Turmoil in New Castle County

Democrats in New Castle County seem to be at war with each other whether in the City or in the County.  Instead of governing, they seem to busy with other things. Some are too busy giving special favors with taxpayer money.  Others are too busy bullying people.  Much has been said about the Republican infighting, justifiably so.  It is interesting to note that Democrats seem to have even more issues.  I guess political infighting has become the new Delaware way.  How sad. They do not have answers that work for rising crime, high unemployment, and rising poverty.  They have to do something with their time. One day, people will have time to get the people’s business done.  Until then, I guess pass the popcorn.

54 thoughts on “Turmoil in New Castle County”

  1. Nobody on October 29, 2013 at 11:46 said: “Because Jan Ting is Chinese. As one Sussex Republican told me, “Nobody down here is going to vote for a Chinaman.”

    Even in 2006, we are talking about the general election, not the primary.

    Fact is, the Delaware Republican party *DID* nominate a “Chinaman” as you so carelessly put it…. and chose Jan Ting instead of a white male and a white female.

    And the problem with Jan Ting was his politics, not his ancestry. Did you forget that Jan Ting ended up campaigning for the Democrat for President only 2 years later? He has every right to support, vote for, and campaign for anyone he wants. But not exactly a strong Republican if 2 years later he his campaigning for the Democrat ticket — including Joe Biden — for President and Vice President, 2 years after being the Republican nominee for US Senate.

    Jan Ting, like Mitt Romney, was the perfect DEGOP moderate insider’s idea of a candidate who would appeal to Democrats and Independents (actually they are reported as those registered “other” — NOT necessarily Independent)

    What is obvious about Jan Ting in 2006 is the spectacular failure of the “Run a Democrat Lite candidate” theory of the DEGOP insiders and liberal commentators.

    In 2006, the DEGOP ran a “Democrat Lite” candidate and Jan Ting failed to attract Democrats or Independents…. because the entire theory is a stupid theory.

  2. You don’t know anything about Jan Ting, and I’m not about to educate you, so believe what you want. But please note that Jan Ting got 29%, or 69,000 votes, in the same election that notorious RINO Mike Castle got 143,000, or 57%. I’m sure you have another complicated explanation for it, but what I told you is what one of Sussex County’s older Republican residents told me, and he predicted it well before the election.

    Did you see the story yesterday about a poll of Delaware’s top officials? Tom Carper has a 61% approval rating. Do you really think he’s vulnerable?

  3. Nobody on October 30, 2013 at 09:39 said: “But please note that Jan Ting got 29%, or 69,000 votes, in the same election that notorious RINO Mike Castle got 143,000, or 57%”

    AGAINST WHOM?

    In 2006, Democrat nominee Dennis Spivack got 94,735 votes or 38.8% against Mike Castle.

    Dennis Spivack spent a total of $8,812 for his campaign against Mike Castle — of which he loaned $5,000 from his own money to his campaign.

    REALLY?

    Mike Castle got 57% against a Democrat who raised $3,312 and spent $8,812 for a US House seat?

    The DEGOP should have immediately started grooming a replacement for Mike Castle and demanded that Mike Castle retire.

    Any incumbent who gets only 57% against a Democrat who spent only $8,812 is DONE — dead politically.

    Incumbents have advantages, that’s true. An incumbent Congressman or Senator has tons of advantages and resources to win re-election.

    That does not mean that Mike Castle had a snowball’s chance of hell in moving over to take away from the Democrat party Joe Biden’s US Senate seat, threatening Obama’s agenda in the Senate (supposedly), and breaking the agreement that the US Senate seat went to Joe Biden and the US House seat when to the Republicans.

  4. Stop cherry-picking long enough to explain the disparity. It’s not money, because Ting didn’t have any either.

    Your theories are a single-bed sheet trying to cover a king-size bed. If lack of money is the problem, it leaves unexplained Christine O’Donnell’s 17-point loss despite the expenditure of $6 million.

    You are the one who keeps trying to take one set of circumstances — Ting’s low vote total — and use it to condemn the entire Republican Party. Yet when you argue, each election is its own special case.

    You are, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest at best, and a self-deluded liar at worst. Occam’s Razor — the simplest explanation is probably true.

    Mourdock and Akin lost — in RED states — because they were too conservative. Yet you insist that Republicans in Delaware — a BLUE state — can win by becoming more conservative.

    This not only flies in the face of common sense, you can’t come up with a theory to explain it — it’s always due to circumstances particular to each election.

    Wait, I’ve got a word for what you are: fraud.

Comments are closed.