In the 2008 Election, Obama beat McCain in Delaware by 25 percentage points. Delaware is a blue state. It is always going to be a blue state. Any Republican who is going to maintain office in Delaware is going to have to be a centrist candidate who appeals to independents and conservative Democrats.
It can be safely said that Christine O’Donnell is not such a candidate. She is surging in the polls and has the endorsement of Tea Partiers. It looks like she might upend moderate Mike Castle in the Republican primary, who at least has a whisper of a hope in winning and maintaining a US Senate seat in Delaware. Even in this anti-Democratic year, O’Donnell has little chance of winning this year, and zero chance of maintaining the seat without an ideological transformation (either by her or the state).
So conservative Republicans in Delaware have to decide whether they want to make a statement or whether they want to have a chance of gaining this seat in one of the few chances they will ever have to do so. Conservatives are giddy about their chances across the country with good cause. But anyone with a drop of sense knows this election isn’t about conservatives taking over the hearts and minds of the country. Our nation is one that voted two years ago for Barak Obama. Republicans in control of the Congress are not going to make the ordinary voter much happier about her government than the Democrats do right now. In short, it ain’t gonna last! 10 years from now the Tea Party will be a distant memory, much as Ross Perot’s Whatever that Was Called Party from the 1990s.
So conservatives (and right-libertarians) are going to have to decide whether to vote with their heads or their hearts, to vote strategically or passionately. Of course I’m well aware the dilemma here. A single voter has no discernible effect on the outcome, so why not vote with your passion? I can’t resolve here the disconnect between group strategy and individual incentives, other than to say that, as a group, conservatives in Delaware are completely nuts if they vote for O’Donnell.
I’m not a paid political hack for Castle, would probably much prefer O’Donnell to Castle if I had the choice, and know little about Delaware. But I can interpret a 25 point advantage. So, my Delaware friends, you live in a blue state. Deal with it and don’t be idiots.
The logic is obvious, but I’m not optimistic.
Nate Silver’s analysis of the race seems decisive on this point:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/2-insurgents-could-hurt-g-o-p-chances-for-senate-takeover/
Well, now that it’s official, it looks as if the stupid party has lived up to its stereotype!
One thing I like about this blog is that it’s not usually given to calling people “idiots” like so much of the blogosphere, so I was disappointed to read this post (and the comments).
I would just note that your whole argument hinges on whether a GOP controlled senate under its current leadership and attitudes (into which Castle fits just fine) is going to be any better then (or even different from) Harry Reid’s Senate. Given the GOP Senate’s dismal performance under Bush (one reason voters decided to give the GOP the boot, remember?), I’m not sure that assumption is a slam dunk. What have McConnell and Castle done to convince you they’re any different from the GOP business-as-usual, porkopolous Senate from 2000-2006? Why do you think current Senate Republicans (e.g. McConnell) have even lower approval ratings than Nancy Pelosi (last time I looked, anyway)?
If that’s the case (and you seem to agree, given your comment about making people happy), what the hell is the point of voting for Castle? What’s the point of taking control of the Senate if you’re just going to disillusion people even farther about the GOP brand. Why not fall just short–you can simultaneously use the filibuster to stop legislation you don’t like (as the Democrats could stop yours), and you can go to the American people and say “we stand for something different” with some evidence behind you. Vote your convictions in 2010 and pursue the “anti-business-as-usual” strategy. Sounds like a winning strategy for 2012 when you can try to take the White House too.
Would that guarantee success in 2012? No. Would it prevent any further lurches leftward like Health Care or the Stimulus? Yes. Calling it stupid and idiotic says more about how narrowly you focus on “winning the Senate” than it does about others’ choices.
Ralph Nader used essentially the same argument to lose the 2000 election for Al Gore. How reasonable is it to think a Gore presidency wouldn’t have been different from a Bush one?
Yes, there are frustrating things about politicians of both parties, but I think it is very naive and short-sighted to think that holding a majority doesn’t matter or that a Democratic majority will look pretty much like a Republican majority. The filibuster is no where nearly as effective as having a majority in terms of setting the agenda in Congress. If one is truly upset about the Obama imperial presidency, giving up a chance at a Senate majority for the GOP is a really lousy way of showing it.
You surely know that in terms of power, winning the White House versus losing it is totally different from winning 51 seats versus 49 seats in a chamber that needs close to 60 to accomplish anything. Why waste time with such a straw man argument (though I do wonder if Nader imagines they’d be different)?
Republicans in control of the Congress are not going to make the ordinary voter much happier about her government than the Democrats do right now.
I agree with you 100%. The Mitch McConnell and Mike Castle Republicans in the Senate won’t make a difference. Why exactly are you so desperate to get a majority if you yourself acknowledge that it won’t make a difference? It’s telling that your response is so vague on that point.
People who supported Scott Brown, Joe Miller, and Christine O’Donnell were all reviled as “naive” and “fools” by people like you. And yet…the funny thing is, their opponents are the ones looking for work. Is this a new election? Sure it is. A harder one this time. Impossible? I’ve seen too many wacky things happen in politics to ever say that.
I guess if the Tea Partiers hadn’t proven nay-sayers wrong so many times I might agree with you. Given what we’ve seen so far this cycle, though, why not go double or nothing? Risky? definitely. Passionate rather than reasonable? absolutely. Stupid? No.
Oops. I must have deleted the after I quoted you in the second paragraph. Sorry.