O’Donnell’s Latest Ad, Plus: the Double-Edged Sword of Sending a Message
Reader John Lynch writes with the following thoughts about winning elections:
Management 101
Let us, for a moment only, take it seriously that Congress and elected officials in general “work for us.” If so, we have a responsibility. The responsibility of management. When hired to do a job, we are expected to understand the nature of the job we are to perform. We are expected to bring the skills necessary to perform that job. Moreover, we are expected to take direction from our managers in prioritizing the tasks and performing up to standards.
We, as employers, have responsibilities as well. We are required to be clear, as can be given ambiguities, on the expectations: of the job, the tasks, and the standards. Similar to management in a corporation, we have limited means by which to communicate our expectations. Tar and feathers are, alas, no longer acceptable means – for employees or our congressional representatives.
What are our means of communicating our expectations?
Well, first are opinion polls. In these, we can as a collective voice our opinions. These are frequently imperfect as the pollster may oversample one constituency over another, or slant the questions, or otherwise obfuscate our directions to our representatives. However an imperfect vehicle this may be, it does occasionally provide our direction clearly enough that our representatives should hear us. Recent examples: healthcare, immigration and taxes.
Secondly, phone and electronic direct communication. Calling or emailing our representatives provides direct instruction. However, it is then left to the representative to collate our multiple diverse voices into a collective set of instructions.
Third, town hall meetings and other group events such as rallies, dinners, etc. While these are sometime susceptible to stage-managing, they provide venues where it is difficult to escape the voiced opinion of the crowd. The usual counter to these venues is that such events are only for the angry activist, thus not representative of the represented at large.
Fourth, and most effective, is the election process. While our congress can ignore, or play political calculus with our other forms of communicating our expectations, they cannot ignore a defeat in election. Or, rather, it no longer matters if they ignore us as they are no longer in power. Short of defeat, there remains a value in a challenged election: communication of our displeasure.
We do not get to give annual performance reviews. We do not get to call our representatives into our offices or homes and abrade them on their performance. It is any wonder that they feel they can operate with impunity to our desires? Is it any wonder that they feel they can safely ignore us?
In times when our satisfaction with their performance is not unusually bad, we may let it suffice that our calls, emails and opinions guide them. In times like these however, we use the more direct, and forceful means of communicating our expectations. Primary challenges, directed contributions, political activism, and enthusiasm in elections are all a part of setting our expectations.
It is silly to abrogate our responsibilities in expressing our expectations. It is silly to speak of “purging”. We are not “purging” – we are firing those who do not perform. We do so, both for removal of the unwanted, but also as direction and relief for those who remain. To do otherwise is abrogating our responsibilities. To do other is to let our employees: congress and other elected officials, substitute their will for ours. To do other is not democracy.
We are expected to act; to act as directors of our own future; to act as selectors of our representatives; and, to act as responsible managers.
The premise of this argument is that political leaders will pay attention to the voters’ will. If voters reject a Mike Castle in the primary, leaders will listen to that message and choose a more conservative candidate in future races.
Which I think is a pretty good argument, and the most defensible argument for rejecting Castle. Except, I just have one question.
What happens when the voters reject a Christine O’Donnell in the general election? Will that send a message to party leaders? And if so, what will that message be?
If you firmly believe that the defeat of Mike Castle sent a message that we won’t tolerate RINOs, what message will the defeat of Christine O’Donnell send?
In unrelated news, here is her latest ad. At least I think it’s her latest ad, and not the first one again. She’s still you.
Impressed?
the defeat of Christy O will send the signal that what Johnny Cornhole wants, Johnny Cornhole gets
happyfeet (19c1da) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:07 amStop the whining. O’Donnell deserves the support of all conservatives in her battle against the media and it’s pawn, Coons. You may not like her, but her opponent is much more dangerous.
jkstewart2 (b254fb) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:13 amShe needs a harder edge ad, this is the Demon Sheep guy, she needs to bell the Coons cat, too many have
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:15 amtagged her, not here of course
perhaps it is better to have a wolf in office than a wolf in sheep’s clothing,
I duuno
quasimodo (4af144) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:18 amNo, the only thing that O’Donnell’s defeat will signal is that she was a crappy candidate. But some people would rather blame party machinations than own up to that simple fact.
Some Chump (e84e27) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:23 amwith resolve he stared at it, pulling the ring, waiting forever for the four count he tossed it into the blogesphere..
EricPWJohnson (5895a8) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:30 amThere have onlt been about 1,000 new R registrations, whereas Dem adn Independents have gone up by 71,000 in the last six years, I get the vapors from the excitement
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:32 amWe are not “purging” – we are firing
I would call this word play. The result is the same.
What happens when the voters reject a Christine O’Donnell in the general election? Will that send a message to party leaders? And if so, what will that message be?
Find better conservative candidates.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:36 am“What happens when the voters reject a Christine O’Donnell in the general election? Will that send a message to party leaders? And if so, what will that message be?”
Clean out your desk.
Let me just use MN as an example of the Party wisdom in pursuing victory by selecting “moderate” candidates. Parenthetically, pressing any similarity between purple MN and the country too far would be comical, but the mechanics of GOP leadership are similar.
The DFL, like the Dims nationally, have the electoral upper hand. They open the contest staking their position in the sand. The GOP then takes theirs a step to the right.
MN has a “viable”(no guffaws please) third party, the Independence party, famously fronting Jesse Ventura the 2000 gubernatorial victor. Their modus operandi is to take a position uncomfortably betwixt the other two.
