• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Delaware Senate Race: A Kamikaze Republican and the Tea Party

I am not underestimating the tea party, I am realistic.

No you are underestimating the disdain the public has for Obama and they want change not just a liberal claiming to be rebublican
 
Speaking only for Delaware, there's no way a tea party candidate is going to be elected. They elected this "Dem-lite" as many people are calling him for a reason, and that reason is that his polices are in line with what they want to see in a politican. There's no way people are going to change that much, that fast, and elect someone almost totally opposed to everything they want.

He might as well be running as the Communist candidate.

Can you be more specific as to why the Dem candidate has more chance of winning than the TP candidate?

I'm not familar with the race, so I'm just inquireing.

Tim-
 
lol, so now someone who is "55% Republican" is a Democrat?

He's a RINO.
He is part of the problem, not the solution.

I'd rather see a Democrat win, than a RINO who plays for the other team but wears our uniform.
I don't want the D's to have cover for the destruction they're wreaking.

.
 
Can you be more specific as to why the Dem candidate has more chance of winning than the TP candidate?

I'm not familar with the race, so I'm just inquireing.

Tim-

The electorate in this case is very blue and the TP vs Establishment Repub are in their primary.
 
So then. You're apparently okay with passing Obamacare, Cap and Trade, more stimuluses, more welfare, tax increases, and goodness knows what else... as long as it means there aren't any damned dirty RINOs in the Senate. Hey, the GOP may be a permanent minority helpless to do anything as liberal bill after liberal bill passes, but at least they'll be full of conservatives in a permanent powerless minority!

With a RHINO in there there is no difference on those issues then if a democrat is there. The point is we need conservatives that will stand on conservative principles
 
The electorate in this case is very blue and the TP vs Establishment Repub are in their primary.

This si a VERY good point. It's a BLUE state. And the polls are showing there is a surge for the Conservative leaning voters and a depression for the democrat voters. This makes now the BEST shot at removing Rino's we've seen in years. I'm all for taking this chance and running with it.
 
They won't be able to pass all that Dav, they don't have 60 seats now, and they WILL lose the House.

I'm not just talking about this one particular race though.

You said it's better to have a Democrat than to have a RINO (i.e. moderate Republican). Apply that logic, and you're basically saying that, if the choice is between Democratic control of the Senate (for sake of example, let's say a 60-seat majority) and Republican control held up only with the help of RINOs, you'd rather let the Dems have their 60 seats and basically be able to do as they wish.

Of course, the stakes are already high in this particular race, as any chances the GOP would ever have of controlling the Senate relied on winning in Delaware. Nominate O'Donnell, and those chances are gone. And the Senate votes on many things that the House doesn't (appointments, most notably), so the stakes are pretty high already.

Besides, what good is are a few sometimes Republicans who VOTE with teh Dem's on big issues?

Better than Democrats is what good they are. Especially Democrats from a state as far-left as Delaware.

Besides, the guy is pro-guncontrol, that right there makes him worth knocking out.

Oh puh-lease... he's bad on one issue, therefore let's give the seat to a Democrat who's also bad on that issue, and every other issue as well. Come on, one issue is enough to swing your vote one way or the other? Even when that issue isn't going to have much traction at the federal level anyways?
 
This si a VERY good point. It's a BLUE state. And the polls are showing there is a surge for the Conservative leaning voters and a depression for the democrat voters. This makes now the BEST shot at removing Rino's we've seen in years. I'm all for taking this chance and running with it.

The primary will show only part of those that want change since independents can not vote
 
This si a VERY good point. It's a BLUE state. And the polls are showing there is a surge for the Conservative leaning voters and a depression for the democrat voters. This makes now the BEST shot at removing Rino's we've seen in years. I'm all for taking this chance and running with it.

Who would have thought Scott Brown would take the Dead Kennedy's seat?
Who would have put money on Brown and expected to get any return?
Who would have thought they would see a grassroots uprising that actually has been vocal and active in protesting the Leftward Leap... this after the Cultoid fainting show that occurred in 2008?

Now is the time. If not now, when?

.
 
Who would have thought Scott Brown would take the Dead Kennedy's seat?
Who would have put money on Brown and expected to get any return?
Who would have thought they would see a grassroots uprising that actually has been vocal and active in protesting the Leftward Leap... this after the Cultoid fainting show that occurred in 2008?
.

