My only problem with all this talk is that if the Republicans have anything less than total obliteration of Dems, the press is going to report it like a failure....Expectations are so high now.
Some guy named 'booger' on American Spectator summed up the whole race very eloquently (Yes, really!)
The argument that the sand Castle will give the G.O.P. a majority may well be flawed on two points: 1) Considering his lack of Republican principles, what's to prevent his pulling an Arlen Specter (or Charlie Crist or Murkowski) once safely ensconed in the Senate and change sides? 2) 2012 will offer even more pick up chances in the Senate than 2010. If the Republicans do manage a narrow majority in 2010, and then accomodate Obama's agenda due to RINO recalcitrance, it could actually hurt the potential gains of 2012. A prinicpled minority with enough votes to filibuster would be preferable than a go-along-get-along RINO majority.
The first one is a common argument, but the second is really captures the problem. A majority built with guys like Castle will hinder us from getting real things done. We cannot allow ourselves to be in control of the reins and be impotent at the same time. If we do, we'll jeopardize the huge potential gains we have coming our way in the next two elections. Besides, we don't have to totally write it off. We can win with O'Donnell. Stranger things have happened anyway. Frankly, in the anti-politician environment we're in, I think Castle will likely fade at the last minute anyway, since people are tired of his brand of career politician.