Honestly, at this point, they've helped her fundraise enough. By now she better be putting that money to good use and closing the gap.

I was on the side of supporting her at the outset and driving funds to her for the general, and helping her out. That's been done. Now use the funds as best you can and be a big girl about it.

(and yes, i was on the side of those saying stop throwing her under the bus on primary night)

On the other hand, I was really looking forward to a circular firing squad this afternoon, so thanks for the post!

Posted by: Billy Jack at October 21, 2010 03:25 PM (3RuDB)

Seriously, no he's not.  It's better to have someone who would vote conservative 50% of the time than someone who will vote liberal 100% of the time.

didn't anyone think to vet her?

and the TEA party express needs to make sure Angle wins because that is, right now, winnable.

I hate that the frickin TP Express is the "face" of the Tea Party to a lot of people.

Posted by: ace at October 21, 2010 03:34 PM (qF2Ks)

as sad as it's to say, it's smart politics for them to do that

I thought they were into throwing money away.

Seriously, no he's not.  It's better to have someone who would vote conservative 50% of the time than someone who will vote liberal 100% of the time.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 03:30 PM (cq3pU)

Seriously that's horse shit. Unless you can predict the 50% of the issues the asswipe won't vote libtard on.

Ace, have you found a good link to watch the debate in order to complete your analysis concerning the treatment of the MSM's malignment of Ms. O'Donnell's remarks respecting the language contained in the Constitution?

It seems a skosh incongruent to be running this post prior to that which you indicated in so many words would be forthcoming "post haste" per se.  

Tea Party 100, Leftists 1.

I like O-D, but she's going down.  And she may be the only one.

I can live with those numbers.

If you were thinking about throwing some jack her way, could you instead send it to my guy Marty Lamb?  Link in my sig line

I don't think she can win.

The entire Government/Media Complex is against her.

Every news network, every comedy show, everyone on tv and radio is doing everything they can to sink her by painting her as a tard.

Let this be a lesson to us when picking a candidate for 2012, that the media, comedy shows, newspapers,  may be declining in power but they still have enough power to destroy someone or at the very least cost them 5-10 points in any given election.

I can't remember what member of the media once said that they have the power to get 5 or so percentage points for a candidate, and i think this is accurate.

Just look at Obama, he was felatiated by the media on a daily basis and he cruised to reelection.  They did that in conjunction with attacking palin and Obama wins.

I understand we can't let them pick our candidate or we end up with a mccain, but we certainly have to keep in mind that the media will attack whoever we nominate, therefore we should nominate the guy or girl who has the best chance of weathering the attacks.

Every news network, every comedy show, everyone on tv and radio is doing everything they can to sink her by painting her as a tard.

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2010 03:46 PM (wuv1c)

it's not like she isn't helping them to do that

Posted by: Caiwyn at October 21, 2010 03:42 PM (ttktr)

Castle has been back stabbing the party for years by being way more liberal than even the electorate of DE. Not rewarding such crap with a senate seat is more than worth it.

Every news network, every comedy show, everyone on tv and radio is doing everything they can to sink her by painting her as a tard.

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2010 03:46 PM (wuv1c)

it's not like she isn't helping them to do that

I agree her stuff on Bill Maher was poison, but I don't think shes don't anything since winning the nomination that has been over the top ridiculous. You would agree, no?

That said, they did the same thing with Palin, people in the media to this day attribute quotes from SNL to Palin.

Personally I am hoping for a Paul Ryan or Chris Christie in 2012, because I think the media will go all out to destroy Palin, and I think they will succeed in the minds of enough "independents".

Posted by: JC at October 21, 2010 03:48 PM (7PT3B) 

no way 3 mill lasts 2 weeks, especially when she is so far behind. But even then, money doesn't erase her deficit...noting erases that kind of deficit

Plus, isn't he actually surging?

Well, that depends. If you look at RCP, yes. If you ask he who is a raging dickwad....Toomey is doomed!

it was inevitable the race would tighten in PA.

Santorum lost to Bob Casey in the last senate election with something like 60-40.

This is a heavily democratic state.  However, there are a lot of democrats who are willing to vote republican.

That said, Toomey will win by a few points. 

The thematic promotion of such O'Donnell doom suggests a wounded inner id that is in conflict with the ego.  An ego that keeps raising its hand in front of an audience with the inability to contain the verbal verbosity of . . . "oh, oh, oh,  Mr, Kotter . . .  

Yes, Arnold?

Ugh here we go. We get a bad news piece and out comes the "I told you so" knives in O'Donnell's back. Can't you pessimistic halfwits stow it until after Nov 3rd? I mean really we are the wave of something big and you're going to choose now to whine about shit? Sew up your lady parts fellas and get your heads back in the game.

I'll be sure to remember that if we end up one seat short of taking the Senate, which is a very real possibility.

