Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Tell that to the panicking Democrats in Massachusettes.
Of those four, I can think of two with "energy", to use your word: Scozzafava and Crist/Rubio, but neither fits your characterization. Scozzafava isn't a moderate, wasn't selected in a primary, and didn't win the general (or "special", if you prefer). Rubio trounces Meek in Rasmussen's December poll, 49-35% ... better than Crist, 42-36%. So he's certainly just as electable.
I'm not aware of any polling data for either Hughes or Lee vs their competition, so if there's some huge groundswell behind them that you've mystically identified, feel free to prove it. |
I didn't use the word "energy."
Scozzafava is absolutely a moderate (honestly surprised you would argue to the contrary). That's what Republicans hated most about her (and why they picked Hoffman, who was far from moderate). Conservatives pushed the ultra-conservative Hoffman in opposition to Scozzafava and wound up handing the seat to Democrats.
As for Rubio, Rasmussen is the only major poll showing Rubio beating Meek, whereas every poll shows Crist beating Meek. Take your chances with Rubio, please.
As for the others, the point isn't that the incumbent will lose (although perhaps he/she will), but that the tea partiers are doing everything in their power to promote candidates who are less electable in the general than the current party candidate. I say, more power to them. Even if they don't beat the incumbent, they fracture the party.