Delaware politicsFollow

Actually I just don't give a **** anymore. Neither party serves the interest of the common people now. The only difference is that your party does so overtly, and "my" party does so on the sligh.

I'm just going to follow through with my plan of moving to some country that's ridiculously liberal, and leaving this cesspool behind for good. Just gotta get my bachelor's degree...

So what you're saying here is the Nevada and Delaware Senate races will both go Republican in November, correct? Anything other than that would really not be a surprise. Democrats are expected to lose a fair number of seats, and before the Republican primaries, were expected to lose a majority. Now they're expected to keep a majority.

I would be surprised if O'Donnell takes Delaware, but that's just because I lived there for four years and caught the build-up to her flop in 2008.

Depends on the primary. Tea Party candidates who are largely flawed in general elections winning primaries obviously helps Democrats. In swing states such as Nevada and Colorado it's turned what should have been easy victories into real fights that the GOP now has to pour money in to. In Delaware, it almost certainly lost the GOP what should have been an easy pick-up.

I think you're confusing the simple ideology of the party for the candidate themselves. O'Donnell is a flawed candidate viewed skeptically by the general election voters. Angle is the same way. You can be "dissatisfied" all you want and still not want to vote for someone who comes across as a nutcase.

I know you're going to just hem and haw and hedge on this but I'll ask anyway: Do you personally think as of right now that the GOP is likely to pick up Delaware?

Well, you say this every election cycle so you're bound to be correct sooner or later.

And you are basing this on what historical evidence exactly?

You are speculating about the effects, since there hasn't yet been a Tea Party candidate running against a Democrat in a general election yet. And in the handful of run-off and seat-fillers we've had? I believe that every single one has been won by the Tea Party candidate, haven't they? Kinda strange that you'd make such a sweeping statement under those circumstances.


You also have to be careful using purely subjective statements like "largely flawed".



We'll see. I suspect that the scant polling we're seeing right now is based on assumptions about a low percentage GOP candidate in the primary facing an established Dem in the general. Those numbers will change now that she has won the primary and is the GOP candidate. Will they change enough? I have no clue. I don't know anything about her other than her name and that she was an underdog Tea Party candidate and that she won.


But I'm sure the liberal media will get right on the job of painting her as a right wing nut. Cause that's the PR assumption, right? All members of the Tea Party are right wing nuts. Simple!



And yet Angle has drawn into a dead heat with the standing Senate Majority leader Joph. Clearly there's more to this than just fringe right wing nutters supporting crazy candidates. I'm simply saying that dismissing this as a "can't happen" is exactly the mistake that your guys made in Massachusetts.



No clue. My comment is about the surety with which you seem to think that they wont. I suspect you are severely underestimating the degree to which the ideas of the Tea Party are resonating with the masses. You watch your liberal TV, and listen to your liberal radio, and think that all is well with the world because these people are just fringe people with fringe ideas. But that's all BS. While certainly some of the candidates are "flawed", the ideas resonate with the people. And it's not like those non-flawed candidates all turned out so great either...

A lot of them have been, so it's not much work to paint.

What? Did you go to the Gbaji school of campaign success guesstimate?

No, Gbaji only guesses "No clue" or "I don't know" or other non-answers like that. He did so the entirety of last election as well and almost certainly the one before that. Spend twenty paragraphs saying why Obama and the Democrats were doomed and then say he just had no clue on who would win.

My assertion was that the arrival of the Tea Party did not largely change for whom people would vote. O'Donnell, by becomign the Tea Party candidate, didn't draw votes away from Castle. The people who voted for O'Donnell did so because they believe she shares their ideology, and the presence of a label doesn't change that much. That is, had the tea party never existed she would have still ended up with 53%.

However, I'm not certain I'm correct in that assertion. I would be interested in seeing data on how the Tea Party has altered voting. I'm not quite convinced the Tea Party has had much effect politically other than being a tool for advertising and exciting.

Edited, Sep 15th 2010 6:34pm by Allegory

Jesus Christ, I had a major lol.

Yeah, she's got some promise.

No problem. Easy to confuse?