It was another big primary day yesterday, with results that are likely to be micro-analyzed for some big meaning between now and election day... or at least between now and the next primary. Everyone is prognosticating and trying to read the tea leaves for the zeitgeist of the nation, and the results are all over the map.

Perhaps the biggest surprise was Delaware, where the Republican nomination went to marginal "tea party" candidate Christine O'Donnell over multi-term moderate Mike Castle. Was she really that compelling a candidate? There were stories about misuse of campaign funds, personal finances in shambles, and O'Donnell's lack of a college degree. Is this what the tea party wants? Someone with zero credentials over intellect and experience? Would you want a fuck-up running the company you work for? Why would you want one running the government?

The bigger question is whether she would do better against the Democrat running against her in the general election than the experienced moderate. I would guess not, which makes me wonder if the Republicans that voted in the primary are that delusional or just don't care because they wanted to "make a statement"? Either way, it does not reflect well on them (I would say the same about progressives that would rather have an unelectable far-left extremist than an electable moderate-liberal on the Dem ticket. FWIW, the definition of "extreme" varies from region to region, state to state, and district to district. It's all relative. Both Kucinich and Boehner keep getting re-elected in Ohio).

There are some Democrats that think this will backfire on the Republicans, to the Democrats benefit. They believe that moderates will reject an extreme candidate and vote for a Democrat instead. I certainly hope they're right. It's WAY too early to cheer the wins of tea party candidates in primaries, thinking they'll be easy to beat. Their more mainstream Republican opponents in the primaries thought that too, and now they are facing forced retirement.

Of course - not all Democrats are thinking that way. In fact, some are thinking the opposite. Some "big name" Democrat thinks that Congress is a lost cause. Who? Well - the linked article conveniently does not name names. This is very bad messaging coming from the Democrats. There is a certain percentage of the population that doesn't care either way and will vote for the one they think is going to win so they can feel like they are on the "winning team". If they perceive that to be the Republicans, then that's who will get their vote.

That's why the Democrats need to focus on the Republican agenda, all of which will end up doing the opposite of what the Republicans claim it will do. Rolling back "Obamacare" will increase the deficit, not reduce it. Continuing tax cuts for the richest 3% of Americans will increase the deficit, not reduce it (and contrary to another Republican talking point - the tax increases will not harm small businesses). The Republican agenda is just not very popular (very interesting graphs at the link). The Democrats should focus on the fact that peoples taxes ARE lower now than they were, that the deficit IS shrinking, and that the Dems plans HAVE improved the economy. There is no reason to be playing so timidly or defensively.

How this all plays out in November is anybody's guess, and I am not going to try. In New Hampshire, the tea party candidate won for the Republicans, and the more progressive candidate won for the Democrats. It will be interesting to see how that clash of purist ideals works out in the General.

But anyone that claims to be able to predict how things will turn out is just selling the Brooklyn Bridge to whoever will buy it.