Replies

First off, she didn't run for anything 6 years ago. I guess you're referring to two years ago, when she was trounced by Biden 65-35. Not coincidentally, she seems to be polling at about 35% now.

The fact is she was the GOP nominee TWO years ago and no one thought she was 'crazy'.

And I believe 35% was the highest a Republican vote total anyone had received against him.

So, the point was (which you seemed to miss) was that she was the GOP nominee against Biden, but NOW is not qualified to be one.

Did something happen in the last two years?

The stuff she is being smeared with happened years ago, not two years ago.

[ O'Donnell is light years better than Coon, that is the ONLY choice in this race.]

Maybe, but Coons is going to win. The only choices in this race were Castle or Coons. Now, you might think we're better off with Coons in there than Castle, and you'd probably be right. But pretending that O'Donnell is going to somehow going to win in November is just plain unrealistic.

Maybe she is better than Coons, an avowed Marxist?

I do think we are better of having the CHOICE between O'Donnell and Coons rather than the phony choice between Castle and Coons.

And O'Donnell has a very good chance to win against Coons in this pro-GOP year.

No one gave Scott a chance either.

Now, the issue about her being vice president is a bit premature, but the fact is she would still be light years better than Biden.

And I believe 35% was the highest a Republican vote total anyone had received against him.

In her 2008 Senate campaign, O'Donnell ran as well as any Republican in Delaware. McCain only got 37% of the vote in Delaware.

"And I believe 35% was the highest a Republican vote total anyone had received against him."

Actually it was the absolute lowest. Only two challengers have gone below 40 against him and only one, O'Donnell, went below 37.5.