Conference back40::soapbox

What's Campbell's first name?  Where's the district?  Why was there a special
election?  Who was his opponent?  What were the local issues?  How much did
each side spend?  How did the turnout compare with a normal election?

    > Probably just another case of the liberal press not wanting to give
    > this much attention. 
    
    NPR devoted two large chunks of airtime to this issue, before and after
    the election.
    

    
    well considering Jesse Jackson Jr's father ran for president and
    due to the fact that he is replacing a convicted felon, why do you
    think it wouldn't get better press than Campbell. Whoever, the heck he
    is.

Mods, shouldn't this be in the Newt topic?

    
    ...or the California topic...
    

    >What's Campbell's first name?  
    
    Tom.  He's a local independent, got a great record promoting business
    and education in the state legislature- very well respected here- which
    is *very* rare considering the stupidity rampant in the state
    legislature in Sacramento.  He has been described as an independent
    even though a registered Republican for years.  When I lived in
    Mountain View I voted for him.
    
    > Where's the district?  
    
    San Mateo/Santa Clara Counties/parts of each.  Silicon Valley.
    
    > Why was there a special election?  
    
    uhm...I think, but I'm not sure, that the incumbent was Norm Mineta who
    went to head up Clinton's economic policy team just after the election
    a year ago.
    
    > Who was his opponent?  
    
    Jerry Estruth, former San Jose City Council Member.
    
    > What were the local issues?  
    
    Education, responsibility in government.  Rocush is correct in one
    sense (how unusual!) in that his Democratic opponent did try to tar
    Campbell with the brush of being in Newt's camp.  Didn't stick- most
    voters knew Campbell's record better than Estruth's.
    
    > How much did each side spend?  
    
    Estruth less than half a mil- Compbell $1.3M or thereabouts.
    
    > How did the turnout compare with a normal election?
    
    Not good- but this was the day with the hurricane force winds and
    slashing heavy rainfall- completely snarled commutes.  Not surprising
    that turnout wasn't good.
    
    DougO

    
    er DougO, that would be Sanders_J, not Al Rocush.

    
    
    
    .0 Actually Campbell was expected to win.
       The Newt factor was suppose to makee it a closer race though.
    

    >er DougO, that would be Sanders_J, not Al Rocush.
    
    Rocush was spouting off about it a little earlier, over in the Newt
    topic- and about that aspect for which I gave him credit, he was
    right.  Stunning, huh?
    
    DougO

RE: 30.1938 by ACISS1::ROCUSH

> Also, this guy got 36% of the vote in a District that had been represented
> by aliberal Democrat, with consistent and very expensive national support. 
> As a point of reference, the Republican that opposed Jesse Jackson Jr. in
> Chicago received 29% of the vote with almost no campaign, no commercials,
> no name recognition, no nothing.  So for a guy running in a Democratic
> district, with almost unlimited funding, attacking Newt gets 36%, I think
> the inferences are clear.

Let's check the math.

Less than a half a million is "almost unlimited funding",  when the winner
spend 1.3 million.  

Something doesn't add up here.    


Phil

    
    
    Well Phil, if it doesn't add up, then obviously there's a Republican
    plot to bend the truth a bit... no???
    
     Something the Dems would never be guilty of!!!!!
    
    
    Could it possibly be that others (ie National Dem Committee, Friends of
    Dem. loser...etc.) contributed air time and money that didn't fall
    under the loser's umbrella???
    

    
      There's a memo floating around by the DNC, trying to put a bright
     face on it, called "Good news for Democrats" - you know, we only
     got beat bad, we didn't get slaughtered, kind of stuff.
    
      I'm afraid this will impress nobody with the effectiveness of the
     technique, the morph of Campbell into Gingrich (whom he resembles
     neither facially nor politically) plain fizzled.  Sure, a close
     loss might not be such a failure.  This wasn't close.
    
      bb

    .10
    
    This guy had spent next to nothing prior to the infusion of the nation
    organization.  I would think that a half mil qualifies when almost
    nothing was spent prior.
    
    The issue is still why no reports stating that this election was a
    confirmation of the Republican Revolution when Campbell wins by 1.6X
    the challenger.
    

    Because Campbell has been elected by these same voters half-a-dozen
    times before, to the State Senate.  His winning doesn't confirm
    anything other than the value to the electorate of a safe pair of
    hands.
    
    DougO