Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

So Castle lost, eh? This one's for you, delaware:

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

So Castle lost, eh? This one's for you, delaware:

Yeah, didn't see that coming, much less her winning by a relatively large 6%. Nearly every Tea Party candidate has surged down the stretch and the guy with the funny name is winning in New Hampshire as well.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Ayotte, Lamontagne . . . both French Canadian. Considering it's Northern New England, that might as well be Smith v Roberts.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Re: Delaware primary. I'm reminded what the doctor said at the end of "Bridge on the River Kwai"--"madness, madness."

IMHO the longshot possibility of the GOP taking control of the Senate far outweighs any concerns of "ideological purity." In fact, "ideological purity" is almost always a losers' argument.

I can't remember the quote exactly, but Reagan always said a guy who sides with you 70% of the time is an ally, not an enemy.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I wouldn't count O'Donnell out in DE, no matter what the conventional wisdom. I just hope that when she decides what deep-seated principles to hold, she drops her old religious zealotry like a bad habit.

Depressing to see the social conservative wing of the GOP making so many inroads into the Northeast. There won't be anything left.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Re: Delaware primary. I'm reminded what the doctor said at the end of "Bridge on the River Kwai"--"madness, madness."

IMHO the longshot possibility of the GOP taking control of the Senate far outweighs any concerns of "ideological purity." In fact, "ideological purity" is almost always a losers' argument.

I can't remember the quote exactly, but Reagan always said a guy who sides with you 70% of the time is an ally, not an enemy.

I wish Castle sided with the GOP 70% of the time. His ACU score (admittedly not the be all and all, but still a decent indicator in my mind) has routinely been in the 20s. Overall, it's only at 52.

I mean, I'm disappointed because it's a slightly smaller chance of taking back the Senate, but I'll never be really disappointed when a pro-choice, pro cap and trade, pro DISCLOSE act, career politician bites the dust.

Depressing to see the social conservative wing of the GOP making so many inroads into the Northeast. There won't be anything left.

You really think that's why she won? I think her fiscal bona fides, or what they were perceived to be, helped her far far far more than any social issue did.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

career politician bites the dust.

My understanding is that O'Donnell has become a career politician, too. It's just the winning part that has eluded her until now.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

My understanding is that O'Donnell has become a career politician, too. It's just the winning part that has eluded her until now.

Ha, that's a good point. I usually don't like that phrase, it kind of slipped in there.
Here in Wisconsin, one of the candidates for Gov. has been running ads slamming career politicians. Of course, if he hadn't lost a race for Senate in '98, he'd be a career politician too Another ad here has a guy slamming his opponent for being "a career politician for the past 18 years". That seems a little contradictory no?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I wish Castle sided with the GOP 70% of the time. His ACU score (admittedly not the be all and all, but still a decent indicator in my mind) has routinely been in the 20s. Overall, it's only at 52.

I mean, I'm disappointed because it's a slightly smaller chance of taking back the Senate, but I'll never be really disappointed when a pro-choice, pro cap and trade, pro DISCLOSE act, career politician bites the dust.




You really think that's why she won? I think her fiscal bona fides, or what they were perceived to be, helped her far far far more than any social issue did.

Fine by me, only next time, maybe they could find someone who: a. has a chance of winning because b. she's doesn't have significant ethical challenges in her life. Like the claim that she was in a master's program at Princeton when she hadn't even gotten her bachelor's yet.

BTW, my literal minded friend, I wasn't suggesting Castle sided with Republicans 70% of the time, I was endeavoring to paraphrase Reagan (who I assumes meets even your standards for what a conservative is) who was commenting on the reality that ideaological baby killing is nutty and counter-productive.

We don't have a colleagial system in the US, we rarely have candidates who meet all or most of our concerns. And when such a candidate appears, he usually loses in the general election. My interest in politics isn't "making statements," or "going down with the flag flying," my interest is winning. Scott Brown isn't my idea of a perfect Republican, but he's way better than the alternative, don't you think? So Mike Castle isn't your idea of a perfect Republican, now that Ms. Ethics has been nominated, how do you feel about Coons, 'cause he's gonna be the next senator from Delaware, and an excellent chance for a pickup will have been squandered.