Point is, money spent on O'Donnell is wasted.  Period.  It would have been much better spent on candidates in close races like Angle- a conclusion that the TPE apparently reached themselves.

Posted by: Sen. Barbara Boxer, Senator, Not Maam at October 21, 2010 03:51 PM (QKKT0)

the more I examine your career, the more I agree that the vetting should have started with you babs.....you appear to not even have a brain in your head...

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at October 21, 2010 03:52 PM (xJVlJ)

If Christine O'Donnell wins she will become the among the most powerful people in the senate, hated by virtually all her colleagues. She will have won a US Senate seat without any substantial help or support of either her state of national party AND the contempt of the media elite and isndiers of her own party. She owes almost no  one save the Tea Party and perhaps Palin and Demint. Anyone needing her vote save those two will have to come on their friggin knees. There's no one to call to put the good word in with her as almost no one had a good word for her.

Posted by: Greggypoo at October 21, 2010 03:58 PM (JI4lM)

Also my predicton:  Christine O'Donnell will win the election. 

I'll be sure to remember that if we end up one seat short of taking the Senate, which is a very real possibility.

...

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2010 03:56 PM (plsiE)

Can we cut this out, please?  What is your definition of "One Short" in the Senate?  Judicial filibusters are as likely as the Republicans not just rubber-stamping any of Obama's nominees (vote counts on his current Cabinet / Sotomayor anyone?) so that was never really an issue- however much we wish it were.

So, if we have 47+ (the most likely scenario, last I heard) in the Senate, we've got filibuster strength, and if we control the House we still have oversight/subpoena powers (as well as power of the purse).

Seriously, no he's not.  It's better to have someone who would vote conservative 50% of the time than someone who will vote liberal 100% of the time.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 03:30 PM (cq3pU)

Seriously that's horse shit. Unless you can predict the 50% of the issues the asswipe won't vote libtard on.

If she wins, then she becomes the club to beat on RINOs like so many baby seals.

If she wins, then I will tell every lefty cockholster I know that her win is an omen for the oppressive theocracy that will surely descend on this country in response to Obama.

If she wins, airplanes will be dodging pigs and the demand for ice skates in Hades will skyrocket.

Posted by: Sen. Barbara Boxer, Senator, Not Maam at October 21, 2010 03:51 PM (QKKT0)

What are you lookin at?

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at October 21, 2010 04:00 PM (gM4zK)"

Then maybe the voters of Delaware should force him to sign an affidavit to that effect so that they can hold his feet to the fire should he win.  Trust me, he wont' sign.

This race is worth probably losing

Uggh. No race is worth losing. Ever.*

^{*Unless it's a race to see who can orally pleasure the Wookie the longest. In such a circumstance, I'll concede your point.}

Posted by: alexthedude at October 21, 2010 04:02 PM (rkCMG)

Yes, but after the primary the party, and the R pundits fell in line. They can confidently call Toomey, Rubio, Angle or Miller and expect to be be heard. Not so for O'Donnell. The establishment GOP did make a lot of enemies this cycle but O'Donnell is the only one they haven't bothered to be concerned about.

An affidavit is your sworn word.

Posted by: Will Folks, lady man at October 21, 2010 04:07 PM (OWjjx)

Says the man with the worn sword.

Then maybe the voters of Delaware should force him to sign an affidavit to that effect so that they can hold his feet to the fire should he win.  Trust me, he wont' sign.

An affidavit is your sworn word.

Posted by: Will Folks, lady man at October 21, 2010 04:07 PM (OWjjx)"

In the absence of honor and character and truthfulness what other recourse do voters have than to have someone stand by their words by signing on the dotted line?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at October 21, 2010 04:03 PM (0q2P7)

< Winning with Castle = cubic zirconia without the cub and zirconia.  

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 04:05 PM (cq3pU)

The bottom line is State republican party leaders better stop rigging the primary process to suit themselves and lock out conservatives. No matter what state it is. O'Donnell got the support of TPE because the only other person in the primary was unworthy of it.

In the absence of honor and character and truthfulness what other recourse do voters have than to have someone stand by their words by signing on the dotted line?

Posted by: curious at October 21, 2010 04:10 PM (p302b)

Perhaps we should ask Castle?

149 124 My entirely intuitive feeling

Adverb fail.

Schumer as Majority Leader.
Chuck U - never met a camera he didnt like
Better put his press conferences on time delay - bitch!

Posted by: Neville and Uncle Joe at October 21, 2010 04:12 PM (5aa4z)

People running for office routinely lie without compunction and with little or no objection from anyone when they are found out to have lied.  This is why the country is in such a mess.  PC has rendered everyone impotent and all the talk of not alienating people for the sake of the party and compromise, etc.  Heck, the country is a mess.  I'm not sticking up for BO or GWB but how can you actually attempt to govern a country which is this much of a mess.  People can only compromise when they have trust.  There is no trust.  We need to get trust back, character back, truthfulness back and most importantly HONOR back.

