Christine O'Donnell Wins, and the GOP Loses

Christine O'Donnell's stunning victory in the GOP Senate race in Delaware is great news for the Tea Party-backed O'Donnell, who was initially expected to pose little challenge to well-liked moderate Republican Rep. Mike Castle.

But it's terrible news overall for Republicans, whose prospects for winning back the Senate in November just took a serious nosedive.

Castle is a moderate Republican well-suited to a moderate state, and he would have gone into the general election fight against Democrat Chris Coons as the likely winner.

That's not the case with O'Donnell. Republicans were so convinced that she couldn't win the general election that they criticized her aggressively, with the state Republican chairman suggesting she is a liar who "could not be elected dog catcher." Before the vote, Castle said explicitly, "if she's nominated, Republicans lose the election automatically."

Even Freedomworks, the Tea Party-affiliated group that has played a major role in expanding the movement, declined to follow Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint's lead and back O'Donnell. "It's not wise to elect a philosophically perfect candidate who is not capable of winning the general election," president Matt Kibbe said.

There are 292,738 registered Democrats in Delaware, compared to 182,796 registered Republicans. While Castle, the longest-serving congressman in the state's history, would have attracted support from independents and even some Democrats, O'Donnell will have to depend largely on the GOP base to put her over the top. And the GOP base simply isn't that big in Delaware, which President Obama carried by 25 points in the 2008 presidential election.

In her victory speech, O'Donnell said, "Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Delaware have spoken." But that's something of a stretch: The Republican primary in Delaware is closed, which means only registered Republicans could cast ballots. Had the primary been open - and independents and Democrats been able to vote - Castle would likely have been the one holding the victory party.

And here are the facts of life for the GOP: Without Delaware, Republicans' chances of netting the ten seats they need to take control of the Senate have dramatically declined. Unless O'Donnell can pull off a stunner in the general election equivalent to the one she pulled off on Tuesday, Republicans will have to run the table on all other competitive seats.

Republicans tried to put on a brave face once the results came in, with the National Republican Senatorial Committee emailing out a statement saying, "We congratulate Christine O'Donnell for her nomination this evening after a hard-fought primary campaign in Delaware."

But NRSC chairman John Cornyn himself said before the vote that O'Donnell's November prospects were "a serious issue," adding that he has "doubts" about his newly-minted nominee.

O'Donnell acknowledged in her victory speech that "A lot of people have already said that we can't win the general election." She added that "it will be hard work, but we can win."

Unfortunately for O'Donnell, Delaware is not Utah or Alaska, where Tea Party candidates unseated sitting senators earlier this year. Those states are conservative enough that whoever came out of the primary immediately became the strong favorite to win in November. For that reason, the GOP establishment and the Tea Party movement were able to maintain an uneasy and mutually-beneficially coexistence despite their sometimes-divergent agendas.

With O'Donnell's win, all that has changed. A movement that has undeniably energized the GOP base has now turned a likely victory into a likely defeat; it has also heralded something of a moment of reckoning for Tea Partiers who must come to terms with the fact that the most ideologically pure candidate isn't always the most electable.

In her victory speech, O'Donnell urged the state GOP to work on her behalf for "the greater good" - a tall order in light of the nasty criticism it leveled at her in the primary. It's the same message that establishment Republicans were sending Delaware Republicans before the vote - and one that, from their perspective, failed to get through.

Interactive Map: CBS News Election 2010 Race Ratings

---

Brian Montopoli is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of his posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.

[wethepeople58]

Christine is no dog catcher. I know you'll see what she is made of in the coming weeks, and everyone will have to eat their words. She is one of us and not of the the 'ELITE' BB group. I keep saying, vote em out. Anyone can do better than liars, cheaters and forked tongued individuals. If you find they're liars too, which, in Christine will just not happen, even though she's been lied about, then we must evict them also. Abraham Lincoln was self-educated, and a very common man. Our past senators were too. Just regular people like you and me. We need to rebuild America on our founding principles and not the principles of "spend till we drop", bankrupt the country, then socialize everyone to fit into their computer mould.

