Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Exit Polls: the surprise in Delaware (Sorry, trolls: Mike Castle probably would've lost to Coons)
CNN ^ | 11/2/2010 | Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted on 11/03/2010 11:31:04 AM PDT by Qbert

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-111 next last
To: radpolis
but I didn’t know until last night that she had run for senator twice and lost badly.

Why yes, and after her trouncing in the Republican primary for Senate in 2006, O'Donnell promptly refused to endorse or support the rightful winner and ran as a write in 3rd party candidate. It's been kind of amusing hearing Christine and her cheerleaders moaning about how horrible it was that Castle didn't support her considering she not only didn't support the Republican nominee in 2006 - she actually ran against him. Oh, Castle and the establishment certainly should have backed her, but the hypocrisy from COD and her supporters, considering her past actions on this front, is simply amazing.

I am not saying we should roll over for RINOs like Castle, but maybe it would be better to nominate somebody who isn’t a consistent loser.

Determining whether a candidate can actually win is sort of important in the primary process. Apparently the Tea Party and a majority of Delaware primary voters did not stop to consider this at all.

51 posted on 11/03/2010 12:44:24 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marron

“O’Donnell lost by about the same percentage as Urquart did.

There are fifty percent more Dems than Repubs. Had they run a pro-abortion Repub would he have won? Maybe. What have you won?

We tried that in California, running “moderate” Repubs against rather unlikeable Dems, and they were still trashed, just like O’Donnell and they still lost. They came closer than she did but they lost.”

Great points.


52 posted on 11/03/2010 12:44:34 PM PDT by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SMCC1

“I don’t get why a lot of conservatives seemed to push her as the face of the Tea Party.”

Because she was “cute as a button’, a “junior size Sarah Palin”, “the new Mary Tyler Moore”, an evangelical “virgin”, etc. (all quotes from FR threads).

Blame it on the fact that many Tea Partiers are emotional rather than analytical; older and whiter; naive and easily impressed by a pretty face.

I can’t believe that O’Donnell even fooled Michelle Malkin.

The Tea Party needs to get real.


53 posted on 11/03/2010 12:47:02 PM PDT by Warthog-2 (CONGRATS TO GOV. CORBETT and SENATOR TOOMEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

Rove is scum.... another elitist...

maybe she wasnt the most perfect person... but Koons?? yeah he was awesome/s

most important we made them come back to the center, they had to fight on our terms... not theirs...

the GOP establishment didnt do JS to help her... same with Miller...


54 posted on 11/03/2010 12:47:02 PM PDT by wyowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was an almost 70 year old, two-time failed presidential nominee. That one worked pretty well though...

Reagan was also the successful two-term governor of the most populous state in the nation.

55 posted on 11/03/2010 12:47:59 PM PDT by dfwgator (Texas Rangers -Thanks for a great season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

Republican casting couch?


56 posted on 11/03/2010 12:50:45 PM PDT by Warthog-2 (CONGRATS TO GOV. CORBETT and SENATOR TOOMEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Now the truth comes out.


57 posted on 11/03/2010 12:52:00 PM PDT by Warthog-2 (CONGRATS TO GOV. CORBETT and SENATOR TOOMEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

But I don’t want to see more Mike Castle’s to replace the Christine O’Donnell’s!!! I want to see more Pat Toomey’s and Chris Christie’s. We can win blue states with real conservatives but only if they are on the ball.


58 posted on 11/03/2010 12:55:04 PM PDT by ari-freedom (Ding dong the Pelosi is gone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
If Castle had, in contrast to O'Donnell, been running a competent campaign like he did in the primary...

Despite the fact that he was not the favorite of the conservative base, he ran a very close campaign in the primary.

His track record includes 14 successful general election victories in DE to O'Donnell's three failed ones.

Everyone knows that the most conservative voters turn out for GOP state primaries.

He had 3 million and the Delaware Republican Party in his pocket and couldn't beat "a flawed candidate".

