Replies

>>> McCain had a solid lead on Obama at this time in 2008. That seemed to change in the 60 days following

For those of short memory, that was the Wall Street meltdown. A factor outside McCain’s control. No republican could have won after that incident. No democrat would have lost. Game over.

Do you anticipate a similar upheaval in Delaware ?

For those of short memory, that was the Wall Street meltdown. A factor outside McCain’s control. No republican could have won after that incident. No democrat would have lost. Game over. Do you anticipate a similar upheaval in Delaware ?

Actually, those kind of swings are quite common. That is why you cannot compare the polling of Castle/Coons, and O'Donnell/Coons directly: it is mixing apples and oranges. For example, Castle is essentially the incumbent, for him to be below 50% at this stage is a bad sign. It indicates a very vulnerable candidate.

This is made even worse by the fact that his smear campaign is thoroughly alienating the most vibrant and active part of the voting public. Voters who would otherwise hold their noses and vote for him are not going to show up. I know I wouldn't.

A vote for Castle is a vote for the Obama wing of the Republican establishment.

I submit that McCain was ahead in the polls at that point (Wall Street “Meltdown”-Hyped, see made worse, by Bush’s panic may I add) because of McCain’s pledge against corruption, and infusion of Sarah Palin as V.P.

When McCain voted for the “TARP” Bailout, he lost! If he had simply opposed BUSH and voted against it, then he may have very well won, I submit that he would very probably have.