Christine O'Donnell Defeats Mike Castle

[MRT144]

You've hit it with worse, MRT144.

Hardly, but if it helps your closeted ass feel better, feel free to think it.

[GePap]

It honestly amazes me that anyone could think that someone like O'Donnell should be a U.S. Senator. I mean, there are plenty of people I dislike and think are wrong politically, but I can think of them being able to be a Senator - John McCain for one, or Mitt Romney if he ran for Senate. But her? I mean, what do people think Senators do?

[Guynemer]

I'm no great fan of the corporate GOP establishment, but these Tea Party jackoffs are making me yearn for the heady days of Dubya, Dick, and Karl.

[Kuciwalker]

It honestly amazes me that anyone could think that someone like O'Donnell should be a U.S. Senator. I mean, there are plenty of people I dislike and think are wrong politically, but I can think of them being able to be a Senator - John McCain for one, or Mitt Romney if he ran for Senate. But her? I mean, what do people think Senators do?

See: Barbara Boxer.

[Boris Godunov]

The point being that Miller will likely win AK. You haven't contested the statement, ergo I can't be completely out to lunch. Yes, I did take that bet, I try to stake a postion to the right of Attilla the hun.

That you think predicting the Republican nominee will win in ALASKA should earn you credits for your political insight is hilarious. And just what is with your betting obsession, anyway? You're always the first person to make [stupid] bets. Isn't that a bad thing for you religious types? Nobody is fooled into thinking that you somehow know more than you do just because you're willing to bet (especially considering how often you lose your bets).

I find it hilarious that 50 percent approval is considered evidence that he is popular. How the mighty have fallen.

You're such a deceitful little ****. I did not say Obama was popular. YOU made the claim he was "extremely unpopular," and I called you on it, since ~45% is certainly not "extremely unpopular." That you're trying to now say that I claimed Obama was popular right now is just further proof you can't go two sentences without lying through your teeth.

Clinton over the course of his presidency was one of the least popular presidents. Bush was not. Bush never dipped below 50 until well into his second term.

Make that ONE sentence. Jesus ****ing Christ!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Clinton's Average - 55.1%
Bush's Average - 49.4%

Clinton is in the top half, Bush in the bottom. And Clinton's was higher than Reagan's.

You bear false witness as easy as you breathe.

Really.



Incumbancy is a powerful force. You can't seriously argue that because his son is doing worse than he that Angle is a weak candidate.

In an anti-incumbent year? Not so much.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20100110poll_harry_reid_s_approval_rating_at_33_pe rcent_in_nevada/

Harry Reid at 33% approval rating. Holy ****, any other Senator with that low an approval rating would be getting stomped right now. Angle is such a bad candidate, that ~15% of voters who think Reid sucks thinks she sucks even more.

Except that she can't run as 3rd party. But then I'm just ignorant. She's done. As for Murkowski, that was then, this is now.

Yes, you're ignorant. She has a $2 million war chest and has until 5 days before the election to declare a write-in candidacy. She is in fact considering it right now and has promised a decision by Friday. Is she likely to? Probably not, but she could. And if she did, you'd better believe it could hurt Miller. As it stands, she's certainly not going to endorse him, and the bad blood is going to turn away a lot of her supporters from him.

Give the populatiry of Palin in AK, I'd say that Miller fits right in with the electorate. AK is not DE.

Hey, since you like Rasmussen:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/alaska/just_41_in_alaska_would_vote_for_palin_for_preside nt

Sarah Palin appears to be losing the Alaska vote.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds that just 41% say they would vote for the former Alaska governor if she ran for president in 2012. Forty-eight percent (48%) say they would not vote for Palin, and 11% more are undecided.
Alaska voters are almost evenly divided in their views of Palin. Forty-nine percent (49%) view her at least somewhat favorably, while 50% share an unfavorable opinion of her. This includes 31% who regard her Very Favorably and 37% with a Very Unfavorable view.

I certainly hope Miller is as popular as Palin in Alaska.

The NRSC sued the tea party to keep her from getting funds. Elephants have long memories. The difference bdetween the evil party and the stupid party is that you never see the evil party with these issues.

Er, are you saying the Democrats are "evil," and if you are (you're an insane person, you know?), are you really saying suing to keep candidates off the ballot is a sign of a party not being "evil?" Well, this is a nice little glimpse into your twisted morality.

I see nothing to indicate that the DE Dem is in the range of excellent campaigners. O'Donnell has proven that she is an excellent campaigner. She won by a much larger margin than Miller.