He had 3.5 million - most of which he had budgeted to spend after the primary.

O'Donnell actually raised $5 million, after all was said and done over the cycle.

The ridiculous lengths people go to to avoid placing this loss in the lap of the Delaware Republican Party is beyond absurd.

Who is avoiding it? It is absolutely the fault of the Delaware GOP: they picked a candidate who could not win a general election in their state.

It's not necessarily O'Donnell's fault taht she ran a bad campaign. For all we know, that was the best she was capable of.

59 posted on 11/03/2010 12:59:44 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kevao

“Get a little more experience under her belt.”

Experience? Do tea party conservatives still believe in that anymore?


60 posted on 11/03/2010 1:01:27 PM PDT by ari-freedom (Ding dong the Pelosi is gone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
It could be that. Or it could be a simple grudging respect of conservatives. They know they cannot bamboozle them and get them to play along with them no matter what.

RINO's, on the other hand, can be bamboozled frequently. Then, when the RINO's occasionally draw the line, the libtards erupt with anger because that wasn't the outcome they were expecting.

It is sort of like an adolescent brat-- they will show grudging respect to a strict, but consistent parent. But they absolutely go ballistic when they cannot get a normally permissive parent to go along with them.

61 posted on 11/03/2010 1:03:52 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SMCC1

Fortunately he won and she lost. The one thing worst than a RINO is a real conservative that makes everyone other decent conservative look bad by association.


62 posted on 11/03/2010 1:05:09 PM PDT by ari-freedom (Ding dong the Pelosi is gone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Experience? Do tea party conservatives still believe in that anymore?

Well, as a Tea Party conservative, I would say, ideally yes. At the same time, however, I would choose a completely inexperienced conservative over an experienced Pelosi or Reid. In a heartbeat.

63 posted on 11/03/2010 1:05:51 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Experience in Washington can mean different things and most of the time it is not good experience for the American people and the constitution. New blood is essential for freedom because it curtail the elitism that has just about killed the GOP. I hope we take out a batch of “experienced” Rinos next election, too!


64 posted on 11/03/2010 1:11:28 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: shoff

“We should all learn as much from the wins as losses and move ahead. “

The GOP needs to understand that we’ve had enough of RINO’s but the tea party also needs to understand that we need representatives with real experience and resumes that can be taken seriously.
I do give christine credit for trying. Hopefully a serious conservative will conclude that there is still an opportunity in DE.


65 posted on 11/03/2010 1:12:14 PM PDT by ari-freedom (Ding dong the Pelosi is gone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
one thing worst than a RINO is a real conservative that makes everyone other decent conservative look bad by association.

Most other odonnell critics are louder than normal today because she lost.

But youre glad she lost because you believe because of her loss decent conservatives(meaning you, presumably) stand to look better.

I'll have to give that one some more thought.

66 posted on 11/03/2010 1:13:42 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
But I don’t want to see more Mike Castle’s to replace the Christine O’Donnell’s!!! I want to see more Pat Toomey’s and Chris Christie’s. We can win blue states with real conservatives but only if they are on the ball.

Exactly. I'm sick of having to defend un-vetted candidates on issues of basic competence. It was so disappointing when Palin made it easy for the media to turn her into a punchline.

67 posted on 11/03/2010 1:14:22 PM PDT by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SMCC1

I think that Christine is called “tea party” because she got the tea party express endorse and the tea party express money before the primary. That tea party express activity was completely essential for Christine at that time, and when Palin jumped in, it was clear that Christine was a tea party brand candidate.

The truth is though, Christine is a Social Conservative. Her background is 100% Christian. There’s really nothing on her resume involving fighting for small government. In 2010, there’s really no “religious right” or “Christian Coalition” candidates running. The outsider candidates where the tea party brand. And so Christine was tea party brand.

I personally feel that the tea party should not be either Libertarian or Conservative Christian, but should include both. Christine is the perfect example of both tea party and Conservative Christian. She lost in a state with fewer conservatives than any state than Hawaii or Rhode Island.
That really shouldn’t be a shocker.

