Christine O'Donnell Defeats Mike Castle

[Lul Thyme]

For the love of everything you hold dear, STOP QUOTING BEN!

QFT.
We hadn't had many threads ruined by Ben recently and now it's back to this.
Not much anybody can do about Ben, but shame on you Boris (and the others) for empowering him.

You guys are lowering yourselves to his level and are just as much part of the problem as he is, feeding him like you do.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

:slovenianbendiscrimination:

I want Ned and Civnation back

[Ben Kenobi]

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

As a write-in Candidate? Unless she's the second coming of Jesse Helms, it ain't happening. She's done. Stick a fork in her. She's lost her bid for running as an independent simply by choosing to stay and fight for the republican nomination, unlike Crist who dropped out.

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

I go with likely voters. Rather than all adults or all registered voters which consistantly overstates support for the dims.

Christine herself was polled with a lead of three, which turned into a lead of six. Again, not surprised.

Are you saying Reagan was "extremely unpopular" in his first term?

Again, the difference is that Reagan had a hostile congress. Obama's had pliant supermajorities. Huge, huge difference in the situations. Yes, Reagan was unpopular, but he brought it back up once the economy recovered. Obama's got nothing like that looking forward for him.

And if it were, what was Bush's 28% at the end of his presidency? Worst President Ever, right?

Hardly. Wilson was far more unpopular. As was Nixon.

clearly the truth is that Clinton was a successful president while Bush was an utter and complete failure.

Eh, history will show that Bush was unfairly maligned. Lincoln was extremely unpopular and yet history has gone on to show that he was one of the better presidents.

If Obama's approval is 41% in November 2012, I can guarantee he won't be reelected.

Then wake up and stop drinking the koolaid.

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...

Again, not the point. The point is that no matter how much she raises, Reid will have access to more. But then, Senate Majority lead is irrelevant to an additional incumbancy advantage.

Why isn't Angle in a similar position over Reid?

Because Reid, as Senate Majority leader has substantially more influence.

Yes you are! You're scared to bet on Delaware

I certainly am not scared to bet on Delaware at all. I offered you a package deal. AK + DE since you believe that Murkowski is relevant, this should be an easy win for you.

Take it, or leave it. Obviously you won't take it because, damn, Ben will win and my unblemished record will be tarnished.

I'm the coward despite the fact that I've never had an even up bet?

[Ben Kenobi]

We hadn't had many threads ruined by Ben recently and now it's back to this

I'm sorry for ruining *your* forum, Lul Thyme. I guess we all need to ask your permission before posting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I certainly am not scared to bet on Delaware at all. I offered you a package deal. AK + DE since you believe that Murkowski is relevant, this should be an easy win for you.

Take it, or leave it. Obviously you won't take it because, damn, Ben will win and my unblemished record will be tarnished.

I'm the coward despite the fact that I've never had an even up bet?

You are such a yellow bellied coward.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Is this the appropriate thread for a "Coons is my pet" Reid-ism discussion?

[DaShi]

No, you want the conservative hack thread.

[Arrian]

You know, I'd like to be able to snicker about this, but I can't. The goal here isn't for O'Donnell to actually win the general. It's to yank the center of the GOP rightward (as if it's not already there). Do that, and you also yank US politics in general rightward, since the GOP is basically half of the equation, every time.

Eventually, yesterday's moonbats start looking pretty good in comparison to today's moonbats. Rinse, repeat.

-Arrian

[DanS]

Looks like O'Donnell is down a bit in this race, but within plausible striking distance. She has a lot of work to do.

[DriXnaK]

This race highlights the problem with the Republican party. They're focused on winning races rather than on pushing the true Republican ideology so they're willing to go with someone like Castle just because they think he has the best chance. Should we recruit Charlie Rangel since he appears to have a good chance at winning and the Democratic party doesn't really want him? Of course not. If we can't win on what we believe then there's no point in getting elected in an area. Let the democrats hold that seat and they can take the fall for all the things that happen. That's much better than having a Republican taking the fall for voting for things like cap and trade, bail outs, and government growth. Castle is an example of what got Republicans in trouble in the first place. America is pretty clear on what it wants. Even if the Republicans can't fully win control this election, if they stick to their ideology and continue to hammer the Democrats as they engage in trying to push the country towards socialism then in 2012 they'll control everything.

[ZEE]

.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Looks like O'Donnell is down a bit in this race, but within plausible striking distance. She has a lot of work to do.

Agreed. Stupid slips of the tongue like those above of the nationally unpopular Reid, as well as old articles where Coons describes himself as a bearded marxist make the race plausible for O'Donnell. Will need a few weeks to shake out to see how she trends.

Makes me wish for a second I was back in DE.



....... Second is over.

[DriXnaK]

I saw her on Hannity last night, she's very well spoken, far better than Palin. I think she has a real chance.

[MRT144]

This race highlights the problem with the Republican party. They're focused on winning races rather than on pushing the true Republican ideology so they're willing to go with someone like Castle just because they think he has the best chance. Should we recruit Charlie Rangel since he appears to have a good chance at winning and the Democratic party doesn't really want him? Of course not. If we can't win on what we believe then there's no point in getting elected in an area. Let the democrats hold that seat and they can take the fall for all the things that happen. That's much better than having a Republican taking the fall for voting for things like cap and trade, bail outs, and government growth. Castle is an example of what got Republicans in trouble in the first place. America is pretty clear on what it wants. Even if the Republicans can't fully win control this election, if they stick to their ideology and continue to hammer the Democrats as they engage in trying to push the country towards socialism then in 2012 they'll control everything.

Your ideology doesn't matter if you cant win an election to implement them. Ideology is what liberal douchebags clung to during the Bush years.

[DriXnaK]

That would be true if the majority of America didn't agree with the ideology. Most Americans agree though when it comes to smaller limited government, lower taxes, immigration, and a more sane foreign policy that doesn't have us running around the globe spreading Democracy. These are issues that cross party lines, especially the immigration issue. If Republicans are smart they'll just hammer away at these issues relentlessly and stay away from the social issues. Leave the social issues to the states and the voters.

The fact is that the Democrats that got elected in 2008 ran on conservative principles, as laughable as that is to most people with common sense. Republicans lost because they went away from what got them elected in the first place. Bush was not a conservative, he was not a small government guy, and he was the poster child for the neo-conservative foreign policy agenda. About the only right thing he did was lowering taxes which saved the day after 9-11 along with other pro-business policies. Otherwise though, he was downright socialist in his expansion of government. The Republicans deserved to get thrown out and what you are seeing right now is a war against the socialist republicans that brought about this mess in the first place.

So, I say stick to their principles, keep hammering away at the issues, and don't worry if you lose a seat in an incredibly liberal state. Come 2012 there will be more gains for Republicans and voters will remember that rather than trying to win elections, the Republicans stuck to their ideology and came across as sincere rather than as a party out of power that was willing to do anything to get back into power.