Yes we do. She's not.
And the polls, and common sense.
No, those things say its unlikely she's to be elected. At the same time, most of those things weren't exactly keen on her winning the primary far out either.
But compromise is required to WIN. GOP voters in Delaware refused to compromise; as a result, they now won't win where otherwise they would have. And as a result of that, they will be on the losing side of any legistlation or appointment that passes by an extremely thin margin.
Not, compromise would be HELPFUL to win NOW. As I've said, for one, I don't mind if we lose this one if it helps out in the long two. Two, difficult or unlikely is the not the same as impossible. If we went off the assumption at the beginning that a person can't win she shouldn't be the nominee anyways because it was pretty much written off early on Castle was taking the primary.
Additionally, you're assuming a garaunteed win, something that is ridiculous to assume in Politics most times especially with a republican in a blue state regardless of how positive the feeling towards them is. Second, you're acting like anything that would need a slim margin that Castle would've voted on the side of the Republicans rather than the democrats which is again a questionable decision since 40% of the time he was known to side with Democrats including on some issues that would be of high importance to some republican voters.
Now, you could say "Yeah, well those few times he does break the thin margin in the favor of the Republicans is lost". And that's true. The counter however can be also now that "Those things that Dem's win by a slim margin are fully on them, instead of some of them having his support and thus allowing them to gain cover and protection from criticism by claiming it was 'bipartisan'". Essentially, the notion would be that the amount of "slim margin" victories he'd give to the Republicans wouldn't outweight the amount of "slim margin" or even "decent margin" victories he'd give to the Democrats that'd allow them to claim "bipartisan" support to deflect criticism and blame if/when the issue goes bad.
There is so much wrong with that that I'm not sure how any logically thinking person could justify it.
You can't honestly see how a logically thinking person would rather vote on principle knowing there's a good shot they'll lose rather than abandoning principle to get someone who may do a few good things for you but whose negatives essentially make the good things a wash?
To start with, it's not just that Castle had a better chance of winning than O'Donnell, it's that Castle would almost certainly have won, and O'Donnell will almost certainly lose.
We're a few months out, similar could've been said about this exact same race in the primaries some months ago. You're young dav but you know better than this, you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch and make such ludicrously near absolute comments. Castle had a significantly better chance of winning than O'Donnell and a great shot at taking the state, but I think its ridiculous to say he was almost certain to win.
Which means that basically, the vote was between a moderate Republican and a Democrat. It's making my head spin that so many conservative Republicans chose the Democrat in that race.
You're using the same idiotic fallacy people use against individuals when they choose to vote Libertarian or Green party rather than Democrat or Republican as people scream "IF you vote for that person its really a vote for the Democrat/Republican!". No, its a vote for your guy.
Conservatives are choosing to at least be given the chance to vote for a person they agree with and IF somehow that they win will do things that make them happy rather than voting for someone who has a good shot to win but once is elected is going to do as many things in their mind that harms their cause and purpose as he does to help it.
The "lesser of two evils" to whom?
To the people who were voting in this election.
As a matter of fact, the whole problem with this election is that it is making the electorate as a whole choose between the "lesser of two evils" by forcing them to choose between a staunch liberal and a staunch conservative, when they were perfectly willing and eager to vote for a moderate.
Its making SOME of the electorate choose between the lesser of two evils, namely the moderates. At the same time, if it was between a moderate republican and a staunch democrat again someone is having to choose between the lesser of two evils, the conservatives. However, in the PRIMARY, the conservatives and moderates both had a chance to vote for the guy they'd WANT to vote for..the conservatives won. What you're suggesting is they should've voted for the other guy so moderates didn't have to pick between the lesser of two evils, instead forcing THEMSELVES to have to make that choice.
If the "electorate" was so eager and ready to vote for a moderate, perhaps they should've....oh I don't know...voted for the moderate in the primary. Crazy thought there.
pquote]Castle's standing in the state beyond the GOP had nothing to do with electability. When it comes to ideology, "lesser of two evils" is entirely relative, and eliminating the most popular choice will only contribute to the perceived problem.[/quote]
Exactly, it is relative. And relative to the people who voted for O'Donnell, they made a choice with their vote to nominate someoen they LIKED and could vote for with good consious rather than abandoning principle to nominate someone that could possibly win but would've been simply nominating the lesser of two evils regarding the main ticket.
Frankly, if choosing the "lesser of two evils" means choosing the candidate who disagrees with you less, the only way to NOT do that would be to vote for yourself in every election.
No one expects to agree 100% with everything a candidate says.
But when you look at two candidates and go "Oh god, I don't want to vote for this guy. He's horrible" and then you look at the other candidate and go "Oh god, I REALLY don't want to vote for this guy. He's REALLY horrible" and thus you vote for the first guy, THAT's the lesser of two evils.
If you're going "Eh, this guys not bad. I wish he had a few different views on x y and z, but I think he's going to be pretty good in Washington" and the other guy you're going "oh god, I can't stand that guy, I'm not voting for him" then yo'ure not "voting for the lesser of two evils" because I wouldn't say that first guy really falls in the "evils" type of category.
And since Republicans essentially chose the Democrat to win here, this time they, ideologically, chose the GREATER of two evils.
No, they choose to vote on principle rather than sacrifice it for the sake of winning and naught much else.
And when it comes to personal integrity, there's nothing to suggest that Castle is more "evil" than O'Donnell, so that's clearly not the issue.
There is a fair bit to suggset that when it comes to conservative values there is things to suggest that Castle is more "evil" than O'Donnell. When people talk about "lesser of two evils" you realize they're not literally suggesting morally, devil worshipping, type evil but equating evil in this case to "thing I dislike strongly/think is bad".
