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

[Indy Texas]

Let's review their logic,

Black people voting in an open primary = Voter Fraud

The mere presence of black voters in the GOP nomination process is considered illegitimate by these people. There will be no end to the race problem the GOP has as long as the Tea Party has a seat at the table.

Also, yes, Thad Cochran is totally a Marxist. He totally hates them bourgeois capitalists, y'all.

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.

Implying that Sue Lowden and Jane Norton were better candidates, or that Todd Akin didn't squeek by in a three-way primary against two tea-party opponents...

Besides, shouldn't the Senate already be 50-50, given that Republicans had such stellar recruits as George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, and Scott Brown running in contested races last cycle?

That's the wrong way to look at it. George Allen and Tommy Thompson were never going to win to begin with -- they were running in a presidential election year in what now basically are election year blue states. Denny Rehberg and Rick Berg both ran very close races. Do you think Scott Brown really lost in Massachusetts because he wasn't conservative enough?!?!

Be reasonable. Do you really think Jane Norton would have performed worse than Ken Buck in CO in 2010? Do you really think Michael Castle would have performed worse than Christine O'Donnell in Delaware? You think someone like Ann Wagner or, hell, even John Danforth hastily called out of retirement couldn't have run better against Claire than Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin did?

It makes no sense to compare Tea Partiers who lost to non-TPers who lost in completely different states in different years. The fact is that all of their "establishment" opponents from the primary would have, while not necessarily won, performed better in the general election. And they wouldn't have generated the negative press and punchlines that people like Akin and O'Donnell and others do.

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is why Republicans lost Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Missouri, and Delaware.

To reiterate, the Senate could be 50-50 right now, with a Republican majority a certainty in January of next year.

Implying that Sue Lowden and Jane Norton were better candidates, or that Todd Akin didn't squeek by in a three-way primary against two tea-party opponents...

Besides, shouldn't the Senate already be 50-50, given that Republicans had such stellar recruits as George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, and Scott Brown running in contested races last cycle?

That's the wrong way to look at it. George Allen and Tommy Thompson were never going to win to begin with -- they were running in a presidential election year in what now basically are election year blue states. Denny Rehberg and Rick Berg both ran very close races. Do you think Scott Brown really lost in Massachusetts because he wasn't conservative enough?!?!

Be reasonable. Do you really think Jane Norton would have performed worse than Ken Buck in CO in 2010? Do you really think Michael Castle would have performed worse than Christine O'Donnell in Delaware? You think someone like Ann Wagner or, hell, even John Danforth hastily called out of retirement couldn't have run better against Claire than Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin did?

It makes no sense to compare Tea Partiers who lost to non-TPers who lost in completely different states in different years. The fact is that all of their "establishment" opponents from the primary would have, while not necessarily won, performed better in the general election. And they wouldn't have generated the negative press and punchlines that people like Akin and O'Donnell and others do.

The point is there are more factors at work than whether a candidate is "Tea Party". Buck, O'Donnell, and Akin were clearly bad candidates regardless of their Tea Party affiliation (and, as I mentioned earlier, referring to Akin as the "Tea Party" candidate in the Missouri primary is dubious at best). While it is easy to dismiss Allen and Thompson's chances with 20/20 hindsight, the fact that they were either statistically tied or ahead in public polling a few months before the election makes the idea that "they were never going to win anyway" sound more like sour grapes than a serious argument. Yes, Rehberg and Berg ran close races...in deep red states Montana and North Dakota. Mourdock ran a close race too. Obviously nobody could have performed better than Scott Brown or Mike Castle in Massachusetts and Delaware, respectively. However, I would think the fact that both candidates managed to lose by decent margins despite high approval ratings makes them just as culpable for losing easy races as the canon "Tea Party" examples.

Neither Montana nor North Dakota are "deep red states" for non-presidential races.

Mourdock ran a close race? Don't even go there. The GOP could have had the guy who had been in office since the Carter Administration win that race in a frickin' cakewalk. Instead, they threw it all away. Was having a guy who votes with the party 80% of the time not enough? In pursuit of someone who'd vote 110% conservative, they ended up with a senator who's going to vote with the GOP maybe 30% of the time at best. The Tea Party pretty much ruined the Indiana senate race that year. I don't see how you can view it as anything other than that.

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't think his inability to clinch renomination in a state he'd held elected office in for decades may have been indicative of flaws as a candidate? If so, then why is there a double standard where Castle can't be blamed for losing a primary election to a nobody but Buck can be blamed for losing a general election to a sitting senator?

I think his inability to win a Republican primary in 2010 is a function of the fact that he is not an incompetent, hysterical nutjob.

[Indy Texas]

MCDANIEL WANTS A RECOUNT! THE (WHITE) PEOPLE'S VOICE WILL BE HEARD!

[Indy Texas]

I think you'll agree that Indiana's "DNA" is considerably more Republican than MT or ND's when taken holistically and looking at the long term rather than simply referring to two very popular governors - Bayh and O'Bannon - who were popular because they were well-liked and respected as individuals, not as Democrats. Their House delegation was mostly Democratic pre-2010? So what? Texas was two seats away from having a Democratic-controlled state house before 2010; that doesn't mean it's a "purple state."

Political parties have one primary goal and one primary goal only - to win elections. Republicans used to understand that. Democrats used to be the ones who wanted to "fall in love" and "stand for principle." What do you call a candidate who loses on principle? You call them a loser.

When you can choose between a ~100% likelihood of winning a race with Dick Lugar even a greater than 50% likelihood of winning a race with Mourdock, it makes no sense to go with Mourdock. Especially in a presidential year.