PDA

View Full Version : Elections Well, so much for taking the Senate (DE Primary)


alnorth
09-14-2010, 08:45 PM
It appears the GOP snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Delaware tonight. Tea Party conservative Christine O'Donnell defeated the moderate former governor and U.S. Rep Mike Castle. This state was projected by many as a likely republican takeover based on the assumption that Castle would win the primary. It is now likely going to stay in the hands of the Democrats because O'Donnell does not appear to have the ability to beat Chris Coons.

Mike Castle was highly popular among moderate voters, but electability did not matter today in the primary. To those who say "I'd rather lose than see a "RINO" win!", I have 2 responses. First, this is a solidly blue state. Only 2 kinds of politicians win here: moderate republicans, and liberal democrats. Second, whatever potential votes you might not like from Castle, he still would have supported the GOP for control of Senate.

Rasmussen

(the now defeated) Castle 48%, Coons 37%
(the unelectable in DE) O'Donnell 36%, Coons 47%

PPP today teased this:

In Delaware Chris Coons polls 26 points better against Christine O’Donnell than Mike Castle. Castle’s net favorability is 25 points higher than O’Donnell’s. That electability gap is even wider than what we saw a month ago when Castle did 20 points better against Coons than O’Donnell.

reading between the lines, it looks like their polls tomorrow will show Castle would have been comfortably ahead but O'Donnell is getting destroyed.

It would have been tough anyway, but the GOP really needed Delaware to have much of a chance at getting to 51 seats.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:59 PM
In the meantime there's an enormous upset happening in the NH Senate Primary.
Ovide Lamontagne rose from 8 to 31%, shooting past two others and a moderate whose numbers dropped 12 points. Ovide now up 50-33 and others coming in way below expectations.

alnorth
09-14-2010, 09:39 PM
New Hampshire is a little less of an extreme case. With Delaware we went from "cool, this seat looks like its in the bag for November" to "what the hell? We're probably going to lose that one now!"

In New Hampshire, if Ayotte wins she would probably have a better chance to win the election, but Lamontagne might still have a fighting chance. NH is fairly blue, but not as blue as DE.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 09:56 PM
New Hampshire is a little less of an extreme case. With Delaware we went from "cool, this seat looks like its in the bag for November" to "what the hell? We're probably going to lose that one now!"

In New Hampshire, if Ayotte wins she would probably have a better chance to win the election, but Lamontagne might still have a fighting chance. NH is fairly blue, but not as blue as DE.

What kinda of Ds are winning though? Are they hard left like Obama? If they are conservative or moderate, then there wouldn't have been much difference with a moderate R in there anyway. If not, then the country will just go further south and that helps for the national election whereas as a check on Obama with gridlock could re-elect him too. Like what happened with Clinton who took all the credit for what was perceived as a good economy. ( even though that was artificially stimulated too.)

alnorth
09-14-2010, 10:06 PM
What kinda of Ds are winning though? Are they hard left like Obama? If they are conservative or moderate, then there wouldn't have been much difference with a moderate R in there anyway. If not, then the country will just go further south and that helps for the national election whereas as a check on Obama with gridlock could re-elect him too. Like what happened with Clinton who took all the credit for what was perceived as a good economy. ( even though that was artificially stimulated too.)

we're getting close to "only political nerds care about this" territory.

They are the kind of D's who are significantly more liberal than their opponents and will ensure that Harry Reid remains as the majority leader to set the agenda of the senate for the next 2 years.

One election in Delaware and a couple others in NV and NH will not cause people to pack up and move south. It will simply ensure that the GOP has next to no chance of capturing the senate this year.

alnorth
09-14-2010, 10:34 PM
NRSC will not fund O'Donnell in Delware. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/sep/14/nrsc-will-not-fund-odonnell-race-delaware/)

The GOP appears to have informally given up on Delaware with tonight's "win" by O'Donnell.

Fox News is reporting that the National Republican Senatorial Committee will not be supporting Ms. O'Donnell's candidacy, as they have deemed her to be "unelectable." Ms. O'Donnell will have to rely on her own fundraising and help from the Tea Party.

Some whispered grumblings floating out there, something like "let Palin and the tea party support her"

Amnorix
09-15-2010, 10:03 AM
O'Donnell is anti-abortion, which I wouldn't think renders her un-electable in Delaware, but even in cases of rape. Good luck with that stance...