This has resulted in no real choice in government direction, only in personalities. Minnesota hates nasty politicians but is mindful of its flaccid nature and rejects milquetoast as well.
Our current guv, Tim Pawlenty, a Powerline fave, is just such an example. Nominally, too conservative for the state he beat a nice, faceless guy and then an ogre for his two terms.
Well MN has a $6 Billion shortfall looming for the next biennium. The stimulus ran out this fiscal year and cuts have already begun at state and local levels. Pawlenty has nothing, nada, zippo on Christie although socially a baby step to the right(Ok, maybe the I-35 bridge collapse).
MN is a prosperous state, behind the zeitgeist, but we are about to have our slumber interrupted.
The GOP has gone well to the right with Emmer their candidate, but not a sweetheart. The DFL has checked the unstable former Senator Dayton out on self-recognizance. It’ll be interesting.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:37 amWellstone, Franken and Ventura, some rolling convention of the insane over there
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:45 amThe point isn’t so much aimed at the Republican leadership, it’s aimed at the Republican Congressmen – stray too far from the reservation and you’ll be primaried. So a prospective Mike Castle will have to weigh votes carefully, rather than just reflexively siding with the Democrats on most of the important votes. He’ll have to decide whether it’s an issue that he really cares about.
This won’t affect the votes on issues they really care about (although it will make them lie about it during the primary) – Graham and McCain are still going to vote for amnesty, the Maine twins are still going to vote for all but the most egregious pro-abortion bills, etc. But when that next bill comes out and the Democrats are looking to peel a few Republicans off to sharply raise taxes, maybe some of them will go, ‘hmm, this might be a bad idea if I want to stay in office’.
Skip (f8001a) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:57 amian – I agree. She needs to get more aggressive. Just mentioning Yale and millions is too tame. Say why he’s “Not You,” that he’s willing to use the power of the government to crush people who complain, etc.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:01 amGary,
You need a Master’s Degree to be “electable” in many Republican circles. Good syntax is also a plus. Not saying much upsetting is the most important thing. This is called “qualifications.”
Their actual votes, and whether or not these votes represent conservative principles, is quite secondary to their being “entitled” to the position b/c of their “qualifications.”
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:08 amSkip,
It’s like I didn’t say a thing.
Let me try again.
As you luxuriate in the thought of the message Castle’s defeat will send, please answer what message O’Donnell’s loss will send.
That’s the whole point of the post and you ignored it.
Patterico (eaf05f) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:09 amgary’s message:
When the candidate opposed by the party leaders loses, the message to party leaders will be clean out your desk.
Makes as much sense as anything else he says.
Patterico (eaf05f) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:11 am… oh and if the Republican Leaders can’t find better conservative candidates then withhold money till the Leaders themselves get replaced with better “Board Members.”
Go right young men (and women)!
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:18 amThe message is: You win some, you lose some. The O’Donnell candidacy isn’t a referendum on the rest of the TPs efforts to replace the spenders with someone better. It is only one candidate.
SGT Ted (fa9b46) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:20 am#17, Stop!!! You are making too much sense.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:21 amWhy does Castle’s defeat send a Grand Measage to every sitting Congressman while O’Donnell’s will send no message at all and will be considered an isolated incident?
Just because that’s how you want it to be taken?
If you justify Castle’s defeat on the basis that it sends a message, you have to face the fact that O’Donnell’s defeat will send a message too.
Or you can just pretend that elections send messages only when you like the message being sent.
Patterico (eaf05f) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:29 amI don’t think the message of this one candidates loss will over shadow the bigger message of the crushing defeat nationally of many Democrat candidates. The press will make that attempt, but I don’t think it’s going to stick.
Your point about judges is well taken but we need the presidency to really make the most effective difference.
SGT Ted (fa9b46) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:29 amnot overly impressed with ad. i think she needs to stop saying, “i’m you” and hammer him with a simpler message:
the economy is in the toilet.
the stimulus didn’t help; in fact it probably made it worse.
Our debt is exploding.
Castle won’t fix any of it.
As for what message it sends, if o’Donnell loses, well, i think people will ask why she lost. some will say it was because she was too conservative. But i mean do anyone here thing THAT is really her problem? Or show of hands, how many people think it is problems like her resume, her odd comment about witchcraft and other things like that. in other words, if she loses it would be because she is a weak candidate.
So the message i would take away from it, is next time, find someone conservative enough for the base to accept who is a better candidate.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:38 am“When the candidate opposed by the party leaders loses, the message to party leaders will be clean out your desk.”
Pardon the ellipsis, the message is now, and will be “Scram!”
Moreover, given the obstacles to successful leaders in the Senate of the coming 112th Congress, that message will likely increase in volume.
No, holding your breath, shaking your little fists, throwing your little self on the floor will not change the message.
I know you think we’re too stupid to think two moves ahead in this chess match, but my illustration from MN is also caution for the GOP in 2012 and following.
Should they make the war vs. the TEAs a second front and force our candidates to take fire from two sides(regardless of their merits) the GOP will be rendered the ‘fringe’.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:41 amTough to argue with such genius gary. Thank you for your thoughts.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:44 amA pol ignores the new wave of pragmatism at his/her own peril. COD is a particularly, and singularly, awful candidate.
Will you argue Nevada voters were wrong to go for Angle in the primary when she wins? She isn’t the greatest candidate, either.