Another thing to consider off topic a bit, is that Delaware is not Pro Life at all. Not even close. And Christine is 100% Pro Life. It wasn’t explicitly an issue, but on almost every social conservative issue, Delaware is about 60/40, and Christine took the 40.

What a lot of us assumed was that her hardcore positions would get awesome turnout with Conservatives. I think that’s true. And then we looked at generic numbers (+15, +19) and then said “well, we’re so hardcore Conservative, our Conservatives will all be voting for us.” And then we said “look at that tidal wave”. Combine huge turnout with Conservatives with apathetic Democrats who weren’t voting, and we win.

There were a lot of anti Christines here. None of them made a convincing argument, or really any argument at all, that what did happen was going to happen. And what did happen (I think, haven’t seen data), was that the Democrat turnout was high in Delaware, not like in other states, but high, and they weren’t apathetic, but they were voting against Christine and Social Conservativism.

A lot of the “jokes” were really the left’s way of saying “oh, no, we know exactly what you mean when you say that separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution. We don’t really feel like arguing that point. We don’t have to. We liberals all know that we put it there in 1947, and we know that it isn’t there, it doesn’t belong there, but we want it there. We’re going to tell moderates that you’re stupid, and it’ll work with some. But what is actually going to happen is that every single liberal in DE is as scared of you as the conservatives are excited, and those liberals most certainly do have a reason to vote against you.”

What we didn’t realize was that the jokes weren’t for them. They were scared about Christine, and they did vote against her.

Something very similar happened in Maine, but the Conservative tea party Governor LePage did win. Polls less than a week ago had LePage up 40 to 21 to 21. He ended up winning by 1.5 points. The liberal Democrats who were supporting the liberal Democrat Mitchell decided that “stop LePage” was necessary, and they all decided in the last week to support the Independent Cutler. Republican LePage got 38.33%, Independent Cutler got 36.49%, and the Democrat Mitchell got 19.12%. Hooray for early voting in Maine, because the big, rapid swing from Mitchell to Cutler took place in the last week, after a lot of early votes had been cast for Mitchell instead of Cutler.


68 posted on 11/03/2010 1:14:58 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Now you’re saying he wasn’t even a good enough candidate to raise more money for the primary after all his years in the House?????????????

The FEC pre-primary reports show him with 12 times the money of “the flawed candidate” that beat him.

If I can get one remark to the point out of you- why did he lose the primary?


69 posted on 11/03/2010 1:18:27 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

She was that bad, huh, that you would rather than a bearded marxist than her?


70 posted on 11/03/2010 1:20:08 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Yeah, but if Castle won, we would have had Castle.


71 posted on 11/03/2010 1:38:03 PM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

17 points. It’s the candidate. I love how people who obviously have lived a life on this planet can somehow postulate a different reality where the difference between losing and winning an election is how strongly supportive Carl Rove or the “Delaware Republican Party” is for their nominee.

If it was that easy, we’d elect 100 senators. Unfortunately, in the real world we actually have to find candidates that can get a majority of the VOTERS to support them, not the political party or an over-hyped pundit.

O’Donnell is a kind of flaky individual with what seems to be a good heart, but who doesn’t seem very good at managing finances, doing simple math (like telling the difference between winning and losing the vote in a county), or even being able to project a good conservative image.

Nor was she able to pull together a winning campaign team; some would say she was hampered by not paying her previous team and turning them against her, but in any case neither she nor her team seemed to understand how horribly wrong her first campaign commercial was, or how easily it could have been fixed.

In fact, it might well be that the democrats, by emphasising the delaware race, sending their top hitters there and getting it on national news, were able to kill several other of our candidates by association. Toomey definitely spoke as it O’Donnell made HIS life a lot harder, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the “average voter” took O’Donnell as the “face of the tea party” and were turned against Buck, Angle, and Miller.


