2010 Primaries Thread (It's all over now, baby blue)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

Castle, Grayson, Snowe and Collins have nothing to do with what destroyed the GOP majority. The majority was lost because of situation in iraq (Not the fact we were in Iraq) and incompetetance by Republicans of all the ideological strands. Punishing all moderates for the stupidity of Republicans all across the spectrum is counter-productive and dangerous?

Sounds like you're still in the same fantasyland the rest of the GOP was stuck in in both 2006 and 2008.

Sorry, but Americans don't want to just turn back the clock to those glorious Bush years when big government Republicans ran the show. And no, Americans didn't vote out the Republicans because they wanted Congress to assault Iraq even more aggressively, despite the claims of McCain & Co with regard to their heroic "surge".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I use multiple criteria, as I implicitly indicated in the thread you started asking that very question.

Oh Libertas, fighting with you is so much fun, as you resort to the same talking points and generic arguements you throw out at everyone who disagrees with you in even the slightest way, despite the fact that you know far better then that when it comes to me.

I have no desire whatsoever to return to the days or Delay, Hastert and Frist. I have stated so repeatedly. Of course you don't care, as long as you can scream "Neocon" at someone.

Actually the polls showed that people's opinions of Iraq started to change and the GOP's numbers on that issue did as well. The Problem was the same time people began to realize that, the economy began unraveling and Iraq fell from 45% importance to 20% and Economy went up above 50%. So the overall effect was zero in terms of the Republican's overall ratings. The people wanted a change in strategy, whether pulling out or putting more in, they saw that the current strategy wasn't working and they either wanted something that did or they wanted out.

Americans were all for the War before it began to decline, and success appeared impossible.

Actually this has proved that you don't. You refuse to recognize competence as a factor aside from ideology. In your mind, if someone is more in line with what you want, they are more competent. That is not so. The same way moderation is no guarrentee of competence. 

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

Castle, Grayson, Snowe and Collins have nothing to do with what destroyed the GOP majority. The majority was lost because of situation in iraq (Not the fact we were in Iraq) and incompetetance by Republicans of all the ideological strands. Punishing all moderates for the stupidity of Republicans all across the spectrum is counter-productive and dangerous?

Sounds like you're still in the same fantasyland the rest of the GOP was stuck in in both 2006 and 2008.

Sorry, but Americans don't want to just turn back the clock to those glorious Bush years when big government Republicans ran the show. And no, Americans didn't vote out the Republicans because they wanted Congress to assault Iraq even more aggressively, despite the claims of McCain & Co with regard to their heroic "surge".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I use multiple criteria, as I implicitly indicated in the thread you started asking that very question.

Oh Libertas, fighting with you is so much fun, as you resort to the same talking points and generic arguements you throw out at everyone who disagrees with you in even the slightest way, despite the fact that you know far better then that when it comes to me.

I have no desire whatsoever to return to the days or Delay, Hastert and Frist. I have stated so repeatedly. Of course you don't care, as long as you can scream "Neocon" at someone.

Actually the polls showed that people's opinions of Iraq started to change and the GOP's numbers on that issue did as well. The Problem was the same time people began to realize that, the economy began unraveling and Iraq fell from 45% importance to 20% and Economy went up above 50%. So the overall effect was zero in terms of the Republican's overall ratings. The people wanted a change in strategy, whether pulling out or putting more in, they saw that the current strategy wasn't working and they either wanted something that did or they wanted out.

Americans were all for the War before it began to decline, and success appeared impossible.

Yeah, alright, I'm not interested in hearing stale old Iraq war apologetics. Even Republicans are starting to admit that the whole war was one big mistake.
 
If Republicans take power and make war the centerpiece of their agenda again, they'll be kicked right out on their asses before they even knew what hit them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I highly value competence. That's why I won't support incompetent candidates, like that buffoonish clown you supported, J.D. Hayworth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

Castle, Grayson, Snowe and Collins have nothing to do with what destroyed the GOP majority. The majority was lost because of situation in iraq (Not the fact we were in Iraq) and incompetetance by Republicans of all the ideological strands. Punishing all moderates for the stupidity of Republicans all across the spectrum is counter-productive and dangerous?

