Democrats at DEFCON 1: Is Christine O’Donnell now leading in internals?

[red states rule]

As much as I would like to sse Ms O'Donnell win, and libs eat a massive shit burger - I am not so sure she is leading with voters

That being said, she must be gaining on Coons.That is the ONLY reason Obama and Bite Me Biden would be going back to DE this weekend






Yesterday, a poll went around showing Christine O’Donnell just five points behind Commie Coons in Delaware’s Senate race. This SORT OF explains the weird amount of time the White House has been spending in a slam dunk blue state.

But, Democrats are ferociously attacking CoD as hard as they attacked Scott Brown in Massachusetts. If she is so far behind, what is the point in beating up on this woman?

This is anecdotal, but I think I know why they are doing this…just like with Hottie McAwesome there are internals showing O’Donnell ahead.

Today I talked to a friend from Team Hillary who is a big Dem fundraiser. He told me that for the last week or so the DNC has been at DEFCON 1 leaning HARD on the rainmakers because they are terrified of a CoD win in Delaware.

The problem is some internal poll that apparently shows that a high percentage of Democrats early voting are voting straight ticket Republican instead…they are Democrats voting against Democrats.

I am still registered Democrat here in Chicago and I voted straight ticket Republican except for Tom Dart for Sheriff because I know and like him. Other than that, it was all Republican. But, in terms of early voting stats, I was a Democrat early vote on paper.

The media is not factoring people like me into the equation.
On the other side of the aisle, I can’t imagine many, if any, Republicans voting Democrat.


http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/26/democrats-at-defcon-1-is-christine-odonnell-now-leading-in-internals/

[SassyLady]

From article:

On the other side of the aisle, I can’t imagine many, if any, Republicans voting Democrat.




I can imagine .... those of us who are not voting for the incumbents. This is not just about being pissed at Democrats .... I'm want to see a completely new team in Congress (can't see how they would screw it up any worse than it already is) ....and if a Republican incumbent is running ... I'm not voting for them. Doesn't mean I'm voting for a Democrat, tho!

[avatar4321]

I actually half expect her to win Tuesday. The fact that they are spendidng so much time and money in Delaware if it's a slam dunk when there are so many contested races just doesn't make sense unless they are seriously worried about her winning.

Of course, I could be wrong. The President, Vice President, and the DNC could simply be a bunch of morons who can't figure out how to strategically use their time and money. But I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

[Missileman]

I actually half expect her to win Tuesday. The fact that they are spendidng so much time and money in Delaware if it's a slam dunk when there are so many contested races just doesn't make sense unless they are seriously worried about her winning.

Of course, I could be wrong. The President, Vice President, and the DNC could simply be a bunch of morons who can't figure out how to strategically use their time and money. But I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

They're throwing their support behind a solid win so they can claim they helped later.

[Kathianne]

If O'Donnell wins, she'll have Gawker to thank for it. No sex-one night stand. People are sick of this crap, even against a pretty weird candidate:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/gawker/trail-anonymous-christine-odonnells-sex-free-pal


On The Trail Of "Anonymous," Christine O'Donnell's Sex-Free Pal

[UPDATE: TSG has identified the “Anonymous” correspondent who today detailed his purported (sexless) one-night stand with Christine O’Donnell. See bottom of piece.]

Readers of today’s first-person account of a sexless one-night stand with kooky Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell might have noticed that the author--whom Gawker cloaked as “Anonymous” --was wearing an actual Boy Scouts uniform in photos accompanying the story about the purported Halloween night encounter three years ago.

While the man’s identity remains a secret (at least for the time being), TSG has determined that the uniform’s owner is a buddy of “Anonymous” who actually works for the Boy Scouts of America.

Brad Kurisko, 28, is a district executive with a Boy Scouts council in the Philadelphia area. In the pictures of O’Donnell mugging with “Anonymous,” the nametag on the uniform is obscured with a black bar. This was presumably done to further protect the identity of “Anonymous” and cut off any attempts to ID him via the uniform.

Which apparently only worked half...

He also refused to answer a question about whether he received money in connection with the story (Gawker's editor told a Yahoo reporter that the site paid in the "low four figures" for the O'Donnell story)...

[fj1200]

They're throwing their support behind a solid win so they can claim they helped later.

I'm betting they want at least one solid "win" that they can claim credit for later... and to keep the Senate of course.

[red states rule]

I'm betting they want at least one solid "win" that they can claim credit for later... and to keep the Senate of course.

Polls show about 8% are still undecided. Lets hope the libs think Coons has this election in the bag and stay home