Since Sharron Angle won the Republican Senate primary in Nevada on the back of strong Tea Party support, her campaign has been imploding under the weight of her verbal gaffes.
In political betting on Intrade.com, during the two weeks before Angle's victory, Harry Reid was trading between 30 and 40% to win re-election. Angle's victory alone caused those odds to jump to about 50%, and that was before she started doing a lot of talking.
In the past two weeks, Reid's betting chances of re-election have jumped to 62%, based on a combination of Angle foot-in-mouth episodes followed by a full retreat from answering any questions of the media and then a return to her gaffe-prone ways.
Some of Angle's unforced errors included:
Many people said, going into the primary, that the opponent Reid would most like to have is Sharron Angle. They're being proven right. Let me be clear about something here: While some of Angle's views may be wacky, they're not all wacky. Some of these errors are mistakes in rhetoric rather than in policy position, but they're still politically very damaging. The ability to muzzle onesself is an important characteristic of a candidate. This is not to say a candidate should lie, but he or she should be able to explain a position in a way that can appeal to voters without being hyperbolic or being easily demonized by the media whose favorite game to play with Republicans is "gotcha."
I'd also add that Harry Reid is so unpopular that with some decent coaching and a bit of common sense, it's still possible for Angle to win this thing. I hope she does, although under most circumstances I probably wouldn't vote for her for dog catcher.
While Ken Buck is smarter than Sharron Angle and not nearly the fringe figure or boneheaded rookie that she seems more to be with every passing day (in part because the media loves to help boost both of those unflattering portrayals in order to help Harry Reid), I can't help but wonder whether Mr. Buck's string of bonheaded remarks makes him the candidate that Michael "Who?" Bennet or Andrew Romanoff would most like to run against.
Some of Ken Buck's recent unforced errors:
The primary reason for my endorsement of Jane Norton was, all else being equal -- since I think she and Buck are remarkably similar on policy positions -- that she is more electable.
While some argue that Buck's primary campaign experience will serve him well in a general election, the past couple weeks have increased my fear that a Buck win will leave not just the Senate seat more vulnerable to Democratic retention but that when combined with the horrendous GOP Governor situation, it could damage the Republican's chances to take back one or both chambers of the state legislature.
Demotivating Republican voters is the last thing we need. Demotivating women voters, when conservatives desperately need to narrow the "gender gap" is especially damaging. There's already a move afoot on Facebook to "Undervote Colorado's GOP Governor Primary", a position I understand and might end up agreeing with (after further digesting my meeting with Dan Maes last night.) If we get a Senate candidate who is also unmotivating to a substantial segment of CO Republican and independent voters, that could spell the difference in turn-out needed to keep the GOP from taking back one or both chambers of the General Assembly.
Again, Ken Buck is smarter than Sharron Angle, but I wonder if we might be having a peek into our potential future if Ken Buck wins the nomination and keeps stepping on his own tongue as we watch Sharron Angle take the GOP from a huge favorite to a big underdog to unseat Harry Reid.
I hope Buck starts getting a little better rhetorical self-control, whether he wins or loses the primary. In the meantime, I continue to believe that Buck and Norton are nearly identical on policy matters but that Norton has a better probability of beating the Democrat canddiate in the general election.
|<< <||> >>|