It's like Democrats in Chicago, exercising the power of African Americans to elect the first black mayor, couldn't do any better than a cross dressing cocaine addict who failed to pay his income taxes for five years. Try a little harder, folks.

 

[Patman]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I think I'm following sentiments here... no tears for Castle... don't see any reason to like him... but O'Donnell? I mean, if she can win... all the power to her... I don't see her as reliable and I don't see her as electable. Anybody can claim to be "tea party" and I worry that some of these fringe people are grabbing the "tea party" mantle to win. I mean, Angle in NV beat out TWO solid conservatives who would have whipped Reid blindfolded.

The problem is that the reaction has become more emotion and visceral. I don't like Castle, but the Tea Party is going to have to get hit hard in order to know there are boundaries to their capabilities... ESPECIALLY when you haven't tried to change minds. The success so far has arisen out of the incapability of Democrats to climb out of the ideological bin... some people are coming around to fiscal conservatism but they haven't gone so "whole hog" to elect an O'Donnell and even an Angle. While I don't think their "off-target"ness is as bad as the Christian Fundamentalists, there are things which just cannot be done.

I still support the Tea Party and the ideas behind it... but there are limits to what can be accomplished in any one election. The rest will come in time because the Dems can't help to be themselves and its not like reality is going to change any time soon... but when we're dealing with serious problems, shooting for the moon is going to lead nowhere and only prolong pain.

edit: I will say this... if Dems can stop themselves from gearing of for Cap & Trade then we'll likely see economic recovery. So the conservative realignment for 2012 is not inevitable... I don't expect people to tie the removal of cap and trade from the agenda and economic success... because only ScottM seems to appreciate the idea that an unsettled market is a bad market and that a disadvantageous but settled market is better market because at least you know where to place your resources. That being said, I don't think Democrats can help themselves because they believe their ideas are right and righteous... despite being neither.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I think I'm following sentiments here... no tears for Castle... don't see any reason to like him... but O'Donnell? I mean, if she can win... all the power to her... I don't see her as reliable and I don't see her as electable. Anybody can claim to be "tea party" and I worry that some of these fringe people are grabbing the "tea party" mantle to win. I mean, Angle in NV beat out TWO solid conservatives who would have whipped Reid blindfolded.

The problem is that the reaction has become more emotion and visceral. I don't like Castle, but the Tea Party is going to have to get hit hard in order to know there are boundaries to their capabilities... ESPECIALLY when you haven't tried to change minds. The success so far has arisen out of the incapability of Democrats to climb out of the ideological bin... some people are coming around to fiscal conservatism but they haven't gone so "whole hog" to elect an O'Donnell and even an Angle. While I don't think their "off-target"ness is as bad as the Christian Fundamentalists, there are things which just cannot be done.

I still support the Tea Party and the ideas behind it... but there are limits to what can be accomplished in any one election. The rest will come in time because the Dems can't help to be themselves and its not like reality is going to change any time soon... but when we're dealing with serious problems, shooting for the moon is going to lead nowhere and only prolong pain.

edit: I will say this... if Dems can stop themselves from gearing of for Cap & Trade then we'll likely see economic recovery. So the conservative realignment for 2012 is not inevitable... I don't expect people to tie the removal of cap and trade from the agenda and economic success... because only ScottM seems to appreciate the idea that an unsettled market is a bad market and that a disadvantageous but settled market is better market because at least you know where to place your resources. That being said, I don't think Democrats can help themselves because they believe their ideas are right and righteous... despite being neither.

Yup. But: just win, baby. The goal here is much larger than the ideological purity of one obscure rookie senator. Even the MSM couldn't ignore the home state of the Vice President rejecting him and his boss. Plus, as I've said, control of the Senate is a much more important goal than where Castle ranks on some scale.