ROYC75
09-15-2010, 11:10 AM
NRSC will not fund O'Donnell in Delware. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/sep/14/nrsc-will-not-fund-odonnell-race-delaware/)

The GOP appears to have informally given up on Delaware with tonight's "win" by O'Donnell.



Some whispered grumblings floating out there, something like "let Palin and the tea party support her"


Bottom line, that's pretty stupid of them. Why want a Castle in if he is going to vote like a Liberal Democrat.

My other take is this, If Republicans wanted Castle in, why did he lose to her ? Sure he would have drew plenty of moderate Democrats in the general election. But that says more for the Democrats than it does for the Republicans.

So that 1 R in Senate is hinged on Castle vs O'Donnell ?

The R's better wake up and get behind her if they want that 1 R.

When was the last time we went to the ballot box's and selected a candidate without having to hold our nose with the other hand.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 11:25 AM
ROYC75, if the NRSC spends one dime in Delaware, they may as well burn the money instead. They would be utterly retarded to waste money on an unwinnable race. Castle was the most popular candidate in the race, except among the small number of people in his own party.

Calling Castle a "liberal" is simply wrong and misses the point. Castle would have voted for McConnell as majority leader. Everything else he may or may not do is a lot less important than that. Without senators like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the GOP can not control the Senate in the near future.

Scott Brown and Chris Christie are a couple more of those moderate republicans who the right-wing seems to love but doesn't want to talk about in detail (though not as moderate as Castle).

If you want to impose purity in every state, then you will be relegated to a near-powerless regional southern and midwestern party, who can perhaps win a presidential election every so often, pretty much forever. There are not enough dittoheads to win the Senate.

Polls today:

PPP 9/11-9/12, 958 LV, margin of error +/- 3.2%
Coons (D) +16 - Coons 50%, O'Donnell 34%

diving into the numbers:
O'Donnell favorable 29%, unfavorable 50%
Coons favorable 31%, unfavorable 33%
"Do you think O'Donnell is fit to hold public office?" No, 49-31
Republicans for Coons - 25%

If Castle would have won instead:

PPP 9/11-9/12, 958 LV, margin of error +/- 3.2%
Castle (R) +10 - Castle 45%, Coons 35%
Democrats for Castle - 30%
Independents for Castle - 45%, against 27% for Coons

“A small group of Delaware Republicans most likely cost their party this seat and any chance at gaining control of the Senate last night,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “What has looked like an easy Republican win the entire cycle now looks like an easy one for the Democrats.”

Thanks tea party!

If you dont like PPP, here's Rasmussen from a couple weeks ago.
Rasmussen 9/2, 500LV, margin of error +/- 4.5%
Coons (D) +11 - Coons 47%, O'Donnell 36%

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 11:28 AM
from another poster elsewhere which is true:

Castle voted for Obamacare

Castle voted for Stimulus

Castle voted for Cap and Trade

Delaware was already going to be a Democrat seat. Now it actually has a choice.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 11:35 AM
Delaware was already going to be a Democrat seat. Now it actually has a choice.

Bullcrap. Coons will vote for Reid as majority leader. The majority leader can ensure that a lot of legislation you'd like to see never even gets a vote, and that the senate can only vote up or down on liberal legislation all day.

Castle would have voted for McConnell as majority leader. NOTHING else he may or may not do is more important than that. With the majority, the GOP leader can prevent legislation from even getting a vote.

Maybe Castle would have then voted against the party on a few issues, but without his vote for the leadership, you only ensure that legislation you might like to see never even gets a hearing or a chance to be voted on.

It cuts both ways, there are moderate democrats you can pick off to replace these occasional snowe and castle defections, but you dont even get the chance to try if the leader is Reid.

ROYC75
09-15-2010, 12:16 PM
Bullcrap. Coons will vote for Reid as majority leader. The majority leader can ensure that a lot of legislation you'd like to see never even gets a vote, and that the senate can only vote up or down on liberal legislation all day.

Castle would have voted for McConnell as majority leader. NOTHING else he may or may not do is more important than that. With the majority, the GOP leader can prevent legislation from even getting a vote.

Maybe Castle would have then voted against the party on a few issues, but without his vote for the leadership, you only ensure that legislation you might like to see never even gets a hearing or a chance to be voted on.

It cuts both ways, there are moderate democrats you can pick off to replace these occasional snowe and castle defections, but you dont even get the chance to try if the leader is Reid.


So the election is what, 50 days away and you are giving up the ship to the Dems, NOW ?

If the R's take the Senate, Reid gets no chance to be majority leader.

Work all the other states hard and don't give up with 50 days to go .