To conflate the principles in the work you cited with the practical considerations of a terribly flawed candidate is a mistake.
Ed from SFV (de2c81) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:44 amThe message that O’Donnell’s defeat will send is that the mandarins of the party and purists in the blogosphere will not tolerate anyone who fails to meet their high standards of acceptability. The right school, the right diction, no background problems that much of the country face. None of that nasty stuff. Not even a law degree? GET OUT. That’s the message.
robert ferrigno (9a529a) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:48 amIf you justify Castle’s defeat on the basis that it sends a message, you have to face the fact that O’Donnell’s defeat will send a message too.
Again, find a better Conservative candidate. That is the message if she loses. Even if she wins, that should be the message b/c if she was better she would win by two TDs instead of …… all roads lead to the same place. Call it purity, call it stupid, call it holding candidates accountable.
Fact is if Mike Castle types had been doing the right thing (by our opinion) he never would have lost. But fact is HIS VOTES doomed him and Republicans (still) can quite reconcile this b/c their only focus is winning an election which at the end of the day MAY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE COME JANUARY ANYWAY.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:49 amNobody says it’s a referendum on other TP candidates. It was said that SHE couldn’t win. Her backers kept insisting she would win. Now the story’s changed (surprise!) and it’s not about whether she wins.
Gerald A (0843ed) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:50 amThe Republican Party needs Tea Party money and Tea party votes. The rest is RINO bitches whining they now need to suck it versus getting it sucked. What goes around, comes around. You want us back on our knees? Be sweet and avoid the teeth.
… that is the simple image I have over all the O’Donnell complaining.
OT: how many Coons articles have we seen lately?
[How many ideas for something new have you suggested? None? Then it’s your fault. — P]
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:56 amShe’s not going to win. I live in Nevada, and Reid has a good lead over Angle. She’s about the only person the Republicans could have nominated that wouldn’t have beaten Reid.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:03 am#29 maybe Fox is Faux News but allegedly she is ahead of Reid.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:05 amOT: Jerry Brown is on tape being a douche bag apparently. I am shocked.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:06 amWhat’s the difference if either Coons or Castle would win? Both are liberals. Both will vote the Democratic line.
What good is a majority if the Rinos keep voting with the liberals?
Remember Jeffords?
Douglas (12f8ac) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:08 amI’ll happily eat crow if Angle wins. Rassmussen is reporting she’s opened up a 4-point lead among likely voters, and I tend to trust Rassmussen’s numbers.
On the down-side, getting rid of Reid and not taking over the Senate allows the Dems to replace a relatively ineffectual majority leader.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:10 amPatrick, while your question is an important one, I don’t think this particular election will give us many good answers. Both Castle and O’Donnell were very flawed candidates. Castle because of his policy positions and O’Donnell because, well, she’s just not a strong candidate, personally.
The more important question is whether, give equally well-qualified candidates, we should nominate the middle-of-the-roader or the “real conservative.” If O’Donnell had fewer personal issues, this election might help answer that.
As the others posters said, the real lesson is that conservatives need to find better candidates.
PatHMV (140f2a) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:20 amIf I hadn’t read of the Copeland, Ting, and Chatsworth candidacies, I would agree but the party hasn’t really shown much interest in such things
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:33 amThe message that O’Donnell’s defeat will have (or should have) is that egotistical nitwits like her have no business allowing themselves to audition for a major public office. If she had even an ounce of sense about how inappropriate it was for her to thrust herself into the spotlight — based on her lack of honesty about basic (repeat: BASIC) aspects of her background — she never would have run in the first place.
Of course, that concept applies double to the joker in the White House—which is why I think America jumped the shark in November 2008 when it extended its hand to the guy now in the Oval Office. But O’Donnell shouldn’t have been such a fool to assume the same benefit of the doubt applied to her since Delaware is a state that’s full of sloppy liberals, not sloppy conservatives.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:38 am“It was said that SHE couldn’t win. Her backers kept insisting she would win. Now the story’s changed (surprise!) and it’s not about whether she wins”
Echoing PatHMV immediately above, and others, her backers-Freedom[Something] said she ,i>could win. Now, plainly, with 55K voting vs. 30K forecast some insurgents got her over the top. And some held their nose for the fait accompli. But DE knew her and knew her opponent and nothing Rico or anyone else has added post-primary could have further informed their decision. They were aware of it all.
If she were to win GOP apparatchiks will get none of the credit, when she loses they’ve absolutely earned some of the blame.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:39 amAs the others posters said, the real lesson is that conservatives need to find better candidates.
No matter how many times this is repeated, there is a general refusal to “get it.” And most who aren’t “getting it” is because you are threatening their perch in pecking order.
Again, the Landed Aristocracy does not understand why the Peasants hate them almost as much as they do the foreign invader and the Aristocracy’s argument against the upstart enlightenment thinkers “pitch” to the peasants is “Those Thinkers Can’t Really Protect You Either! Look they have no armies!” …. all the while ignoring the “protecting army” the aristocrats use are the peasants themselves.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:41 amThe Republican Party is dead meat without the Tea Party Alliance. They don’t get it. They don’t like it.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:42 am“38.The Republican Party is dead meat without the Tea Party Alliance.”
It’s a lesson from life we see over, and over. The miser squeezes his penny so tight, ever watchful that no one steal it, that his fortune slips through his fingers.
The GOP has an opportunity to lead and come out smelling great, but they’re certain to crap the bed and lose it all.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:50 am“What message will the defeat of Christine O’Donnell send?”