I love the way some people talk about the "ideological purists". You would call yourselves reasonable and intelligent for negotiating with the Devil for how much of your soul you would sell, cheap. 

I have another name for the "reasonable republicans" SUCKER.

Posted by: curious at October 21, 2010 04:18 PM (p302b)

Right and that is why Castle lost.

I love the way some people talk about the "ideological purists". You would call yourselves reasonable and intelligent for negotiating with the Devil for how much of your soul you would sell, cheap. 

I have another name for the "reasonable republicans" SUCKER.

I have a term for those who demand ideological purity from Republican candidates running in a liberal state:  Represented by a Democrat.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 21, 2010 04:17 PM (T0NGe)

Not really.  O'Donnell's resume is completely void of accomplishments.  She's made some unusual (to say the least) statements about her background and some shady decisions in previous elections.  Then you add in that there are hours of footage of her making an ass of herself as Bill Maher's token dumb conservative.  Literally nothing in her background makes her Senate material. 

We all laugh at Obama because he had no experience to prepare him for being POTUS, but O'Donnell is just as bad when it comes to being in the Senate.  Let's be consistent.   

Yes, she says the right stuff and she's better than Coons, but that doesn't mean she was ever a good candidate.

On the other hand, I was really looking forward to a circular firing squad this afternoon, so thanks for the post!

That's what these seem to turn into, don't they?

I have a term for those who demand ideological purity from Republican candidates running in a liberal state:  Represented by a Democrat.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2010 04:26 PM (plsiE)

And I suppose it would be better to be represented by a Democrat with R behind their name? No fucking difference. Negotiating with the Socialists only gets you slower socialism. I want fucking reversal, and I won't get that supporting milquetoast quasi Conservative people. That shit has not worked, will not work, will never work.

Not really.  O'Donnell's resume is completely void of accomplishments.  She's made some unusual (to say the least) statements about her background and some shady decisions in previous elections.  Then you add in that there are hours of footage of her making an ass of herself as Bill Maher's token dumb conservative.  Literally nothing in her background makes her Senate material. 

We all laugh at Obama because he had no experience to prepare him for being POTUS, but O'Donnell is just as bad when it comes to being in the Senate.  Let's be consistent.   

Yes, she says the right stuff and she's better than Coons, but that doesn't mean she was ever a good candidate.

We don't need to worry about any "qualities" or "accomplishments" from O'Donnell.  For gosh sakes, we have Senator Tennis Shoes and the Boxer in that "august group".  All she needs to do is show up for the roll call and push the right button.  Sheesh!

We all laugh at Obama because he had no experience to prepare him for being POTUS, but O'Donnell is just as bad when it comes to being in the Senate.  Let's be consistent.   

Yes, she says the right stuff and she's better than Coons, but that doesn't mean she was ever a good candidate.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 04:26 PM (cq3pU)

Once again, more of the old, "She's only as bad as the worst senators on Earth, so what's the problem?  Oh, and shut up, filthy RINO

No, you're part of the problem.  All COD has to do is vote the right way, nothing else.

robviously at October 21, 2010 04:26 PM (cq3pU

Why don't you go write a fucking commercial for the Dems.  They would hire you in a second.  Make sure you emphasize what a good conservative Republican you are. 

Posted by: polynikes at October 21, 2010 04:36 PM (m2CN7)

Posted by: Ed Anger at October 21, 2010 04:41 PM (7+pP9)

I'm pointing out that both parties can have terrible candidates.  I'm sorry that's too much for you to take.

robviously at October 21, 2010 04:26 PM (cq3pU

Why don't you go write a fucking commercial for the Dems.  They would hire you in a second.  Make sure you emphasize what a good conservative Republican you are. 

Posted by: polynikes at October 21, 2010 04:36 PM (m2CN7)

Go cry about it.  I don't like Christine O'Donnell.  If I lived there, I'd still vote for her over Coons.  That said, she's a terrible candidate and anyone willing to be objective about it can admit that.

Yeah all that wasted time and money. Fuck we shouldn't have even run a candidate in Delaware right? Cause why bother trying.

O'Donnell wins we get a conservative. She loses we end up with what we started with - a leftist in the seat. Coons and Castle are both part of the same disease.

Seriously, one article by a leftist fucktard comes out and it's all whining and moaning like fucking babies. Suck it up. You assholes have bashed her from day one. And guess what - come Nov 3rd we won't be saying you were right. We'll be saying you were to blame.

And just because you said the money was wasted I donated some more money to her campaign.

