traditional family, free markets, low taxes, and a strong national defense are the keys to national prosperity, and that all human life has dignity. That we support these principles are to the advantage of the Republican Party because it means there is no ceiling on the size of our coalition. Our principles aren’t geared toward bestowing rights or privileges on some special interests in exchange for their votes – we believe that our principles are the path to prosperity for everyone in all walks of life.

Sadly, Carl DeMaio seems to have lost sight of this somewhere along the way, disrupting a once promising political career in the process. When he was on the San Diego City Council Mr. DeMaio earned the support of conservatives with his focus on reducing the tax and regulatory burdens confronting San Diego families and business. Instead of continuing to make this the focus of his recent losing congressional campaign, DeMaio chose to play identity politics, actually going so far as to use his sexual orientation as a political tool to distinguish himself from conservatives. As the results showed, that was a losing strategy.

Unfortunately it seems Mr. DeMaio didn’t learn anything from his loss either. He posted on San Diego Rostra last week to parrot the news that “Republicans are making gains with a new generation of candidates,” while disparaging “older white men.” It seems to have been lost on Mr. DeMaio that the new generation of Republican leadership identifies itself first and foremost as Americans and conservatives. As a recent Politico article observed, presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal didn’t win their statewide races by campaigning as the Hispanic candidate or the Indian-American candidate, they campaigned as the conservative candidate.

While Mr. DeMaio will not be sworn in as a congressman next month, a woman from whom DeMaio could learn a lot will be. Mia Love will be sworn in next month as Utah’s newest congresswoman, and in so doing will become the first African-American woman in the Republican conference. Yet when asked about the historic nature of her victory Ms. Love said, “This isn’t about my race or my gender, this is about values.”

The Republican Party is a big tent party and we should have a diverse coalition because our principles are appealing to people of all backgrounds. Building that coalition is a worthwhile cause that should be championed and celebrated. But we can’t lose sight of our principles and embrace the identity politics and the collectivist philosophy of the Democrats to achieve our goals. Doing so is sure to result in defeat at the polls, or at best a pyrrhic victory that actually undermines our values.

*****

Jackson graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 2002. After graduation, he deployed as a naval officer in support of the War on Terrorism, earning the Navy Commendation Medal, the Navy Achievement Medal, and numerous campaign and unit citations for his service in the conflict. He has a master’s degree in Political Science from San Diego State University, and a law degree from Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, CA. He was a contributing author to the war memoir, In the Shadow of Greatness, and has also written several papers on constitutional law and election law.

The column above was published on the author’s blog, jeffersonjackson.com, and appears on SD Rostra with Mr. Jackson’s permission.

Share

Comments 24

  1. Jason Jackson is right on the money in regards to Carl DeMaio. In a Republican November sweep to victory, DeMaio grabbed defeat out of the hands of victory.
    DeMaio would have easily defeated Scott Peters if he had stayed the course with our Party. Instead, he distanced himself and turned to the left on numerous issues.
    If DeMaio really believes the anti-Republican rhetoric he was spewing, he deserved to lose.

  2. A predictable post from someone who hasn’t done their homework and has a dislike towards gays.

    This posts declares that the GOP principles are :

    1) Traditional family values. This is far from set in stone, and plenty of Republicans have correctly stepped away from this issue. Even social conservative ones like Michelle Bachman have given up (“It’s not an issue…. In fact, it’s boring.”)

    2) Low taxes. Carl passes that test easily. No politician or perhaps even citizen was more aggressive in defeating San Diego’s sales tax increase in 2010. Carl was also one of the few voices in trying to keep water rates and fees in checks. By comparison Falconer, Kersey, and Zapf voted for water rate increases as recently as last year (2013). Are they bad Republicans?

    3) Free Markets? Another easy test for Carl to pass with his relentless pursuit of Managed Competition. Today that’s still saving the City Millions annually.

    4) We’ll ignore national security since it’s hard to gauge a City Councilman on this.

    So what is the real complaint about Carl using his homosexuality as a political tool? By political tool, was there anything besides he actually being unapologetically gay? Perhaps the author feels he should have been. Perhaps the author believes that campaign ads should consist only of those that appear similar to a 1950’s family portrait.