– Patterico
Something along the lines of “even Congress has standards.”
Nothing more or less. The rejection of O’Donnell ought to be read as the rejection of a dishonest incompetent, not the rejection of any higher set of ideals.
Leviticus (9b7446) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:52 amhttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_changed_parties.htm
lists the 21 senators who switched parties since 1890. It just doesn’t happen all that often and the tendency is to go with the party that is surging. If any switches were to happen this time around I think the odds would be better a Dem switches. Say Nelson from Ne as an example.
VOR2 (c9795e) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:52 amReally the recipient of the Nebraska kickback to buy his vote, I guess Landrieu is also on deck
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:58 am“Thank you for your thoughts.”
I appreciate the sentiment. Ever read “King Lear”?
Put Rico in for protagonist, cormac for Kent, Dustin for Edgar, I’ll be Lear’s Fool.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:17 amNelson from Nebraska is the very picture of what I don’t want in the R party.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:27 am#36
Translate that into English.
Gerald A (0843ed) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:35 amShe can’t possibly be me. I only wear black at funerals and never pearls.
I still stick to my theory that it was not the Tea Party but crossover Democrats who helped her win in the primary. Because she would be a weaker candidate than Castle in the general.
nk (db4a41) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:36 amWhat about Richard Shelby? He opposed Bork when he was a Democrat and switched parties one day after the GOP regained control in 1994.
VOR2 (c9795e) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:38 amI don’t see anyone complaining about him anymore.
Two things to remember about all politicians:
1) They’re small;
2) They’re selfish;
3) They’re sefish.
Ok, three things.
nk (db4a41) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:43 amHere’s some folks who can tell which way the wind’s blowin'(including the blogger).
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:52 am“If so, we have a responsibility. The responsibility of management. ”
Seems to misunderstand the relationship. If there is to be a business analogy, it would be that we’re the shareholders and elected officials are the management.
imdw (14df54) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:02 amI think Patterico is really unhappy with Castle’s defeat. I’m not so sure that it was as unhappy an event as it might seem. I understand the practicality issue, but then I also understand the accountability issue. If Castle’s constituency felt they needed new blood, what message would be sent by allowing him to stay in office only because he was the lesser of two weevils (nasty bugs that eat you out of house and home)? If the Republicans in Delaware felt betrayed, why should they reward him on that basis? The real problem isn’t Castle’s defeat. The real problem is that Republicans as a group don’t seem to have much spine. They could have filibustered Kagan and Sotomeyer, but they didn’t. Somebody with the spine of Christie might be helpful.
As for messages sent, we don’t have much choice at this point, and it might be nice to quit complaining about it. A good candidate only need be fiscally conservative and support the constitution and they can win. You can raise a pretty big tent with that. So my advice is this: the milk is already spilled. It isn’t going back in the can. So lets get as many constructive messages out of it as we can.
PS. I have no clue what message is going to get sent because I don’t read minds. The messages that get received is going to depend on the minds receiving them. We can suggest though 🙂
Jeff Mitchell (0204be) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:06 am45. “Translate that into English.”
Correct me, but your implication is to impugn those putting up, out of a total pop. 870,000, an outsider absent politcally redeeming qualities.
You might have overlooked the GOP leadership’s epic FAIL. They’re ‘sure thing’ couldn’t make finals let alone the victor’s trot.
Their response is to piss all over the heat’s winner. Like she broke out of the gate early, or slept with the judges and got the hero DQed.
No, the GOP lost. Might they have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, this year, with this tsunami? Maybe not.
They chose, instead, to remove all doubt that they are indeed, losers.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:06 am49. D’oh. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/10/08/skin-deep.php
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:09 am”
when she loses they’ve absolutely earned some of the blame.
Comment by gary gulrud ”
Completely false.
Her general election campaign was DOA no matter what anybody else did because she is utterly unelectable.
The people responsible for this are Christine and the voters, not pundits who spoke up early or late about the facts pertaining to this candidate. You can’t drag a winner all the down to the mid 30s. A good candidate has to be able to withstand actual scrutiny, and even attacks, and sometimes even unfairness (though that isn’t the problem here). That she couldn’t is exactly why people warned against electing Coons to the US Senate by nominating O’Donnell.
Now, it’s the constant refrain of how totally unacceptable Coons is, and to the point where we should hold our tongues and tolerate dishonesty and all that. You guys accepted Coons winning during the primary, pretending he’s no worse than a moderate republican. Those bashing O’Donnell mostly never did. Who is responsible again?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:41 amBeing a political movement still in it’s infancy, it was inevitable that the Tea Party would make a few mistakes regarding their vetting processes. They’ll undoubtedly learn from these mistakes and make improvements for the next round of elections, or else face their imminent irrelevancy. Don’t think that’s going to happen, though.
Dmac (84da91) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:47 amI think her “I’m You” ads are brilliant. She’s differentiating herself from the “elites”. She is “every man(woman)”.
Her ads don’t need to be harsh. She smiles, she says she is just like the rest of America, and I think that can only help her.
Will she win? Who knows, but her campaign looks better and better to me. If I lived in Delaware, I would consider voting for her.
Jim (c01d19) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:48 amAnd by the way, everybody saying “Well I guess you must be a RINO too and so upset about Castle losing you want to ruin O’donnell!!!!!!” are dull. You know that’s a BS argument.
I bash Mccain. I do not like Obama.
