Many supporters of Christine O’Donnell have hoped to cover for their fateful electoral decision by claiming that giving Mike Castle the nomination wouldn’t have mattered. They say that exit polls showed Castle losing to Coons as well, and therefore nominating a staunch conservative with a kooky past in a deep blue state was worth bucking the establishment.
Well, their claim isn’t true. At least if CNN’s exit polling is to be believed (and again, the argument is what exit polling showed — not whether it was accurate). The poll shows that 44% of voters would have voted for Mike Castle for United States Senate. That’s in comparison to the 42% who would have backed Chris Coons.
So that would have been a two-point victory for Republican candidate who, while hardly perfect, would likely have voted with Republicans on other major legislation. Like efforts to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and repeal ObamaCare. Instead we have a far-left liberal who called himself a “bearded Marxist” and will probably vote a good 99% of the time with Democrats.
13. November 2010 at 12:10 am
How come he was not the candidate, then.
Doesn’t crossfoot.
13. November 2010 at 11:03 pm
He wasn’t the candidate because Republicans decided they’d nominate the most conservative person who couldn’t win.
Being able to win the general but not your party’s nomination is not a foreign concept. Especially if your party isn’t thinking about viability.
14. November 2010 at 1:45 pm
I don’t think that is correct.
The in-state Republicans selected the candidate they wanted to represent them.
The national Progressives fought tooth and claw to make sure that didn’t happen.