Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 15, 2010

WHEN A CASTLE GETS TORN DOWN IN DELAWARE.... Prominent far-right blogger Erick Erickson noted recently that a vote for a right-wing extremist candidate in Delaware's GOP Senate primary would likely hurt his party, but he just didn't care. "I'd rather see the Democrat get elected than see Mike Castle get elected," he said. "Seriously, I know many of you disagree with me, but if the majority depends on Mike Castle, to hell with the majority."

The Republican Party desperately hoped primary voters in Delaware disagreed. Indeed, this was supposed to be one of the year's easiest pick-up opportunities -- Rep. Mike Castle (R), a relatively moderate former governor, is a giant of Delaware politics, and Democrats had no real expectations of beating him in November. The party reveled at the symbolic significance of winning Vice President Biden's old seat just two years after the presidential race.

And now that excitement has vanished. A race Republicans expected to win fairly easily is now a contest Democrats expect to win fairly easily.

Christine O'Donnell's surprise victory in the Delaware Senate GOP primary Tuesday left Republicans in conflict, senior party officials openly fretting that the Senate is now out of reach and Democrats overjoyed that the opposition has handed them a late and desperately needed chance to reframe the national argument about the 2010 elections.

Aside from the political implications of the upset, the outcome prompted a round of deep Republican soul-searching about what it said about their party when a political pillar in Delaware like Rep. Mike Castle, a respected lawmaker who was considered a shoo-in for the Senate seat, could not even come within six points of defeating the controversial and still largely unknown O'Donnell.

As the dust settled, and with all the precincts reporting, an apparent crazy person had won 53% of the vote to Castle's 47%. Only about 57,000 voters participated in the primary election.

This isn't the first time hysterical Tea Party activists bucked the party's leadership to nominate an extremist -- see recent results in Alaska, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado, and New York -- but it was supposed to be different in Delaware. The GOP establishment and its preferred candidate saw this coming weeks ago, and acted quickly to prevent a disaster, attacking O'Donnell, dishing dirt to reporters, and even filing an FEC complaint against her.

It didn't matter. When inmates run asylums, it never does.

To be sure, it's a strange year, and simply writing off O'Donnell's chances in November would be a mistake. Dems have every reason to be optimistic, but they can't take anything for granted.

That said, O'Donnell instantly joins the Crazy Caucus and may in fact be in the running for the nuttiest of them all. She has, after all, equated masturbation with adultery as part of her bizarre religious crusade. The chairman of the Delaware Republican Party characterized his party's U.S. Senate nominee as "a perennial candidate unworthy of being elected dog catcher." Even Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, which rallies behind right-wing fringe candidates, wanted nothing to do with her.

By last night, the National Republican Senatorial Committee had sent word that it will not make any investments in O'Donnell's general-election campaign, and Karl Rove declared the race a lost cause for the GOP.

Given the political trajectory of the last several months, it's hard to believe Democrats could be this lucky.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

What a year in the Republican Senate primaries.
The "send a chicken to your doctor" lady in NV lost, but the 'don't choke your chicken' lady in DE wins.
I wonder if 'a chicken in every' pot might have been the metaphor they were all looking for?

Posted by: c u n d gulag on September 15, 2010 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

The Dimocrats will find a way to blow it.

Posted by: rrk1 on September 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

Castle also refused to endorse her. She's toast.

Posted by: TR on September 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

Given the political trajectory of the last several months, it's hard to believe Democrats could be this lucky.

Which means that it's going to take an extraordinary effort for Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time. But I'm sure the party is up to the task.

I remember Democrats celebrating when Ronald Reagan won the Republican presidential primary in 1980, and how well that worked out. I can't wait for the Congressional hearings on Milia Obama's gang affiliations ("Of course she's in a gang. I mean, look at her!")


Posted by: SteveT on September 15, 2010 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Well, this is one for the books, a candidate running on a anti masturbation platform!