...You do realize that Scott Brown is a moderate who may even be to the left of Castle, right?

By all means, conservatives should have labeled him a RINO and tried to get Coakley elected instead of him. Using logic in this thread, that is.
 
Polls show Reid and Boxer in close races. Dems are in trouble
 
Everyone is complaining that this guy isn't conservative enough for them, however no one is praising the man for listening to his voters. I think everyone is still forgetting the purpose of electing someone, its to represent the voters interests and beliefs in whatever office he's being elected to.

Personally I find it a bit hypocritical for many conservatives in here, who constantly say they want a smaller Federal government and how the Federal government should keep its noses out of things better left to the states or local authorities. And the reason for this is always the same the government isn't efficient enough, it doesn't understand what people want, its forcing a way of life or some change the people don't want, there's too much control, etc etc

Yet when you have a senator, who represents his voters well and has views similar to theirs but disagrees with yours, you want a National level organization, the Republican Party, to come in and change everything, because in your opinion they don't believe the right things. You accuse the government of trying to enforce a national sameness, yet you are doing the same thing.

A political party, by its nature, wants some degree of sameness however its members should be keen to local politics and local differences. So there's room in the Republican party for varying degrees of leftism and rightism, even though as a whole the entire Republican party is to the right of the spectrum. However what I'm seeing recently is a movement by many to decrease and decrease the differences in political opinions among members of the Republican Party or the conservative movenment in general including the Tea Party and Republican party.

Now thats all just opinion, there's no way to factually say the Republican Party is becoming too narrow in its focus, its all just opinion and perspective. However thats my concern.
 
Personally I find it a bit hypocritical for many conservatives in here, who constantly say they want a smaller Federal government and how the Federal government should keep its noses out of things better left to the states or local authorities. And the reason for this is always the same the government isn't efficient enough, it doesn't understand what people want, its forcing a way of life or some change the people don't want, there's too much control, etc etc

Yet when you have a senator, who represents his voters well and has views similar to theirs but disagrees with yours, you want a National level organization, the Republican Party, to come in and change everything, because in your opinion they don't believe the right things. You accuse the government of trying to enforce a national sameness, yet you are doing the same thing.

if you're trying to characterize my thought, then, with all due respect, you're spinning yourself dizzy

the conservatives i'm hearing are calling for a smaller govt to allow individual americans more freedom over their own lives

mike castle is not as into that as most of us are

that's all
 
...You do realize that Scott Brown is a moderate who may even be to the left of Castle, right?

By all means, conservatives should have labeled him a RINO and tried to get Coakley elected instead of him. Using logic in this thread, that is.

I did from the word go, I've been mocking calls for him to run for the 2012 (or any) Presidential nomination. HOWEVER. He's far right compared to Kennedy, and the INSULT of having his seat go to a Republican.... that's just DEEEELICIOUS.

However, in the next primary, if it's a choice between him or a Conservative, I'd most likely go with the Conservative. Cause I put principle over party power.
 
i do not involve myself in gop intramurals, and i won't here

but i'll make some factual observations, simply fyi

fox called ms odonnell winner

83% chance of beating coons is perhaps about right, right about now

but there's no doubt the gop candidate will bounce, she will be hot, exciting, just for pulling this off

look at ms mcmahon, the pro wrestler, in eggheaded CT, home of hedge fund managers

doug schoen and the most accurate pollster in america, scott rasmussen, founder of espn, have out a new book

its message---2010 is HOT, there's seething enthusiasm for politics and voting out there

and its source---in 2010---is TEA

it's an interesting observation, maybe

either way, tho control of the senate may be at stake here for us, it's quite clear we are witnessing the awakening of a NEW gop

paul miller beat lisa murkowski in the place where you can see russia

that guy's gonna win, and his presence alone will stir the stuffy senate, he's that fresh

mike lee beat bob bennett amongst the mormons who had been there for 20 years

rubio in florida, angle in nevada, buck in colorado, paul in kentucky, the wrestler in connecticut---each ousted an incumbent or party pushed pet

odonnell makes 8, and ovide lamontage in tonite's new hampshire will be 9

the point---this is a NEW republican party being born, and it IS exciting

macropolitically, coming close to taking the senate is just about as good

we are not in position to initiate legislation much, regardless

we are immovable in preventing what we abhor

we are intimidating to the membership, running dominant in pennsylvania, michigan, ohio, missouri, arkansas, virginia, wisconsin, arizona, colorado, illinois...

