« the final that never was | Main | christine o'donnell vs masturbation »

September 15, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Will M

It's interesting - under more 'standard' electoral conditions, you would have thought that O'Donnell and Angle would be joined by Miller and perhaps even Paul on the losing GOP candidate pile. (As it is, if Murkowski declares an independent candidacy (presumably this will be determined primarily by how much she can raise) Miller could still lose Alaska.) In the scenario where these candidates lose, the media narrative and the power play would move against the Tea Party wing, leading to a more sane GOP candidate for 2012 - presumably one more likely to win.

However, in a scenario where Miller and Paul make the Senate, and the Tea Partiers (and Fox, to an extent) continue to set the agenda for the GOP, one wonders how the GOP manage to get a decent candidate set up for 2012. Does the Tea Party lose influence as the unemployment rate decreases? Do they get more irate assuming Obama's popularity starts increasing?

Lastly, it's unclear how this plays out in the primaries. Palin is nowhere near a lead in 3 of the 4 pre-Super Tuesday states' polling (Nevada, the largest, has yet to be polled). Is there a scenario where the first 4 States' outcomes don't strongly influence the Super Tuesday outcome?

Brad Campbell

The Republicans are showing their true colors by snubbing a duly elected GOP candidate who just happens to be conservative. I don't know if she can win or not, but electing Mike Castle would be just like electing a liberal Democrat. The Republicans need to stick with constitutional, fiscally responsible, limited government principles, and they will do just fine. It was the compromising with conservative principles and choosing human garbage like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Snowe & Collins, and, yes, G.W. Bush, that got the party in this mess to begin with.


What drives me up the wall about the likes of O'Donnell (and her supporters) is the fact they clearly have no clue about pro-individual conservative principles, and give the whole idea a bad name.

On the one hand they believe in small government (fine- so do I), but on the other, all this nonsense about interfering in what people do in private! It's completely incoherent. How can you believe that say, government shouldn't be taking 40% of your pay, but that it should be dictating who you marry?

So you hear people use the word 'libertarian' with a shudder, because they then associate it with ignorant superstituous... well. very annoying.

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics


my other places