Congressman Russ Carnahan received 14,000 more votes than Ed Martin in the August 3rd primary elections, despite not having a seriously contested primary. Carnahan received 80% of the vote in the Democratic primary. On the other hand, Ed Martin, even after convincing the St. Louis Tea Party to blacklist and then attack his opponent John Wayne Tucker, was only able to get an underwhelming 63% of the vote in the Republican Primary. This is less of a percentage than Roy Blunt was able to secure against much-ballyhooed conservative challenger Chuck Purgason. So, in general, it was a pretty poor performance by Ed Martin.
But that make this evaluation from David Hunn at the Post-Dispatch extremely curious. The whole article reads like an Ed Martin press release. The article claims, "Some say this could be the year a Republican wins the 3rd," and then claims that Martin "overwhelmingly" won his GOP primary. Actually, 63% among Republican voters is not even close to "overwhelming," and strongly suggests that even Republicans are hesitant about voting for the ethically-challenged Martin.
Which brings up a question I have asked before: why does the Post-Dispatch pander to an unethical politician who called the paper "judas" in the past and openly roots for it to fail and for the Globe-Democrat to succeed? If media is now a business, isn't it bad business to try to empower the very people who are trying to destroy you? At the very least, stop writing the puff pieces and unbalanced articles that only tell Martin's side of the story.