McCoart (Nichol/O'Brien winners):Now, let's look at an O'Brien District which did not overlap the 51st, but overlapped the 13th, where Bob Marshall clean Bruce Roemmelt's clock:
Gill: 562 O'Brien: 618
Nichols: 572 Barker: 510
Westridge (Nichols/O'Brien winners):
Gill: 542 O'Brien: 582
Nichols: 545 Barker: 510
Penn (Gill/O'Brien winners):
Gill: 419 O'Brien: 470
Nichols: 353 Barker: 308
Lake Ridge (Gill/O'Brien winners):
Gill: 638 O'Brien: 648
Nichols: 593 Barker: 598
Old Bridge (GIll/O'Brien winners):
Gill: 534 O'Brien: 617
Nichols: 451 Barker: 377
Rockledge (Nichols/O'Brien winners):
Gill: 561 O'Brien: 651
Nichols: 621 Barker: 538
Mohican (Nichols/Barker winners):
Gill: 289 O'Brien: 293
Nichols: 330 Barker: 322
Springwoods (Nichols/O'Brien winners):
Gill: 146 O'Brien: 207
Nichols: 214 Barker: 155
Marshall: 1,083 O'Brien: 1,102
Roemmelt: 716 Barker: 702
When one looks at these numbers, it seems that O'Brien consistently outperformed the GOP candidate in Prince William for House of Delegates (in both the 51st and the 13th Districts), and that Nichols consistently outperformed the Democrat candidate for State Senate.
What conclusions can be drawn? Well, of course, it is and can only be only speculation, but --- believe it or not! --- Greg Letiecq, no friend of Faisal, thoroughly refutes the suggestion that Faisal can be blamed for O'Brien's defeat here. Since I can't disagree with what he says, and he has already saved me the legwork, I commend it to your attention.
What is likely provoking the scapegoating of Faisal is that his numbers and the narrow, 495-vote margin in his race fully justifies another run in two years, when buyers' remorse should have well and thoroughly set in with the voters of the 51st District. However, doubtless a small number of ill-advised, moonbat "Repubmocrats" who --- all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding --- labor under the misconception that Gill's nomination was "stolen," will continue to think that Julie Lucas can actually beat an attractive, well-spoken attorney. They will be joined by Democrats who --- to be certain --- would love to send the less-capable Lucas sent as a lamb to the slaughter.
Of course, that the former are foolish enough to listen to the latter is one of the reasons why Samuel Francis famously labeled the GOP "the Stupid Party."
Memo to the former: these people do not wish us well. Their advice is designed to advance their candidates and ideology, not the GOP's. Don't listen to them!
UPDATE: "Fredo" over at Greg's site is still trying to scapegoat and smear Gill, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. This is my response:
“Fredo,” that you find it so easy to demonize an organization which seeks to mainstream Muslims into American society — and was concededly but unfortunately infiltrated by one among that small minority who are Jihadists — says more about your biases and bigotry than it does about the organization you condemn. It is, of course, ridiculous to assume that the individual of whom you speak shared his treacherous views with Gill, who served in that role for only a short time, years before that treachery was revealed, but your entire web of fantasy relies upon that proposition.
Sadly, the treacherous frequently rely upon lies to infiltrate organizations which rely upon the honor and good will of their membership. Sadly, good people are sometimes taken in by pretensions of those of a different sort. Sort of like the GOP relies upon the honesty of those who pledge their “intent to support all of the Party’s nominees for public office in the ensuing election.”
Which brings me to your comment that “no one, repeat NO ONE who took any kind of oath to support any particular candidate.” You are, of course. correct. Nice phony straw man. Of course, that’s not what I said, and it’s not what the Republican Party Plan says. What it says is that all participants in official Republican Party nominating contests must pledge their “intent to support all of the Party’s nominees for public office in the ensuing election.” THAT is the oath that was violated by those who attended the 51st District Convention and refused to support the nominee chosen by it, and I have suggested nothing else.
Even Greg was conceding before Election Day that Faisal stood a good chance in the race, notwithstanding the smears of you and others, and his best efforts to provide a forum for you. It’s also ironic that those who speak so sanctimoniously, so frequently, and so unconvincingly about a “big tent” were unwilling to open the flaps for those that Gill brought into the Party. The “big tent” that they/you want is only one “big” enough to include those you deem worthy.
Of course, your claim that “all PWC Republicans were warned, time and again” is nothing that a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the dishonorable who violated their oath. Hindsight is 20/20, and it’s truly sad that the GOP is populated by a contingent less interested in electing Republicans than it is in indulging its petty and self-serving, fanciful grievances when it doesn’t get its way. We may well face the same thing from the threat of some Christian Conservatives to sit out the 2008 presidential race if Guilliani is the nominee. I wonder what you’ll say if they do?
As for Gill’s effect on Jay’s race, “Fredo,” or “Gredo,” or whatever, it is GREG who manages to argue quite convincingly, based upon the evidence, that Gill had little to do with O’Brien’s results. Your argument is therefore with him, primarily, not me, though if you’d like to see the actual figures, I would commend to your attention this post. The numbers demonstrate that Jay actually did quite better than Gill in the precincts they shared than he did compared to that single precinct he shared with Bob Marshall. It is impossible to construct from those results the notion that Gill was a “drag” on O’Brien. Turnout was 35.09% in PWC precincts in Jay’s district. Turnout was 33.56% in Fairfax County precincts in Jay’s district. If anything, Faisal’s candidacy AIDED O’Brien’s efforts by facilitating a higher GOP turnout in PWC.
Once again, “Fredo,” when the truth doesn’t suit your purpose, you simply make it up. And belittle. That, along with your cowardly pseudonymity, bespeaking your unwillingness to bear the consequences of your perfidy, speaks volumes about you and your character, or more accurately, your lack thereof.