I'm agnostic on the Tea Party movement, except any group that gives the MSM such an epic case of the vapors can't be all bad. The TPers are only the most recent to expose the total hypocrisy of the left, and that's always a good thing--we tend to forget.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

O'Donnell is a freak show. Congratulations to Delaware Republicans for peeing away a winnable seat. Either Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer thank you, as does the President.

 

[Patman]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Yup. But: just win, baby. The goal here is much larger than the ideological purity of one obscure rookie senator. Even the MSM couldn't ignore the home state of the Vice President rejecting him and his boss. Plus, as I've said, control of the Senate is a much more important goal than where Castle ranks on some scale.

I'm agnostic on the Tea Party movement, except any group that gives the MSM such an epic case of the vapors can't be all bad. The TPers are only the most recent to expose the total hypocrisy of the left, and that's always a good thing--we tend to forget.

I think control of the house is paramount... you can't repeal much of any Obama's mistakes... its all wedded concretely to ideology... you're more likely to get somebody to pull off their own fingernails. The House gives the power to investigate the administration for the series of illegal and corrupt actions in the last couple of years. With the Senate anything will require 60 so, if anything, it will be a push away from 60. Yes, it gives the Dems the upper hand... but anything that goes through the Senate must also go through the house.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

O'Donnell is a freak show. Congratulations to Delaware Republicans for peeing away a winnable seat. Either Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer thank you, as does the President.

Do you suppose a Republican majority in the senate might influence "The One's" next selection to the Supreme Court?

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Yup. But: just win, baby. The goal here is much larger than the ideological purity of one obscure rookie senator. Even the MSM couldn't ignore the home state of the Vice President rejecting him and his boss. Plus, as I've said, control of the Senate is a much more important goal than where Castle ranks on some scale.

The Tea Party, before tonight, had done an exceptional job of blending pragmatism with idealism. For too long, the GOP was rooted firmly in pragmatism - they were going to do whatever it took to win as many elections as possible and that was all that was important. The Tea Party worked overtime to elect Scott Brown in MA, even though he was (and is) hardly a typical Tea Party candidate. They knew he was the most they could ever expect to hope for from MA. They went after the so-called "RINOs" in the states where they didn't have to put up with them - places like Utah, Florida, and Alaska.

That's what makes Delaware all the more head-scratching. Delaware's a blue state with a serious Democrat registration advantage. Castle's kind of a RINO to be sure, but... if the GOP takes over the Senate, Mike Castle wasn't going to be calling the shots or chairing a committee or anything. But the Tea Party (not all of it, mind you - there were a number of voices of reason that didn't go kookoo for O'Donnell) got obsessed with taking down the candidates of the establishment. They're getting their pragmatism/idealism blend off kilter. Too much of either is not going to help you advance your agenda.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Do you suppose a Republican majority in the senate might influence "The One's" next selection to the Supreme Court?

Hard to see how it wouldn't. Assuming there is one, of course. He's already had as many as Bush had in eight years, but, of course, the liberals on the court were desperate to wait out Bush. Because the Supreme Court's so non-partisan like that.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I think control of the house is paramount... you can't repeal much of any Obama's mistakes... its all wedded concretely to ideology... you're more likely to get somebody to pull off their own fingernails. The House gives the power to investigate the administration for the series of illegal and corrupt actions in the last couple of years. With the Senate anything will require 60 so, if anything, it will be a push away from 60. Yes, it gives the Dems the upper hand... but anything that goes through the Senate must also go through the house.

