There's a lot of folks sending me DMs about me not being a purist and throwing my support behind the Democrats in Alaska and Florida Senate races.
For the record... I'm all for McAdams and Meeks. I have no problems with either of these exemplary liberal Democrats as candidates... other than their current status in electability. I am a pragmatic realist, not a pie-in-the-sky dreamer. My priority in support is as follows:
1) Keep the crazy-ass wingnut teabagger out of the US Senate.
2) Put the most electable liberal Democrat in the seat.
3) If step 2 is unattainable, refer to step 1.
Am I missing something in the way of pure logic, science and math here?
Do try to remember why we were all so overjoyed and elated when the teabaggers shot themselves in the foot for November general election Senate race in Delaware:
And what does our boys' situations look like? Let's see Meek's probability of a win...
1.7% chance of a win?? OUCH!! Not too good. How about Scott McAdams...?
This is only one Rasmussen poll of likely voters, but 3.3% is STILL not pretty.
Folks, if Scott McAdams support EVER exceeds Lisa Murkowski, or Kendrick Meek's level of support surges past Charlie Crist between now and election day... I'll get behind the mule, pucker up, kiss your ass and admit I was wrong. But not until then.
Don't blame Dems who are trying to keep the crazy teabagger out of office... just because you wanted ideological "purity" and an unelectable weak candidate.