[CharlesWayneCT]

Sorry, while I agree with your assertion that a party is responsible for defending candidates, in the end getting elected in the personal responsibility of the candidate.

And if we are going to have a tea party, and it is going to challenge the establishment, and push candidates that will oppose the establishment, we have to get candidates who can win election without much help from the establishment.

You can rail against the establishment all you want, and complain that they didn’t help us topple them out of power, but I believe it is absurd to expect entrenched political powers to help us decapitate them. We either play with them and get the best candidate they can support, or we rise up against them, in which case we need candidates that can make it with our help alone.

IN this specific case, there was nothing the delaware establishment could have done to save O’Donnell. They might have made the race closer, but it is absurd to think that even a perfect republican committee can rescue a fatally flawed candidate in a state that is 2/1 democrat.

If it was that easy, we’d never win elections.

Christine O’Donnell proved herself to be a fairly principled conservative on issues, and a failure as a candidate getting her message out and making it appeal to the voters of Delaware.

She had $6 million, and only got 5% more of the vote in this election (against a placeholder democrat candidate in a wildly republican year) than she did in 2008 against Joe Biden, in a year she had no money.

If she had lost by a few points, like Sharon Angle, I think you could argue that a full-court blitz of support, AND a quick endorsement by the other primary candidate, might have been enough to swing the election.

But this was a rout, it was always going to be a rout, and that is because the candidate was a poor choice.

It’s a pretty bizarre world where what is “wrong with politics” is people who see a candidate lose by 16 points, and after the loss point out that they were a lousy candidate.

I sent her money, even though I knew she couldn’t win. I would like to have had her win. I don’t think she would have been a bad senator, and she was mostly right on issues (I was always nervous with her love affair for Hillary Clinton though). But it was easy to see she had no chance of winning. General elections aren’t primaries, where the electorate is your base.

That is the lesson the tea party movement has learned in this election, and they are already working around the county to vet and pick better candidates to support.

[Moseley]

Sorry, while I agree with your assertion that a party is responsible for defending candidates, in the end getting elected in the personal responsibility of the candidate

No, wrong. Democrats don't win elections that way. Republicans form a circular firing squad. Democrats work together.

Take for example the idiotic things that Barack Obama says:
http://www.ObamaGaffes.org

Yet Democrats circle the wagon, do not allow Obama to be attacked and defend him.

Democrats know how to win elections. Republicans don't.

[Moseley]

we have to get candidates who can win election without much help from the establishment.

There is no such thing. You may as well say we need to get a goose that can lay a golden egg. There is no such thing as a candidate who won't be attacked by the opponent. If you want to take power away from the establishment and statists and the huge interests they represent, THEY ARE GOING TO FIGHT BACK. They are going to attack ANY candidate.

What it takes is an entire tea party movement and conservatives who are GROWN UPS -- not infantile children.

You will never find any candidate who poses a threat to the elites who is not attacked, ridiculed, lied about, and slandered. NEVER.

You are searching for the EASY WAY OUT. There is NO easy way. There are no short cuts. It takes hard work to save America.

SO what it takes is an entire movement who is not gullible and naive, who knows how to fight back, who knows who to defend their candidates, who will nto believe the liberal lies about their candidate.

[Moseley]

(I was always nervous with her love affair for Hillary Clinton though).

DUDE, GROW UP....

Christine is trying to divide and conquer. Get with the program, man.

Delaware has 110,000 more Democrat registered voters than Republicans. The only way for a Republican to win in Delaware is to peel away Democrat votes from the Democrat candidate.

Christine is trying to get female votes and divide the Democrat side. Remember that Rush Limbaugh encouraged people to vote for Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama to create chaos in the Democrat party.

[Moseley]

If she had lost by a few points, like Sharon Angle, I think you could argue that a full-court blitz of support, AND a quick endorsement by the other primary candidate, might have been enough to swing the election.

Delaware has 110,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 2010, 18% of Republicans voted for Chris Coons. That is 32,940 Republicans who voted for the Democrat because moderates cannot unite.

With 110,000 more Democrats registered than Republicans, the results were actually exceeidngly good for Christine O"Donnell. The problem is with the Republican Party, which increased voter registration by only 2% while the Democrat party increased their voter registration by 11% in the same period from 2008 to 2010 (BEFORE the primary when they all thought Mike Castle would be the nominee).

[Moseley]

I believe it is absurd to expect entrenched political powers to help us decapitate them.

But you somehow think that the Democrats will NOT attack your mythical, unicorn, over-the-rainbow perfect candidate?

You somehow think that you can find a candidate whom the Democrats won't attack, lie about, misrepresent, and ridicule? You make me laugh.

So in your fantasies, you will find a mythical unicorn candidate and the Democrats will all lay down and let you walk all over them?