    It might have been politically foolish for Carl to flaunt his sexual preference, as voters such as the author may have been offended. But perhaps Carl’s version of Republican Big Tent is even bigger than the Big Tent purported by this post’s author.

  3. Hillcrest Hero – thank you for your comment. I assure you I have no hostility towards the homosexual community. I served in harm’s way with people in the homosexual community and hold no ill-will toward anyone. Further, I’m on record supporting Mr. DeMaio’s candidacy for the general once he was the nominee, even writing on these pages to challenge Scott Peter’s for his response to the Ebola threat.

    I do challenge the suggestion that any of us should be qualified or disqualified for any job on the basis of our descriptive characteristics. Rather than build a bridge to conservatives during the campaign by emphasizing issues for which his record is strong, he chose to use his identity as a gay American to distinguish himself from conservatives.

    Even still I would have let sleeping dogs lie but for Mr. DeMaio’s article this week repeating the NYT meme that Republicans owed their recent success to identity politics. Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Mia Love, and other leading conservative voices all defy the 1950’s family portrait that you reference yet all still campaigned as conservatives.

  4. Jason,

    Well said.

    “Our principles aren’t geared toward bestowing rights or privileges on some special interests in exchange for their votes – we believe that our principles are the path to prosperity for everyone in all walks of life.”

  5. There are two places in the article where the term “older white male” is used.
    Here: “not every Republican is like the stereotypical Republican — older, white, male.”
    And here: “As Republicans took control of an unprecedented 69 of 99 statehouse chambers in the midterm elections, they did not rely solely on a bench of older white men.”
    To disparage is to regard as being of little worth. Can you show specifically the areas in the article Carl DeMaio posted where “older white males” were disparaged? I couldn’t find it and found it interesting that you didn’t explain after using such an extreme term.
    In my view, it seems that the article Carl DeMaio posted is pointing out that the Republicans getting involved in the article aren’t stereotypical because of their heritage and age and therefore Democrats are wrong about their identity politics. In other words, the article is making the same point you are making in your first two paragraphs here.

    Dana Perino wrote an article about Carl DeMario back on April 28th, 2014 where she pointed out that he was not playing identity politics and quoted him on it:

    “But the person least interested in DeMaio’s sexual orientation is, predictably, DeMaio himself, who labors mightily to stay focused on the issues that truly concern him.

    ‘Our economy is in the tank. We’re in a national debt crisis. The progressive agenda in D.C. is not producing results. Washington politicians from both political parties can’t defend their broken programs, so they have to play the shiny object game on social issues,’ he says. And so he has to find a way to talk about everything all at once, while pointedly not talking about his sexuality.”

    How do you see his campaign so differently than such a well-seasoned campaign veteran and nationally respected conservative like Dana Perino?

    Do you think Mia Love was influenced by Carl DeMaio’s quote in Dana Perino’s article when she made her very similar statement over 6 months later? If not…what is the difference in your opinion?

    Lastly, you are on the Board of the San Diego Republican Liberty Caucus (though you conspicuously left that out of your bio again in this article) and their stance on personal liberties is:
    “We (the Republican Liberty Caucus) affirm the principle that individual rights and liberties are unlimited, as specified in the Ninth Amendment. No law should deny, disparage or restrict the right of every person to privacy, freedom of travel, association, possession of substances, or adult consensual behaviors. We oppose any requirement of government authorization prior to exercising those fundamental freedoms.

    We oppose any seizure of private communications, absent the issuance of a judicial warrant showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. We oppose any constraints on the right of every person to associate with others of their choosing, participate in any activity or joint venture that is non-coercive, or freely engage in any mode of travel or social activity.”

    This is a marked difference from the Republican platform. When it comes to same sex marriage, do you support the Republican Party platform or the Republican Liberty Caucus platform?

    Your premise is that Carl DeMaio didn’t support traditional families because he talked about being gay. How does Carl being gay, talking about being gay, supporting government recognition of same sex marriage, or condemning hostility towards same sex couples negatively impact traditional marriages in your opinion?