[gep1955]

Hey Brian, the gop doesn't lose, CBS news does for allowing you to file this rediculous report. I heard someone remark that O'donnell couldn't be elected dog catcher. You know what, we're so fed up with the corrupt bunch in Washington now, if an honest, fiscally conservative dog catcher ran for the senate, they would blow away any entrenched politician.

[missyFL]

Republicans have been cruel to this American; now its the Democrats' turn to regurgitate the filth. Party affiliation is becoming a humiliation. Thank you RNC.

[wethepeople58]

I am so honored to have met you Christine O'Donnell, even if it was through a CBS Video. You are the true embodiment of what America is all about! Irish-Italian, whoooooooohooooooo, so am I!!!!! Put those two together, and you can't lose! Love your speech, love your vigour, love your awesome smile, your courage, your fortitude. We don't need Karl Rove Rhino's to back you up Christine, we need "True Americans" who have Principles and who really care about this nation. We don't need to compromise our values to make the Dem's happy. We just need to bring America back on her feet, and I see a True Resurrection of America, the America we Love, through Patriots like "Christine O'Donnell". Love ya Girl! Go get em'

[ESP777]

Mootsa Gootsa predicts O'Donnell will win in Nov.
Mootsa Gootsa is never wrong.

[holalanemeir]

Yeah, and the psychic Miss Cleo never foresaw the IRS auditing her, either.

[mary-miami]

With the Democrats and Republicans, we know what we get. The Tea Party are a dangerous bunch. They are right wing extremists. All extremes are bad (Communism is extreme left). Extremists take away personal freedoms. The tea party want to discriminate against the poor and poverty is not a criminal offense. It can happen to anybody; How many people went bankrupt when Bush was finishing his term in office? Hitler was a fascist and that is what the tea party people are. They don't allow discussion. If it were up to them, there would be no free speech or press. If the tea party were to gain control of the country, the United States would cease to be a "free nation" because all people would not be treated with equal respect. Ancient Rome was a great empire and it fell.

[wethepeople58]

Tea Party discriminates against the poor?????? Extremism! Excuse me, please don't drink the Kool-aid my friend. I'm poor, I'm an American, and I'm a Tea Party member because I love my country. We poor Tea Party conservatives don't have a lot of money, in fact, some of us are not any better off than those on food stamps, but we want to see a comback of our nation again, and we're going to try to make it better for you and for everyone. Tea Party is not a political party, but a true American Ideal, and bases it tenets on the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence.

[superdem1]

Do you have any "ARRA" contruction projects where you live ? We certainly do where I live - guess what, that's STIMULUS money, building our infrastructure. We're getting highways, road repairs, bridges, water containment, people are working and getting paid. If it's happening in my state, it's happening in all the states. You are getting something for your money, and none of it would be happening if Republicans were in charge. None of it will happen if Tea Party people are ever in charge. Where was your righteous anger when the Republicans spent America into the ditch for eight years, with noting to show for it ? America's decline didn't start in January 2009. I'm not the least upset that money is being spent in America for Americans. Who could possibly do that if you succeed in dismantling the government ? Don't tell my how much you love your country when all you want to do is allow it - and your countrymen - to rot away. No corporation is going to fix the roads or build the bridges. They don't even take care of their own workers.

[hambone64]

The Dems didn't win because of their great ideas. They won because they weren't the Republicans who spent us into a ditch with nothing to show for it. The problem people have with the stimulus isn't the money spent in infrastructure. The problem is most of the stimulus has nothing to do with infrastructure.

Many of these projects would not be funded by the federal government if the Tea Partiers had their way. Many of them would be funded locally or at a state level with money that wasn't being sent to Washington. Why do we send money to Washington so they can send it back to us. It makes no sense. It is disgusting that one of the only places in the country where the economy is booming is Washington D.C. where people are hired and paid for with money we don't have and are borrowing from our children.

[starving1968-3]

by Empire--George September 15, 2010 10:45 AM EDT

Keep telling yourself that over and over, if it makes you feel better.....while they win election after election, as the Republicans replace their losing liberal faction, with Constitutional Conservatives.