Posted by: js on September 15, 2010 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone remember seeing Christine O'Donnell on Politically Incorrect years ago? I remember one episode where she asserted that she never lied and never would. Maher asked her the old classic conundrum about if you were harboring Jews in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo came to your door and asked "Are there any Jews in this building, would you lie?" She was flummoxed and said, "I wouldn't lie, but I would wait for God to come speak to me personally and tell me what to do." It was such an arrogant answer; God would help her when he wasn't coming to speak to those being killed or being killers. I can't believe that woman is the Republican nominee for senator. Totally ridiculous.

Posted by: timothy on September 15, 2010 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

"Only about 57,000" voters participated - It looked like the difference was only several thousand votes. Anyone have the numbers as a percentage of eligible voters?

Posted by: John R on September 15, 2010 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

"Given the political trajectory of the last several months, it's hard to believe Democrats could be this lucky.

Which means that it's going to take an extraordinary effort for Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time. But I'm sure the party is up to the task."


Delaware Progressives will stay home to teach Obama a lesson.

Posted by: kd bart on September 15, 2010 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

I'm afraid you've hit the nail on the head. The Republicans are terrified that the tea partiers, with their insistence on hard-line orthodoxy, will blow their chances, but for every tea party candidate there's a Glenn Greenwald on the left telling the faithful not to dirty their hands with a vote for a candidate who isn't enough of a purist. And if Angle, O'Donnell and the rest of them do go to Washington, Greenwald should step right up and take a bow, because it will be at least as much his victory as theirs. Just like Ralph Nader in 2000, he will have Taught The Democrats A Lesson, and it will be worth every drop of blood shed in the next couple of years.

Posted by: kd bart on September 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK

OK SteveT - I was 27 when Reagan won in 1980 and I have absolutely no recollection of Democrats celebrating his nomination. Jimmy Carter was in deep trouble because of the economy and because of the hostiges in Iran. Reagan's optimism, whether genuine or faked, was a positive influence on voters who were paying 15% for their mortgages. That circumstance made those of us who self-identify as devout Democras sick to our stomach.

Why don't you get off the negative horse and try to find some hope in an opportunity found in an otherwise dismal election season.

Posted by: Vandal on September 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK

"Only about 57,000 voters participated in the primary election."

Wiki says The population of Delaware is 873,092. That means only 6.5 % of the population voted. (Actually a bit larger percentage, since few Delawarians under the age of 18 go to the polls-this ain't Chicago. . .)

Several things can be deduced from the low turn-out and the triumph of another whack-o: Most voters are not paying attention to primaries, and those that do are low information zealots. Q: How many of her supporters even KNOW about the masturbation statement? Or that she claimed to have beaten Joe Biden in two of Delaware's three counties? Less than zero?

But to SEE what swayed these voters, one only needs to watch the TeeVee. O'Donnell is young, attractive (super teeth!) and has learned makeup for TV. While Castle is an old, grey, balding politician well past his sell date. And we all know (thank you, Sister Sarah) that appearance trumps substance in 21st Century politics!

Posted by: DAY on September 15, 2010 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

No mention at all of the Democratic Candidate? Interesting omission suggesting that this race is only about crazy GOPers and not about a contest between the two parties.

Posted by: k l m on September 15, 2010 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder if DE was open primaries, dem crossover vote for the nut?

Posted by: the seal on September 15, 2010 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

I watched the Castle speech after he lost, he really seemed quite a nice level headed individual, and apparently would have worked with dems. God help us if these tea baggers get to Washington.

Posted by: js on September 15, 2010 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

How does mocking O'Donnell advance the "liberal" cause?

I don't know why someone who did marketing for one of the largest grossing films of all time is determined to be "crazy". And that same someone regularly was on TV and news/opinion shows from the time she was 24.

The "crazy" person just did something that Steve and the other name callers all readily admit was something the entire Democratic party in Delaware couldn't do: she defeated Mike Castle.

Oh and why is masturbation sometimes referred to as Onanism? Oh yes...

"But Onan ... spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.".
Genesis 38:9-10 (New International Version)
In other words, God killed someone for masturbating.

