- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Tomorrow’s primaries in New York and six other states — the last of the 2010 cycle, save for Saturday’s primary in Hawaii and a runoff in Louisiana on Oct. 2 — originally looked as though they’d have little impact on the electoral landscape. Although some of the primaries were nominally competitive – like the Republican Senate race in Maryland, where a suite of 11 candidates will be on the ballot — they were typically not so in places where the nominee stood a strong chance of winning the general election.
Two races, however, have changed that equation. And depending on how they are resolved, Republican chances of taking over the Senate could be enhanced or significantly diminished.
But then a strange thing happened. Joe Miller, who had the backing of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express, upended the incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the Republican Senate primary in Alaska. Although the outcome arguably should not have been such a surprise – a dearth of polling concealed whatever momentum Mr. Miller might have been gaining – it emboldened Tea Party activists and some other conservatives, who were reminded that in this topsy-turvy electoral cycle, few incumbents and establishment politicians are safe. Mr. Castle — a moderate who is unambiguously a member of the establishment – was next on their target list. And so Ms. O’Donnell, who already had the support of the Tea Party, last week received endorsements from Republican thought-leaders like Ms. Palin, the National Rifle Association and Senator James DeMint of South Carolina.
In contrast to Alaska, however, where Mr. Miller is the favorite to be elected unless Ms. Murkowski finds her way onto the ballot as a Libertarian or write-in candidate, Delaware is a blue state, and the electoral prospects of Mr. Castle and Ms. O’Donnell there are wildly divergent. Whereas Mr. Castle is nearly a 95 percent favorite against the Democratic nominee, Chris Coons, according to last week’s FiveThirtyEight forecasting model, Ms. O’Donnell would have just a 17 percent chance of winning a race against Mr. Coons.
The primaries in Delaware and New Hampshire have implications far beyond their borders. The forecast model that we ran last week gave Republicans a 26 percent chance of taking over the Senate — and enough states are tossups that they would be well within reach of doing so if the elections were held today. But this forecast was based on a weighted average likelihood of various candidates winning their primaries — for example, we had estimated that Ms. O’Donnell had a 25 percent chance of prevailing in Delaware, and Mr. Lamontange a 30 percent chance of doing so in New Hampshire — leaving Mr. Castle and Ms. Ayotte as the favorites.
If Ms. O’Donnell and Mr. Lamontange were both to win their primaries, however, the Republican chances of a Senate takeover would fall to just 16 percent, according to the model. Conversely, if Mr. Castle and Ms. Ayotte were to win, Republicans chances would rise to 30 percent. Thus, Republican prospects of claiming the Senate could be nearly halved if both the insurgent candidates were to prevail.
Are you under the impression that I'm a democrat?
2 Insurgents Could Hurt G.O.P. Chances for Senate Takeover - NYTimes.com
Be careful what you wish for...because you just might get it all.
If we have to have some establishment moderate republicans lose to even questionable candidates to send that message, so be it.
Nah. I just wanted to Neener. :neener
I'd prefer to see a moderate 3rd party created from the centrists that you so disdain, so if the teaparty drags the Republican party far to the rght, the odds of that increases. I see this as win/win for me.
Nevertheless, it should be remembered that were it not for the enthusiasm of the Tea Party — and other conservative voices outside the Republican establishment — the party might not be in the intriguing position that it finds itself in heading into November. Although Republicans enjoy many advantages in this cycle, perceptions of the party itself is not one of them. Nor are most figures who are identified with the party establishment popular. Instead, it has been the party’s occasional success at portraying itself as consisting of ordinary, aggrieved, disempowered outsiders – a new type of ‘silent majority’ — that have freshened its message for some voters.
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to title the thread "What the Tea Party has done for the Republican Party", link to an article, highlighting some relevant parts... but not highlighting the equally relevant part in the same article telling another side to the story?
The Tea Party might make some mistakes now and then (IMO, anyways), but that doesn't change the fact that they've been a net positive for the GOP.
I always want moderate centrists to win, regardless what party they are from. Trust me, we're not that complicated. And, I'm unwilling to support radicals from either side. Which is why I'll happily be voting for Crist.
Centrist and Moderates, while at times over lapping, are two entirely different things.
I'd prefer to see a moderate 3rd party created from the centrists that you so disdain, so if the teaparty drags the Republican party far to the rght, the odds of that increases. I see this as win/win for me.
While I'd love to win both houses this year, I'm absolutely fine with not winning either if it creates an actual shift in the GOP towards foundational conservative values and sticking to those principles in teh long run.
If we have to have some establishment moderate republicans lose to even questionable candidates to send that message, so be it. As long as the message gets sent. Becuase once its done, and its realized, and its actually acted upon, then that will increase the chance for the solidly conservative non-questionable individuals to actually make real and legitimate runs for office in the future.
I have no issue with not being an ADHD party when it comes to this thing that needs immediete gratification.
Hey, can you cite "Great Centrist of the 20th Century" for me? Or through history?
Eisenhower was pretty great.
Don't really get why you're asking... does someonehave to be unambiguously conservative to be "great" to you?
While I'd love to win both houses this year, I'm absolutely fine with not winning either if it creates an actual shift in the GOP towards foundational conservative values and sticking to those principles in teh long run.
Uhm, I'm asking because all the time people like you want moderates... for the life of me I don't understand why. You want someone that has no real principles, no passion, and might go against your best interest because... it's the moderate thing to do?
Not a single true statement here. I don't want moderates all the time, just when they're the best choice.
Centrists aren't inherently devoid of principles or passion, whatever you might think of them. Politicians who only vote a certain way to seem moderate (Crist, Specter, et al) are scumbags with no principles; that doesn't mean that there aren't any genuine moderates and centrists out there who will have a mixed record simply by voting their minds. Sorry, but I value honesty; in certain situations, I'd be willing to vote for a more moderate candidate who I actually could know where they stand than a candidate claiming to be the more consrevative one who I couldn't trust to act in anyone's interest but their own. It depends on the situation of course, but the facts remain that I don't generally prefer moderates over conservatives, that your disdain for centrism is misplaced, and that sometimes the best choice for conservatives is to nominate the moderate candidate.
So which do you hate more, moderates or liberals? I'm not sure at this point, but it seems to me that I was right to think that someone has to be unambiguously conservative to seem "great" to you.
Uhm, I'm asking because all the time people like you want moderates... for the life of me I don't understand why. You want someone that has no real principles, no passion, and might go against your best interest because... it's the moderate thing to do?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?