  6. For what it’s worth, I have every press release, email update and comment sent out by the DeMaio campaign during his Congressional run. Over 97% of them make no reference to his sexual preference whatsoever. Over 80% have references to taxes, spending, debt or a budget. The rest seemed related to the border and foreign issues.

    Short of a couple commercials with his significant other, and being transparent about his preferences, I don’t see how one can argue that DeMaio used his sexual preference as a tool. His ambiguous slogan of “New Generation Republicans” (whatever that means) is only slightly different than Nathan Fletcher’s mayoral slogan from 2 years ago of “A New Generation of Leadership”.

    DeMaio’s failure to win, during a Republican avalanche of victories is worthy of a real discussion. His campaign staffing and just overall personality were questioned by a lot of people smarter than me. I personally would note that no one on the ballot faced more relentlessly negative campaign attacks. He had battles on all fronts — the left, unions, and social conservatives. It’s hard to win with that many enemies.

  7. Michael – Thanks for your comment. A few thoughts in response:

    You misstate my premise in your last paragraph. I make no comment on Mr. DeMaio’s stand on traditional family values. Nor did I make any claims that Mr. DeMaio’s position on marriage or sexual orientation negatively impact traditional marriage. Nor is Mr. DeMaio’s identity as a gay American or position on same sex marriage a disqualifier for congress. As you know I supported Mr. DeMaio’s general election campaign and that of other Republicans who take his position. So if you are reading into this article hostility toward Mr. DeMaio on the basis of his orientation or position on same sex marriage I would say you are projecting something into the piece which isn’t there. I do take issue with Mr. DeMaio’s use of identity politics to distinguish himself from conservatives.

    Which brings us to Ms. Perino’s article. I read the article when it was written in April and agreed with it. At that point in the campaign Mr. DeMaio’s candidacy was on a good trajectory. I wish he had stayed the course. After that article Mr. DeMaio released this ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx8LmBtSoHc (which I should have linked in my original piece for support). In the ad he says, “As a proud gay American, I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but a tea-party extremist? Nothing could be further from the truth.” Using his identity as a means of distinguishing himself from conservatives is analogous to those who would say black republicans are “less black.” My premise simply this – identity politics have no place in the Republican party. We use them at our own peril.

    As for the RLC platform – here too you seem to be reading something into it that isn’t present. As I read the RLC’s position it is silent on the issue of gay marriage. It clearly is against the criminalization of homosexual conduct. A position I heartily agree with.

  8. Under our “What is” page…

    Anonymity through the use of pseudo-names or handles is allowed, but commenters should use the same name for every comment entry, so as to not falsely appear to be more than one person commenting on the same or several matters. Select a name and stick with it.

  9. So it’s ok for him to be gay as long as he hides it?

    Point of interest: a Google search for “Mia Love African American” produced over 2 million results.
    A Google search for “Ted Cruz Hispanic” produced over 400,000 results.
    A Goodle search for “Carl Demaio gay” produced over 150,000 results.
    With this much focus, it is no wonder Mia Love and Ted Cruz regularly talk about their parents who legally immigrated to the U.S. because it is a big part of what people want to know about them and it made them who they are. Ted has an entire paragraph of his bio on his official website that talks about his Cuban father. Mia, on the campaign trail, regularly told the story about how her parents came to this country with “$10 in their pocket.”

    It is also no wonder Carl DeMaio did the same by talking about what makes him who he is, but clearly did it far less than Love and Cruz talk about their heritage.

    And can you point out where older white males were disparaged in the article that Carl DeMario posted?

    Regarding your stance on same sex marriage, as long as homosexual behavior is not made into a criminal act….everything else is ok?

    From the RLC platform:
    “We (the Republican Liberty Caucus) affirm the principle that individual rights and liberties are unlimited, as specified in the Ninth Amendment.” You said same sex marriage is not addressed in their platform. Does that mean you do not consider marriage a “right” or a “liberty” then?

    “No law should deny, disparage or restrict the right of every person to privacy, freedom of travel, association, possession of substances, or adult consensual behaviors. We oppose any requirement of government authorization prior to exercising those fundamental freedoms.” Does this mean you were against Prop 8 or is marriage also not considered a “fundamental freedom”?

