Spin. Absolute spin. I agree completely with Steve above.

Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Gilmore (R) won that district by:

• 70% to 26% in 2000 (44 points)
• 67% to 28% in 2002 (39 points)
• 67% to 33% in 2004 (34 points)
• 57% to 43% in 2006 (14 points)

And of course the tally last night was 57% to 43% again. Anyone else see a pattern forming there? I tend to think this might bode well for Ohio Democrats in 2008.

Clinton has a wad of corporate cash to blow on the Presidential race . . . Anyone else believe that Clinton can single-handedly keep the Presidency in Republican hands (Win or lose)?

I wish "our guys" would quit thinking that spending Republican money is just as good a winning. Who cares how much money they spent? Knock and doors and GOTV--and you do that by having candidates people believe in. I don't buy the notion that good ol' Rahm is helping Democrats--he is surfing a sea change. His rhetoric is wrong and day old pastry.

If these guys really want to WIN, which in some circles really is the point, they need more Russ Feingolds. The US public is looking for real leaders, not more compromisers. You can be a Democrat and be a tough SOB, which is what you are going to have to be to keep jobs in this country, get universal healthcare, fight catastrophic climate change and get our military out of Iraq.

We didn't lose because they outspent us. We lost because we only offered voters more of the same.

Dollars spent on a campaign can often makes a difference in the results of an election, however if the message doesn’t resonate with voters, no amount of money determines outcome of an election.

The Republican candidate trotted out the anti-tax message and the immigration issue. It worked.

Robin Weirauch didn’t brand herself as a progressive against the Iraq War except for her initial campaign statement. Failing to repeatedly address the Iraq War put Ms Weirauch in the same company as “Off the Table” Speaker Pelosi, “Blank Check” House Majority Leader Hoyer, DINOS and Blue Dog Democrats that have failed to fully support ending the Iraq War. .

The heavy “Red” electorate demographics of OH-05 don’t fully explain the third loss of this district as other Democrats have carried this district in statewide races in 2006.

It’s winning the vote that counts not the hollow chest thumping by the DCCC about forcing the RNC to spend a significant amount of money. Victory has a way of attracting campaign donations and defeat has the opposite effect.

“Mo Better Democrats” with spine are needed carry the message in 2008 that was sent in 2006 elections.

Steve, the DCCC spent $243,748.14.

http://swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1179

Bush won the district by over 20 points. So the NRCC, in a year where they've been outraised by Democrats significantly (which I have never seen happen) outspent the Democrats 2-1 to hold a R+10 district.

Still, I think that this district would be competitive if the Democrats in Congress were doing what they were elected to do, namely start bringing the soldiers home, no matter how much Republican politicians may want to leave our troops to die in Iraq.