It was never a choice between nominating O'Donnell or nobody.  It was a choice between a winner and a loser.  Given her lack of record, we really don't know how conservative O'Donnell would be if she won- which she won't.  Castle didn't meet the purity test, but neither did Brown- where's the bitching from the fantasyland purists about him being a RINO?

She wasn't double-digits behind because blog commenters "bashed" her by correctly implying that she couldn't win.  She was and is double digits behind because she's unelectable in Delaware.  Period.

It's your money, if you want to throw it down the toilet on a candidate with almost zero chance of winning (I suppose Coons could get caught murdering a prostitute in the next couple weeks), go ahead.  Strategically it's a dumb thing to do considering that conservative candidates (like Angle or Miller) who have a good shot at winning could make better use of it though.

Posted by: LAI at October 21, 2010 04:48 PM (R4ub4)

Thanks, LAI.  That was good. 

I'm pointing out that both parties can have terrible candidates.  I'm sorry that's too much for you to take.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 04:44 PM (cq3pU)

Is it helping or hurting by continuously criticizing your party candidate?  A yes or no will suffice.

Posted by: polynikes at October 21, 2010 04:47 PM (m2CN7)

It's a neither.  Because the only place I'm doing it is here, where posts are ready by maybe a couple hundred people. 

You'd prefer that I lie and pretend she's awesome and totally belongs in the Senate?  Isn't that what liberals do?  Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in the White House?  "Who cares about actual accomplishments?  Christine is one of us!!"

Listen, I already said I'd pick her over Coons.  So by your screwed up logic, I'm totally helping her win.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2010 04:54 PM (OlN4e)

So someone who votes the way you don't like half the time is just like someone who rapes you using half of their penis?  Terrific comparison there, bro.

You're doing a good job making the Christine O'Donnell camp seem extremely thoughtful and intelligent.

Really...I just do not understand where this "Jeffords" thing comes from other than utter contempt for a person.

---------------------

I must have missed the part where the 2006 and 2008 Senate composition was 50-50, and switching parties would have gotten him a bagful of goodies from the Dems.

I thought it was assumed that a Castle switch would be in the event that it was profitable for him depending on the results in November. Apologies for not spelling it out.

Let me try to be clearer - I don't trust RINOs because by their very nature, they're mendacious. And I think the pants-shitting terror the Tea Party has put into the GOP is worth a seat that's been Dem forever anyway.

or am I mistaken in my belief that there are probably not a lot of liberals or even independents or moderates reading this with an eye towards learning how to vote? 

HIPPA regs apply--- talk all you want about Mr. G' s endstage HIV behind closed doors, but once you're on the hospital floor, shut up.  Cuz Mr. G's family, friends and boss are standing right behind you.

Let me try to be clearer - I don't trust RINOs because by their very nature, they're mendacious. And I think the pants-shitting terror the Tea Party has put into the GOP is worth a seat that's been Dem forever anyway.

Posted by: schizuki at October 21, 2010 04:59 PM (M+lbD)

I hope you're right.  But with Limbaugh and DeMint both tellling the GOP establishment they'd be willing to walk away if they try to do business as usual, I'm thinking the old GOP dimwits aren't quite scared enough yet.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 04:57 PM (cq3pU)

Thats because you just don't fucking get it. This country is in a fight for the future. That's all there is to it. If you don't win, you lose. There ain't no fucking middle ground.

Thats because you just don't fucking get it. This country is in a fight for the future. That's all there is to it. If you don't win, you lose. There ain't no fucking middle ground.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2010 05:01 PM (OlN4e)

Um, OK.  So now winning is the most important thing?  And the person you picked to win (because winning is the most important thing) is someone with a shady background who has never been elected to anything?  Terrific logic.

She wasn't double-digits behind because blog commenters "bashed" her by correctly implying that she couldn't win.  She was and is double digits behind because she's unelectable in Delaware.  Period.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2010 04:47 PM (plsiE)

Tell that to the Delawarians. They're the ones who voted for her.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 21, 2010 05:06 PM (HicGG)

But when we need him to, he votes with us 0%. I don't care what he does on the "National Dog Catchers Week" vote.

Castle was a NO on reversing Obamacare, and a YES on Cap and Trade. So why are we supposed to support him again?

I still believe people are underestimating the extent of this tsunami.

OÂ’Donnell isnÂ’t running against Chris Coons.  SheÂ’s running against Chris Mathews and all the other smug, condescending elitists.  People get it on a gut level.

Polls in Delaware are still being modeled on Â’06 and Â’08 turnout numbers and demographic makeup.  If you believe Gallup and Pew, the increase in republican participation, antipathy of liberals, near total disinterest of minorities, 10 point net move of women to the right and a few other factors, can wipe out the deficit in her numbers.

If she loses, there is only one person to blame – Ace.

