Why are Republicans still gushing over Angle and O'Donnell?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Few would deny that Castle would have won the Delaware Senate seat.

Only the exit polls would deny that.

... by one point (44% to 43%), in an exit poll with a margin of error.  Christine O'Donnell lost that same electorate by sixteen points.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Plus, isn't abortion our "moderate" friend's single issue, without which he would be D-IN?  Given that, shouldn't he have supported O'Donnell over Castle?

By that logic he should've supported Ellsworth as he was a pro-life Democrat. Yet he didn't.

[Smash255]

Few would deny that Castle would have won the Delaware Senate seat.

Only the exit polls would deny that.

O'Donnell likely kept Castle voters who couldn't stomach voting Democratic away from the polls.  Regardless, she is bats*** and got her ass kicked because of it.  So thanks to the far right wing for getting Chris Coons elected.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The exit polls are just more proof of the "halo effect", once someone takes a liking to someone they'll back them over anyone. Lots of independents and moderate Democrats were planning on voting for Castle over Coons, then Coons wins the nomination, they have no choice but to back him, and become so attached to him they decide they'd prefer him to Castle as well. This is unlikely to happen if Castle won the primary and they never really got attached to Coons in the first place. People are also rather defensive about their votes and don't like to admitting to simply voting against someone, so plenty no doubt claimed their votes were really for Coons who they really liked instead of simply voting for him because he wasn't O'Donnell. Then there was the fact that Coons was a pretty good candidate and people probably did end up legitimately liking him and wanting him to be their Senator, but this is the sort of thing they would've never bothered looking into if Castle had been the nominee and they already committed to voting to him.

In a nutshell a scenario where O'Donnell is replaced with Castle on the ballot the day before the election is quite different than the scenario where Castle won the primary and was the candidate the whole time.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nevada would have been close no matter who ran, so I'm not quite as furious with Angle. Though I do think Lowden would have prevailed. As for Delaware, I can't stand O'Donnell. We'd be one seat closer to taking the Senate in 2012 if it weren't for her. Delaware would have voted over 55% for Castle had he won the primary, regardless of if she endorsed him. Bah!

Hey hey, I'm not a big fan of Ms. O'Donnell either, but it's not like Michael Castle would've been a reliable vote for the Republican Party.

He had a 52% rating from the American Conservative Union.  I'd like to see Coons come anywhere CLOSE to that.

[Franzl]

The exit polls are just more proof of the "halo effect", once someone takes a liking to someone they'll back them over anyone. Lots of independents and moderate Democrats were planning on voting for Castle over Coons, then Coons wins the nomination, they have no choice but to back him, and become so attached to him they decide they'd prefer him to Castle as well. This is unlikely to happen if Castle won the primary and they never really got attached to Coons in the first place. People are also rather defensive about their votes and don't like to admitting to simply voting against someone, so plenty no doubt claimed their votes were really for Coons who they really liked instead of simply voting for him because he wasn't O'Donnell. Then there was the fact that Coons was a pretty good candidate and people probably did end up legitimately liking him and wanting him to be their Senator, but this is the sort of thing they would've never bothered looking into if Castle had been the nominee and they already committed to voting to him.

In a nutshell a scenario where O'Donnell is replaced with Castle on the ballot the day before the election is quite different than the scenario where Castle won the primary and was the candidate the whole time.

^^^^^, my thoughts precisely.

[Mint]

Why are Democrats still obsessing over her?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why are Democrats still obsessing over her?

Because they like to point out embarassments in the GOP.  Both parties do it.

[Eraserhead]

Nevada would have been close no matter who ran, so I'm not quite as furious with Angle. Though I do think Lowden would have prevailed. As for Delaware, I can't stand O'Donnell. We'd be one seat closer to taking the Senate in 2012 if it weren't for her. Delaware would have voted over 55% for Castle had he won the primary, regardless of if she endorsed him. Bah!

Hey hey, I'm not a big fan of Ms. O'Donnell either, but it's not like Michael Castle would've been a reliable vote for the Republican Party.

He had a 52% rating from the American Conservative Union.  I'd like to see Coons come anywhere CLOSE to that.

I imagine his rating will be pretty close to zero.