even CA and NY are in play, gubs, house, senate---the best blues can bet on is about breakeven, in their bastions

it should be stunning, for example, that a TEA PARTIER, pat toomey, is actually running away with the senate in the KEYSTONE STATE

what would reagan do, ask yourself

there is no doubt the gip's disposition

he would support whoever is strong locally, he would work with that winner, he would win him or her over, by being RIGHT and being able to communicate it---to the senator, to his or her constituents, to the american people

really, we can root for one side, we can argue, but our lot largely is left to mere observation

and thought

party on!

obama's goin down!
 
Last edited:
The same people that say Donnell doesn't have a chance say Angle has no chance yet Angle and Reid are still within 2 points of each other in the polls
 
The same people that say Donnell doesn't have a chance say Angle has no chance yet Angle and Reid are still within 2 points of each other in the polls

...What? It's not just "the same people", it's everyone who is actually paying attention. Angle isn't down by double-digits in the polls; O'Donnell is. And only hacks would say that Angle has NO chance; she may be a slight underdog but it's mostly a tossup.
 
As far as I can tell, Palin has been picking winners so far. Maybe she should be chairman of the Republican Party.

The democrats could only hope. If I was a democrat I'd be jumping for joy if that happened.
 
I did from the word go, I've been mocking calls for him to run for the 2012 (or any) Presidential nomination. HOWEVER. He's far right compared to Kennedy, and the INSULT of having his seat go to a Republican.... that's just DEEEELICIOUS.

However, in the next primary, if it's a choice between him or a Conservative, I'd most likely go with the Conservative. Cause I put principle over party power.

By your logic, if the choice next Senate election is between Scott Brown and a Massachussetts (i.e. far-left) Democrat, you and any "principled" conservative should support the Democrat.

If you really cared about principles, you'd want people with principles closest to yours in office. Wanting a Democrat to win rather than a moderate Republican is not principled, it is just nonsensical.
 
Tom Ross is a complete and utter idiot.

I'd rather have a Democrat win than a RINO who would not aggressively repeal the Obama agenda. We need real Republicans in office, not Obama & Pelosi-lite.

I hope she takes this, for the race for the Senate seat will be interesting. I don't by into the RINO take on the election. People are pissed, and the village of Delaware, usually a lost cause, isn't exempt from the pain and suffering brought on by the radical leftists running the show.

Better a reformer than a chameleon.

Go O'Donnell.

PS. Don't you love the title of the article? That's Journolism at work.

.

Yea, it worked so well for the Democrats in 2006. Who could forget Sen. Lamont's integral role in advancing Obama's agenda?
 
...What? It's not just "the same people", it's everyone who is actually paying attention. Angle isn't down by double-digits in the polls; O'Donnell is. And only hacks would say that Angle has NO chance; she may be a slight underdog but it's mostly a tossup.

What polls?

Reid-Angle dead heat cliffhanger in 3 new polls - The Political Eye - ReviewJournal.com

Rasmussen's telephone survey of likely voters, with leaners included, showed Reid and Angle tied at 48 percent each.

Another 2 percent prefered some other candidate in the race, and 3 percent were undecided.

Two other surveys out Tuesday from Fox News and Reuters/Ipsos also showed the contest locked in a dead heat.

Fox News had Angle at 45 and Reid at 44.

Reuters/Ipsos showed Reid at 46 and Angle at 44.
 
What polls?

Reid-Angle dead heat cliffhanger in 3 new polls - The Political Eye - ReviewJournal.com

Rasmussen's telephone survey of likely voters, with leaners included, showed Reid and Angle tied at 48 percent each.

Another 2 percent prefered some other candidate in the race, and 3 percent were undecided.

Two other surveys out Tuesday from Fox News and Reuters/Ipsos also showed the contest locked in a dead heat.

Fox News had Angle at 45 and Reid at 44.

Reuters/Ipsos showed Reid at 46 and Angle at 44.

Re-read my post carefully. I explicitly said that Angle is NOT down by double-digits, and that the seat is a tossup.
 
Back
Top Bottom