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 12:26 PM
Bullcrap. Coons will vote for Reid as majority leader. The majority leader can ensure that a lot of legislation you'd like to see never even gets a vote, and that the senate can only vote up or down on liberal legislation all day.

Castle would have voted for McConnell as majority leader. NOTHING else he may or may not do is more important than that. With the majority, the GOP leader can prevent legislation from even getting a vote.

Maybe Castle would have then voted against the party on a few issues, but without his vote for the leadership, you only ensure that legislation you might like to see never even gets a hearing or a chance to be voted on.

It cuts both ways, there are moderate democrats you can pick off to replace these occasional snowe and castle defections, but you dont even get the chance to try if the leader is Reid.
It doesn't change Castle's D votes. He deserved to be booted from the primary. It still sends a message. Now the damage that results from a Depression with social unrest and food shortages will lie totally on the Ds heads.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 12:40 PM
So the election is what, 50 days away and you are giving up the ship to the Dems, NOW ?

If the R's take the Senate, Reid gets no chance to be majority leader.

Work all the other states hard and don't give up with 50 days to go .

It was already going to be extremely hard to win the Senate. Without Delaware, it goes from "maybe we can", to "mathematically possible". We lost our margin of error with DE, now you have to have a clean sweep.

Forget the senate, it is gone, along with any hopes you may have had to have GOP bills voted on in the senate. The dems wont get everything they want with a slim majority, but a few things are bound to slip through that never would have seen the light of a committee room if McConnell is leader.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 12:48 PM
It doesn't change Castle's D votes. He deserved to be booted from the primary. It still sends a message. Now the damage that results from a Depression with social unrest and food shortages will lie totally on the Ds heads.

For some reason you seem to think this political climate will be forever. If that were the case, sure you dont have to care about moderates anymore, but you are dreaming.

Every year isn't going to be 1994, we will have some 2006's and a few 2008's in the future. You have to capitalize every chance you get in some of those states that are normally closed to your side. The dems certainly wont turn their noses up at installing moderate dems who will be entrenched for decades the next time a 2008 rolls around. (e.g. they have a moderate dem in freaking alaska of all places who rode in Obama's coattails. By the time 2014 and 2020 rolls around he's probably not going anywhere)

ROYC75
09-15-2010, 03:11 PM
Why give up, it's still time for a comeback.

( Somebody )Throw a lot of money at her, improver her image and be very straight forward about her conservative ways with government spending.

Why have a R in the Senate voting like a D when they is a D candidate awaiting to vote like a D, err L.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 04:11 PM
Why give up, it's still time for a comeback.

( Somebody )Throw a lot of money at her, improver her image and be very straight forward about her conservative ways with government spending.

Why have a R in the Senate voting like a D when they is a D candidate awaiting to vote like a D, err L.

She wont give up, and her nutty followers wont either, but the party money can be better spent elsewhere.

About half of likely voters polled say they do not like her. Not that they aren't sure about her, not that they dont know who she is, but that they do know who she is and disapprove of her. She is so highly disliked in this very, very blue state that a quarter of republicans intend to cross party lines and vote for the democrat.

You could dump $100 Million on this state and she would still not win.

The Mad Crapper
09-24-2010, 01:07 PM
Washington elites' heads exploded when Christine O'Donnell won the Republican Senate primary in Delaware last week. Luckily they were all reading The New York Times' op-ed page at the time, so the mess their exploding heads created was minimal.

The establishment's complaints are confusing. They say O'Donnell has a problem because she's never held a job in the private sector (like our president), didn't pay her taxes (like our treasury secretary), and had her house foreclosed on (like half of the electorate).

They also accuse her of saying crazy things -- but she's running for Joe Biden's old seat, so this may be an advantage.

This week, all we've heard about is how O'Donnell once said she went on a date with a guy in high school who claimed to be a witch. (So what? Bill Clinton married one!) Bill Clinton was credibly accused of at least one forcible rape. Those two seem about equal to you?

I haven't seen hypocrisy like this since -- oh, that's right, since last week when CBS's Bob Schieffer attacked John Boehner for smoking, after two years of the media's ferociously avoiding the topic of Obama's cigarette habit.

The Republican Party is being warned that tea party-endorsed candidates such as O'Donnell might lead to Barry Goldwater-style epic defeats.

Of course, the tea party candidates range from libertarian Rand Paul in Kentucky to Yale Law/Iraq War veteran Joe Miller in Alaska to Christian activist O'Donnell. But any evidence of principle in a Republican is always treated by the elites as if it's an embarrassing eccentricity best kept under wraps.

