Delaware politicsFollow

As some of you folks with too much time on your hands may know, I graduated from the University of Delaware. While I'm in Florida now, I still have a lot of friends up at my alma mater, and a number of them have been following the politics recently and keeping me up to date. And what's coming together now is a fun meeting of Tea Party versus centrist Republican vs Democrat.

In 2008, Joe Biden handily defeated Christine O'Donnell for the senate seat. No big surprise; it was something like... 65 to 35% or some huge swing. Then Biden became the vice president, and his seat was given to Ted Kaufman until the special election, held this November. Kaufman stated he would not run; a lot of people thought Joe Biden's son Beau would run, but he declined, leading the Democrats to select Chris Coons without opposition in their primary. Ugly, ugly man, but pretty solid Democrat. Believes in cap & trade, pro-choice, Obama's healthcare reform, etc. Not bad in the polls, but not a sure fire winner... against one of the candidates.

The two contenders for the Republican nomination are Mike Castle, a very long-running State Representative now gunning for the Senate, and Christine O'Donnell, Tea Party and Palin-backed hard-right winger. Originally Castle had a HUGE lead over O'Donnell in polls, but recently the gap has become neck-and-neck. Why is this important?

Because if O'Donnell wins, right now all signs point to Coons winning overall. But Castle is viewed favorably by both sides, and has a slight advantage over Coons in the most recent polls. He is as close to a centrist as possible these days: he voted against the stimulus and healthcare based on how much debt they would add, but he is pro-choice and for energy reform, including cap & trade.

O'Donnell is a long-time conservative activist, and has not won an elected office before. She has had a lot of trouble with personal finances, which has given her some street cred with people going through similar situations in a tough economy. While she supports the fiscally conservative policies of the Tea Party, she is also a staunch social conservative; pro-life, anti-pornography and extramarital sex, and with a history of working with groups to promote Christian teachings and lifestyles. She also, among other things, amassed thousands of dollars in campaign debt, was confronted by the IRS about unpaid income taxes and sold her Wilmington home to a campaign staffer to avoid a sheriff’s sale ordered to settle mortgage claims, a News Journal investigation shows. Oh, and a recent campaign spokesperson fabricated a rumor of Mike Castle having a gay affair as another bit of mud to toss at him, besides the perennial call of "RINO!"

Personally, I'd be fine with seeing Castle win, because he's a fiscal conservative but has some socially liberal policies. But on the other hand, if he loses the Democrats will win - still get the social liberal there too. But it's amazing that the Tea Party could end up getting a MORE liberal candidate elected.

I'm interested in seeing how it all plays out.

At least it's not Basil.

The flip side is that without Tea Party involvement, the Dems would almost certainly hold onto a lot more seats. The net effect if you are a conservative is positive. That we might fail to take seats in states where positions like "For cap and trade and Obamacare" earn you a vote advantage, is more than made up for in states where the people oppose those things overwhelmingly, but haven't had a candidate from either party in decades who represents their views.

Of course, the whole "the tea party is hurting Republicans" is the current story of the day coming from the left. I'm pretty sure I heard the exact same thing from at least 5 different mouths on the Sunday shows last weekend. Repetition does not make something true.

Ugh.

Yep.

Tea Party ideology aside, I'm more interested in it from the political calculus angle. I'm obviously liberal and abashedly a Democrat but I enjoy politics from an academic point of view as well. If your goal is to gain control of a chamber of Congress then you're better off running an electable candidate who you agree with 75% than an unelectable candidate who you agree with 99% (but who'll lose to a guy you agree with 30%). Sacrificing some ideology to gain control of chamber is always going to be worth it because no single seat is worth more than controlling the committees, voting schedule, etc.

In this case, you have the Tea Party & Palin practically sabotaging a very likely GOP takeover in Delaware to run up a candidate who is very probably unelectable even in the current climate. That's just stupid and while I suppose the rank & file are doing so out of some starry-eyed notion, I'd guess that Palin is just more interested in promoting her brand than in seeing the GOP succeed.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 5:26pm by Jophiel

It's not a split. The "party" in Tea Party is accidentally deceptive. The Tea Party isn't a separate political party; they have no candidates. They are a group of people who share a similar political ideology. They vote for people who espouse or who they believe adhere to tea party principals. What often occurs is that one or more of the Republican candidates is a Tea Party Republican or one who best represents their ideology while the rest might be moderate or miscellaneous Republicans.

To put it more simply. Tea Partiers are Republicans; they are Republicans who don't like to call themselves Republicans. They overwhelmingly voted Republican before the movement, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican now.

From a marketing standpoint it's a rebranding campaign. Tea Partiers still stand for the same values Republicans do--it's the same product--but they renamed themselves to distance themselves from the image of Republicans.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 6:13pm by Allegory

It's not a split though. Tea Partiers are Republicans. All that's happened is that the most conservative element of the Republican party invented a separate name for itself. They still vote the same as before. Aside from increasing conservative enthusiasm, the Tea Party has had zero effect on elections. They don't split, shift, gain, or lose votes in any way. Everyone still votes for exactly the same person and ideology they voted for before the movement.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 6:29pm by Allegory

I must be, because it seemed to me as if you thought that the Tea Party was in some way hurting Republicans, when they aren't. My second guess was that you were going for a joke, but I couldn't find it.

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 6:38pm by Allegory

Which loses the moderate Republicans.

With 47% of precincts reporting, O'Donnell is up by 10% over Castle.

Edit: 77% reporting and O'Donnell is up by 7%

Edited, Sep 14th 2010 8:07pm by Jophiel

Kucinich for President!

That woman needs to go hunting with **** Cheney.