Um, OK.  So now winning is the most important thing?  And the person you picked to win (because winning is the most important thing) is someone with a shady background who has never been elected to anything?  Terrific logic.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 05:06 PM (cq3pU)

Like I said, you just don't fucking get it. Winning is winning with the wrong people. Winning isn't winning when you elect people who vote for socialism half the time. You are not qualified to discuss logic with me. You can discuss "shady backgrounds" with me when the opponent isn't a fucking bearded Marxist.

Posted by: LAI at October 21, 2010 05:07 PM (R4ub4)

I've already said several times that I'd prefer CO over Coons.  Coons is a train wreck.  But other than saying the right things (sometimes), there is nothing about CO that I like. 

She's basically a professional candidate at this point.  And even though she says the right things, her background is far from conservative.  She sued a former employer because being demoted hurt her feelings.  What are her career accomplishments?

Castle didn't win the primary.

Arguing that the vote was 'thrown' away finishes the punchline of the joke "We know what you are but now we're haggling on price."  I'd rather lose a race as a non-whore than win one but prove I am.

Like I said, you just don't fucking get it. Winning is winning with the wrong people. Winning isn't winning when you elect people who vote for socialism half the time. You are not qualified to discuss logic with me. You can discuss "shady backgrounds" with me when the opponent isn't a fucking bearded Marxist.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2010 05:11 PM (OlN4e)

Oh, now I get it, Coons is so bad that Christine O'Donnell is good.  Perfect.  Once again, this is really the only argument CO supporters can make for her candidacy. 

Obviously I'm not qualified to discuss logic with you.  I don't know if anyone is.  You're the guy who made some terrible rape analogy to voting records.  I don't know if I want to burn a lot of calories trying to get inside your head and understand how you jumped straight to "rape" from voting.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 21, 2010 05:13 PM (HicGG)

So we have to protect the Republicans in Delaware from making a mistake by restricting the candidate base? If only they knew Delaware as well as we do, who have only driven through on the expressway about three times, huh? So lets let them choose between A and A', or better yet no choice at all.

Sorry, I'd rather let them choose, either way.

didn't anyone think to vet her?

Some did. But we were dismissed (along with all of her myriad of faults) as Beltway RINO Dem Cocksucking Establishment Hacks.

So now the group that helped screw us over is cutting its losses. Great. Thanks Amy Kremer. Now go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Chris in Va at October 21, 2010 05:16 PM (uCjoj)

Don't you get it, you stupid RINO fuck?  Vetting candidates is what pussy liberals do!  We're here to win elections or else we're all getting raped!!  Shut your fucking mouth and vote for Christine and don't ask any questions about her background!

And they're also the ones who won't be voting for her in the general election.

The primary is over, and she won the primary but will lose the general.  Water under the bridge.  All we can do now is damage control (divert money from her campaign to a competitive one) and hopefully learn a lesson about better vetting candidates before the primaries.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 21, 2010 05:19 PM (HicGG)

She's a real *social* conservative.  The part where she was suing a former employer for hurting her feelings with a demotion, or using campaign money for her rent doesn't give her a great conservative background in my view. 

Conservatives are self-reliant and productive people.  We generally look down on people who benefit from frivolous lawsuits.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2010 05:21 PM (plsiE)

Who's the We here?  O'D ran on her own, People Supported her on their own, She beat Castle because of Delaware votes, lots of people donated more money and she will win or lose in the general based on more Delaware votes or the lack of them.

Where is the place where any of us have a fucking say in ANY of this? (Assuming we aren't Delaware Voters)

We didn't whine about Brown because he did what O'Donnell did - WON THE PRIMARY. So take some of your own advice and stop whining about the candidate we've got. I'm half convinced your a Coons staffer. That's how in the bag you sound.

Right- because being remotely connected to reality makes one a Coons supporter.  Alright then.

When Brown's term comes up are you going to try and replace him in the primary with another unelectable candidate too?  Or are you prepared to learn a lesson from this?

Obviously I'm not qualified to discuss logic with you.  I don't know if anyone is.  You're the guy who made some terrible rape analogy to voting records.  I don't know if I want to burn a lot of calories trying to get inside your head and understand how you jumped straight to "rape" from voting.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 05:18 PM (cq3pU)

Perhaps you can wind up more than two synapses and realize that the fucking liftards are destroying this country, or raping it if you will. I would hate to make your head explode with difficult concepts. So don't strain yourself. I consider walking toward socialism the same direction as running toward it, time being the only variable.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 21, 2010 05:26 PM (HicGG)

There's about 2 commenters who are actual Delawarians. Stop shooting the artillery and everybody else.

Who's the We here?  O'D ran on her own, People Supported her on their own, She beat Castle because of Delaware votes, lots of people donated more money and she will win or lose in the general based on more Delaware votes or the lack of them.