I’m probably much more conservative than Christine is, but my criticism of her isn’t ideological. When you attack someone for not being of the right ideology but their argument has nothing to do with it, you are making an accusation of dishonesty and need some evidence, or you come across as irrational or dishonest yourself.
A LOT of conservatives wish we had nominated the most conservative person who could win this election, and it’s not because they aren’t conservative enough, buddies.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:48 amYes Jim, they are very good ads. I think the folks running her campaign, including O’Donnell, have been making very smart decisions lately. One of them was essentially to face up to the scandals, even if it is oblique, and try to explain them “I’m you, I’m not rich, it’s hard, I’m not actually a witch”
I know. If she cut Coon’s lead by half it’s a solid democrat race. It would take witchcraft or Coons doing something amazingly stupid (and even then, he would probably win). The number of Republicans who have managed to win this state is very low. In fact, I can only name 1 of those guys, and he was a very successful governor for many years, winning on personal popularity and name recognition.
Doesn’t mean O’Donnell should stop selling conservatism, hopefully prepping the field for a better candidate in a few years. But those speaking ill of O’donnell are changing nothing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 11:59 amAlthough I recognize this link’s source may be persona non grata the subject matter pertains.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/10/the-tea-party-is-exposing-americas-combine.html
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:01 pm“Her general election campaign was DOA no matter what anybody else did because she is utterly unelectable”
Then why not offer someone electable? They have the expertise, the purse, the political machine.
Make some sense.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:05 pm___________________________________________
I think Patterico is really unhappy with Castle’s defeat.
If he’s like me, he’s actually far, far more unhappy that a 100%-certified leftist like Chris Coons is almost guaranteed to be voted into the US Senate. Never forget that Delaware is a state whose electorate is full of idiotic “progressives.”
The people responsible for this are Christine and the voters
Definitely. I’d be less irked at Delawareans if O’Donnell were a truly unknown contender. But she’s already run twice before, so all her failings and flakiness must have been known by most people in that state. That’s why I’m sure many of the state’s liberals chuckled and snickered (with delight) when O’Donnell won the primary. Therefore, if I didn’t know better I would suspect various leftists crossed the aisle and pulled the lever for “O’Donnell.”
I’d also be less POed at her if I believed she were a sincere, reliable conservative. But her background doesn’t lead me to have such confidence in her. So she’s a big zero coming and going.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:08 pmCorrect me, but your implication is to impugn those putting up, out of a total pop. 870,000, an outsider absent politcally redeeming qualities.
Your posts are increasingly nonsensical. All I said was that many on this site and elsewhere said she can’t win. Now that that’s apparent, people like you change the story and say that doesn’t matter, after claiming she was going to win.
The “let’s offer a better candidate in the future” line points out the obvious: She’s not a good candidate yet you kept insisting she would win.
Gerald A (0843ed) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:14 pmAmen!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:22 pmThat’s something we can agree on. There are silver linings to Castle losing, to comparing successful Tea Party candidates to unsuccessful ones. I’m not losing sleep over the fact that we lost a race we should have won. That’s life. But you have pegged a major way to do better in the future.
People keep trying to say you don’t have to choose between ideological purity and election success. Good candidates make that happen.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:26 pmCastle was electable. Why didn’t the TEA party back a more electable conservative than the train wreck that is O’Donnell?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:33 pm“That’s something we can agree on.”
I take it you retract your “Completely false” assertion?
Blame does not fall on DE voters because they had, for the umpteenth time, liars to choose from.
A better question than how to choose and honest man is how to keep him honest when tossed into the snakepit.
Quit cryin’ over spilt milk.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:37 pm“Castle was electable.”
Ah, and 2 + 2 = 5.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:39 pmNo…
Perhaps I simply misunderstood you, but it seemed you were saying the O’Donnell losing the general election was partly because of conservatives unwilling to shut up about O’Donnell’s problems.
That is completely false.
You’re right, that ultimately, the lack of a better candidate is the problem, but O’Donnell’s chances of winning have been zero percent for years.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:43 pm“54.”
when she loses they’ve absolutely earned some of the blame.
Comment by gary gulrud ”
Completely false”
So, the GOP bears no responsibility even though they couldn’t put up a candidate who could win the election.
Then why do you blame O’D and her supporters and DE voters when they can’t either.
Are you an only child. You seem to have issues with accepting responsibility.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:56 pmwell, with all this handwringing over o’donnell, let me point something else out. this is a rip off of something that james taranto said, but its still valid.
remember when ollie north ran for senate? the entire liberal media combined to make sure this man was defeated. and they got their wish. they were so happy to see him go down to defeat… in november, 1994.
By the next morning, they weren’t so happy.
Taranto argues, and i suspect he is right, that by drawing all that fire north kept that fire directed away from all the other republicans running that year. the result is they won one race, and lost the Congress.
so maybe she will win, maybe she won’t. she has a limited period of time to turn this around.
but even in losing, she might prove useful. up until now, angle was supposed to be the crazy, unelectable tea partier. and in picking her, the tea party was supposed to have squandered its one chance at victory over reid. she is now running ahead of him pretty steadily in nevada.
which on one hand is concrete evidence that by focusing on O’Donnell the dems are missing alot of opportunities. but it also suggests that we have seen this before, the claim that the tea partier is unstable to be electable, and its obviously not true every time. crist is learning that, too.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/8/2010 @ 12:56 pmI think the more interesting message will be if O’Donnell wins. It will be a message that perhaps those who live in a state and do the grass roots campaigning vigorously usually win.