Plus, at this point, we should be happy to take whatever we can get. The prospect of knocking socialists like Henry Waxman and Jerry Nadler off their perches will certainly be worth it, no doubt. And if somehow we can get that repulsive b***h Maxine Waters out of the House, it will be the jubilee.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

how do you feel about Coons

 

[Patman]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

The Tea Party, before tonight, had done an exceptional job of blending pragmatism with idealism. For too long, the GOP was rooted firmly in pragmatism - they were going to do whatever it took to win as many elections as possible and that was all that was important. The Tea Party worked overtime to elect Scott Brown in MA, even though he was (and is) hardly a typical Tea Party candidate. They knew he was the most they could ever expect to hope for from MA. They went after the so-called "RINOs" in the states where they didn't have to put up with them - places like Utah, Florida, and Alaska.

That's what makes Delaware all the more head-scratching. Delaware's a blue state with a serious Democrat registration advantage. Castle's kind of a RINO to be sure, but... if the GOP takes over the Senate, Mike Castle wasn't going to be calling the shots or chairing a committee or anything. But the Tea Party (not all of it, mind you - there were a number of voices of reason that didn't go kookoo for O'Donnell) got obsessed with taking down the candidates of the establishment. They're getting their pragmatism/idealism blend off kilter. Too much of either is not going to help you advance your agenda.

Well, I think some of this is a natural extension... if you are going to push a purity angle it will happen that you can push too far. Where that dividing line is usually depends on who you are talking to. Nevertheless, these are statements of trust. Nobody trusts our current slate of political representatives. If DE primary voters thought they could trust Castle this wouldn't be a problem. If the nation felt they could trust the Democrats to do right by them this wouldn't be a problem.

Right now the major problem is a large disconnect of trust... and until somebody speaks to that trust problem this stuff will happen... and since most of the distrust is on the Republican side this is how it will happen. Democrats implicitly trust the powers that be so you won't see things like this on their side... but you will see it in the general election.

There are two responses to this... national republicans need to be more responsive to their base... and the tea party needs to strike a hard but firm tone... the republican leaders won't listen to the base... and the tea party doesn't want to strike a firm tone. I think the republican leaders eventually lose this as they've lost control... but I wouldn't expect things to go down well in the interim.

edit: Pio... I look forward to the day that Moleman hangs his head in shame... the problem is, I don't think he has shame.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

The Tea Party, before tonight, had done an exceptional job of blending pragmatism with idealism. For too long, the GOP was rooted firmly in pragmatism - they were going to do whatever it took to win as many elections as possible and that was all that was important. The Tea Party worked overtime to elect Scott Brown in MA, even though he was (and is) hardly a typical Tea Party candidate. They knew he was the most they could ever expect to hope for from MA. They went after the so-called "RINOs" in the states where they didn't have to put up with them - places like Utah, Florida, and Alaska.

That's what makes Delaware all the more head-scratching. Delaware's a blue state with a serious Democrat registration advantage. Castle's kind of a RINO to be sure, but... if the GOP takes over the Senate, Mike Castle wasn't going to be calling the shots or chairing a committee or anything. But the Tea Party (not all of it, mind you - there were a number of voices of reason that didn't go kookoo for O'Donnell) got obsessed with taking down the candidates of the establishment. They're getting their pragmatism/idealism blend off kilter. Too much of either is not going to help you advance your agenda.

As I understand it, each TP group is independent. They call their own shots and make their own choices. There is no central party organization. That can be a good thing. In this instance, for the reasons you cited, I think it's a bad thing.

I'm old enough to remember in the Goldwater days the battle cry was "A Choice, Not an Echo." I generally agree with that. The idea was not to nominate RINOs if you could avoid it. Still a good idea, generally. But you've got to balance ideological impulses with reality, IMHO.

And I keep getting back to the apparant fact that notwithstanding her ideological purity, the lady's got some serious problems. Using campaign funds to pay for all or part of the rent on her residence because it's also her campaign headquarters, doesn't pass the laugh test. Imagine what the GOP would do if Coons was doing the same thing.

As I understand it, the polling data among independents in Delaware is scary--she evidently doesn't have a chance. Apparantly Edwin Edwards' dictum comes true again--the only way Coons can lose this thing is if they find him in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. Any volunteers?