Where is the place where any of us have a fucking say in ANY of this? (Assuming we aren't Delaware Voters)

Except she didn't run "on her own".  She ran- and likely won- because of the support from the Tea Party Express and Palin, who apparently didn't vet O'Donnell before throwing their support behind her.

Far from always, but sometimes "The Establishment" is right.

1) Run independent campaigns against the primary winner
2) Run write-in campaigns against the primary winner
3) Publicly trashed the primary winner

Funny. Castle didn't do any of those things. Not even #3 after the primary. He just said a few words about the commentators who were trashing him.

Which, after the way he was shit on, frankly must take more patience than most of us will ever have.

Posted by: RINO at October 21, 2010 05:23 PM (uCjoj)

I absolutely LOVE how the same people who demand honest, non-establishment candidates are also demanding that the establishment candidate who lost suddenly lie and say he respects and supports Christine O'Donnell.  

1.  They hate Castle and he's the worst thing that could ever happen, but they really want his support.

2.  They need honest candidates, but in this case what they really need is for a guy to lie and say he's all about O'Donnell when he clearly isn't.

Except she didn't run "on her own".  She ran- and likely won- because of the support from the Tea Party Express and Palin, who apparently didn't vet O'Donnell before throwing their support behind her.

Far from always, but sometimes "The Establishment" is right.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2010 05:28 PM (plsiE)

So write your bitter fucking screeds to them if you want to vent. They aren't on every comment thread.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2010 05:27 PM (OlN4e)

Yeah, keep patting yourself on the back for all these "difficult concepts" you're talking about.  Your arguments in this thread have been extremely erudite and persuasive, especially now that you're using the famous lefty "I know I'm too smart for you to understand, so you should just shut up" line of reasoning.

Hold on a minute here ya'll.

The TPE was in the game when she needed it.  She needed to get mailers and ad pieces out and the TPE was there for her to do that.

Since TPE and other groups got involved, her name recognition when through the roof.  Her own fundraising has been astronomical by comparison and frankly, the TPE dollars are not as needed now as they once were.

If she's pulling in sufficient cash to get what her team thinks needs to be done, then there is very good reason to pull back on TPE cash.   That cash can be used in races where the candidate doesn't have the spotlight.

I would be more wary of groups that come in late with cash over and above what is actually necessary.   Someone throwing a big pile of cash at a candidate late in the game is trying to buy a fundamentally different type of access than support groups that were in with the candidate earlier on.

Don't knock the TPE or O'Donnell about this, knock the TPE if they don't use the cash in another race that needs it. 

Posted by: LAI at October 21, 2010 05:33 PM (R4ub4)

OK, this will be at least the fourth time in this thread, but here goes: I would definitely support CO over Coons.

I don't think either one is honest or smart, or has a background that I admire in any way.  But CO does say the right things (sometimes), so she's the better candidate.  And that's literally the only thing I like about her. 

Yeah, keep patting yourself on the back for all these "difficult concepts" you're talking about.  Your arguments in this thread have been extremely erudite and persuasive, especially now that you're using the famous lefty "I know I'm too smart for you to understand, so you should just shut up" line of reasoning.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 05:32 PM (cq3pU)

You seem to think I wish to convince you of something. I don't. I don't give a shit what you think. We have a candidate and I support her, rather sitting around and whining about her not being good enough. You can shut up or keep whining like a little bitch about it. It's no skin off my nose.

candidate who lost suddenly lie and say he respects and supports Christine O'Donnell.  

Umm. No, not what I said. I think he despises her. And I don't blame him. If you were him you would too. But he hasn't been out trashing her since the primary.

Posted by: Chris in Va at October 21, 2010 05:33 PM (uCjoj)

I don't think he trashed her either; he just hasn't endorsed her.  And I think he would be lying if he suddenly did support her because he clearly does not.

At this point we're all supposed to hate the Republican establishment while simultaneously demanding that all Republicans support all Republicans all the time.

You seem to think I wish to convince you of something. I don't.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2010 05:40 PM (OlN4e)

In that case, you're very successful.

Don't forget...O'Donnell ran as a write in last time instead of standing by the GOP nominee. For others to claim everyone has to rally around her is a bit of a stretch.

Sorry, she won the primary fair and square. And you know, if Castle hadn't swallowed the man made global warming eco-hoax, he probably would have won his primary, and this general election. Castle LOST this seat. O'Donnell wasn't ready for prime time, but Castle STILL lost this seat.

"Well, at least we don't have Castle anymore.  Now, we have ... well, umm.  Can we get back to you on that?  Like, say, in 20-25 years, or so?"

Gee, how about SIX?

Are unprepared but principled rightists really worse than defeatist RINOs?

At this point we're all supposed to hate the Republican establishment while simultaneously demanding that all Republicans support all Republicans all the time.

Note how when the RINO wins the primary, we fall in line, but when one of our principled patriots wins the primary, they don't.