72 posted on 11/03/2010 1:43:35 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

No, Castle would have won easily. He would have not only done much better with the people who ended up showing up than O’Donnell did, but would have likely turned out a lot more moderates who decided to stay home or not vote for either of the candidates.


73 posted on 11/03/2010 1:45:47 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Now you’re saying he wasn’t even a good enough candidate to raise more money for the primary after all his years in the House?????????????

No, I'm saying that if he had been the nominee, he would not have been able to raise $5 million from all over the country the way O'Donnell did.

He was well-known and liked in Delaware, but had zero appeal for the more conservative national party and would not be able to rely on outside moneyThe FEC pre-primary reports show him with 12 times the money of “the flawed candidate” that beat him.

As I was saying, he was husbanding his resources because he believed that he needed to keep his powder dry for the general election.

If I can get one remark to the point out of you- why did he lose the primary?

GOP primary voters tend to be the most conservative voters in their state or district.

Castle is too liberal for most Republicans - against a vocal conservative opponent, he put up a tough fight but he lost.

74 posted on 11/03/2010 1:50:00 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Callahan

Well, the Democrats chose to make anti Christine their primary message. They won what they won with that message and lost what they lost.

We won some, we lost some. I think most Republicans would say that the results were good ones.

“Made it closer than it had to be” Right. So? He still won.
If the Democrats didn’t have Christine to talk about, they would’ve had to come up with something else. That other thing might’ve worked in PA. What they did talk about did not work. We got the PA seat.


75 posted on 11/03/2010 1:50:08 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
We need accomplished regular Americans who have jobs, who work, who have homes and families and aren't interested in talking about masturbation and witchcraft

What we have to learn is that just as Dems bend over backward to defend their people when they rape and wave their wing-wangs at women they've just met and snort a little blow, we have to defend our people when things are thrown at them out of context from unserious interviews from a decade ago.

Frankly, unless we had a really aggressive, tough-minded, take-no-prisoner senate leadership which we don't, not getting the senate is probably a blessing.

And I'm very convinced that it is better to have Coons outside our camp than Castle in it. We don't need to give Lindsey Graham a stronger hand for the compromises he wants to cook up.

Christine O'Donnell didn't do anything wrong.

76 posted on 11/03/2010 1:50:18 PM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Yeah, but if Castle won, we would have had Castle.

That would have been a definite negative, but it could have been outweighed by the positive of having McConnell as the majority leader instead of Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer.

77 posted on 11/03/2010 1:54:50 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: shoff

We should run people like Christine O’Donnell all over the place. The media will freak out. They’ll attack those candidates. Many of those candidates will lose. I want conservative sports stars, rock stars, actors. All conservative. Run them in places that we can’t win unless we run a RINO. We don’t want RINOs NO MORE RINOS. In places where a conservative can win, has won, like PA, they win.

We had 6 seats that had races with boring candidates who lost - NY, NY, MD, HI, VT, OR. If a Christine O’Donnell type was there, maybe Christine herself wouldn’t have been taking the hits she was taking.

Exciting young inexperienced attractive conservatives in states we’re supposed to lose. Attracting fire from the national media.

How much did the National Democrat Party have to spend to defeat Wargotz in MD? Nothing. If it was Christine O’Donnell in MD? They would’ve spent a lot more than nothing.

There are a lot more Conservatives than Liberals in this country. Push it hard.


78 posted on 11/03/2010 2:00:40 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Frankly, unless we had a really aggressive, tough-minded, take-no-prisoner senate leadership which we don't, not getting the senate is probably a blessing.

Christine O'Donnell didn't do anything wrong.

You had me until that last line.

Christine O'Donnell is incompatible with the kind of aggressive, tough-minded representation you want. I've heard her speak in debate situations and friendly FOX ones, and she doesn't have the intellectual heft for the job. Not just to be a senator, but the KIND of senator you correctly describe.

We can't be wishy-washy if we want our leadership (and the rank-and-file) to be warriors, not little maidens who talk about witches and "I'm you."