Being able to win a primary, where ideologues tend to triumph in anti-incumbent years, is not a sign one is an "excellent" campaigner. Considering 44% of Castle's voters said they wouldn't supporter, she was not "excellent" enough of a campaigner to win without alienating a big swath of her own party...

Maybe so, but that chapter has not yet been written.

Already retreating I see.

Well given as you've declined the bet I did make, I see no point. DE + AK to the GOP in November? You willing to take that one on? If both go Dem, then you win, both to GOP, I win, else it's a push. Deal?

Why bet on AK at all? I've never claimed Miller would not win, so why should a make a bet that requires him to lose in order for me to win? Why are you too scared to bet on the DE race alone if you're so sure? Man up--Delaware, straight up. Coons beats O'Donnell.

[Boris Godunov]

Haha, hilarious thread. She'll raise 500k before today ends guys.
Boris 0, Ben 1.

Is it such a shock that Cornyn caved to angry Teabagger howls of outrage? $42,000 is peanuts, we'll see how much advertising the NRSC buys in DE.

But hey, if they do... great! The more money they spend on that lost cause, the less they'll have to spend on other tighter races where they could win!

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/coons-up-big.html

Republicans more than likely cost themselves a Senate seat last night. Chris Coons begins the general election in Delaware with a 50-34 lead over Christine O'Donnell. Mike Castle would have led Coons by a 45-35 margin.

While O'Donnell may have ingratiated herself to Delaware's small group of registered Republicans over the last month she's turned off everyone else. An August Daily Kos/PPP poll in Delaware found her favorability rating at 23/33. It's now 29/50.

Notice Cornyn didn't promise any more money. Why would he? They NRSC is too busy pumping $$$ into KENTUCKY, of all places, because they actually have to work to defend a seat they should be holding easily, thanks to nominating another certifiable teabagger nut.

Seriously, this is a gift that just keeps on giving.

[Ben Kenobi]

It honestly amazes me that anyone could think that someone like O'Donnell should be a U.S. Senator. I mean, there are plenty of people I dislike and think are wrong politically, but I can think of them being able to be a Senator - John McCain for one, or Mitt Romney if he ran for Senate. But her? I mean, what do people think Senators do?

I'm not sure why you find this hard to understand. She represents people who aren't you.

She's leaps and bounds less insane than many, Kucinich, etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is it such a shock that Cornyn caved to angry Teabagger howls of outrage? $42,000 is peanuts, we'll see how much advertising the NRSC buys in DE.

Cornyn obviously likes his job.

But hey, if they do... great! The more money they spend on that lost cause, the less they'll have to spend on other tighter races where they could win!

She's raised a million just today. I think she'll do just fine. Hopefully the DNC thinks the way you do and spends nothing.

As for KY, Rand Paul is doing just fine. The race you really should be talking about is WV. Funny I don't hear much from you about there.

[DaShi]

But Ben, you're leaps and bounds more insane than many, so your judgement here isn't really reliable.

[Ben Kenobi]

That you think predicting the Republican nominee will win in ALASKA should earn you credits for your political insight

Obviously it is because the apparently sane and balanced person believes that Murkowski will be a factor in the election. She's got a 2 million dollar warchest, apparently.

since ~45% is certainly not "extremely unpopular."

41 percent 20 months into his term is extremely unpopular.

Clinton is in the top half, Bush in the bottom. And Clinton's was higher than Reagan's.

Clinton had very low approval ratings until his second term, which is unusual for presidents, which is why you quoted average ratings over the course of 8 years to conceal this point, which has no relevancy to Obama.

But then you think a man with 41 percent approval will be relected.

Harry Reid at 33% approval rating. Holy ****, any other Senator with that low an approval rating would be getting stomped right now.

Well Senate Majority leader has a bit of money to throw around, eh? But of course that means nothing.

And if she did, you'd better believe it could hurt Miller.

And I'm the insane one? Wow.

Er, are you saying the Democrats are "evil," and if you are (you're an insane person, you know?), are you really saying suing to keep candidates off the ballot is a sign of a party not being "evil?" Well, this is a nice little glimpse into your twisted morality.

Suing your 2008 previous Senate nominee is stupid, not evil.

Why bet on AK at all? I've never claimed Miller would not win

You sure did. You've been going off on the power of Murkowski and her huge, huge tracts of land.

I ain't scared of nothing. You'd never make a bet that you didn't think you'd win. Made an offer, deal or no deal. Take it or leave it.

