She would have lost no matter what they put in.
I was at a training with a famous political consultant today and the message he kept drumming into us was, ‘the best person doesn’t always win... The best candidate does.”
This isn’t about Christine so much as it is about the State party saying in no uncertain terms they would not support the primary winner and Karl Rover just can’t STFU cuz he is a dog with mange.
But you know they would have lent a hand and a crowbar helping to lift Castle’s candidacy.
Oh that’s right! Your special day!
Blumenthal the serial liar was a better candidate than his rival who literally nailed him in their debate? I don’t think so.
Stupid voters often elect the worst candidate, just by voting party line or against the Republican in blue states.
The Black Caucus is full of horrid candidates, but they’re reelected time and time again against much “better candidates” with better messages, but those districts vote for the democrat.
I understand the message of the political consultant, but the “best candidate” can’t win either in districts or states stacked against that candidate.
Boy, you got that one right. There's a huge diffence between being a good candidate and a good lawmaker.
We're all losing sight of the huge role primaries play in the political process. The Republicans in Delaware had a huge decision to make. Being an arch conservative, I would probably gone with O'Donnell, too, but I would have had to realize it came with high risk.
Rove is a political ANALYST for FOX--and a darned good one. I love his using his board to show what is likely to happen. Last night he was showing how Republicans are likely to pick up some of Obama's electoral votes. It was music to my ears but if he had shown Obama is likely to win again, I would not have blamed the messenger for the bad news. He was only reporting what he thinks is likely to happen.
The guy's loyalty to the Republican party cannot be questioned. He looks at the big picture.