Most people who live in a state (or the whole country, for that matter) are not interested in ideological purity (what ever that is). They are interested in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at a personal level. If a candidate comes across as someone who will be the best to guarantee those goals for the voter, they will generally win.
Contrary to the prevalent belief by the chattering classes, most people in the United States are pretty smart about voting their self interest. We will soon see how the electorate of Delaware thinks it’s self interest is best served.
emrys (52b053) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:05 pm70&71. Cooler heads are already prevailing.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:07 pmI noticed you didn’t quote the comment I said ‘false’ to. And anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see why.
I’ve been making the point that we need better candidates for ages. What’s amusing is that you’ve been skipping over that argument for days now, and think you’re explaining it to me. So apparently your reading is about as good as your writing.
O’donnell’s losing because of O’Donnell. The GOP is losing because they nominated O’Donnell. O’donnell is not losing because people on the right are discussing well known defects with a mid 30s polling candidate. That’s completely false. Still.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:10 pmPolls showed Castle leading Coons by roughly the same margin that Coons is now leading O’Donnell. Do you dispute that Castle was likely to have been elected by the state as a whole? If so, show your reasoning. Otherwise, you can concede this point.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 10/8/2010 @ 1:42 pmIf O’Donnell loses, the message should be that the Republican party establishment needs to listen to their base and pick good candidates that everyone can get behind.
And that any state that will repeatedly elect Joe Biden is not a good prospect for a reasonable candidate.
MD in Philly (edd1cf) — 10/8/2010 @ 3:20 pmWhat happens when the voters reject a Christine O’Donnell in the general election? Will that send a message to party leaders? And if so, what will that message be?
That the State and National GOP needs to let the primary candidates “fight” it out instead of trying to be a kingmaker at the start (See Crist, Charlie in re Florida)? That they need to get a better reading of the citizen concerns?
Your mileage may vary.
John P. Squibob (882a08) — 10/8/2010 @ 4:08 pmWhy is this just a problem for the GOP?
AD-RtR/OS! (8acc09) — 10/8/2010 @ 4:13 pmWhat kind of msg will the defeat of Lincoln in AR send to the Dem Party?
My angle on this is a bit different than the O’Donnell story. Here, we had the task of re-electing Sen. Mike DeWine (of Gang of 14 fame) or Sherrod Brown (of Public Option Healthcare bill writer fame, although later).
The point: conservatives were utterly gutted by DeWines Gof14 move, but could not mount a primary challenge. We went to the general with the choice we had, not the choice we wanted. Of course we voted DeWine (with fingers clamped firmly over nose), but lost to Sherrod Brown – an awful lefty.
Conventional wisdom, including polls, at the time: DeWine would win, he’s an incumbent, he’s popular, so what if conservatives are disappointed in him.
Results? meager support, lost the election.
Delaware? I don’t know, but all those calling it a sure thing for Castle seem to forget that the base apparently didn’t like Castle. Maybe the “sure thing” wasn’t so sure.
Tacking to the center works only after the base is secure. This guy (Castle) tacked to the center (and further) and cared nothing for the base. He lost.
What message? Secure the base, then appease the center, without giving up principles the base requires.
The message for observant incumbents? Much the same.
Even if O’Donnell loses.
Net: we might lose a seat, but gain two or three votes through firming the backbone of wafflers.
Of course, I’d prefer to not lose the seat, argue the case, and win.
Full throated presentation of our case would be better than this, so far, touchy-feely re-introduction.
John Lynch (7fb472) — 10/8/2010 @ 4:46 pmAs you luxuriate in the thought of the message Castle’s defeat will send, please answer what message O’Donnell’s loss will send.
That’s the whole point of the post and you ignored it.
Comment by Patterico — 10/8/2010 @ 8:09 am
It will mean that a flawed conservative candidate cannot win in Delaware. It also means that the state GOP choice in 2008 was either just as flawed, or ‘magically became flawed in two years. And contrary to what was said by others above, the state GOP did NOT nominate her this time, the rank and file did despite the wishes and demands of the party leadership.
It also means that Castle squandered several chances to ascend to the Senate and ducked letting the oh so flawed candidate do the dirty work. And that is how BOTH parties work here in Delaware. That’s one of the reasons that Beau Biden opted out. Welcome to Delaware. You wanted a reasonable moderate untainted Republican in the Senate from Delaware? Then you should have told Castle to get off his ass and take on Biden or Carper. Or perhaps try running here in the primary. All we saw until the Cristie endorsement ad was negative ads, which backfired. Signs are big here. No Castle signs appeared until the week of voting.
Blue Hen (19dbec) — 10/8/2010 @ 5:58 pmWho is it that puts out the signs in their yards, that contributes dollars, that argues the cases at cocktail parties, dinners, and sporting events? You know the type. It’s the base. I’m sure Delaware’s base is different than Ohio’s base, and different still from CA’s base. Common to all is those people dedicated to whatever principles are important enough that they make a selection. Based on that selection they are willing to vocally push for their candidate.
The polls don’t catch this, they ask likely voters, or maybe only registered voters, or perhaps even the general populace.
To have a lead in polls prior to primary is not a measure of the enthusiasm of the base – those who will help GOTV, those will will argue the cases, those who sway the independents.
A “sure thing” for Castle, based on registered voters prior to primary includes many people, but is not necessarily indicative of the base.
