Erik Erickson has become famous for his visceral hatred of the Republican Party, and of course earli

[EJSTES2005]

....

"I thought it was the goal of Republicans to elect more Republicans to both the House and Senate to somehow make it harder for President Obama to enact his tax and spend agenda. Now, I am learning from Republican-haters like Erik Erickson that that is not their goal at all. Their goal is to somehow nominate as many losers as possible in the hopes that somehow the Democrats keep control of the Senate. And somehow, that will send the proper message to the President and his team."

Erik Erickson has become famous for his visceral hatred of the Republican Party, and of course earlier this year he was immediately hired by CNN to
represent the Republican view on various shows.

http://www.thefeeherytheory.com/2010/09/15/the-loser-strategy/



edited to add link

[bluestateguy]

1. As I once tried to explain to many people during the darkest of the Bush years

Symbolic victories are not victories at all.

An example that comes to mind is Paul Hackett's close but no cigar special election in the Ohio 2nd congressional district in 2005. He lost 52%-48% to Jean Schmidt. A good try for such a heavily Republican district, but in the end, she's the one that went to Congress, not him.

Yet many folks here saw fit to act as if by losing by 4% was the equivalent of actually winning. No, it doesn't work that way.

[KoKo]

2. I think, though, that Ohio has been the home of many "Voting Machine" errors and possible hacking...

so...do we really know if Mean Jean Schmidt really wins? How could we know.

:shrug:

[EJSTES2005]

3. +111111111111111111111111111