[LS]

To a large degree---and I know people around here don't want to hear it---the "Tea Party" candidates showed that in congressional races, which usually involve less money and a more homogeneous voter base, the message triumphs. But in larger statewide races, where you have to have more seasoning, experience counts.

We all know the "downside" of being a "Washington" candidate, but the upside is you do learn to vet yourself early; to avoid saying stupid things as much as possible; and to get your support lined up. In both Alaska and New Jersey---however much people want to blame Rover or the "party"---you had the Tea Party people running both against the Dem and the insider establishment. That's a tall order. I think Paul, Rubio, maybe Scott if he pulls it out have shown that there are ways to do this, but that there's no room for big mistakes.

I think to some degree the criticism of these people that they allowed themselves to be dragged into STATE elections vs. nationalizing the elections (in the case of DE and AK, especially) was a mistake. I know O'Donnell thought she was trying to focus on DE, but in the process she lost part of the message that it was the federal government that was the problem. I don't know---just throwing out ideas. But one thing that CANNOT happen is for conservatives to just assume that because you put up someone with the "right" ideas they will win. It takes both competence AND conservatism, especially in blue states.

[prairiebreeze]

and I know people around here don't want to hear it---the "Tea Party" candidates showed that in congressional races, which usually involve less money and a more homogeneous voter base, the message triumphs. But in larger statewide races, where you have to have more seasoning, experience counts

Geraldine Ferraro stated basically the same thing. And I think there's a lot of truth in it.