I’m hoping that Sen. Jim DeMint is served up so much fail in November that he becomes a pariah within the Republican Party. He came out last night and endorsed Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle in Delaware and Ovide Lamontagne over Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. O’Donnell also picked up the endorsements of Sarah Palin and the National Rifle Association. We’ve already seen that NRSC Chairman John Cornyn has no control over the Republican base, as they’ve vetoed his choices in Florida, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, and Kentucky. Hopefully, the base will veto his choices in Delaware and New Hampshire, too. And then, maybe all of these candidates will lose in November, allowing the Democrats to not only avoid major losses, but to maybe even stay even or gain a seat or two. It’s not out of the question.
On the other hand, if all these whack-a-doodles actually go on to win despite their crazy beliefs, then DeMint has a good shot to become the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, and perhaps even the Majority Leader. I see that as unlikely, but who knows when it comes to low turnout midterms in a down economy?
Nincompoop is such a great word! thanks. glad he endorsed those candidates.
Glad, if they lose.
It’s up to our candidates to make that an anvil around their necks .. we’ll see how many of our candidates know how to run good campaigns
I follow NH most closely (and plan as usual to work on GOTV there) though in my current all work no time situation haven’t kept up as much as I’d like. it’s hard to know what to think- or wish for- because Ayotte is dropping so fast. Hodes polled better agains Lamontagne before, but Ayotte’s DC handlers are running a boilerplate repub campaign and she seems totally clueless. Her secret $300,000 payoff to planned parenthood (!!!! in frugal NH when she’s trying to appeal to right wingers???) and a couple days ago in debate said she was against gay and lesbian couples adopting kids – in NH? home of the first openly gay episcopal bishop with longtime partner (formalized w. civil union a couple years ago), who is beloved by all – and they don’t stop to think what NHites care about. condemning ppl’s personal and family life in NH politically imo is like being in favor of trespassing onto someone’s property and cutting down their trees.
One of the main reasons this election will be consequential, I think, will be the effect on the respective parties of even a relatively narrow win or loss.
If the Republicans lose, even narrowly, then the tea partiers and their uber-conservative champions like DeMint will be (rightfully) blamed for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The extreme right will be discredited and slightly more reasonable people will come to power. It is even possible that Republicans will decide that next time they need to offer some kind of positive agenda that has some kind of relationship to the real world.
If the Republicans win, even narrowly, then the Democrats will completely collapse in a puddle of cowardice (Josh Marshall wrote a pretty good column on this recently, and I think he was correct in his assessment). The extreme right wing will be vindicated, and the crazies will dominate the Republican Party for the next generation.
So, the stakes are high. We either beat back the crazies at their high water mark or they end up swamping the boat. I think it could go either way. I was cheered a little bit by Nate Silver’s recent analysis of the House races on FiveThirtyEight. He gives the Republicans a 2/3 chance of winning the house if the election were held today. That was actually better than what I expected. There are two months before the election, and even a small shift of the bell curve would give us a 50/50 chance, if not better. So many races are on a knife’s edge — pulling this off is by no means impossible.
I haven’t seen the JM article you reference, but I have a slight disagreement. We’ve done a fantastic job of setting expectations, so a slight win for the Republicans will be seen as a rebuke from the voters, and if the Senate stays at 57-58 Dems, the tea-party is going to take all the blame for that.
Silver is setting them up nicely. In truth, most of the candidates he identifies as losing are in good financial shape and should be even money to hold their seats even in this climate. There are probably fifteen Dems in the House who are probably already toast, but nowhere near enough to lose control.
Here’s the Josh Marshall post. I would be curious as to what you think of it:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/09/events_create_realities.php
I agree that we are doing good with expectations, but what counts as a “slight win”? At this point, if the dems keep both houses, even narrowly, we will have won expectations, but what if we keep the Senate and lose the House by only 4-5?
We have to win: no question about that. Cynic though I am, I can’t believe that in the end there are enough wackjob voters out there to swallow what the wingnuts are dispensing.
You bring up an interesting dilemma, though. Looked at long-term through the lens of reakpolitik, would the rise of “slightly more reasonable people” to GOP leadership be a good thing? It may be that the current crop of loonies finally wake Americans up to where the “conservative” vision inexorably leads. Will the rebirth of “kinder gentler conservatism” dull that perception? We certainly don’t want the inmates running the asylum in this case, but I’m not at all sure getting a crop of Eisenhowers and Kirks in charge would make America better or position the liberal agenda more favorably. Fortunately the threat from the crazies is severe enough that such questions have no bearing on what we need to be doing right now.