Posted by: LAI at October 21, 2010 05:50 PM (R4ub4)

He did when he won.  And even more after he won.

Gee, how about SIX?

Care to place a wager?

Nope, because I can't win against self-fulfilling prophets like you. I really can't

Are unprepared but principled rightists really worse than defeatist RINOs?

Yes.  Because they create Democrat incumbency. 

Even this year, when incumbency is at a steep discount, incumbency is the single biggest advantage an officeholder can have.  And, now, we're going to have a Democrat incumbent in Delaware, with a massive registration advantage.

Which, with Global Warming Hoax Castle, we *already* had. Spelled R-I-N-O. Again, as MikeTheMoose stated, Cap and Trade is a deal breaker. Even Scott Brown won't support it. I accept squish but their are limits.

And I understand pragmatism--I am in Cali, where pro-life candidates start out with two strikes against them. I know when battles are futile, like abortion. But the Global Warming Hoax? Come on!

So someone who votes the way you don't like half the time is just like someone who rapes you using half of their penis?  Terrific comparison there, bro.

You're doing a good job making the Christine O'Donnell camp seem extremely thoughtful and intelligent.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 04:57 PM (cq3pU)

No. The point is you are still DICKED either way. There is no degree of being 'fucked over'. You either are or you aren't.

It's a damn shame Snowe, Collins, and Graham weren't up this year. Nothing would have made me happier than to see them out of there.

I'm still pissed that McCain lied to the voters again, and got away with it.

Note how when the RINO wins the primary, we fall in line, but when one of our principled patriots unelectable candidates wins the primary, they don't.

Fixed that for ya.

How much support do you think Eric Wargotz or Jim Huffman is getting?  They're running for Senate too in case you hadn't heard of them, which would be understandable because they have almost no chance either- and they haven't gotten the negative national press that O'Donnell has recieved.

No. The point is you are still DICKED either way. There is no degree of being 'fucked over'. You either are or you aren't. 

Posted by: blindside at October 21, 2010 05:54 PM (x7g7t)

There definitely is a degree of being "fucked over."  Had McCain been elected, he probably wouldn't have been a good president, but he wouldn't have been the complete fucking travesty that Obama is. 

You think we'd have Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court for the next 40 years if McCain had won?

The only good that came from Obama being elected over McCain was that the tea party came into existence and we can only *hope* that it turns out to be a net positive once we start winning elections and putting some new people in power.  But right now?  We're getting fucked over as bad as we possibly could be because we nominated an idiot in 2008.

Note how when the RINO wins the primary, we fall in line, but when one of our principled patriots unelectable candidates wins the primary, they don't.

Fixed that for ya.

And the RINOs are just so000o-electable, *cough* McCain *cough*.

I grant you that O'Donnell was and is not ready for prime time, but Castle STILL lost this seat.

We have been talking about tactic here? You supported Castle for tactical reasons? You can do all your CO bashing after the election. What 's the point of doing it now?

I keep seeing accusations that people here are "bashing" O'Donnell, but fail to see the bashing. 

Or is it considered "bashing" her to suggest that a conservative candidate in a solid blue state, with a lot of bad press (deserved or not), and still trailing by double digits a mere 12 days before the election isn't going to win?

He did when he won.  And even more after he won.

Posted by: robviously at October 21, 2010 05:53 PM (cq3pU)

Yeah we know that.  He also did after he lost the primaries or don't you agree with that? 

Posted by: polynikes at October 21, 2010 05:56 PM (m2CN7)

He did, but what he did for conservatism in the wake of losing primaries is about 0.01% as important as what he did for the movement by winning elections and being an excellent conservative leader.

Easy answer, right? Nope.

"I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard," Medina replied. "There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that."

That pretty much speaks for itself, for Medina, and for her supporters.

And the RINOs are just so000o-electable, *cough* McCain *cough*.

I grant you that O'Donnell was and is not ready for prime time, but Castle STILL lost this seat.

He did, but he was an almost guaranteed win in the general- not in spite of the fact that he was a RINO, but likely because of it.  Were it not for O'Donnell's *ahem* colorful history and circumstances (I'm being kind here), she might've been able to shift to the center for the general election and have a non-zero chance, but she doesn't.

I don't understand why some of you have such a difficult concept with the notion that rock-solid conservatives don't win in blue states.  The reason they're blue is because there are a lot more liberals living (and voting) there than conservatives.  A lefty might be convinced to vote for a "moderate" Republican, but a Tancredo or DeMint?  There's a reason it doesn't happen.  Even if they won by running as "moderates" then voted 100% conservative, they'd be gone next election.

As usual, DrewM brings the sanity.

