PDA

View Full Version : Create a Schiff 2010 subforum under Liberty Forest?




JoshLowry
01-22-2009, 11:39 AM
Sign in to vote on this poll.

:)

brandon
01-22-2009, 11:41 AM
No

He has no chance of winning. He will just be the next Murray Sabrin. Lets keep our focus on positions that are actually winnable.

Kludge
01-22-2009, 11:43 AM
No for now. Maybe when and if he actually decides to run in 2010.

Sandra
01-22-2009, 11:46 AM
If he reads the subforum, it may tip him into agreeing. This is the general hub (albeit not the only) of amassing support.

RonPaulFanInGA
01-22-2009, 11:46 AM
No offense, I like the guy, but he is not winning a statewide U.S. Senate race in Connecticut running as a conservative republican. Just no way.

Andrew Ryan
01-22-2009, 11:50 AM
Isn't that what "2010 planning" is for?

Kilrain
01-22-2009, 12:15 PM
No offense, I like the guy, but he is not winning a statewide U.S. Senate race in Connecticut running as a conservative republican. Just no way.

I guess there's no chance of him running as a conservative democrat? I know, CT is not SC, but it worked for Bob Conley. Yes, I know he lost against Grahmnesty, but still...

RonPaulFanInGA
01-22-2009, 12:24 PM
I guess there's no chance of him running as a conservative democrat? I know, CT is not SC, but it worked for Bob Conley. Yes, I know he lost against Grahmnesty, but still...

Conley did that in an open race. For Schiff to do that, he'd have to defeat entrenched-incumbent Chris Dodd in the democratic primary.

brandon
01-22-2009, 12:29 PM
Conley did that in an open race. For Schiff to do that, he'd have to defeat entrenched-incumbent Chris Dodd in the democratic primary.

Dodd may not run again. I would support Schiff if he ran as a democrat and Dodd wasn't running again. That most likely wont happen though.


Some info on Dodd:

First elected in 1980, Christopher Dodd, the longest-serving U.S. Senator in Connecticut history, announced in a letter to the Federal Election Commission on January 17, 2007 that he was no longer a candidate for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2010. However, this may just have been a technicality in order to transfer funds to his presidential campaign as the declaration could be reversed at any time. A Dodd spokesman said, "It's a legality that isn't an indication of future plans."[1] Dodd's campaign for the presidency was not successful, so it is possible that he will run for the Senate again. According to Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Fedele, Republican Governor Jodi Rell is likely running for re-election in 2010, so it is unlikely that either will run for the Senate.[2]

Dodd's previously unassailable electoral position in Connecticut may have deteriorated for two reasons since his last re-election. His poor performance in his bid for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination appears to have soured local voters.[3] That poll, showing Dodd's job approval at 51% was taken before revelations that Dodd received mortgage loans as part of the "Friends of Angelo" program run by subprime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. The Hartford Courant has reported Dodd has taken a "major credibility hit" from this scandal. A later poll in September 2008 showed Dodd's job approval declining to 43%, with 46% terming his job performance as "fair" or "poor".[4]

In Janaury 2009, Hartford Business Journal columnist Dean Pagani reported that many political leaders believed Dodd could be persuaded to retire so as to preserve his "senior statesman" legacy. [1]

.....

In December 2008, it was reported that Dodd had a little less than $568,000 banked for a re-election campaign, far less than other senators anticipated to seek re-election. [8]





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2010

thasre
01-22-2009, 12:32 PM
I really hate how people are like, "He shouldn't run because he can't win." THAT's a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was such a thing. It's like arguing that I shouldn't eat because I can't stop myself from getting hungry. The whole point of the Schiff 2010 stuff, right now, is:

1. Convince him to run.
2. Generate support in the event he does run.

Why do people have such a problem with this? If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. It's not that complicated.

Bryan
01-22-2009, 12:34 PM
From what I've seen, I really like Peter. That said, I don't know the demographics / competition well and do wonder why do a senate run when we really could benefit from a victory in the House-- are the demographics / competition less favorable?


Isn't that what "2010 planning" is for?
For now, yes. If there are people however who want to focus on this effort then a dedicated sub-forum can work. Down the line 2010 could be pulled out of GC and then add sub-forums for different races as dictated by traffic.

thasre
01-22-2009, 12:34 PM
Dodd may not run again. I would support Schiff if he ran as a democrat and Dodd wasn't running again. That most likely wont happen though.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2010

People realize there are primaries, right? Schiff would never get past the Democratic primary, but the Republicans would be stupid NOT to nominate him. Obviously he should run as a Republican. The state may lean Democratic but I'm here to tell you that the Democratic primary voters DEFINITELY lean Democratic.

brandon
01-22-2009, 12:36 PM
From what I've seen, I really like Peter. That said, I don't know the demographics / competition

In the last senate race in CT the republican only got 9% of the total vote.

