what martin did wrong.

[bryantm3]

1) didn't make the issues relevent. he should have had a couple of TV ads making health care a primary concern, like the one obama had that talked about obama's approach being middle of the road.

2) he should've never aired the ad about 'saxby supports a 23% sales tax'. that sunk him for good. the fairtax was introduced by a georgia legislator- if there's one thing georgians are, it's for abolishing the IRS. he brought that up and it went right back in his face.

3) he should have brought up the fact that he opposed the $700 billion bailout, while saxby, who is supposed to be a conservative republican, advocated doling out money to banks, which is one of the most socialist positions you can have. stealing the socialist attack from mccain would've been a nice touch.

4) he didn't work hard enough for votes in central and south georgia. you absolutely need central georgia to carry the state- atlanta will always vote democrat, whether you're a conservative or a liberal democrat, but the swing voters are in central georgia and it's vital when running a campaign to cater to those key voters.

5) he needed to seperate himself from barack obama and become his own candidate. his ads all said 'vote for me because i'll help barack', while saxby had more of a message of 'i'll fight for you in washington' which is always who the voters will side for.

he might have needed more money and a better strategy, but i believe he could've pulled it off without any nationally known democrat's support.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

2) he should've never aired the ad about 'saxby supports a 23% sales tax'. that sunk him for good. the fairtax was introduced by a georgia legislator- if there's one thing georgians are, it's for abolishing the IRS. he brought that up and it went right back in his face.

agreed. this was a big frowny moment for me in the campaign.

i have to admit, though, i'm a democrat who wasn't sure a supermajority was a good idea. i don't think it's a good idea to give the democrats runaway power. the founding fathers didn't envision a political landscape polarized between two parties who would grapple at the 50% line for 1 seat of dominance. there needs to be discussion and disagreement and, yes, even filibustering. not only am i not surprised that saxby won, but i'm also not disappointed.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by cacophony

i have to admit, though, i'm a democrat who wasn't sure a supermajority was a good idea. i don't think it's a good idea to give the democrats runaway power. the founding fathers didn't envision a political landscape polarized between two parties who would grapple at the 50% line for 1 seat of dominance. there needs to be discussion and disagreement and, yes, even filibustering. not only am i not surprised that saxby won, but i'm also not disappointed.

Aside from the "I'm a Democrat" part, I was just going to say the same thing. Supermajority bad. Checks and balances good.

[gambit]

Ludacris.