Question by Lever: Do you agree with Karl Rove or Christine O’Donnell when it comes to the “lesson of 2010″?
Karl Rove said:
““It gave me no pleasure to say that she was unlikely to win,” he said. “But this again provides a lesson. This is a candidate who was right on the issues, but who had mishandled a series of questions brought up by the press.”
Christine O’Donnell said:
“The full weight of the White House, DNC, DSCC, and Delaware Democratic Party were brought in to secure this seat to further the liberal agenda. It’s disheartening that we did not have the same support of the Delaware Republican Party and NRSC.
“The lesson to be learned is that once the voters have spoken and chosen their candidate for the primary, the party leaders should follow Reagan’s 11th commandment and unite towards victory. Had this been done by the State GOP this would have unified the party and allowed the process to immediately move ahead full force,” stated O’Donnell on Wednesday morning.”
Best answer:
Answer by Moo
Karl (who I think is a total bastard) is closer to the truth. The reality is, she didn’t represent the Delaware voters interests, plain and simple. Delaware is a state that is moderate and respects Obama and Biden, even though they might not like everything about them, and she ran her race like foaming at the mouth tea party idiot. If she were moderate, or if she ran in Wyoming, she might have had a slim chance.
She rallied her base to win the primary, and never changed her tune for the broader electorate. And it is a valuable lesson: for the GOP in the 2012 Presidential election. The tea party may well be their undoing.
What do you think? Answer below!