Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

O'Donnell Heads for Home Stretch (Turnout,the Smear, and the Palin factor)
Vanity | 10/29/2010 | Brices Crossroads

Posted on 10/29/2010 8:56:03 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads

I have been following this race closely since before the Primary, which is probably why I am more bullish on Christine O'Donnell's prospects than many Freepers are. There are several reasons.

I. Turnout

As nearly everyone who has ever watched an offyear election closely has observed, this election will be determined by turnout, that is: Who shows up to vote? The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the GOP turnout advantage this year will likely be the largest in over a century, much larger than in 1994. Gallup estimates not only that the electorate will be 55-40% GOP and GOP leaning independents, but that the number of self identifying conservatives will be 48%, the highest it has ever been, since the stats have been maintained. In the wave year of 1994, for example, it was only 40% conservative.

II. Delaware

Turnout will only take you so far, though, says the skeptic. This is, after all, Delaware, among the most liberal states in the Union. Right? Well, not exactly right. Before 2000, Delaware had voted for the winner in every Presidential election since 1952 (which meant twice for Eisenhower, twice for Nixon and twice for Reagan). In a word, Delaware follows the national trends very reliably. And we know where that trend is leading this year, don't we?

Well, Delaware is just another Connecticut, isn't it? No. Not really. The largest city in Delaware is Wilmington, with a population of 72,000. The next largest city is Dover with 35,000. It is really a conglomerate of small towns and rural areas. (Imagine, for example, how red Louisiana would be if you New Orleans were in an adjacent state). Connecticut, on the other hand has no less than seven cities larger than Wilmington. The two are not equivalent. Delaware is a small town, rural state. It should be fertile ground for Republicans. Why, then, have they had so little success in statewide,non-Presidential)elections of late? The answer is voter cynicism, directly traceable to:

III.The Delaware Establishment.

Both wings. Until this year, for decades, the GOP and Democrat Party in Delaware have had a symbiotic relationship, typified by the infamous "Swap" of 1992 in which then-Congressman Tom Carper (D) and then-Governor Mike Castle arranged to clear the field for each other and exchange seats. This year, a similar arrangement had been worked out. 71 year old Mike Castle would once again exchange seats with a Democrat (and would by prearrangement defeat the sacrificial lamb, Chris Coons)moving up to he Senate for four years until 2014 when(by yet another arrangement) he would step aside for Beau Biden in yet another iteration of "the Swap". It was all set. Until Christine O'Donnell came along.

IV. The Candidates and the Electorate

I have waxed on, in numerous previous posts, about Christine O'Donnell's skills and appeal as a candidate. That she is currently smoking the hapless Coons both in Facebook fans and in fund raising is well documented. The intensity of her support will mean that her supporters will turn out no matter what.

However, it did not occur to me until last night the profound, unprecedented (in modern times)effect that her candidacy is going to have on the COMPOSITION of the electorate. She mentioned on Hannity the number of people who will be voting this time who had never voted before (or hadn't voted in decades) because, in their estimation (if not in actual fact), the system was rigged. In defeating Mike Castle, she struck a mortal blow at the Establishment that is going to change the character of the Delaware electorate in 2010. The composition of the Delaware electorate will more closely resemble 1984 and 1988 (rather than a typical off year election) when Delawareans were actually voting FOR something, giving Ronald Reagan 59% and his 1988 stand-in Bush 55% of its vote, (both exceeding the national percentage) rather than AGAINST something or, in many cases, not voting at all.

V. The Gawker Smear: Nikki Haley Redux?

I notice that the odious and vile smear of Christine O'Donnell, which has been roundly condemned even by NOW and Dave Weigel (and many others) is getting wide coverage in the press. I did a vanity post on Christine back on September 3, before her victory in the primary, decrying her vilification and comparing the smears against her (which dealt principally with her finances and allegations that she was paranoid) to those directed at Nikki Haley last June in South Carolina.

The Kneecapping of Christine O'Donnell (Nikki Haley Redux?)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2582923/posts

Little did I suspect that the Democrats would try a tactic as stupid as this. (Their internal polls must show Coons in free fall for them to pull this stunt). In South Carolina, as soon as it became apparent that the culprit was an ally of the sitting Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer (a credible candidate with the endorsement of Mike Huckabee), Bauer's support crumbled and he fell to 4th place on Election day, garnering only 12% of the vote to Haley's 49%. In the case of South Carolina, there was some doubt as to who was responsible for the smear, since there were three other candidates in the race besides Haley. In this case, if voters want to punish someone for this nasty smear of a really nice person, they only have one option: Chris Coons. He is going to take it in the shorts.

VI. Enter Palin

Sarah Palin will, I understand, be in Wilmington for the Tea Party Express rally on Sunday. As I have said repeatedly, The Governor's timing is impeccable. Her visit will undoubtedly energize the electorate which will show up to vote on Tuesday (and will give the lie to the notion that Palin is a drag on the GOP ticket anywhere this year)

http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2010/10/gov-palin-in-new-jersey-october-31.html

Moreover, being a master political tactician, she is going to see this "Gawker smear" as an opportunity and use it. You can count on her to twist the rhetorical knife in the Democrats, the Establishment and the hapless Coons for this vile smear just as she did in the Nikki Haley episode. Maybe after all this is over with, Chris Coons can get together with Andre Bauer and commiserate about the experience of being Palin "road kill".


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Delaware
KEYWORDS: 2010midterms; beardedmarxists; chistineodonnell; christineodonnell; coons; de2010; obama; odonnell; palin; sarahpalin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: SamAdams76
And for the record, you comparing Eisenhower running of a world war to Mrs. Palin’s role for the last 2 years, that is what is ridiculous.
41 posted on 10/29/2010 1:43:39 PM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne
Even great tactician miss one here and there, and I agree Rove was wrong with ODonnell...