Sure it's the Old Testament and yes, I know that there's lots of context and other reasons to ignore it but even so...but it's still in the Bible.

So was God "crazy" back then in the time of Genesis like O'Donnell apparently is now?

Posted by: Observer on September 15, 2010 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

Given the political trajectory of the last several months, it's hard to believe Democrats could be this lucky.

It's not really luck. In a two-party system, as a party grows, it reveals fissures not apparent when smaller. As a party grows, the promise of power entices a power struggle.

Posted by: Zachriel on September 15, 2010 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

I'm old enoough to remember storied Democratic prankster Dick Tuck. He once organized a demonstration called Daddies For A Decent America, that advocated clothing animals. He once got Nixon in front of signs in some Chinatown that said "What about the Hughes loan" (in Chinese characters). Imagine what he could do with O'Donnell - Chaste Hands, Pure Heart; Fillet that Chicken, Don't Choke it; Lust in the Heart, Garden Gnomes in the Bush.

This one is EASY. The only question is whether to nationalize her to make a point about overall Republican insanity.

Posted by: walt on September 15, 2010 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

"But Onan ... spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother"

So this means it's okay when WOMEN do it. No semen - or ova - are lost in producing these female orgasms, so all is hunkey-dorrey in the eyes of Jehovah. Right?

Posted by: ktimene on September 15, 2010 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know why someone who did marketing for one of the largest grossing films of all time is determined to be "crazy".

A deeply antisemitic film made by a violently mentally ill, sexist, racist Jew-baiter? Yeah, I'd put that on my resume.

Posted by: Frank on September 15, 2010 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, and if Howard Dean was still in charge at the DNC instead of Tim Kaine, Dems would be looking to kick some red behinds instead of cowering in the corner. Thanks so much Rahm. Enjoy the sight of our hopes and dreams swirling down the drain on your way out the door to your Chicago fiefdom.

Posted by: bluewave on September 15, 2010 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

NOT knowing what kind of a campaign Castle ran its hard to really know the details of what happened, still the results suggest a boredom on the part of the less radical repubs.

Perhaps they voted with their butts and stayed home figuring the primary was already decided. OR that ...

THEY DID NOT LIKE ANY OF THE CANDIDATES.

If the latter is true, and its just speculation, those states with low turnouts in Republican Primaries could go to Democrats...

IF

Democrats GET out the VOTE.

Pound those doors boys and girls. You may not love your candidate, but you certainly loath the other.
.
.
.
Meanwhile,
Please stop reading the Wall Street Journal, its bad, boring and biased.

Posted by: KurtRex1453 on September 15, 2010 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

It's not really luck. In a two-party system, as a party grows, it reveals fissures not apparent when smaller.

Except that the GOP's dilemma is occurring not because the party is growing to include more diverse interests, but because it is shrinking to a die-hard base of insane zealots.

Posted by: Jon on September 15, 2010 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

Delaware was a closed primary.

Posted by: kd bart on September 15, 2010 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

In other words, God killed someone for masturbating.

Technically, it was coitus interruptus.


Posted by: Gregory on September 15, 2010 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

All the research I have done indicates God is a real well one . God is a happy well adjusted sort , provided God's will is followed in every nuance and possible whim . A caveat ? I think no ! It is so well known how well balanced Gods judgment is his choice of friends in particular . Noah stands out as a not just a wise selection , it is almost prescient , as after some bad weather Noah was his only friend .
P.S.
I too recall the reagun mess and , disturbingly or not , bring no resolute tactical , triumphal celebratory memories to mind .
I have never claimed any party affiliation , so perhaps the "memory" of Democratic tactical celebration , or triumphal , was an in party matter . You miss all the parties you want when you are busy , that is why there is a party that means to keep you busy worrying about being busy .

Posted by: FRP on September 15, 2010 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

By last night, the National Republican Senatorial Committee had sent word that it will not make any investments in O'Donnell's general-election campaign, and Karl Rove declared the race a lost cause for the GOP.

That's OK. The Today Show allowed her hock her campaign coffers on air in front of a national audience.