Here is a thread I started about it:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=176166

brandon
01-22-2009, 12:38 PM
People realize there are primaries, right? Schiff would never get past the Democratic primary,


Wait wait wait wait...but I thought...

"I really hate how people are like, "He shouldn't run because he can't win." THAT's a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was such a thing. It's like arguing that I shouldn't eat because I can't stop myself from getting hungry."




but the Republicans would be stupid NOT to nominate him. Obviously he should run as a Republican. The state may lean Democratic but I'm here to tell you that the Democratic primary voters DEFINITELY lean Democratic.

Duh.
Yea maybe he could spend a million dollars and win the R primary...and then have absolutely no chance to win the general. What's the point of that?

gls
01-22-2009, 12:39 PM
In the last senate race in CT the republican only got 9% of the total vote.
[/url]

It came out that he had a major gambling problem a few weeks before the vote.

Bryan
01-22-2009, 12:43 PM
In the last senate race in CT the republican only got 9% of the total vote.

Here is a thread I started about it:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=176166

Thanks. It would seem there would need to be a massive anti-Obama / anti-Democrat wave at that point to have any chance. I'd seriously doubt he will run otherwise.

Kludge
01-22-2009, 12:47 PM
//

thasre
01-22-2009, 12:56 PM
Thanks. It would seem there would need to be a massive anti-Obama / anti-Democrat wave at that point to have any chance. I'd seriously doubt he will run otherwise.

Everyone points to the 90% of the vote that went to Lieberman/the other Dem, but obviously that was a highly irregular situation. A handful of anti-war Dems squeezed Lieberman out of the race for the Democratic nomination, which effectively turned it into a Democrat v. Democrat year. Republicans didn't want to vote Republican because they knew they would lose anyway, so they threw their support behind Lieberman, whom they considered more centrist than his opponent. It does not mean that 90% of the CT population votes exclusively Democratic.

thasre
01-22-2009, 01:01 PM
Wait wait wait wait...but I thought...

"I really hate how people are like, "He shouldn't run because he can't win." THAT's a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was such a thing. It's like arguing that I shouldn't eat because I can't stop myself from getting hungry."



Yea maybe he could spend a million dollars and win the R primary...and then have absolutely no chance to win the general. What's the point of that?

You're deliberately twisting what I said. He CAN win the general election, but obviously he can't win the fucking Democratic primary. It would be like arguing that Hillary Clinton would have beaten Obama if she had run as a Republican. She probably WOULD have beaten Obama in a general election if she had been the Republican nominee... but she NEVER would have won the Republican nomination. How can you not see that?

brandon
01-22-2009, 01:04 PM
He CAN win the general election,

If you have any polls, historical precedent, or insider information that supports your case, i'm certainly open to hearing it. Until then, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

BarryDonegan
01-22-2009, 01:31 PM
schiff has the namepower to win, that party stuff will all change after 4 years of democrats being blamed for everything.

qh4dotcom
01-22-2009, 01:38 PM
Sure...why not? Even if Peter loses, he'll be spreading the liberty message and growing his business.

RevolutionSD
01-22-2009, 02:21 PM
No

He has no chance of winning. He will just be the next Murray Sabrin. Lets keep our focus on positions that are actually winnable.

He will do better than Sabrin because of his msm appearances but really who cares? If his goal is to get a senate seat and work to change things from within, it's a lost cause.

If his goal is to spread libertarianism and educate people it may be worthwhile.

RevolutionSD
01-22-2009, 02:22 PM
schiff has the namepower to win, that party stuff will all change after 4 years of democrats being blamed for everything.

But the democrats and the msm will blame bush for everything that goes wrong in the next 4 years.

Captain America
01-22-2009, 02:31 PM
I really hate how people are like, "He shouldn't run because he can't win." THAT's a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was such a thing. It's like arguing that I shouldn't eat because I can't stop myself from getting hungry. The whole point of the Schiff 2010 stuff, right now, is:

1. Convince him to run.
2. Generate support in the event he does run.

Why do people have such a problem with this? If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. It's not that complicated.

Amen!

