“There’s an assumption that [O’Donnell’s] no more viable as a candidate than she was in the primary contest with Castle, and look where that ended up,” writes Joseph Pika, a political scientist at the University of Delaware in Newark, in an e-mail. “By all conventional political measures, she should not win, but this is not a conventional political year. Several conditions had to break her way to win the primary and I, among others, did not think they would all break her way – but they did.”
“Democrats could be overconfident,” he continues. “Democrats could be overaggressive – she could quickly become a more sympathetic candidate if everyone seems to pile on. If Democrats seem to practice politics as usual – be seen as committing character assassination, for example – they could confirm the basic appeal she has of challenging the establishment and ‘politics as usual.’ ”
But, Mr. Pika notes, O’Donnell is untested in a traditional campaign involving close scrutiny and sustained give and take. “Her qualifications for office are sketchy, at best, and the extra time [six weeks] will probably stress the questions about her background,” he writes. “She ran an insurgent’s campaign based largely on emotion and volunteers. That might be sufficient in Delaware [for victory] but probably not.”
Wilmington, Del., broadcaster Allan Loudell also suggests that Democrats need to take O’Donnell seriously heading into November, despite the political handicappers’ dismissal of her chances.
“She's become a much more polished candidate,” writes Allan Loudell of WDEL-AM radio on his blog. “If you throw the kitchen-sink at her (as the Castle campaign and the Republican establishment did), O'Donnell will accuse you of the ‘politics of destruction.’ ”