Posted by: SWENXOF on September 15, 2010 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, technically that's true but Onanism refers to masturbation nethertheless and I believe it was because it's a looser definition from back in the day

Posted by: Observer on September 15, 2010 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

"So was God "crazy" back then in the time of Genesis like O'Donnell apparently is now?"

Of course! He ordered genocide, death penalty for honosexuals and masturbation - and killed the whole world's population (besides Noah & family).

I'd call this bat-shit crazy. Who doesn't?

Posted by: Vokoban on September 15, 2010 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Yoooohoooo! The Dems catch a break.

Even more importantly, though, this makes it much less likely that Lord Nelson of Nebraska and/or Mr. Lieberdem of Connecticut will yield a final vote veto in a Dem Senate of 50 or 51 members. With any luck at all Dems will have 52 seats and could even reach 53 or 54 if Giannoulias or Bennett win. That also assumes that anything actually comes up for a non-procedural vote in the next Senate, but we can dream.

And Mrs. Snowe, how shall you position yourself in run-up to 2012?

Posted by: Bill on September 15, 2010 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, and if Howard Dean was still in charge at the DNC instead of Tim Kaine, Dems would be looking to kick some red behinds instead of cowering in the corner. Thanks so much Rahm. Enjoy the sight of our hopes and dreams swirling down the drain on your way out the door to your Chicago fiefdom.

Nate Silver gives O'Donnell a 17 percent chance of beating Coons. Your hysterics are highly misplaced here, but entirely predictable and wholly entertaining.

Posted by: reality based on September 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

So was God "crazy" back then in the time of Genesis like O'Donnell apparently is now?

I don't know; why don't you read Deuteronomy and Leviticus and let us know if that's the standard you want to use for running a modern democracy, and, if not, why God's revealed word is only ok for you sometimes? Would it be crazy to enslave a conquered population? Why not? God commands it in the bible, after all.

When you're done with that you can ponder whether, if God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?

In the meantime, please excuse those of us who think that a politician must be somewhat disturbed to consider masturbation a proper subject for political discourse.

Posted by: Jon on September 15, 2010 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

@ kdbart: Greenwald is just one guy. He's not holding a gun to anyone's head. Embrace the discourse.

@Observer: Time to open the trap door on your forehead and let the moths out again.

Posted by: Haystack Calhoun on September 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

"...a round of deep Republican soul-searching about what it said about their party..."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! That's really funny Steve.

Posted by: robert on September 15, 2010 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

"Only about 57,000" voters participated"

Turnout is key, and I fear it will be very low. Alot of damage can be done by a small number of people, and that could result in these lunatics getting elected. This will be no great victory for the tea baggers, it will simply be a matter of too many people not bothering to vote.

Posted by: SaintZak on September 15, 2010 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

"The "crazy" person just did something that Steve and the other name callers all readily admit was something the entire Democratic party in Delaware couldn't do: she defeated Mike Castle."

Uh...she defeated him among Republican voters. Democrats would have to defeat him in a general election--much more difficult, since lots of Democrats vote for Castle in DE. Lots of Kerry/Edwards and Castle signs on yards...

Posted by: Anthony on September 15, 2010 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

So was God "crazy" back then in the time of Genesis like O'Donnell apparently is now?


Yes!

Posted by: jackything on September 15, 2010 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

a round of deep Republican soul-searching

Is that supposed to mean searching their souls, or searching _for_ their souls? I guess in either case it's sure to be as fruitful as Sasquatch-searching.

Posted by: FlipYrWhig on September 15, 2010 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Jon said: "In the meantime, please excuse those of us who think that a politician must be somewhat disturbed to consider masturbation a proper subject for political discourse.".

I'm guessing you must have missed this semen stain on a blue dress controversy? are you going to indict every member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, who participated in that process then?


Also, @Haystack: I'm not saying I'm agreeing with her; just saying it's in the Bible, for better or for worse. It would be more honest if people wrote what @jackything wrote.

