[HapaxLegamenon]

I think tonights results should put to bed the lie that Castle was more “electable”. How could someone whose loses the primary by such a large margin be more “electable” than the winner?

[freedomwarrior998]

How could someone whose loses the primary by such a large margin be more “electable” than the winner?

This is an extraordinarily dumb argument. The composition of the electorate in a closed primary, is significantly different that the composition of the electorate in a general election. Democrats routinely run far-left nutbags who can win Democrat primaries in Conservative States, but do not have even a slight chance of winning in the general election.

[Cboldt]

-- How could someone whose loses the primary by such a large margin be more "electable" than the winner? --

Different populations of voters in the general election, compared with in the primary. Say, for example, the general has twice as many Democrats voting as Republicans; and none of the Democrats vote for O'Donnell - she loses 2:1.

Obviously, those aren't the "real" numbers, but that's how the two election results can be so different. The GOP claims it needs to be effectively DEM to get those votes. My reaction is to concede the state.

Plus, if the federal government was properly sized (about 2% of its current size), who cares?

[Sal]

I think tonights results should put to bed the lie that Castle was more “electable”. How could someone whose loses the primary by such a large margin be more “electable” than the winner?

EXACTLY! I've read so many comments that "everybody knows" she can't win the general. Well "everybody" said she couldn't beat Castle either and she NAILED him!