Posted on 10/29/2010 7:43:12 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
Your entire analysis rests on the assumption that voters are static entities that political candidates have to position themselves in proximity to.
The truth is that they aren’t. They are capable of being shifted and drawn by the message, particularly if the message is appealing, or if the messenger is charismatic.
I am not saying you do this in every race, but once in a while, even if you risk losing, just to have your message out there, is important. I think long term pragmatism means that you occasionally risk losing a battle to set yourself up for the bigger picture.
Delaware is on the line ~ I personally think it's more Conservative than pollsters believe, and that's because the TEMPORARY SEASONAL RESIDENTS don't vote there. At the end of the season they go home.
The SEASON IS OVER EARLY this year. First, on account of rain, second on account of cold, third on account of wind ~ and it's getting more and more miserable.
Of course Christine's numbers jump when the temporary folks leave ~
Now, what kind of RINO should you employ if you need one? Well, fur shur, you shouldn't use a Leftwingtard who claims he's a Republican. Instead, find a regular Democrat who is otherwise sensible, but who has not been able to work up the party chairs due to (1) His special interest group has not been doing well, (2) He may have had an EEO scandal where he pinched a bottom, (3) He has too many bill collectors after him, etc.
Anyway, a regular Democrat is likely to vote, on the average, at least as Conservative as the community he is representing because, as it turns out, he will never get a chance to run as a Democrat (and win), but he has a career as a Republican.
Those, BTW, are the traditional RINOs. Calling every mind-numbed, knee-jerk, robot-like Leftwingtard Republican wannabe a RINO is wrong in so many ways. They are Leftwingtards first, last and always. Castle was a Leftwingtard, not a RINO. He wouldn't have won ward healer in the Democrat party.
This election is definitely one where you want to try out a Regular Republican with Conservative leanings ~ and Christine fits that bill fairly well. You guys may think she's pretty Conservative, but she's not. She hangs around church people and there are definitely a bunch of Leftwingtards lurking in those ranks ~ just ask "the Huck".
People in Delaware are NOT IMMUNE to FNC, and they are as plugged into the internet as well as anyone. For too many years they've been fed a steady diet of Leftwingtard candidates by both parties simply because EARLY POLLS ~ with a large number of TEMPORARY residents in them ~ show favor to the more Leftwingtard of the candidates.
They've never had a chance to vote for someone normal.
Now' the time for that.
I’m content with losing Castle in DE regardless of what happens between O’Donnell and Coons. Don’t need any more RINOs in the Senate jerking us around. O’Donnell winning would just be some sweet, sweet icing on the cake.
My vote goes to seeing Reid go down in flames.
ping
She can win this, folks. Turnout is key.
I want them all:) But really I want this and NV more than any other.
My entire analysis was based on the political realities of the voters in a liberal state.
FINAL OUTCOME:
Chris Coons: 56.6%
Christine O'Donnell: 40.0%
The outcome was exactly as I predicted it: Yet another electoral slaughter of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
I am not saying you do this in every race, but once in a while, even if you risk losing, just to have your message out there, is important.
If you want to "have your message out there", then have the message put out by a sacrificial candidate in a rock solid Democrat state where the candidate is doomed to failure, no matter what he does.
Delaware was different.
Delaware was a state where a Senator slightly to the right of the political 50 yard line was gift-wrapped for us.
Now, when every single Republican vote and every "leans Republican" vote in the Senate counts, we have given away a Senate seat to the Obama agenda.
Castle was a democrat vote with an R next to his name on any major vote that mattered. So the whole point is moot. The next election there can be a stronger Constitutional conservative in contention and may or may not win but the state will be able to decide between Marxist misery and American prosperity just like California did.
It’s one battle, we’re trying to win a war.
Sometimes you fight a battle not to win but to set up future victories.
Could we have had Reagan in 1980 without Goldwater’s defeat in 1964?
You are correct if that means that the lesson has been learned that we will get absolutely nowhere in 2012 by trying to cram a conservative down the throat of a liberal state. You might as well send a Southern Baptist minister to preach at the synagogue.
For America to survive, we cannot afford to be in a war with the 75% of all Americans that are not as conservative as we are on Free Republic. Whether we like it or not, we are in a political alliance with the Moderates against the Obama Far Left.
30,561 Delaware conservatives voted in the primaries to win Christine O'Donnell the Republican nomination.
173,900 Delaware moderates and liberals voted against Christine O'Donnell in the general election to give an Obama ally a Delaware Senate seat for the next 6 years.
In modern warfare, the victor often spends much time and effort "shaping the battlefield" to maximize his advantage.
In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell shaped the battlefield to the overwhelming advantage of the Democrat candidate by depriving the majority Moderates of the slightly right of center candidate the Moderates were eager to elect to the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.