Posted by: Observer on September 15, 2010 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

"Prominent far-right blogger Erick Erickson"...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I believe you misspelled "prominent far-right CNN contributor" there: "Erick Erickson serves as a contributor and conservative political analyst on CNN’s John King, USA.

"In addition to serving as a CNN contributor, Erickson is the Editor-in-Chief of RedState.com"

According to CNN, he's "a perfect fit" (or possibly throws one) ... Either way, give the devil his due.

Posted by: Fleas correct the era on September 15, 2010 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

There are characteristics that link several of the extreme right female candidates, beginning with Sarah Palin. Think about the optics: Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Engle, Michelle Backman, etc. If you see them in front of a camera, they are the steroetypical attractive, white women flashing that constant sweet vacuous smile. Without really digesting their rhetoric and beliefs - remember the superficial minute by minute culture - they fit into a very traditional non-threatening “nice girl image”. That serves a purpose. The low information voter and older traditional white voters have a candidate they can embrace. Even conceding that some of the extremist views make it into the a voter’s calculations, these candidates can channel all manner of arbitrary anger and fear of change into a familiar and safe package. Don’t discount the optics.

Posted by: Diane Rodriguez on September 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Actually while Onanism refers to spilling your seed without issue, Onan actually wasn't masturbating. He was told by God to marry his older brother's wife and get her pregnant, and the child would count as his brother's, and would inherit the estate and disinherit Onan. What Onan was doing was sexing up his new wife but not coming inside her, but instead spilling his seed on the ground. So God killed Onan not for masturbating, but for being a wise-ass, which is far more justified.

Posted by: Skipjack on September 15, 2010 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Has anybody else noticed that female candidates get more of a free ride with the voters? It appears that the "Palin" types can be as sarcastic, lying, unaccomplished, etc. but still get a pass with the electorate, both male and female. Thus Mike Castle gets criticized for going after O'Donnell's glaring flaws as a candidate and as a productive member of society for that matter. Miss O'Donnell can hint that he's gay and talk of him "getting his man pants on" to the delight of her voters. Other than making me feel deeply depressed by the hate culture that's snarling through the nation, I suggest that the Delaware Democrats tread carefully when attacking Miss O'Donnell and attack her they must. Only Miss O'Donnell and Palin get to mock on a personal basis. It ain't fair, but Delaware Dems can attack her on qualifications, her nutty positions and make her debate. The more they make her talk, the better. Let the Delaware press go after her on her financial messes.

Posted by: Kathryn on September 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

In other words, God killed someone for masturbating.

Technically, it was coitus interruptus.


The sin was not masturbating or pulling out. It was refusing to perform the "duty of a brother-in-law" to continue the male line after the older brother ER died childless. The lady in question, Tamar, had an interesting career subsequently. It's one of those stories they don't tell in Sunday school, and is all the more interesting because one of the children of her escapade (tricking Judah into impregnating her adulterously) is an ancestor of King David.

The custom among Jews continued into modern times, at least for the female. My grandfather's first wife died shortly after giving birth to a daughter. According to law, her sister married the widower and bore him 6 more children, the last of whom was my father. To do so, she had to be sent from Lithuania to London, Ontario (later they moved to Brooklyn). So I'm here because my grandmother, unlike Onan, obeyed the law.

People who think the Bible is an unerring guide to life should actually read it. They might be surprised, not to say, shocked. In particular, check out Jepthah's daughter and the Levite's concubine (Book of Judges), David and Jonathan (I Samuel), Tamar, Lot's daughters, the angels in Sodom, and the slaughter in Shechem (Genesis), not to mention the whole Book of Joshua.

Posted by: jrosen on September 15, 2010 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Jrosen: "People who think the Bible is an unerring guide to life should actually read it."

everyone, including me, knows that the technicalities of Onanism. People on the left love to point out technicalities.

Back in the real world, The Catholic view of masturbation has been consistent for all of the Catholic Church's 2,000-year history. Early Catholic theologians universally condemned both masturbation and contraception as sinful. and not for nothing did they call it Onanism.