The primary showed that the base was not happy with Castle, therefore not likely to be enthusiasticly GOTV, arguing his case, etc. to sway the independents. His lead would erode in the face of missing such support – or at least it does in most cases where the base does not support the party’s candidate in the general election.
As I’ve stated in prior posts: incumbents, other elected officials realize they have to face the voters. They may be challenged in primaries. They have to justify their records. Even if they might win in generals, they still might face primary challenges.
Even if O’Donnell loses – the message is there: meet at least a modicum of requirements of the base or you might face a primary, and yes we understand that our primary challenger may not be a shoe-in for the general but we are willing to take that chance.
Of course we are happier if you do not have to face a primary, or happy if your primary challenger wins and is perfectly electable, but we are still willing to take the chance (as all futures are at the time unknowable) that our primary challenger might win the primary and lose the general.
Is that an effective message (to the Snows, Grahams, McCains, Collins, etc.)? I don’t know. I think so. I notice them all at least temporarily speaking the party line. I listened to Snow bleet about how she is a dedicated servant to Maine. She hadn’t said that back when, but now does.
Is she hearing some message? and O’Donnell hasn’t even lost yet! But, message sent, and perhaps received. If she loses? Well, I suspect the local DE R party bosses will try to do a better job of securing their base before primaries. Again, message sent, perhaps received.
John Lynch (7fb472) — 10/8/2010 @ 6:27 pmSo, the GOP bears no responsibility even though they couldn’t put up a candidate who could win the election.
When/how did it become a fact that Castle couldn’t win the election? The polls showed he would easily win. The same ones that showed O’Donnell would lose big. Which they still show.
You’re either delusional or just can’t admit you were wrong for whatever reason.
Gerald A (0843ed) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:07 pm____________________________________________
Tacking to the center works only after the base is secure. This guy (Castle) tacked to the center (and further) and cared nothing for the base. He lost.
I’m fully aware of what you’re describing and how a candidate must therefore shape his or her tactics accordingly. That certainly is the case when a Republican has some non-conservative biases or a Democrat has some non-liberal biases. So such a strategy forces a bit of chameleon-like behavior on any person running for office — and who’s registered to either one of the two main parties — unless he or she is a true believer.
I know the peculiar squish that was Richard Nixon mentioned the concept of a politician having to move to the far side of the philosophical spectrum during one part of a campaign and them moving closer to the center around election time. However, Castle apparently stayed closer to the ambiguous center even before and up to the day of merely the primary.
But then the onus of responsibility switches over to the conservatives in Delaware. I’d normally have more sympathy for those people if the candidate most of them favored, O’Donnell, were both ideologically and ethically beyond dispute. But she wasn’t. So the great divide beyond Castle and O’Donnell isn’t as great as some of them believe is (or was) the case.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:52 pm
This is the same Politico that you discount when they dredged up ‘the bearded Marxist’ line, back in May. Now one wonders whose script was shefollowing, why did she find it so easy to work with CREW, the Soros front group, which has previously launchedat least one fishing expedition (the wardrobe issue)
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/8/2010 @ 7:59 pmwithout any merit. Which blew up the whole Foley matter, into such a huge brouhaha
But then the onus of responsibility switches over to the conservatives in Delaware. I’d normally have more sympathy for those people if the candidate most of them favored, O’Donnell, were both ideologically and ethically beyond dispute. But she wasn’t. So the great divide beyond Castle and O’Donnell isn’t as great as some of them believe is (or was) the case.
Name a Delaware politician who is both ethically and ideologically beyond dispute. I’ve been to both Democrat and many Republican events here and i haven’t seen any unicorns yet. If that is the only criteria, then the god of electability can claim to have been cheated of its rightful prize. If you want to ask which candidate was ideologically preferable, then you wind up with O’Donnell. Which is somehow a curse. And is that because Castle was somehow forced to vote for Cap and Trade? Or that the radical elements of the Delaware peasantry forced him to declare that his vote was courageous (Weekly Standard)?
Bit of disclosure: I can’t stand most of his positions, but voted for him in the primary, for the reason everyone else here is railing against the Delaware GOP; he had a better shot in the general election to follow. As I had noted above, his loss wasn’t merely due to a purity crusade; he campaigned badly, and acted as though it was his due. The party leadership tried to treat it exactly that way.
Those eager to perform the postmortem prior to Nov 2nd would be well served to start with a postmortem of the primary.
Blue Hen (19dbec) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:06 pmSounds reasonable enough to me.
Castle lost for the reasons you named, and that is something a lot of leaders will have to keep in mind. In fact, if O’Donnell loses too hard, they might not get the message. Oh hell, I know a lot of them won’t get the message any better than some O’donnell supporters won’t get my message.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:14 pmName a Delaware politician who is both ethically and ideologically beyond dispute.
My point was directed at those conservatives in Delaware, or elsewhere, who believed the degree of philosophical purity was somehow greater in O’Donnell than Castle. O’Donnell appears to be a big flake, and that quality is more likely to originate in people who have leftist, and not rightist, tendencies.
Mark (411533) — 10/8/2010 @ 8:24 pmName a Delaware politician who is both ethically and ideologically beyond dispute.
My point was directed at those conservatives in Delaware, or elsewhere, who believed the degree of philosophical purity was somehow greater in O’Donnell than Castle. O’Donnell appears to be a big flake, and that quality is more likely to originate in people who have leftist, and not rightist, tendencies.