Referring to "fringe candidates" from the tea party, Morton Kondracke wrote in Roll Call that Republicans are "heading out of the mainstream" and cited Goldwater as a "disastrous" precedent.

David Gergen said on CNN that the tea party candidates may be producing "something like what we saw back the 1960s when the rise of Barry Goldwater seized power in the party back from the establishment, took it, but then went on to get a real drubbing in that '64 national election."

CNN's Gloria Borger also compared the tea party movement's demand for ideological purity to the conservatives' ill-fated nomination of Barry Goldwater.

As a one-off, 46-year-old example, Goldwater is like the Timothy McVeigh of conservative presidential candidates. But if Goldwater is going to keep being used as a boogeyman to scare conservatives, let's at least get the history straight.

Ironically, the elites also compared Reagan to Goldwater and predicted a devastating defeat for him in 1980. But Reagan didn't lose. He not only never lost an election, he never won by less than a landslide. (You might say Reagan's opponents suffered Goldwater-style defeats.)

So what was the difference between Goldwater and Reagan? Had the country changed that much in 16 years?

The social issues were the difference. Reagan agreed with Goldwater on fiscal and national defense issues, but by 1980, social issues loomed large and Reagan came down mightily on one side -- the opposite side as Goldwater, as it turned out.

Unlike abortion-loving Goldwater, Reagan said, "We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide."

And unlike gay-marriage-loving Goldwater, Reagan said: "Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. ... We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality."

Goldwater may have been a thorough-going right-winger on national defense, but -- unless L. Brent Bozell Jr. was writing it for him -- he never would have said this of the Soviets, as President Reagan did: "There is sin and evil in the world and we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might."

CNN's Borger contrasted Goldwater with Ronald Reagan by precisely reversing their differences, claiming Reagan "was probably the most secular president we've known in our lifetime."

Yes, the man who called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," who wrote a book against abortion as a sitting president, and who said that our government's founding documents "speak of man being created, of a creator, that we are a nation under God" -- that's the one Borger calls "the most secular president we've known in our lifetime."

By "most secular," I gather she means "most deeply religious."

Establishment Republicans are always telling Christian conservatives to put our issues aside because they're not popular -- and then moderate Republicans go on to lose elections, while conservative Republicans win in landslides. (It's almost as if the voters couldn't care less who David Brooks thinks they should vote for!)

As long as liberals are going to keep gleefully citing Goldwater's love of gay marriage and abortion, his contempt for Christian conservatives, and his statement that "every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass," maybe they could ease up on blaming Christian conservatives for Goldwater's historic loss.

Goldwater wasn't our guy; Reagan was.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/09/22/how_many_times_did_goldwater_run_for_president_again/page/2

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0906/ann-coulter-demotivational-poster-1244053192.jpg

BucEyedPea
10-07-2010, 09:15 AM
...while reading this article.

Anyhow, this is more likely the case for the upset by some in losing Castle as opposed to him blocking progressive legislation.



To this day, you still see the same pattern. The Democrats are thrown out of office for progressive craziness. The Republicans come in, do nothing to undo the damage and act stupid. The Democrats with a new, improved image replace the stupid Republicans and pass more progressive legislation. The Tea Party Movement is a threat to this whole con game.

The Republican Party is really upset about losing Mike Castle (RINO-DE) because as a chairman he could block the new non-progressive representatives from getting anything done in Congress. The Tea Party people are the Barbarians at the gate and Castle was part of the gate....

All the conservative pundits inside the beltway who have been bad-mouthing Christine O’Donnell make their living convincing the public that the Republican and Democratic parties are two opposing forces instead of a Three Card Monty team bent on stealing your Freedom....

The incumbents are facing something they've never seen before: a populous that cares. People fear they are losing their country and are desperately trying to stop it.

The progressives, both Republican and Democrat, will not go quietly. There are trillions of dollars of power at stake in this game. The progressive are too close to their goal of total control to give up now.


Reality Check (http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-brian/wilson-brian20.1.html)

The Mad Crapper
10-07-2010, 10:15 AM
...while reading this article.

Anyhow, this is more likely the case for the upset by some in losing Castle as opposed to him blocking progressive legislation.




Reality Check (http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-brian/wilson-brian20.1.html)

You have to look at the big picture---

I know their is a sense of urgency because we have a stealth communist in the Ofal Office, now, but this is not just about this election.