  10. From the official GOP platform:

    “The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”

    The endorsement of traditional marriage is clear, but nowhere does it advocate for the legislation of marriage either way. Upholding traditional marriage as a “national standard” is best left to private individuals, not government. Letting individuals determine their definition of marriage in the context of their faith and family while making government apply the law equally isn’t inconsistent with the platform.

    Obviously dissolving the institution of marriage is the ideal, but since that won’t happen, we need to get over this wedge sooner rather than later if we’re to be successful. I can speak for most young Republicans when I say that as a generation, we’re focused on the economy, not on the definition of marriage. (and here come the posts about how “Same sex marriage being legal has negative economic impacts!”)

  11. “I can speak for most young Republicans when I say that as a generation, we’re focused on the economy, not on the definition of marriage”

    That’s because, by and large, economic opportunity is limited for your generation and marriage seems to be a distant thought. I can assure you that, as time progresses, your generation will weight the issues differently.

    20 years ago, I thought it immoral to tax people’s property, to fund public education. Today, I just want to see tuition tax credits so parents have better choices

  12. Michael – You’re a good friend and an ally on all the issues I care about, but you are using straw man arguments which is not debating in good faith. I know you worked really hard for Mr. DeMaio – and I appreciate that. He would have made a better congressman than Peters – no question. I would suggest we still need to learn from the short comings of his candidacy so we can prevail next time.

    I wouldn’t ask any candidate to hide who they are. I do disagree with candidates who would say their gender, race, religion, or orientation precludes them from being identified as conservatives. If someone wants to use their identity as part of their broader personal narrative so be it – but we shouldn’t be surprised when that narrative is used to distinguish the candidate from conservatives that they lose conservative support in the process.

    As for the NYT article – I found the tone to be disparaging toward older white males. I can accept that is a subjective judgment and you have a different opinion.

    You seem to really want to make this about my position on gay marriage, which has nothing to do with the article. I’m happy to discuss it with you, but this is not the forum. I don’t want to further take the thread down a tangent.

  13. I worked hard for a couple different candidates. And will continue to in the future.
    Why isn’t this the forum for it? That subject comes up all the time here. Even when it isn’t directly related to the post.
    But here it is directly related because you brought it up in your post.

    “…that the traditional family, free markets, low taxes, and a strong national defense are the keys to national prosperity, and that all human life has dignity.”

    Are you now unwilling to answer the questions regarding the RLC platform vs the Republican platform?
    Your criticisms of Carl DeMaio’s campaign here may or may not be correct, but I’ll say this…he was always brave enough to tell people exactly where he stood on an issue.

  14. Michael – I’ll respond to your criticism with a few thoughts:

    1) The article is not about gay marriage, nor was it motivated by it. The article is about identity politics – which I think is a stepping stone to collectivism. It’s an anti-freedom mindset. Maybe DeMaio is undeserving of the criticism, but his advertisement and subsequent reposting of the NYT article suggested to me he buys into it. Even so I think the broader point is relevant to the GOP – we lose when we play identity politics.

    2) I’m not anti-DeMaio or anti-gay. I supported DeMaio and many other candidates that are for gay marriage, including Faulconer and Kashkari. Frankly the point of the article is that DeMaio being gay didn’t make the slightest bit of difference to me. The question I’m asking is why did DeMaio think it should?

    As for my position on gay marriage – this is where I stand:

    1) I support civil unions. Everyone should be able to form relationships recognized by the law that allow for intimate decision making, family formation, and survivorship.

    2) Everyone has a right to marry. The question is how do you define marriage. A marriage is a union between man and wife, both of the age of consent, and not related to one another.

    3) I wish I could hold the position you do. Its easier and less controversial. Less risk of alienating many of my friends including yourself, but everything I have learned suggests it’s the wrong position. All of the enlightenment writers that our founders read and believed held that marriage and family government was the first form of government, and the building block for state government.

    4) Being for gay-marriage is an expansion of government. Advocates of gay marriage would give the state the power to regulate and define the family. To this point in history the government of the family was not within the jurisdiction of the government.

    How do I reconcile these views with the RLC platform?