Comment by Mark
The phrasing you used denotes a different standard than that. Also, if by “philosophical purity’ you mean which do I believe more closely is aligned with the Republican party and conservatism, then the answer is simple; O’Donnell. She is pro-life, he is pro-abortion. She is advocating against the spending and is calling for a repeal of Obamacare. He has voted against much of it, but voted for others, including Cap and Trade. He has an F rating from the NRA, she has an A rating. He certainly has a record to run against, and she has none. Even if she were to win, how many of these promises would be honored I can’t tell. And neither can you.
Finally, ‘purity’ is a ludicrous term to use, unless you’re auditioning for CNN. As for being a flake, the seat she running for was held by Joe Biden, who was sent to the Senate no less than seven times by Delaware. Being a flake works here, if the News Journal (the only paper in town) decides it likes you.
Blue Hen (19dbec) — 10/8/2010 @ 9:08 pm#72 Amen.
But if O’Donnell loses maybe it means that, as a generalization, people like “fiscal conservatives” but are not so hot on “social conservatives”, especially in the North East. IF she loses maybe the message is “keep your social conservatism in church and out of the legislature, if you are a manager then stick to business”.
EdWood (1969a9) — 10/8/2010 @ 10:20 pmThis is hardly a case of “mistakes in the vetting process” by the Tea Party. The problem is those pretending to speak for Tea Partiers (without any vote designating them as such), and the fringe purists among Republican conservatives, have no vetting process at all. NONE. Check the right boxes on the form, and they will back big-spending crooks like Hayworth, or clearly unelectable flakes like O’Donnell, or those whose weird views will bite us in the butt later like Rand Paul.
Adjoran (ec6a4b) — 10/9/2010 @ 2:26 amO’Donnell collected over $2 million in the days after her primary win, yet has maintained a very light schedule. Delaware is a small state where retail politics means something. She schedules very few events, and doesn’t seem to publicize them well. Where is the money going? Is she planning to live on the campaign fund for the next few years?
Adjoran (ec6a4b) — 10/9/2010 @ 2:28 am82 “When/how did it become a fact that Castle couldn’t win the election? The polls showed he would easily win. The same ones that showed O’Donnell would lose big. Which they still show”
Your polls showed Castle up 9 on the witch the last week B4 primary. Lost by 6.
They are, QED, not evidence he could beat Coons.
A winner wins, a loser doesn’t.
The whole argument DE screwed it up is silly. The GOP, just as in NY-23, overreached and insulted voters. That much is on them and gives the lie to their “expert” pretensions.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/9/2010 @ 5:36 amIt does raise the question, who is motivated to show up, in this season.In 1994, the last time a Fiscal conservative, Roth, was on the ballot in a GOP wave, he won, not so much in 2000, and they fielded no one of consequence in 2002, 2004, 0r 2006
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/9/2010 @ 6:00 amTea baggers, quite a bunch of nuts.
AJB (41ae02) — 10/9/2010 @ 8:00 amWhy are Obama and Biden going to Delaware, if she is such a lost cause
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/9/2010 @ 8:08 am“95.Why are Obama and Biden going to Delaware, if she is such a lost cause.”
Point taken. O’Donnell is not a lost cause, pretty much in spite of herself. I still say she’s a lousy candidate, and her campaign ads are dreadful, she still has a realistic (if less than 50/50) chance of winning this year.
Sean P (a82c1f) — 10/9/2010 @ 9:07 amTo quote the indignant, putative genius Rove: The primary result “was incomprehensible”.
Note to aspiring savants, if your expertise is public behavior and requires your reputation for genius be accepted by most of the population in order that they behave accordingly, consistent with your well publicized expectations, to ‘prove’ your merit, you just might be scammin’.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/9/2010 @ 12:18 pmWell I do recall his breathless promise to hewitt, about the ground game in 2006, that ended up like
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/9/2010 @ 12:39 pmthe Egyptian Air Force, in the ’67 war,
“A winner wins, a loser doesn’t.”
gary – Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/9/2010 @ 12:45 pmAs Peggy Noonan IIRC said, the American People are “livid” this year, not just angry
(one can only imagine the pained expression that would be on Peter Jennings face as he explained this “temper tantrum” of the voter);
and that shows in the volatility of the polls in this, the last 30-days before the election.
I don’t think that any incumbent can think of themselves as “safe” this year until their SecState certifies the election count.
Remember, six-months ago pundits were wondering how well the GOP might do in narrowing the gap in the House.
Now, even some of the more sober ones do not back away from a 100-seat pick-up – which is Tsunami territory.
Who would have thought that Russ Feingold, or a John Dingell (a Dingell has held that seat since 1932) would be behind at this point?
Or that Steny Hoyer would be threatened?
The next decade will be one of histories “interesting times” –
AD-RtR/OS! (747679) — 10/9/2010 @ 1:06 pmjust hope and pray that we can survive it.
…damn…
AD-RtR/OS! (747679) — 10/9/2010 @ 1:08 pmhistory’s
“gary – Can I subscribe to your newsletter?”
You of course could, if I had one, which may happen. But I will not update in comment sections, it’s just too messy. I do hope I will take correction well.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/9/2010 @ 1:32 pmGood new – Natalie Foster from OFA just sent me an email saying the election is in my hands. I think I will decline her offer to make phone calls so that extremist Republican candidates don’t wind up retaking the House on Nov. 2. Every little bit helps.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/9/2010 @ 1:43 pmhttp://www.conservatives4congress.com/2010/10/christine-odonnell-goes-on-record.html
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/9/2010 @ 5:10 pm