If Cooms or Tooms or whatever his name is, wins it, so be it. The Mike Castles of the world will not be rewarded or elected by default no longer.

chiefsnorth
10-07-2010, 10:53 AM
...while reading this article.

Anyhow, this is more likely the case for the upset by some in losing Castle as opposed to him blocking progressive legislation.




Reality Check (http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-brian/wilson-brian20.1.html)

While I generally regard you as a whack job and being full of it, and the same goes for Rockwell, that is a decent article.

BucEyedPea
10-07-2010, 11:24 AM
You have to look at the big picture---
I am. This election means gridlock for me only. The Rs must still have their own feet held to the fire with the progressives in the party exposed. Ya' know the ones who call the true limited govt guys "whack jobs" "crazy" or "nuts" because they can't refute or run on their own issues or past voting.

The Mike Castles of the world will not be rewarded or elected by default no longer.

My point was to show the real reason why progressive Rs like alnorth would really want Castle still in. It wouldn't have made a difference if a D or he were elected. Neither would stop progressive ( commie ) legislation.

BucEyedPea
10-07-2010, 11:28 AM
While I generally regard you as a whack job and being full of it, and the same goes for Rockwell, that is a decent article.

That's funny because I and Lew think the same about you. You can't refute...so you argue like a progressive leftist. Meanwhile, polls show more Americans think your FP is not their "Cup of Tea" pardon the pun.
BTW, I don't agree with Lew on many things. I am not a libertarian. I am a paleo-conservative which overlaps with libertarianism in places.

alnorth
10-07-2010, 12:27 PM
...while reading this article.

Anyhow, this is more likely the case for the upset by some in losing Castle as opposed to him blocking progressive legislation.




Reality Check (http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-brian/wilson-brian20.1.html)

Why should you give a rat's ass about what Castle will or won't do. For the sake of argument, lets accept these 3 as given facts:

1) Christine O'Donnell, or indeed, ANY conservative, does not have a chance in heaven, earth, or hades of winning in Delaware. Maybe a decade or two from now, but not anytime soon.

2) Coons and Castle are essentially close to the same, politically.

3) Castle would win, and would vote for McConnell as majority leader.

So, you have two politicians who are both basically democrats. Maybe castle is a little less to the left, but not much for this discussion, but thats all your getting, one or the other.

One democrat who will vote for Harry Reid, and the other "democrat" will vote, for whatever strange reason, for McConnell.

The drooling morons who voted in the DE primary basically cast a vote for Harry Reid (or his successor if he loses) as majority leader. Congratulations.

There is nothing, nothing, N. O. T. H. I. N. G., more important for the next senator from Delaware than which party they will allow to take control of the senate. A vote for O'Donnell, as crazy as she is, in this kind of state, was a vote by proxy for Coons and Harry Reid.

chiefsnorth
10-07-2010, 12:47 PM
That's funny because I and Lew think the same about you. You can't refute...so you argue like a progressive leftist. Meanwhile, polls show more Americans think your FP is not their "Cup of Tea" pardon the pun.
BTW, I don't agree with Lew on many things. I am not a libertarian. I am a paleo-conservative which overlaps with libertarianism in places.

Well, the board's chief name-caller ripostses and then shows us once again how it's done. Yeah, we know the song and dance, everyone is a hardcore leftist but you.

alnorth
10-07-2010, 12:47 PM
Some of you guys are just borderline stupid when it comes to big-picture political strategy. If this was a red state like Utah, or hell, even a purple state like Nevada, maybe it is worth it to roll the dice on a pure candidate, and if you don't win this time, there will be other chances.

Delaware is a deep, dark, Royal Blue state. It is a state where for conservatives, the rule is "thou shalt never win here". The best you can do is a mushy moderate, otherwise your getting liberals. Castle is a pretty left moderate at best, perhaps liberal. (not a big voting record here)

If the Democrats miraculously found someone who was very conservative, in Oklahoma, who could win but nevertheless would vote for their party leadership, they would be stupid to pass him up. You dont get those chances very often, and the correct strategic move is to cynically take advantage of a guy who you strongly disagree with, in order to elect leaders who will act contrary to his interests. One day he may figure out he's in the wrong party, but in the meantime you get the use of a seat that doesn't belong to you.

The GOP had this rare chance in a state they can never play in. They could have elected him, and abused his vote until he finally woke up and realized he should probably switch to the democrats.

They did not do that, because the DE tea party was stupid. Purification in red or purple states can be useful. In dark blue states, it is just stupid.