    1) The RLC platform can be construed to say everyone has a right to marry. But the platform is silent on what marriage is.

    2) Your interpretation of the RLC platform would seem to be an endorsement of plural marriage or incestuous marriage. I would be surprised if that is the real intention or if that is the real intention of the caucus.

    3) The RLC platform is clearly against using the law/force to change people’s conduct. I agree and am against the practice of criminalizing homosexual conduct – a practice that is still continued by many states.

    4) The RLC is for limiting government power. I would not vest the state with the power to regulate and define the family. The RLC platform does oppose the state “authorizing” relationships. Again I read this as silence on the issue of marriage. The state doesn’t authorize marriages – it “recognizes” them. This is the proper relationship between the jurisdiction of the state and the jurisdiction of the family.

  15. Jason,

    Witness- “…but I’ll say this…he was always brave enough to tell people exactly where he stood on an issue…”

    Yes, of course…that’s when he wasn’t literally cowering behind refusing primary debates, open press or RPSDC forums with other candidates, or never being challenged on issues of any consequence or controversy…(even his widely touted “reform” rally cry was confirmed plagiarized…for which he said he didn’t do, but was willing to tout as his own) a virtual David in the face of Goliath!

    Jason, you needn’t feel pressured to have to answer any of the questions posed by some of these critics; Many staunch DeMaio defenders continue to fail to to answer some very fundamental and key questions if the RPSDC is going to reconcile and mend the (apparent widening) gap between conservatives and so called “moderates.”

    They won’t answer:

    “Are those who supported Prop 8 or who still believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman now considered bigoted by the RPSDC? If so, how does the RPSDC explain the Chairman’s own position just a few years ago…( Not to mention key GOP, and Dem officials who only within the last few years ran on platforms of OM/OW…including President Obama?)

    “Do you believe polygamy, consensual incest, and arranged child marriages are also part of the “marriage equality right?” If not, why not?

    “Since “redefinition” is ostensibly acceptable now, which part of the 2 Amendment are former “unwavering” supporters willing to refine?”

    Your critique is spot on…the RPSDC leadership has a lot of “splaining” to do with those that opposed DeMaio candidacy and who hold to the conviction of the unvarnished definition of marriage, or his comfort with liberal euphemisms like “reproductive rights.”

    I see DeMaio going the way of Nathan Fletcher..he will announce some “disgust/intolerance” within the GOP, cling to his “old white men” boogyman meme, and shift to what he will see as greener political pastures. His identity politics position certainly points him in that direction…

  16. “Point of interest: a Google search for “Mia Love African American” produced over 2 million results.
    A Google search for “Ted Cruz Hispanic” produced over 400,000 results.
    A Goodle search for “Carl Demaio gay” produced over 150,000 results.”

    Another point of interest-

    One knows Ted Cruz is hispanic from his ethnicity, place of origin, in combination with his Spanish surname.

    One knows Mia Love is black because of her skin pigmentation and racial physical attributes.

    The only way one knows Carl DeMaio is gay is because he says he is (a behavior…not a physical or origin attribute that when denied truly defines bigotry; not a behavior that Americans are afforded under the 1st Amendment to discern either for or against )….and he used it as a political tool to advance a meme of “first gay” Republican…whether it had any political merit or juice behind it is irrelevant..he and his (not so) slick consultants thought it would, otherwise he wouldn’t have used it…in doing so he attempted to usher in a “new” wave of ideology that hitherto fore was alien and antithetical to the longstanding and universally understood Republican tenets; The new approach is-

    1. Marriage other than between OM/OW is acknowledged, acceptable, and is now to be mandated as “recognized; (and if you don’t “recognize it” your livelihood, quality of life, and business status can be adversely affected)

    2. While the GOP will continue to tout Abortion is bad, the GOP won’t take any positions of consequence in opposition to i, or no longer consider candidates that believe and will campaign on it;

    3. Prop 8 was a bigoted, intolerant aberration and is not in keeping with the GOP’s “evolved” position on marriage outside of OM/OW.

