Want to read a hilarious, pro-McDaniel thread on the MS-Runoff result?

[moderatevoter]

On the topic of George Allen.

Firstly, he had his past baggage, which is fairly well documented. But as IndyTexas said, the main obstacle was he was not going to win while Obama was also winning Virginia.

Having said that, look at the alternatives. Would Jamie Radtke have performed better than George Allen? EW Jackson? Bob Marshall? Allen lost by 6 points. I'm certain all of them would have lost by at least 10.

[moderatevoter]

Firstly, how are Massachusetts or Delaware "easy" races?

Despite his personal popularity, Scott Brown lost in Massachusetts, because he was a Republican. People liked him, but Warren basically ran on "a vote for Brown is a vote for a Republican Senate," as Senate control was still very much up in the air. If anything, it is more of a problem with the national brand of the party than Brown himself.

As for Mike Castle, well he never got a chance for the General, now did he? He didn't make it out of the primary because people, largely fueled by right wing talk radio, thought it was a good idea to run "true conservative!!1!!" Christine O'Donnell. She lost badly in 2008, and she came third in the primary in 2006. That seat was gone the second the Tea Party thought it was a smart idea to nominate her.

I don't really see it as an issue with Brown or Castle. Those seats are always uphill battles, and both of them performed/would have performed better than Generic R.

Granted, the bench in Nevada was weak, but would Sue Lowden have really performed worse than Sharron Angle?

How did the Tea Party suddenly decide Jane Norton was a RINO? In all fairness though, I think Tancredo also deserves some blame for Buck's loss, though Buck was largely responsible for that on his own.

As for Indiana, that seat was beyond safe with Lugar, and they still managed to blow that. More and more, I am starting to think Mississippi would have been Indiana 2.0 had Democrats and Independents not bailed out Thad Cochran.