Sounds like you're still in the same fantasyland the rest of the GOP was stuck in in both 2006 and 2008.

Sorry, but Americans don't want to just turn back the clock to those glorious Bush years when big government Republicans ran the show. And no, Americans didn't vote out the Republicans because they wanted Congress to assault Iraq even more aggressively, despite the claims of McCain & Co with regard to their heroic "surge".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I use multiple criteria, as I implicitly indicated in the thread you started asking that very question.

Oh Libertas, fighting with you is so much fun, as you resort to the same talking points and generic arguements you throw out at everyone who disagrees with you in even the slightest way, despite the fact that you know far better then that when it comes to me.

I have no desire whatsoever to return to the days or Delay, Hastert and Frist. I have stated so repeatedly. Of course you don't care, as long as you can scream "Neocon" at someone.

Actually the polls showed that people's opinions of Iraq started to change and the GOP's numbers on that issue did as well. The Problem was the same time people began to realize that, the economy began unraveling and Iraq fell from 45% importance to 20% and Economy went up above 50%. So the overall effect was zero in terms of the Republican's overall ratings. The people wanted a change in strategy, whether pulling out or putting more in, they saw that the current strategy wasn't working and they either wanted something that did or they wanted out.

Americans were all for the War before it began to decline, and success appeared impossible.

Yeah, alright, I'm not interested in hearing stale old Iraq war apologetics. Even Republicans are starting to admit that the whole war was one big mistake.
 
If Republicans take power and make war the centerpiece of their agenda again, they'll be kicked right out on their asses before they even knew what hit them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I highly value competence. That's why I won't support incompetent candidates, like that buffoonish clown you supported, J.D. Hayworth.

Hayworth has issues, but not on the level of O'Donnell. He also isn't dumb as he is carcicatured. He is piss poor on the campaign front though and thats what did him in, that and McCain's millions in campaign cash.

Who said anything about Iraq not being a mistake. Hindsight is 20/20. That doesn't mean you should just run for the hills once you realize you made a mistake. That can make a bad situation worse.

I know what you mean, you are boring me to death here you know.

[Phony Moderate]

It's interesting that Libertas becomes more and more of a neocon as the election gets nearer.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

More teasing from PPP:

"We're going to have Republican primary numbers out in Delaware and New Hampshire late tonight and based on the first day of polling it's clear both of these races are in single digit territory- there is not likely to be a run away winner in either.

Here are a couple key facts based on the numbers so far:

-53% of primary voters in Delaware think that Mike Castle is too liberal.

-Many of the Republicans who like Sarah Palin in New Hampshire are still ignoring her endorsement- Kelly Ayotte has only a 6 point lead over Ovide Lamontagne with folks who say they would be positively influenced by her support."

[Eraserhead]

Castle is in big trouble, it seems. The NRSC has to be freaking out a little.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Castle is in big trouble, it seems. The NRSC has to be freaking out a little.

Given the scorched-earth campaign the Republicans have been running against O'Donnell, they've been freaked out for a couple weeks now.

[You kip if you want to...]

I imagine PPP will show Castle still ahead by a sliver, but with the amount of momentum O'Donnell has, it's easy to see which way the undecideds will break. Chris Coons should be very happy on Tuesday night.

[Eraserhead]

It'd be amazing to watch a party flush a free Senate seat right down the toilet like that. Can anyone else think of such a clear cut recent example of this? (Don't say Angle, because even that one isn't as drastic.)

[You kip if you want to...]

It'd be amazing to watch a party flush a free Senate seat right down the toilet like that. Can anyone else think of such a clear cut recent example of this? (Don't say Angle, because even that one isn't as drastic.)

It's hard to think of any because there's never really been such years when the title of "frontrunner for nominee" has been so meaningless, even weeks before the primary.

[Tender Branson]

It would be great if O'Donnell and Lamont(agne) would win their primaries - and then lose.

[SPC]

Castle is in big trouble, it seems. The NRSC has to be freaking out a little.

Given the scorched-earth campaign the Republicans have been running against O'Donnell, they've been freaked out for a couple weeks now.

I suspect that Castle would have been better off if national Republicans didn't get involved (see Charlie Crist, Trey Grayson, Bob Bennett, Sue Lowden, Jane Norton, Lisa Murkowski, etc.)