79 posted on 11/03/2010 2:04:43 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; wideawake

"Christine! Christine! Christine!"

No. the Delaware Republican Party was sick. That's why Castle lost an election he had the money and influence to breeze through.
He couldn't bring 'moderates' to the polls in the primary. Where were they? Voting in Coons' cakewalk?

O'Donnell was the candidate that would emerge from the wreckage- and it was a wreck: Castle WAS the Delaware Republican Party and he was gone.

No, to get a winning candidate there has to be a healthy system. You two are confusing the effect with the cause.

80 posted on 11/03/2010 2:07:15 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SoftwareEngineer
O’Donnell sucked! Plain and simple... No more free passes.. call it like it is..

People forget how intensely they defend "our" side during the campaigns. Later, we look back at some of these folks and realize we were caught up in the us-vs.-them stuff.

How many here recall how we were "starting to warm to McCain" election week in 2008?

When people have some distance from this election, they'll start calling 'em like they see 'em, as you have. We must be patient with them until them, they're still emotionally attached. ;)

81 posted on 11/03/2010 2:07:32 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

It was a republican primary. Independents didn’t vote in the republican primary. Castle couldn’t win the majority of the people willing to come out for the republican primary.

I don’t know why. I know that conservatives were highly motivated to vote for O’Donnell. I don’t know if the moderate/liberal republicans just assumed Castle would win, or if they didn’t really care, or what.


82 posted on 11/03/2010 2:10:06 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
He couldn't bring 'moderates' to the polls in the primary.

Moderates do not vote in primaries.

Moderates, by definition, are not "into politics", do not follow primary races closely, etc.

Primary races are for the most politically engaged voters, and those voters are rarely neutral or moderate.

83 posted on 11/03/2010 2:14:16 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Since we lost Nevada, California & apparently Colorado it's a moot point but I think a GOP-controlled Senate with enough moderates to swing things to the Dems -- Lindsey Graham by himself would have been able to do it -- would actually be worse than if we had control.

Now, we have no choice but to fight & Dems will have it harder to find "bipartisanship" for the garbage they hope to enact which will draw the clear line that we need.

84 posted on 11/03/2010 2:18:56 PM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Christine O'Donnell is incompatible with the kind of aggressive, tough-minded representation you want.

But she's far more compatible than Mike Castle would be who would actually collaborate with the enemy.

Patty Murray -- who does not collaborate with us at all and whom I think Christine is much smarter than -- is very useful to the Dems. Same thing with regard to comparative intellect could be said about Bob Casey Jr. & Joe Biden.

At this point, I'm much rather have a fighter than a thinker and say what you want Christine is a fighter.

85 posted on 11/03/2010 2:25:09 PM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Yes, people do vote in primaries for the candidates they want- and against the ones they don’t.

Conservatives usually have an advantage in R primaries,but it’s a very small advantage in Del. where the electorate is so liberal right?
An easy one to overcome for a viable candidate- in a healthy system.

The Delaware Republican Party nominated a candidate they couldn’t win with because they couldn’t nominate one they could win with- and that’s sick.


86 posted on 11/03/2010 2:28:25 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Well, I think you get what I’m saying.

If there’s a turtle on a fence post it didn’t get there by itself.

Castle should have had no problem beating O’Donnell with his money and influence.


87 posted on 11/03/2010 2:36:05 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

” Toomey definitely spoke as it O’Donnell made HIS life a lot harder”

Did he? I never heard that from him or his campaign, though I didn’t follow that race closely. I heard it plenty from the media but they always have a meme going.


88 posted on 11/03/2010 2:41:41 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: radpolis

The people who voted for COD in the primary knew all about her past Senate runs. The Delaware GOP had used her as cannon fodder against Biden before, so it was no surprise about her political past. Those who claim she wasn’t vetted well by the party should realize she had that prior approval to run and ran this time without their approval or ‘re-vetting’. The machine candidate [Castle] had just lost it finally with the more conservative base and they threw him out without worrying too much about who would win eventually. The principle was more important to us than D or R. I’d still vote the same way if I knew what the outcome would be.