BarryDonegan
01-22-2009, 02:40 PM
But the democrats and the msm will blame bush for everything that goes wrong in the next 4 years.


the people wont.

thasre
01-22-2009, 10:33 PM
If you have any polls, historical precedent, or insider information that supports your case, i'm certainly open to hearing it. Until then, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

You do realize that you can't argue from historical precedent, right? In a case like this, it's only a little more statistically significant than saying, "Ah, this die has rolled six sixes in a row... the next number I roll MUST be a six!"

brandon
01-22-2009, 10:46 PM
You do realize that you can't argue from historical precedent, right? In a case like this, it's only a little more statistically significant than saying, "Ah, this die has rolled six sixes in a row... the next number I roll MUST be a six!"

You really need to work on your analogies. You should check out that one video "Peter Schiff Analogies" to see some good one's.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
01-22-2009, 10:49 PM
This thread has reached the maximum limit on analogy usage. Please cease and desist.

thasre
01-22-2009, 11:29 PM
What's so wrong with the analogies? In fact, my last analogy is taken directly from the fact that what people are using to "discredit" Schiff's run is a variation of an informal logical fallacy called "The Gambler's Fallacy". There are two forms of this fallacy:

1) Something has happened frequently in the past, so in the future the opposite MUST happen in order to "balance out" the past occurences.
2) Something has happened frequently in the past, so it MUST continue to happen that way in the future.

The fact is, elections are largely independent events (much like rolling dice, the analogy I used, which is the traditional analogy for this fallacy, hence "The Gambler's Fallacy"). Obviously there are effects of incumbency, and it must be taken into account that the voter pool probably consists of many of the same people who voted in the past and wouldn't necessarily be inclined to change their votes. In this sense, elections are not entirely independent events.

But the fact remains that the outcome is still LARGELY independent of past trends... and some of the past "trends" you're all citing aren't even trends, they're the result of an irregular situation in which an incumbent was defeated for the primary campaign and then ran as an independent. What we have is a situation where an increasingly unpopular Democrat (who has been implicated in events that led to our current financial woes) may run against an increasingly visible and vocal political and economic activist with a lot of grassroots support. I would say "trends" don't play much into a situation like this, because it's somewhat unprecedented. The outcome of Dodd v. Schiff would be almost entirely independent of the Lieberman affair a few years ago, which is the source of this 9% Republican vote figure.

Also, I don't think my analogies have been out of hand. The hunger one was a bit extreme, but represented the sort of nihilistic logic people are using to oppose the potential Schiff candidacy. The logic is even kind of circular:
"We shouldn't support Schiff."
Why not?
"Because he can't win."
Why can't he win?
"Because he won't have enough support."

Obviously he won't have enough support if you go around telling people not to give it to him.

The Hillary/Obama analogy was, frankly, more than an analogy... When someone argued, (roughly) "Schiff should run as a Democrat because he would be able to defeat the Republican" all I did was substitute "Clinton" for "Schiff", and switched the party labels. I feel it was a VERY valid comparison, since both are likely true, but lie on a very very flimsy presupposition that it would be easy for Schiff to receive a Democratic nomination, or for Clinton to receive a Republican one.

And, as I already stated, my dice comparison was lifted directly from the traditional analogy for arguing future events on past events that are independent of each other.

The fact is, I'm not even totally wild about Schiff, but I think it's as realistic a possibility as any we have for gaining some sway in the Senate, and if the naysayers really think "there are better ways that we can pool our resources" then they should be advocating those, rather than just posting anti-Schiff bunk. The fact that some assholes feel a need to belittle Schiff supporters makes me want to throw even more support behind him. Hell, at the very least, if we have a separate Schiff subforum, which is what this thread is suppose to be about, then you can ignore us shills for Schiff more easily.

Jeez.

Brassmouth
01-22-2009, 11:31 PM
No

He has no chance of winning. He will just be the next Murray Sabrin. Lets keep our focus on positions that are actually winnable.

QFT.

Just drop it, people. Honestly, some of you guys are so pathetic. How long can you cling to false hope.....

tremendoustie
01-23-2009, 12:02 AM
No

He has no chance of winning. He will just be the next Murray Sabrin. Lets keep our focus on positions that are actually winnable.

Not true, Chris Dodd is less popular than ever, with something like a 40% approval rating now.

He does have a chance of winning, and he has a certainty of sending a message and getting the word out.

Schiff will have cross party appeal because of his opposition to war and support of civil liberties.

If you think we should throw in the towel before even beginning, then fine, go work on projects you think are more likely to be successful, go hide and a hole and hope for the world to magically change, but don't drag down the efforts of others.

That's my 2c, and I'm behind peter all the way.