[Lief 🗽]

Beau Biden is probably feeling a little silly for not running right now. He could beat O'Donnell by 20 points and would probably be a slight favorite against a damaged Castle if he wins on Tuesday.

[tpfkaw]

The 'plan' was that Coons would lose to Castle, then Biden would get his old seat back in 2016.

[SPC]

The 'plan' was that Coons would lose to Castle, then Biden would get his old seat back in 2016 2014.

FIFY. I would have to agree with this. Thus, the argument that Republicans should vote for Castle to send a message to Biden doesn't really make sense.

[Dgov]

Well, if you want to hear a different reason from Libertas, it's that Moderating the GOP image didn't really have any lasting effect on voting intentions.  Karl Rove's "Permanent majority" strategy of selling out Fiscal Conservative principles on things like Medicare D and pork spending in order to win over moderate voters failed utterly in the sense that those voters marched right back over to the Democrats once Republican fortunes sunk low.  There was no lasting or permanent change, just window dressing and denial, which makes for a terrible long-term strategy.

There's a similar thing here with Delaware--the GOP can take the easy Senate seat with the Moderate Castle, but odds are that when he decides to retire (probably 2016, given his age), Democrats will pick that seat right back up again, and the only thing that will have changed is that the committee makeup of the Senate will have shifted a seat or two.  Or, the GOP can take the (I'll call it the Reagan risk) that electing someone who actually implement genuine Conservative legislation will have a more significant and potentially lasting impact on the State's long-term voting intentions.

[Lunar]

The 'plan' was that Coons would lose to Castle, then Biden would get his old seat back in 2016.

It's not a full six year term fwiw

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's a similar thing here with Delaware--the GOP can take the easy Senate seat with the Moderate Castle, but odds are that when he decides to retire (probably 2016, given his age), Democrats will pick that seat right back up again, and the only thing that will have changed is that the committee makeup of the Senate will have shifted a seat or two.  Or, the GOP can take the (I'll call it the Reagan risk) that electing someone who actually implement genuine Conservative legislation will have a more significant and potentially lasting impact on the State's long-term voting intentions.

That'd be the choice if they were considering nominating someone who was simply conservative, not mentally ill.

[SPC]

Would it be too late for Castle to pull a Charlie Crist?

[Tender Branson]

My predictions for tomorrow:

Delaware Senate: 52% O'Donnell, 48% Castle
Delaware House: 53% Urquhart, 42% Rollins, 5% Izzo

DC Mayor: 49% Gray, 40% Fenty

Maryland Senate: 32% Wargotz, 24% Rutledge

New Hampshire Governor: 54% Stephen, 30% Kimball, 10% Testerman, 6% Emiro
New Hampshire Senate: 36% Ayotte, 34% Lamontagne, 13% Bender, 12% Binnie

New York Governor: 51% Paladino, 49% Lazio
New York Senate (S): 53% DioGuardi, 27% Malpass, Blakeman 20%
New York Senate (R): 61% Townsend, 39% Berntsen

Rhode Island Governor: 69% Robitaille, 31% Moffitt

Wisconsin Governor: 65% Walker, 30% Neumann, 5% Paterick

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Two more last-minute polls from PPP that got ignored because of all the OMGZ O'DONNELL SURGE:

DE-AL (R)

Glen Urquhart - 50
Michele Rollins - 38
Rose Izzo - 3

NH-Gov (R)

John Stephen - 45
Jack Kimball - 24
Karen Testerman - 8
Frank Emiro - 4

[Verily]

Would it be too late for Castle to pull a Charlie Crist?

Delaware has a sore loser law, and Castle can't pull out of the ballot this late. (He could drop out, but he'd still be on the primary ballot, so he'd still be precluded from an independent run.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The vast majority of states don't allow for what Lieberman did (including Connecticut now, which was passed not too long after he registered his candidacy). Crist got around it by withdrawing before the deadline for an independent candidacy. It's not going to happen that often.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Magellan claims a closer race in NH:

Ayotte - 35
Lamontagne - 31
Binnie - 14
Bender - 10

[redcommander]

What are everyone's predictions for tomorrow?