Good.

But the notion that Palin is equal to Rove in terms of Political Strategy is just nonsense to anyone willing to be intellectually serious.

It's become obvious to many reasonable people that Rove doesn't understand the current political dynamics. Times change. Rove appears not to understand what is going on.

42 posted on 10/29/2010 1:48:37 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne
She has been more valuable to the country, being part of the daily Obama resistance, than remaining as governor of Alaska. It was the right move.

Sort of like the ends justify the means? That type of mindset one never wants as their CinC. Trust me.

Stepping up and doing what's best for the country, you bet I want that kind of CiC.

43 posted on 10/29/2010 1:51:13 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne

Hate to break it to you, but our country is in graver danger now than it was in 1942. We need a lot more Sarah Palins, she can’t do it by herself.


44 posted on 10/29/2010 1:55:56 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (I am 33 days away from outliving Curly Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Hate to break it to you, but our country is in graver danger now than it was in 1942. We need a lot more Sarah Palins, she can’t do it by herself.

AMEN!

45 posted on 10/29/2010 2:00:24 PM PDT by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality: Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne

The Iraq war, or, more specifically, the desire to stay in Iraq after we accomplished our objectives, is what had Bush’s popularity under 30% in 2006.

Rove and the neocons did not make things better for Bush in 2006 or 2008.


46 posted on 10/29/2010 2:38:51 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne
Rove is a turncoat, a traitor and the conservatives’ enemy at this point. He loves RINOs and hates Palin because she has called the bastard out. He might be right that COD might not win, but he can go F himself for being a selfish pig and doing his best to make her loose. Screw Rove and the rest of the DC pundits.

Go Palin!

47 posted on 10/29/2010 2:51:09 PM PDT by mickey finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Sorry, Charlie, name calling is still not an argument. You can call people names all day, but doing so does not make an argument in support of the proposition that O’Donnell will win. Still, I’m not too surprised you think name calling is making such an argument.

Name calling is also not an argument in favor of supporting O’Donnell. I actually do support O’Donnell (although it is in spite of, not because of, folks who insist on calling everyone who does not support her “RINOS,” or “liberals,” or such). I just do not think she will win.


48 posted on 10/29/2010 4:24:42 PM PDT by olrtex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne
The notion that she is a "master" political tactician is just hyperbole. And not needed on our side.

She is a MASTER politician. If not for Sarah Palin the Republican party might right now be a smoldering pile of RINOs with a tea party trying to win 6 seats in the house.

Palin convinced all the disenfranchised republicans to stick it out, fight and she endorsed tea party candidates which gave the disenfranchised republicans a taste of victory in the primaries.

She has done more for this country in the past 2 years than anyone I can think of.

49 posted on 10/29/2010 4:40:23 PM PDT by BRL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads
(Go, Christine!)
50 posted on 10/29/2010 5:47:48 PM PDT by LoveUSA (You don't notice the night light until it gets dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne

But you can look at Palin’s tactics, after the fact, and see the results have devastated her opponents.


51 posted on 10/29/2010 7:16:20 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals (liberals) because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: olrtex

Your trolling history says different, as you knock the conservative candidate from thread to thread.


52 posted on 10/29/2010 7:23:32 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
Wrong. Zarqawi and AQI were still very much alive and strong in 2006. We had not accomplished our goals in Iraq by then. In fact, it was in 2006/07 that Iraq was finally won! (I was there). GWB did it exactly right with Iraq and seeing it through. History will be very kind to him, because of his leadership in this regard.

It was immigration reform that kept our base home. It was immigration reform that dropped GWB into the 30%, not Iraq.

53 posted on 10/30/2010 8:18:10 AM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Well, lets just hope Sarah can deliver us her very own, very RED State, Senate seat. If she has the influence you suggest how is a write in candidate neck in neck with her sponsored guy (in her OWN State).


54 posted on 10/30/2010 8:20:16 AM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne

We are sure are better off than if we had left it to you liberals, go conservatives.


55 posted on 10/30/2010 8:25:54 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-08-bush-approval_x.htm

Here’s an article on it at the time - May 2006. The article doesn’t say anything about any reason why his popularity might be low. I would’ve guessed that immigration reform was after May 2006.


56 posted on 10/30/2010 8:41:50 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

Thank you Christine and everyone who stepped out of their private lives and entered a very difficult pursuit of public office in order to restore our nation. You are courageous and super patriots! The Founding Fathers would be very proud. You did a hard thing.


57 posted on 10/30/2010 8:54:58 AM PDT by mom.mom (Is it NOVEMBER yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BRL

“She has done more for this country in the past 2 years than anyone I can think of.”

Don’t pop his bubble, he thinks Carl is a genius.


58 posted on 10/30/2010 12:55:59 PM PDT by mickey finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne

You mean can she take an unknown conservative and guarantee his victory over an incumbent Republican Senator that was just basically endorsed and embraced by establishment Senate Republicans? Palin did give him the primary, but he hurt himself by then distancing himself from her as his rookie instincts took over, and he started playing up to Murkowski voters too strongly.

What I hear and read in your posts, is an anti-conservative bias, you are hoping that Murkowski wins reelection in Alaska because not only does that keep that seat moderate, but you hope that it weakens the conservative’s top candidate for President.


59 posted on 10/31/2010 2:07:11 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SevenMinusOne

He showed a heck of a lot of emotion and not real commentary on Hannity that first appearance after the win. So, I guess that makes us just human, like the rest out there!

There is no problem with emotion, as long as you do not use it to decide your vote. Emotion just might get you off the chair and at the voter’s tent.


60 posted on 11/01/2010 1:05:03 AM PDT by Ruth C (If you chose not to vote, you vote for the most liberal candidates in CA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson