[CaspersGh0sts]

I get what you’re saying. However, a Republican majority Senate would get to choose committee make-ups and would be able to vote on budget issues with a straight-up majority.

I’m not completely sold that Castle would have been a shoe-in during the general election, but Castle, while more conservative, is certainly a flawed candidate.

There’s no reason to tear her down, and I’d have voted for her in the primary. Still, I think it’s only a half-full victory.

[Dr. Sivana]

There’s no reason to tear her down, and I’d have voted for her in the primary. Still, I think it’s only a half-full victory.

This election was about more than Delaware, or even the Senate. If the "nuts and sluts" attack mode worked, it would be used against all conservative women candidates.

[RightFighter]

Let’s assume for a moment that Castle had won, and his win helped us eke out a 51-49 majority in the Senate. As liberal as he is, does anyone have any doubt that he would be a Jim Jeffords-redux? He’d have enormous power, because there would always be a card up his sleeve called “party-switcher”. Republicans would have to play by his rules to accomplish anything at all. He’d use that power to dilute any true conservative legislation, so he’d effectively be a Democrat agent in plain sight.

I’d rather have no power than that kind of “power” any day.

[TexasFreeper2009]

I disagree, one look at her and I can tell she’s a winner.

[Ol' Sparky]

However, a Republican majority Senate would get to choose committee make-ups and would be able to vote on budget issues with a straight-up majority.

That only really matters after 2012. Republicans in complete control of congress may well lead to a second Obama term. So, I have no problem with every RINO possible being cleansed from the party.