[MindBender26]

Let's stop being blind ga-ga over the Tea Party.

The quiet little secret is that the Tea Party cost us control of the Senate in 2010.

If we had not had that buffoon not-a-witch woman in Delaware and Angle in Nevada, we would have won with more mainstream candidates. That is reality.

Don't get me wrong; I love much about the Tea Party. Unfortunately, that forgot three very basic rules of elections:

1: Nothing really matters except the General Election. Winners of that govern us, losers go home.

2: Always nominate the candidate the candidate closest to your beliefs who CAN win the General. We had two much stronger candidates in ‘10 Nevada and Delaware Senate races, but we went with ultra-conservative losers.

3: Untra-conservative losers, are just that; losers.

[Political Junkie Too]

That's a tough one.

I don't put Castle in the same category as Hatch, but a GOP Delaware win is like Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts, a freak confluence of events not likely to happen again. What good would a Castle win have been if he votes like the Maine sisters, or the former Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island? If Utah replaces Hatch in the Senate, I don't think it will be with a Democrat.

I do think that Angle had a shot, but it was an uphill battle against the Reid/SEIU/MSM machine in Nevada.

But I don't think the GOP had a chance to retake the Senate. I was watching those races closely, and posting my probabilistic analysis of the Rasmussen polls each week. Everything would have to have broken their way to win the Senate. I haven't started looking at the 2012 polls yet, but this should be a better year for Republicans.

The GOP needs a strong down-ticket strategy for this to happen. If Romney turns off the conservative base, you can kiss the Senate good-bye, too, if conservatives don't turn out to vote.

-PJ

[Elsie]

If we had not had that buffoon not-a-witch woman in Delaware and Angle in Nevada, we would have won with more mainstream candidates. That is reality.

You want BUFFOON?