[Ben Kenobi]

But Ben, you're leaps and bounds more insane than many, so your judgement here isn't really reliable.

Insanity simply means, 'person who disagrees with me'. and so has ceased to have any relevancy.

[Boris Godunov]

She's raised a million just today. I think she'll do just fine. Hopefully the DNC thinks the way you do and spends nothing.

Nope, the DNSC (not DNC, you really don't know what you're talking about) has already said it plans to spend money. Sorry.

As for KY, Rand Paul is doing just fine. The race you really should be talking about is WV. Funny I don't hear much from you about there.

Why is it "funny" that I haven't mentioned a race that hasn't come up yet? There are a lot of Senate contests going on, you know.

And what about it? Manchin is up ~5% over the Republican, and has held that margin pretty consistently. Since you think Angle's 2% according to one polling outfit means she's winning, then that's a landslide by your reckoning.

[Boris Godunov]

Obviously it is because the apparently sane and balanced person believes that Murkowski will be a factor in the election. She's got a 2 million dollar warchest, apparently.

Yeah, because incumbents who lose their primaries and then mount independent bids never have an impact on the outcome of the race.

41 percent 20 months into his term is extremely unpopular.

As always, you cherry pick the poll you want, because you just can't resist lying.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Average approval is ~46%. That is by no means "extremely unpopular." Are you saying Reagan was "extremely unpopular" in his first term? Because as it stands, his and Obama's first term ratings are very much in line.

And if it were, what was Bush's 28% at the end of his presidency? Worst President Ever, right? Also, in May of 2004 his approval rating was 46%. Are you saying Bush was "extremely unpopular" in the year he was reelected?

Clinton had very low approval ratings until his second term, which is unusual for presidents, which is why you quoted average ratings over the course of 8 years to conceal this point, which has no relevancy to Obama.

You're a liar and an idiot, Ben:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

Clinton's first term average = 50%.
Reagan's First term average = 50.3%

The one being selective about approval ratings is you, not I. Since Clinton ended his presidency with sky-high ratings and Bush ended his with basement-level approval, clearly the truth is that Clinton was a successful president while Bush was an utter and complete failure.

Alternatively, clearly you must believe Reagan was an "extremely unpopular" President, since you only want to look at first terms.

But then you think a man with 41 percent approval will be relected.

When were we talking about Obama's reelection? Oh that's right, we weren't, this is just another attempt at you to shift attention from your deceit and ignorance.

If Obama's approval is 41% in November 2012, I can guarantee he won't be reelected. But that you think that his approval rating now means that's what it will be in two years just further shows how utterly incompetent you are at understanding American politics. You are completely clueless.

Well Senate Majority leader has a bit of money to throw around, eh? But of course that means nothing.

Ah, weasel, weasel, weasel! Get completely owned and you retreat to money. Hey, if Angle is so great, why can't she raise a lot of money to compete? I mean, you're here trumpeting O'Donnell's numbers and all...

Moreover, it shouldn't matter if he can outspend her if his approval is ****ing 33%! Look at Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. She has the same cash advantage over her opponent Reid has, has outspent him 10-1 and is the incumbent, yet she's down 20 points in the polls. Why isn't Angle in a similar position over Reid? Answer: she's crazy and she sucks worse.

And I'm the insane one? Wow.

Yes, and stupid. See above.

Suing your 2008 previous Senate nominee is stupid, not evil.

Suing to keep legitimate candidates off the ballot IS evil. I was pissed when the Democrats tried it, too. That you don't think so is telling.

You sure did. You've been going off on the power of Murkowski and her huge, huge tracts of land.

Cite. Show me where I said Miller wouldn't win. You are nothing but a liar, ya know?

I ain't scared of nothing. You'd never make a bet that you didn't think you'd win. Made an offer, deal or no deal. Take it or leave it.

Yes you are! You're scared to bet on Delaware and have concocted this stupid DE/AK scheme because you know O'Donnell is going to lose. Again, why would I take a bet on McAdams winning when I've never said he would, despite whatever hallucination you have devised in your little head?

Either man up and bet on DE or just concede that you're too chicken to bet on a candidate you were just hours ago saying was certain to win and move along.

[Boris Godunov]

Ok, I've had enough fun pummeling you over your incredible ignorance and mendacity, Ben. To avoid wasting more of my time, just accept or decline the straight up Delaware Senate Race bet or just shut the **** up and quit while you're behind.

The next lie you post in this thread will probably get you put on ignore, because it's getting boring having to fact check every sentence you write, since practically every sentence you write is a lie.

[ZEE]

.