89 posted on 11/03/2010 2:57:20 PM PDT by Hartlyboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

No, actually caring too much about whether a candidate can win isn’t a good idea.

Pick who you prefer. That’s how you do it.


90 posted on 11/03/2010 3:12:13 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: kevao

To my mind, the definition of a conservative is someone who believes in ideas that are based on experience. They are tried, tested and true as opposed to the Romantic utopian fantasies of the academics and idealists.


91 posted on 11/03/2010 3:26:24 PM PDT by ari-freedom (Ding dong the Pelosi is gone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: kidd

I think Castle would have won in the end. I regret that he didn’t run as a write-in candidate. He would have either won the election, or helped swing it to O’Donnell.

I’m sorry, but after watch Christine O’Donnell over the last few weeks, I don’t find her appealing as a leader, nor did the voters of Delaware.

My guess is she will end up on CNN as a prime time host.


92 posted on 11/03/2010 3:26:49 PM PDT by FloridaSunrise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
O'Donnell began 20 points behind, was given $4 million to waste, and still ended up 20 points behind

And I gave her my share of that $4il freely, and she is welcome to it.

93 posted on 11/03/2010 3:32:38 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Callahan
I'm sick of having to defend un-vetted candidates on issues of basic competence. It was so disappointing when Palin made it easy for the media to turn her into a punchline.

Palin is VERY competent, and if you care anything about the Constitution and conservative values, you will support her when she wins the primary in 2012. However, I suspect that you and dozens here on FR will dog Palin to no end.

94 posted on 11/03/2010 3:36:00 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; MrShoop

“Reagan was also the successful two-term governor of the most populous state in the nation.”

And what was Reagan before he became Governor?...

An actor. With even less political-related experience than O’Donnell had.


95 posted on 11/03/2010 3:53:22 PM PDT by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Could Christine O’Donnell have pulled off writing and delivering probably the greatest political speech of our era in, “A Time For Choosing”?


96 posted on 11/03/2010 4:21:53 PM PDT by dfwgator (Texas Rangers -Thanks for a great season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

“Experience? Do tea party conservatives still believe in that anymore?”

Experience in running things is important if you are in the executive branch. But does it really matter in Congress? Renee Ellmers beat Etheridge in NC...Ellmers is a nurse. Is that an awful profession for a politician? Why isn’t everybody harping on her??

I think she’s going to do a great job btw- and will be more respected than most of the “experienced” Dems by her constituents.


97 posted on 11/03/2010 4:22:30 PM PDT by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MissesBush
And with a one point differential in this case, no one can really claim to know what the result would have been with Castle as the candidate, particularly in the absence of a Castle campaign which would have changed the outcome to be sure.

That's my understanding.

That one percent difference was based on voters' reaction to O'Donnell. It's difficult if not impossible for people to put aside what they actually heard and saw and felt and answer a question based on what didn't happen.

The fact that the exit poll was so close months after Castle dropped out of the picture, suggests that he could possibly have pulled out a victory if he'd won the primary.

98 posted on 11/03/2010 4:30:56 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

He was president of the Screen Actors Guild before he was Gov. He was also ~55 at the time.


99 posted on 11/03/2010 4:35:20 PM PDT by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“Could Christine O’Donnell have pulled off writing and delivering probably the greatest political speech of our era in, “A Time For Choosing”?”

What does that have to do with experience? Any actor is likely to be a better orator than the average citizen. And (while I agree that the speech was brilliant) just days after he gave it...Goldwater got trounced.

And the reality is- if you read your history- most of the beltway and establishment types thought Reagan was dim-witted, an “amiable dunce”, etc. Any pejorative that you cast at O’Donnell could’ve easily been directed at Reagan in his life.

But true Conservatives knew better.


100 posted on 11/03/2010 4:38:31 PM PDT by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson