Delaware: The end of an era

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For many years Delaware politics could been described as one great gentlemen agreement.

For those years you had Castle, Biden, Roth and Carper, serving together, maintaining good relations above D/R lines, and not aiming at each other.

The 1992 election was a quintessence: Castle was term limited as Governor, and run for House seat, that was held by Carper, thus Carper run for Governor. Both won and both sides were happy.

The problem arose in 2000, when Carper was now term-limited, and three other offices: two Senate seat and House one were all filled. He run against Roth and won, which was the first break, but it was just due to the lack of room.

More things changed, when Biden gave up his seat, he was holding for 36 years, to become Vice President. Castle was getting older and older, thus saw an opportunity to have a great finish of his long career, serving out 4 remaining years. That's why Beau didn't run. Quintessential Delaware gentlemen agreement politics: you can have your finish, Mike, and then is going to be next Biden. Coons, until now, was a just random sacrificial lamb.

And now O'Donnell upsetting Castle changed everything. From the original top four of the "gentlemen", only Carper left. Roth lost in 2000 and died. Castle lost now and the whole deal is no longer a matter. Biden is Vice President. This generation is fading.

So yes, beside other factors, O'Donnell victory over Castle also marks an end of an interesting chapter of DE politics: era of gentlemen agreements and coexistence between few, top, veteran guys.  

[??????????]

And good riddance to that "error".

[fezzyfestoon]

And good riddance to that "error".

O'Donnell is the only error I see.

[??????????]

Of course. Now please tell me how Castle would advance the GOP?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Of course. Now please tell me how Castle would advance the GOP?

Maybe because both parties cannot affort an ideological purity and needs Mikes Castles or Evans Bayhes?

[??????????]

What about Zell Miller or CarlHayden dems? You all demonize them then root for a marginal Republican like Castle.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What about Zell Miller or CarlHayden dems? You all demonize them then root for a marginal Republican like Castle.

1. "Mariginal Republican" Castle was the all GOP had in Delaware. The state is now a dead zone for the Republicans.
2. Zell Miller who's actually became a Republican President foot soldier is a bad example. I mean people like Evan Bayh: not the best, but still the best Dems can have in states like Indiana. Just like Castle was the best GOP could get in DE.

[??????????]

Sorry but Castle could easily pass for a blue dog.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sorry but Castle could easily pass for a blue dog.

States, I guess I have problem with understading what you're trying to say.

[Frink]

Sorry but Castle could easily pass for a blue dog.

Hes to the left of a lot of Blue Dogs, actually.

[tpfkaw]

Castle did not ever have an economically conservative voting record.  He received an "F" from the NRA every year.  He did not have a conservative voting record on anything else.  It is better for the Republicans to have 50 seats as the minority than 51 with Mike Castle setting the agenda.  The only agenda Mike Castle will ever support is further expansion of entitlement programs.  A strong Republican minority will block further expansion of entitlement programs.  A 50-seat delegation for Republicans in the Senate is therefore superior to a 51-seat delegation with Mike Castle, in the eyes of a fiscal conservative.

[Frink]

Castle did not ever have an economically conservative voting record.

I think I'm going to miss him.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A 50-seat delegation for Republicans in the Senate is therefore superior to a 51-seat delegation with Mike Castle, in the eyes of a fiscal conservative.

And that's an utter nonsense, because 51 seats even with Castle gives the GOP an organizational majority and a controll over the committees.

[tpfkaw]

A 50-seat delegation for Republicans in the Senate is therefore superior to a 51-seat delegation with Mike Castle, in the eyes of a fiscal conservative.

And that's an utter nonsense, because 51 seats even with Castle gives the GOP an organizational majority and a controll over the committees.

I could care less about whether the Republicans have their precious committee chairmanships.  I do care whether their agenda will be fiscally conservative or not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course. Now please tell me how Castle would advance the GOP?

What I can tell you is how O'Donnell is gonna advance the democrats.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A 50-seat delegation for Republicans in the Senate is therefore superior to a 51-seat delegation with Mike Castle, in the eyes of a fiscal conservative.

And that's an utter nonsense, because 51 seats even with Castle gives the GOP an organizational majority and a controll over the committees.

I could care less about whether the Republicans have their precious committee chairmanships.  I do care whether their agenda will be fiscally conservative or not.

So why did you bring the topic?

[??????????]

Of course. Now please tell me how Castle would advance the GOP?

What I can tell you is how O'Donnell is gonna advance the democrats.

How? If she loses it really won't help them in the long run. Everyone will stop caring about Marylands eastern shore in a week or two anyway.

[Frink]

A 50-seat delegation for Republicans in the Senate is therefore superior to a 51-seat delegation with Mike Castle, in the eyes of a fiscal conservative.

And that's an utter nonsense, because 51 seats even with Castle gives the GOP an organizational majority and a controll over the committees.

I could care less about whether the Republicans have their precious committee chairmanships.  I do care whether their agenda will be fiscally conservative or not.

Holding Committee chairmanships versus not holding them could have a substantial effect on their agenda.

[tpfkaw]

And if it's the wrong agenda, I don't want them to implement it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course. Now please tell me how Castle would advance the GOP?

What I can tell you is how O'Donnell is gonna advance the democrats.

How? If she loses it really won't help them in the long run. Everyone will stop caring about Marylands eastern shore in a week or two anyway.

One more Senate seat may change everything. And potentially it could even help democrats to hold on in Washington, Illinois and Nevada, as republicans may be willing to focus on safer Dem States.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

And if it's the wrong agenda, I don't want them to implement it.

From the power balance point of view, 51 seat majority is better than a 50 seat minority. Even if Castle would vote with Dems on a lot of issues, there's still a majority, that would allow a conservative leadership to controll committees, an essential thing in Congress.

By the way, Republicans wouldn't have anyway a real all-conservative majority, as they need people like Snowe, Collins etc. to hate a majority at all.

[opebo]

Thank you Kalwejt for reminding us that though america is now a vulgar sewer it was not always quite so bad.  We need some kind of sign or emblem for nostalgics. 

[Psychic Octopus]

Of course. Now please tell me how Castle would advance the GOP?

What I can tell you is how O'Donnell is gonna advance the democrats.

How? If she loses it really won't help them in the long run. Everyone will stop caring about Marylands eastern shore in a week or two anyway.

One more Senate seat may change everything. And potentially it could even help democrats to hold on in Washington, Illinois and Nevada, as Republicans may be willing to focus on safer Dem States.

I'm not getting what you are saying. I don't see how it could Democrats hold on in other swing states. Delaware is Delaware. Washington is Washington. Illinois is Illinois, etc. etc. Not having Castle means the GOP has more resources to use to help in other competitive senate seats.

And I think you are thinking too partisanly. Even if the Republicans do not have control of the Senate, Democratic control will be largely ceremonial. If they couldn't do anything with a near supermajority, they won't be doing anything with less then that.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course. Now please tell me how Castle would advance the GOP?

What I can tell you is how O'Donnell is gonna advance the democrats.

How? If she loses it really won't help them in the long run. Everyone will stop caring about Marylands eastern shore in a week or two anyway.

One more Senate seat may change everything. And potentially it could even help democrats to hold on in Washington, Illinois and Nevada, as Republicans may be willing to focus on safer Dem States.

I'm not getting what you are saying. I don't see how it could Democrats hold on in other swing states. Delaware is Delaware. Washington is Washington. Illinois is Illinois, etc. etc. Not having Castle means the GOP has more resources to use to help in other competitive senate seats.

And I think you are thinking too partisanly. Even if the Republicans do not have control of the Senate, Democratic control will be largely ceremonial. If they couldn't do anything with a near supermajority, they won't be doing anything with less then that.

But they'll still deservedly get the blame for the impending disaster, and thus Obama and the Senate Dems will be history in 2012. Win-win situation for the GOP in the long-term.

[Dan the Roman]

Of course. Now please tell me how Castle would advance the GOP?

What I can tell you is how O'Donnell is gonna advance the democrats.

How? If she loses it really won't help them in the long run. Everyone will stop caring about Marylands eastern shore in a week or two anyway.

One more Senate seat may change everything. And potentially it could even help democrats to hold on in Washington, Illinois and Nevada, as Republicans may be willing to focus on safer Dem States.

I'm not getting what you are saying. I don't see how it could Democrats hold on in other swing states. Delaware is Delaware. Washington is Washington. Illinois is Illinois, etc. etc. Not having Castle means the GOP has more resources to use to help in other competitive senate seats.

And I think you are thinking too partisanly. Even if the Republicans do not have control of the Senate, Democratic control will be largely ceremonial. If they couldn't do anything with a near supermajority, they won't be doing anything with less then that.

But they'll still deservedly get the blame for the impending disaster, and thus Obama and the Senate Dems will be history in 2012. Win-win situation for the GOP in the long-term.

A republican house practically requires them to be more constructive, since Bohner will be the face of congress regardless of whether Reid is nominally Majority leader. And as a practical matter, filibuster reform is coming one way or another.