The original point being that when we call O'Donnell "crazy" for her views on this, well then so must be God and today's Pope. You need to follow the logical progression.

But calling the Pope "crazy" won't do; establishment members on the left only punch downwards.

It would be better if the so-called smart people in the Democratic party stopped labelling their opponents "crazy" or "stupid".

Posted by: Observer on September 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

'Scuse me, reality based. I was not speaking merely of the Dems chances in Delaware, but to the larger issue of the House and Senate being in play, which shouldn't even be the case, given 20 years of Republican mismanagement. Even the so called "sane" Republicans have been behaving in ways that are cold-out crazy as far as actual governing behavior is concerned, and in case you haven't noticed, Rand Paul is still ahead in KY, Pat Toomey in PA, and Sharron Angle is not that far behind in NV. We already lost the VA gov and let us all join hands and praise Senator Martha Coakley from MA. What's that you say? She lost to Scott Brown, yet ANOTHER crazy-ass R who managed to semi-conceal his craziness from tuned out voters by driving around in a pickup truck and pretending to be a regular guy?

What I'm saying is, the Dems have done a lousy job of taking the fight not only to the Republicans, but to the public, by emphasizing day in and day out how crazy the R policies are. And yeah, I think it has to do with the whole Rahm/Clinton 3rd way, and progressives acting all meek and ashamed of their policies and values, and Tim Kaine at the DNC is both symptom and problem with that. Funny, I'm not hearing anything about how his job is on the line depending on this fall's results. Granted, the Rs are getting a huge boost from the media thumb on the scale, the Koch Bros and their ilk, etc.

And you'll have to pardon my freak-outedness. I live in SC, where Dems thought crazy-ass Jim DeMint, the man who was willing to say that unwed mothers shouldn't be allowed to be schoolteachers, wouldn't be able to beat their sane, reasonable nominee (a moderate conservative retired university president). Life in South Carolina quickly convinces you that PT Barnum and HL Mencken were optimists.

Posted by: bluewave on September 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Castle will pull a Lieberman, run as an independent and win by a significant margin.

Posted by: lwh on September 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

2 Kings 2:23-24 is a cautionary tale ;o)

Posted by: genome on September 15, 2010 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Let's all give O'Donnell a hand, shall we?

Posted by: GP on September 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

So was God "crazy" back then in the time of Genesis like O'Donnell apparently is now?

Yes. This has been another edition of SATSQ.

Posted by: kth on September 15, 2010 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

It's probably my cynicism speaking, but I suspect that the only difference between Castle as the nominee + O'Donnell is the margin of victory over Coons. Where Castle would have won in a landslide, O'Donnell will win by perhaps a few dozen ...votes. It's classic Karl Rove politics: motivate your base to vote, and it doesn't matter how much you win by, as long as you win.

I desperately hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that the strategy will yield Sen. Elect Sharrrrrron Angle, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, and Christine O'Donnell this November.

While it has been suggested that independents won't vote for this nincompoop, and that independents decided elections, that leaves out one critical factor: Democratic turnout is expected to be low, or at least below what it was in 2006 and 2008. Combine low Democratic turnout w/revved up teabagger Republicans and, let's be generous, half the independent vote, and it gives O'Donnell a better-than-decent chance of winning.

-Z

Posted by: Zorro on September 15, 2010 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

HEY, FUCKFACE!

That means all of you supposed liberals-
American politics is a cesspool.
The Democrats are craven cowards and mostly worthless. The Republicans... I don't even have words... well, I do, but too many and too dirty.
Here's an assesment from an actual, no shit, socialist from Denmark:
If you, in a fit of moral pique (though understandable) decide to let the conservatives run wild on you and the entire public of the U.S.
because you won't vote, you're swine who won't swallow your pride.
I agree with your judgements, actually, in fact my own are much more harsh.
But if you haven't got a credible third option/party (and you SERIOUSLY don't!), then, as sad and fucked up as it may be, all you have left is fighting for a standstill, or at least a slowdown of the enemy advance.

Posted by: HMDK on September 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly