[tweriaroats]

Wow, Republicans are ****ing stupid.

[luffyplayaz]

Wow, Republicans are ****ing stupid.

That's really weak.

[prowsnobswend]

O'Donnell is a terrible nominee. This will mean an increased likelihood the Democrats retain a seat that previously looked to be a surefire pickup for the Republicans.

[ketNavatutt]

Palin/O'Donnell '12

[Draftcasino.com]

According to PPP polling, 44% of Castle supporters said they would back Coons over O'Donnell in November.

All the Democrats have to do is run ads quoting the National Republican Senate Committee: "She has a disturbing pattern of dishonest behavior."

Thanks, Teabaggers!

[priordine]

I think Ben has forgotten that in general elections, everyone gets to vote, not just partisans.

While I think the anti-dem mood is so bad that even this imbecile O'Donnell will get at least 40% of the final vote, the chances for a Democratic save have just risen dramatically.

[Immusaatmonna]

I think Ben has forgotten that in general elections, everyone gets to vote, not just partisans. Not at all. The choice between Castle and Coons is like choosing between taupe and off-white. There's really no need for a vote.

[Annewsded]

Mike Castle would have cruised to victory in Delaware. Perhaps, but victory for whom? Not for Republicans. Victory for the Democrats, because either way they win. If Coons get in they get one more vote for Obama's policies. If Castle gets in, it's one more vote for Obama. You simply cannot lose.

This just shows that what was once the radical fringe of the GOP is now taking over the party, pushing out sensible people and nominating crazy folks. Crazy folks!= people who aren't Obama. Obama is extremely unpopular these days and the electorate is furious. O'Donnell gives them a chance to vote for someone.

The same is true in Nevada, where the GOP was almost certain to pick up Reid's seat, except they nominated a nut who is now struggling. Up by 2, over Reid isn't 'struggling'.

New Hampshire and Alaska are the same story. What, Joe Miller isn't going to win AK? We should have a wager again. Straight up, Joe Miller wins AK. Deal?

Hell, if the Republicans thought O'Donnell was more likely to win in the fall, then the NRSC wouldn't have gone all-out to defend Castle like they did. Even THEY know she's a loser. NRSC doesn't speak for the party anymore, Boris.

Delaware is a blue state, lest you forget. What do I mean "forget," you don't know anything in the first place No, but then so was Massachusetts.

[Penisvergroesserung]

Not at all. The choice between Castle and Coons is like choosing between taupe and off-white. There's really no need for a vote.

Now it's like choosing between taupe and some crazy lady spraying cat piss on your walls.

And:


Mike Castle has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 87.3% of the time during the current Congress. Congratulations on losing a guy who'd vote with the party 87% of the time to one who will vote with them, what, 10%? If that?

[NarhozNic]

yup, she's a christian activist (SALT was her org) with a fairly long track record of saying stuff that can and will be used against her

[PharmaDrMan]

and how did Scott Brown turn out for the teabagger set, hmm? They wanted to hang him in effigy for voting with the Democrats!

Pretty well actually. His election would have killed the health reform effort in Congress if not for the extraordinary measures Pelosi and Reid resorted to in order to save it.

[Gozmand]

Pretty well actually. His election would have killed the health reform effort in Congress if not for the extraordinary measures Pelosi and Reid resorted to in order to save it.

Er, what?

The bill that was ultimately passed by Congress was less conservative than the Senate bill that had been under consideration prior to Brown's election. Besides a week's worth of PR by Republicans claiming Brown had some sort of effect, I don't see any evidence his election changed the ultimate bill that emerged, and certainly not in the Republicans' favor.

[AncewwewBus]

Wow, Republicans are ****ing stupid.

Seriously. Went from almost certain win to almost certain loss.

[OnlineViagraCheapestFREE]

I find the idea of anti-incumbency sensible given the national deficit and congressional approval ratings. Polls that generally go along the lines of "do you like where the country is headed" or "are you happy with your government" have shown that people are pissed. As for Republicans picking relatively unelectable primary candidates, this also represents a revolt from the party establishment that you yourself have claimed needs to go away and make room for "real fiscal conservatives". Wha? Really? When have I expressed that sentiment? Oh, I've certainly claimed that the establishments of both parties are corrupt self-serving entities that only vaguely represent any kind of coherent ideology, but I've never suggested that getting rid of them would result in better people coming into office.

[corkBrobe]

Congratulations on losing a guy who'd vote with the party 87% of the time to one who will vote with them, what, 10%? If that? Cap and trade, and Obamacare. Only the two biggest bills of the year, and he sided with the democrats.