    4. The GOP will no longer consider voices of conviction on Life and Marriage (in fact they will be labeled as “bigoted”) and will decouple from the “social” issues and morph into a more morally androgynous political invertebrate that can pivot and flow with whatever political polls, consultants, and fundraisers are willing to support within the new established GOP PC parameters.

    These are the battle lines..whether anyone wants to recognize or admit it, these define the two wings of the party in ways no other issues do..and for those that will try to submerge into the position of “these issues are not paramount” does so at their own peril..they were so “insignificant” it caused the GOP nominee to lose the general (during the greatest Republican wave in 80 years) because he tacked so far off the acknowledged and STATED reservation, many Republicans either didn’t vote for him, or voted in opposition because thousands believed these issues ARE paramount.

    The issue certainly isn’t simple..but it is clear..now, people just need to decide which construct they will support and rally for; The Political Androgyny of bland pastels, or Political Clarity with bold Reagan-esque colors- To do neither is still a choice..a choice for the status quo in SDC..and we see what fruit that has born. (80K having left the GOP in the past few years…)

  17. I hesitate to get in the middle of this intramural squabble, but the meme that DeMaio should have won CD 52 because of “the greatest Republican wave in 80 years” simply has no basis in fact. There was no “Republican wave” in California; in fact, I can make a very good argument that, even in San Diego, it was the Democrats that dominated the 2014 general election.

  18. HQ,

    I’ll stipulate; perhaps a better description would be the way the NRCC and the local GOPs were able to advance/manipulate Republican wins virtually everywhere but San Diego, and in CA generally.

    In the primary, Jorgensen received nearly 25% of the vote, DeMaio was in the low-mid 30s, and Simon had 4%. As has been advocated by many here, they claim had Jorgensen won the primary, they, as DeMaio supporters would have supported the winner of the primary (Jorgensen). So if all the “no shows” and “Peters voters” in addition to the claim DeMaio’s folks would have naturally supported the “Republican nominee” (because as many claim, that is the “loyal” thing to do…) then Jorgensen would may well have won the General and been part of that wave.

    The “wave” was self-dampened by the Party apparatus in its endorsement process..NOT that the positions of the Republicans in SDC were rejected.

  19. FF,

    You can’t simply add up primary voters to determine who will win a general election. The two have very different electorates with the major difference being the number of Democrats who vote in the general, but not the primary.

  20. Generally agreed..but you would have stiplulate that the 10K plus who either didn’t vote for DeMaio or in addition voted for Peters (instead of Demaio) did so because the RPSDC (perceived or real) backed a candidate that was an anathma to Republican tenets. Had Jorgensen blocked DeMaio at the endorsement (in which he fell short be either one of two votes), then DeMaio would not have had a lock on NRCC support, money, or been able to shun Jorgensen for debates or the media.

    In this case, I think a strong arguement can be made that it was the RPSDC that backed a horse that was not going to win…we can debate whether that horse would have been Jorgensen (which I believe it very well could’ve been) but the numbers very well could have supported that conclusion. The counter argument would need to be that DeMaio attacted so many independents, that a Jorgensen-like candidate would have alienated them (presumably based on stances on Life and Marriage). However, I have not seen any evidence to support that…the more likely scenario is that DeMaio dissuaded more Republicans than he did attract independents. I think that is at the heart of the issue.

    Hope you had an enjoyable New year.

  21. FF,

    I think at this point it is all speculation as to what might have happened if… I am however enjoying the post-game analysis.

    Happy to New Year to you and yours.

  22. NRA endorsements

    Peters = F
    DeMaio = ?

    ? indicates he failed to return the questionaire

    95 % of NRA endorsed candidates won the November election.
    A NRA endorsement is good for about 3- 5 % bump in the vote.

    Carl lost by how much?

  23. Me too…as a casual outside observer..do you believe DeMaio may have won had the conservatives not mounted an insurgency against the RPSDC and advocated abstaining or outright support Peters?

  24. FF,

    Obviously DeMaio would have had a much better chance had all conservatives rallied around him as the only Republican in the general election. The numbers objectively show that he probably would have won. A better question however, is could Jorgensen have beaten Peters had he got the Party endorsement. It is only my opinion, but based on the make-up of CD 52, I don’t think he would have even come close.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *