Skip to comments.Gingrich edges Romney in DE GOP Straw Poll
Posted on 12/09/2011 9:29:28 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The current national Republican favorite has won in the Delaware Republican Party's 2012 Presidential Straw Poll.
State GOP Chairman John Sigler tells WDEL News it was a squeaker.
(AUDIO AT LINK)
Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman tied with 2 percent each, Gary Johnson tallied 1 percent, and there was a write-in vote for Sarah Palin.
Sigler says it's too early to tell which candidate will win the nomination, because each candidate seems to "peak" at various times, and there may not be a clear-cut front-runner before the April 24th primary.
Establishment winner in DE will be Romney.
Gingrich gets the casual PUB voters.
Conservatives will find a way to write in Governor Palin.
Note that writing a candidate is not easy in DE. A well organized campaign could pull it off.
Seems the write in vote was the only sane vote.
I am normally very respectful of people who live in very liberal States and yet align themselves with the Republican party. But here, I have to say “Who the freak cares?”
First, it’s Delaware. Delaware will vote for Obama if he decided to kill the first born male in every household.
Second, it’s Primary is April 24th. Mathmatically, it will be over by then.
Third, it’s Delaware. The Delaware GOP showed themselves to be traitorous when in 2010 the nominee the party leaders wanted did not get the nomination. They can suffer and burn for all I care.
So you are shocked that so many Delaware Republicans refused to support that goofball Christine O'Donnell? You realize that you are blaming many Republicans for doing precisely the same thing O'Donnell did in 2006 right? Christine refused to accept the fact she lost a Republican nomination battle in 06' and went off and ran a 3rd party write in campaign against the party she claimed to to want to represent. So why does she deserve even the slightest bit of sympathy considering she did the same thing she whines that the "establishment" did to her?
O'Donnell was a ridiculous clown candidate. There was absolutely no way she was going to win statewide in Delaware no matter how much the party rallied around her. The state is very left leaning and to win a candidate has to get most of the moderate and even many crossover Democrats. Ms. I Am Not a Witch had no chance of doing that - mostly because she was a flake. Everyone who said the GOP would lose that seat if CoD was nominated was entirely correct.
Self-fullfilling prophecy from the Delaware GOP. If Hank Johnson can be elected in Georgia, O’Donnell could have won in Delaware. NY-23 and Alaska were also betrayals by those who demand that we run moderates.
If your voters nominate someone, it is your responsibility as party leaders to give them the support they need. If you don’t, you are disloyal to your voters.
It is betrayal.
LOL. Your statement here tells me you don't know politics too well. Or maybe you just weren't thinking. Hank Johnson, who thinks Guam might tip over, is representing a majority black district. Sorry, but these districts will support even he stupidest candidates. We see the same thing in majority black districts that vote for the likes of Maxine Waters and some of the other crooked, ridiculous, clownish black representatives. Democracy simply doesn't work in these areas. Places like Detroit are evidence of it. There is NO comparison whatsoever between a statewide election in Delaware and Georgia's 4th congressional district.
If your voters nominate someone, it is your responsibility as party leaders to give them the support they need. If you dont, you are disloyal to your voters.
I do tend to agree, but one of the reasons Christine O'Donnell was such an awful candidate is precisely because she herself had betrayed and been disloyal to the party after she lost a GOP primary race in 2006, refused to back the nominee, and instead ran a write in 3rd party bid. Kinda hard for her and her supporters to whine about the party abandoning her when she had already previously demonstrated her willingness to abandon the party.
Look, sometimes the voters make a bad choice. It could be that preventing RINO Castle from winning the seat was worth it for some. I dunno. What I do know is that Coons will remain in that seat for the rest of his life if he so chooses. I also know that a lot of good House bills will never be brought up in the Senate because we ran a few bad candidates instead of decent ones that could have flipped the chamber.
O'Donnell was a flake and complete joke of a candidate. Even if the entire party supported her enthusiastically, she would not have won statewide in Delaware. She was just that bad and her 17 point landslide loss was entirely predictable.
So even if she had lost with entire party support, what is the difference?
If you lose if you support or not, then why not support?
Think about that.
If there was no way she could win, why withhold support?
Do you just not know how elections work or something? I am trying to figure out what you are not understanding. She won 40% of the vote in Delaware. That is probably most of the Republican voters. To win statewide in Delaware, a GOP candidate has to win a majority of mushy moderates/independents/unaffiliated voters and some crossover vote from Democrats along with it. This is because there are far more registered Democrats than Republicans in Delaware. Every bit of polling prior to her nomination showed she could not do that. That Senate election was lost the minute she got the nomination. She had no chance because she couldn't appeal to anyone other than Republicans in a very liberal state. The "establishment" to include Karl Rove, Krauthammer, the GOP insiders in Delaware, etc, could have gone all in and supported her and she'd still have lost badly. It was just that clear she couldn't win.
If there was no way she could win, why withhold support?
Most Republican voters did not withhold support. Some of the bigger name establishment types that did probably just wanted to live to fight another day and saw no reason to associate themselves with a flake that was going down in a landslide defeat is my guess.
I can guarantee you that her votes in the Senate would have probably been excellent, the problem is electability is a big factor to consider when nominating a candidate. She wasn't electable in a general election in Delaware. In 2010 we nominated and elected some great folks, but there were some cases where very poor candidates were nominated and they generally lost badly (CoD, Paladino, Angle, etc).
In what way could the “bigger name establishment types” live to fight another day by withholding their support?
Specifically many of those establishment types that CoD and her supporters complained about probably felt any association with the "I am not a witch" woman was bad for the long term health of their political career.
Again, I still don't understand quite what you don't get? If our party nominated a total flake for President, many establishment types would put as much separation between them and that person as they could. It is not exactly a new phenomenon in politics. These people make a career out of politics and are always looking long term, not just near term.
Do you still not realize what an utter disaster Christine O'Donnell was? Do you still not realize that she never had a chance to win statewide in Delaware - even in a massive Republican wave year? The woman lost by 17 points in about as friendly an election cycle as you can ever get. That is just how bad she was. It is not shocking that some "establishment" types would have seen the writing on the wall and run as far away from her as they could.
When your team is outmatched, you don’t give up on the field. That is unacceptable.
There was no downside for them to support her. None.
The fact that they gave up on their team facing defeat, the fact that they failed to fight even a losing battle, the fact that they pouted because they didn’t get their way is why I say they can burn in the liberal hell that they have created for themselves.