[ImapFidaarram]

You are a moron, and your political acumen is that of a diseased snail. Seeing as you've declined my challenge, I take that to mean that you respect my opinion sufficiently not to call me out.

Oh you rascally liar you. Obama is at ~45 approval and ~45% disapproval right now Which is low for less than 2 years into a presidency, Boris. Ras has him at about 41 percent approval.

That's hardly "extremely unpopular" when you consider Bush's approval was ~30% in November 2006 when the Republicans lost control of Congress. 6 years after he was elected.

Several polls have shown Angle trailing as well. At any rate, yes, up only 2 points and under 50% against a relatively unpopular incumbent in an anti-incumbent year is definitely struggling. She should be up 10 points over him. Over the incumbant Senate Majority leader?

I didn't say he wouldn't win, nimrod--just that it will be harder than it would have been for Murkowski. So, he wins, you don't get extra points for running up the score. This isn't the BCS. Enough said.

Take the Rasmussen polling (a Republican-leaning pollster anyway): Murkowski was up 32 points over McAdams, but Miller was up only 6 when they polled after the primary. Republican leaning = polls likely voters. His models are consistantly more accurate. She was up by a similar amount over Joe Miller and how did that work out eh?

Murkowski is also still toying with the idea of running as a 3rd party candidate in the general. If she's on the ballot, Miller's chances of winning will plummet severely. As a write-in candidate? Seriously? You really believe that she'd have an impact? She lost, she's done. Miller should win the general without too much difficulty.

If you don't think that quotes of that kind from the NRSC against O'Donnell and the fact that they won't give her any financial support won't make a difference in the election, then you're delusional. The same NRSC that *****ed and moaned about underfunding? She didn't have any funding here, they funded her opponent who was also quite wealthy, and O'Donnell still won by 6. They don't have the power to do much anymore.

and how did Scott Brown turn out for the teabagger set, hmm? They wanted to hang him in effigy for voting with the Democrats! The point is he won. So can O'Donnell in an equally blue state. The seat is open, she isn't facing an incumbent.

[N95FzmMw]

Cap and trade, and Obamacare. Only the two biggest bills of the year, and he sided with the democrats.

Castle didn't vote for the Healthcare bill, you unbelievable retard.

[eladiopsislab]

Seeing as you've declined my challenge, I take that to mean that you respect my opinion sufficiently not to call me out.

No, I don't respect you opinion, you're just too ****ing stupid to understand the point being made.

I've beaten you on every single political bet we've made. You were the one who was so idiotic you thought McCain would carry 40 states in a landslide.


Which is low for less than 2 years into a presidency, Boris. Ras has him at about 41 percent approval. How so? Care to guess how many other presidents had such "low" approval ratings at this point in their Presidency and still went on to win re-election? Reagan and Clinton are two names that immediately come to mind. You can't weasel out of this: your claim of Obama being "extremely unpopular" is garbage. He's hit 50% in Gallup just a week or so ago. That's not nearly "extremely unpopular."
6 years after he was elected. So? Are you saying that means a president will necessarily be unpopular by then? Care to compare the year 6 numbers to Clinton? Bush was genuinely "extremely unpopular. "

Over the incumbant Senate Majority leader? Over any senator who is unpopular in his own state, you idiot. His being majority leader is irrelevant. Remember Tom Daschle? Majority leader status means squat in this context. A competent Republican would be beating Reid by 10 points now. Look at how badly his son is doing in the Governor's race.

So, he wins, you don't get extra points for running up the score. This isn't the BCS. Enough said. Being up 6 points isn't the final number, moron. The plain fact that anyone can see is that Murkowski had much, much more of a chance of beating McAdams than Miller does, especially if Murkowski runs as 3rd party.

Republican leaning = polls likely voters. His models are consistantly more accurate. She was up by a similar amount over Joe Miller and how did that work out eh? Party primaries != general elections. You simply cannot correlate the results of partisan primaries and the November contests. Nominating extremists leads to alienating the electorate.

As a write-in candidate? Seriously? You really believe that she'd have an impact? She lost, she's done. Miller should win the general without too much difficulty. Murkowski has been in talks to run on the Libertarian Party ticket. Discounting her popularity and name recognition is foolish of you, but I'd expect nothing less. Her approval rating statewide was positive, it was only the crazy Republicans who didn't like her. The bitter primary also substantially alienated her voters from Miller, and there has been no "coming together" attempt whatsoever.

The same NRSC that *****ed and moaned about underfunding? She didn't have any funding here, they funded her opponent who was also quite wealthy, and O'Donnell still won by 6. They don't have the power to do much anymore. Again, you're batshit delusional if you don't think the NRSC sitting this election out won't have an effect. The DNSC will be putting millions of dollars into this race and she will not be able to match it.

The point is he won. So can O'Donnell in an equally blue state. The seat is open, she isn't facing an incumbent. Scott Brown won because he ran as a moderate in the General Election, and Coakley ran a terrible "campaign." Brown had the party's backing all along and showed in both the election and in his Senate voting he is not a genuine teabagger--he even snubbed their big rally with Palin in Boston.

O'Donnell will NOT run as a moderate in the General--she is an ideological candidate, and she's not going to tack to center. She will go down just like Alan Keyes did.

I know Delaware--I grew up on the Delmarva peninsula. O'Donnell is not going to win, not by a longshot. I notice you didn't offer me a bet on that outcome, chickenshit!

[libertiespana]

I've beaten you on every single political bet we've made. You were the one who was so idiotic you thought McCain would carry 40 states in a landslide. The point being that Miller will likely win AK. You haven't contested the statement, ergo I can't be completely out to lunch. Yes, I did take that bet, I try to stake a postion to the right of Attilla the hun.

How so? Care to guess how many other presidents had such "low" approval ratings at this point in their Presidency and still went on to win re-election? Reagan and Clinton are two names that immediately come to mind. There are others as well. Wilson and Truman are the others I believe. None, besides Reagan were considered peculiarly strong. Perhaps Obama is the next Reagan, but Reagan had a hostile congress. Obama's had supermajorities. The situations are very different.

You can't weasel out of this: your claim of Obama being "extremely unpopular" is garbage. He's hit 50% in Gallup just a week or so ago. I find it hilarious that 50 percent approval is considered evidence that he is popular. How the mighty have fallen.

So? Are you saying that means a president will necessarily be unpopular by then? Care to compare the year 6 numbers to Clinton? Bush was genuinely "extremely unpopular. " Clinton over the course of his presidency was one of the least popular presidents. Bush was not. Bush never dipped below 50 until well into his second term.

Over any senator who is unpopular in his own state, you idiot. His being majority leader is irrelevant. Really.

Remember Tom Daschle? Majority leader status means squat in this context. A competent Republican would be beating Reid by 10 points now. Look at how badly his son is doing in the Governor's race. Incumbancy is a powerful force. You can't seriously argue that because his son is doing worse than he that Angle is a weak candidate.

Murkowski had much, much more of a chance of beating McAdams than Miller does, especially if Murkowski runs as 3rd party. Except that she can't run as 3rd party. But then I'm just ignorant. She's done. As for Murkowski, that was then, this is now.

Party primaries != general elections. You simply cannot correlate the results of partisan primaries and the November contests. Nominating extremists leads to alienating the electorate. Give the populatiry of Palin in AK, I'd say that Miller fits right in with the electorate. AK is not DE.

Again, you're batshit delusional if you don't think the NRSC sitting this election out won't have an effect. The DNSC will be putting millions of dollars into this race and she will not be able to match it. The NRSC sued the tea party to keep her from getting funds. Elephants have long memories. The difference bdetween the evil party and the stupid party is that you never see the evil party with these issues.

Scott Brown won because he ran as a moderate in the General Election, and Coakley ran a terrible "campaign." Brown had the party's backing all along and showed in both the election and in his Senate voting he is not a genuine teabagger--he even snubbed their big rally with Palin in Boston. I see nothing to indicate that the DE Dem is in the range of excellent campaigners. O'Donnell has proven that she is an excellent campaigner. She won by a much larger margin than Miller.

O'Donnell will NOT run as a moderate in the General--she is an ideological candidate, and she's not going to tack to center. She will go down just like Alan Keyes did. Maybe so, but that chapter has not yet been written.

I know Delaware--I grew up on the Delmarva peninsula. O'Donnell is not going to win, not by a longshot. I notice you didn't offer me a bet on that outcome, chickenshit! Well given as you've declined the bet I did make, I see no point. DE + AK to the GOP in November? You willing to take that one on? If both go Dem, then you win, both to GOP, I win, else it's a push. Deal?

[soSldI4i]

No, I don't respect you opinion, you're just too ****ing stupid to understand the point being made.

I've beaten you on every single political bet we've made. You were the one who was so idiotic you thought McCain would carry 40 states in a landslide.

Wow.