That said, I'm writing in Teh Fred! on Nov 2, and the fact that he doesn't live in Minnesota won't stop me.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 21, 2010 06:35 PM (HicGG)

I think it's weird the CO has become the litmus test for who is and who is not a true conservative.  The people who don't like CO and didn't want her to be the candidate in Delaware probably agree with her most ardent supporters on literally every other race in the country this year.  But, for some reason, not falling in line with her long shot run at a Senate seat is proof that you aren't a real conservative or are a troll or plant from a rival campaign.  It's bizarre.

This blog seems to have wasted time on her in terms of criticizing her.  Why did ace waste his time writing this post.  He should have used that precious time to write about other winnable races.  You contradict yourself constantly.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of what Ace or those of us displeased with losing the seat wrote that amounts to criticism.  He suggested that trying to raise money for her is a mistake, because she can't win.  How is stating the obvious criticizing her? 

>>>The original post was nothing more than an "I-told-you-so" gloat. Did it feel good enough to justify calling out the circular firing squad?

It kind of did, actually.

Expect a shitload more of it on November 3rd.

Ben said up thread we had to learn from this that the media will attack our weaknesses relentlessly and cost us 10% of the fair vote.

I thought that was pretty obvious already.  I thought we were wise enough to pick solid people who at least could not be assailed on personal grounds.  Or who were way out of sync with their voter pool.

I guess for some it's a lesson.  I hope for others it will be a leson they get this time.

LIsten to me:

IT

IS

NOT

JUST

ABOUT

DOCTRINE

AND

IDEOLOGY.

It's especially not just about doctrine and ideology when you're running a candidate who differs from the doctrine and idiology of her would-be consitutentis.  You'd better HOPE you have some pretty serious personal attributes to fall back on in that case.

But no, next time out, same thing:  WE CAN WIN JUST BY MOUTHING PURE DOCTRINE AND IDEOLOGY WITH ANY CANDIATE IN ANY STATE.

Fine.  Whatever. 

I just got here and didn't read through, but one of the gossip sites reports this blind item:

There is one current political battle that is even uglier than the rest. To avoid partisan bias, weÂ’ll deliberately leave out the party affiliations. It involves a race between a man and a woman that isnÂ’t terribly close.   If the woman looks as if she may start moving up in the polls, the man is prepared to launch an attack centered on disclosing a procedure the woman had years ago to terminate a pregnancy. Nice.

If this is true, is this CO'D and Coons, or someone else (Miller/Moocowscrew, Moonbeam/Meg Whitman.)?

>>>That's so kind of you guys not to go hog wild on her.  Maybe he could go full hog on Coons.  Ever thought of that?

Why?  Are there a lot of coons voters her I need to win over?

Coons is going to win due to a reckless and unreasoning choice made by some. 

ANd yeah, I do want to say I told you so.  Because at least maybe we can at least get a life lesson out of this debacle.  And not do it AGAIN in two years.

but that seems unlikely too.   Thus, the narrrative is already establishes that if O'Donnell loses it's just becaue RINOS sabotaged her, and not, say, because "RINOS" wer right (and TRue Conservatives wrong) about whether a bright red evangelical with no accompolishments to speak of was a viable candidate in a blue state with a more secular bent.

>>>Send us candidates at least minimally capable of participating in the saving of our nation.

Is that waht the O'Donnell Partisans did?

They didn't.  I said, and I meant it, that if a viable conservative challenger to Castle arose -- say a Marine, a soldier, a doctor -- I would have supported him.  I was telling the truth. 

"The establishment" did not forward a good conservative candidate.  But neither did the True COnservatives put forth a good conservative candidate.

Unlike many of her supporters, I was familiar with her.  I did warn people:  She often sounds like she has no idea what she's talking about and she will not wear well.

This concept -- that we can put up whatever wounded duck candidate speaks the most True Conservative doctrine -- is going to destroy the movement. 

You know, some strategy and candidate evaluation is in fact necessary.  I don't want to just keep counting on prayer to see us through.

Hey braniac the primary is over.  Your choice is ODonnell or Coons. 

Given the fact that nothing any of us can say or do will result in O'Donnell winning, the choice is Coons or Coons.  Spending time, money and effort supporting a candidate with approximately zero chance at winning is bad strategy.

For all the good they did in supporting viable candidates like Miller and Angle, Palin and the TPE fucked up.  I don't expect them to admit it openly, but I suspect they know it even if their blind followers don't.  Hopefully they don't repeat that mistake- I doubt that ensuring a liberal wins the seat is what they intended, but that's what they did.

>>>So as Drew was asked, does that mean in 2012 when Olympia Snowe of Maine is up again, you will advocate supporting her in the primary and general for the same reasons?

Nope, I would oppose her in the primary.  Assuming someone credible came forward to challenge her.

If she won I would tepidly suppport her in the gneral.

ace, she will win.

The Force, renew your meds.  You need them.