What's a "Constitutional Conservatives"?

Someone that thinks the Arizona law that says "stop and detainee America's citizens that look like illegal aliens" is perfectly acceptable?

Someone that thinks "spending" is bad when it's FOR America or her citizens, but doesn't say ONE WORD when it's for elective wars, "no bid contracts" and billion dollar kick backs to "politically preferred entities" like international corporations?

Someone that agrees that the wealthy elite and corporate America can now buy and sell elections?

If that's how YOU define a "Constitutional Conservative", then you might as well just burn the constitution and get it over with!

[johndevinejr]

Oh, come on. Like George W. Bush once said "the Constitution is just a piece of paper". If you are Consevative the Constitution can be violated if you are frightened. Illegal wiretapping and torture, perfectly ok.

[Mortar_29]

No Hungry, that is how you define a constitutional conservative. That isnt the actual definition.

[jd2408]

by jd2408 September 15, 2010 11:12 AM EDT
IMO you have totally missed ibsteve's point here. Our government failed in its duty to protect the people of this country by selling their soul and getting into bed with free enterprise. It is the goal of free enterprise to make profits with as little cost as possible. It is the job of the government to protect the American economy through regulation, fair trade agreements that follow labor laws, fair tax laws, etc. What you are calling for is a Mexican style society where you have the rich and the poor with no middle class and no safety net for the poor. Free enterprise does what it should do. It creates opportunity for itself and profits. Its intentions are not directed for the good of the public. Our government has failed its people.

by hambone64 September 15, 2010 11:19 AM EDT
The problem is the people on these programs don't expect to survive, they expect to thrive. People who haven't worked in 2 years (or 20) should not expect to be able to own the same house they always have, or have two or more cars in the driveway, or have a cell phone for every member of the family or a big screen TV with 200 channels. Yes, it stinks not to have what other people have. Sometimes life isn't fair.

A question, where do you expect the jobs to come from if you demonize all the greedy rich people who own and run the businesses of the country? Another, how can their be inequitable free trade? Free trade by definition removes all artificial barriers and supports. If what you are concerned about is businesses moving overseas, then you should be in favor of giving businesses a reason to be here. That means less government red tape and lower taxes to make up for the fact that labor is dirt cheap in places like China and Mexico.

[jd2408]

hambone, First off I in no way am against wealth. I am against wealth at any price, gained on the backs of what would be slave labor. "Free" trade has not been free at all. Labor laws that companies must obey here have not been enforced in trade agreements. Free trade agreements do not remove barriers or supports at all. Foreign countries have many trade barriers and also government support for their industries that companies in the US do not receive other than agriculture. NAFTA has actually hurt Mexico more than helped it. I agree with you on tax breaks for companies that keep jobs here. I also feel the tax breaks should be taken away for companies that outsource jobs. Its my understanding trade agreements are well written but provisions not enforced.

[hambone64]

I am betting we have more in common than we have differences. I believe there should be a safety net. I even believe in providing a hammock for those who cannot stand on their own. What I am concerned about is making the safety net too comfortable, so that people who could otherwise stand on their own choose to treat it like a hammock.

I agree that government needs to get out of bed with big business. One reason we have so many regulations on business is to squeeze out competition. Only the largest companies can afford to carry a team dedicated to navigating regulatory red tape that they usually had a hand in creating. Only the largest companies can afford a contingent of lobbyists and massive campaign contributions which are necessary to get all the regulation in place. Since the 1930's government has been becoming more and more aligned with big business and more and more against free enterprise. There should be dozens of car makers, utility companies and oil companies and thousands of significant manufacturing companies in the country. There isn't because big business, government and union leaders have colluded under the mistaken notion that bigger is better and collectivism is the key to efficiency and prosperity.

[tornado777-2009]

@Brian Montopoli.

I believe in the third-to-last paragraph, in the last line, there's a grammatical error. You said "mutually-beneficially" when it should be "mutually beneficial"