National Review's Jim Geraghty reports
that his sources in Delaware believe Rep. Mike Castle is seriously considering a write-in campaign for US Senate. They peg the odds of Castle pulling the trigger at 50/50:
I am hearing from a credible source that Castle’s odds of mounting a write-in campaign are as high as 50-50. They believe they can win, and lots of anecdotal evidence that I can share tells me this: most independents and even many Democrats are very unhappy with the choice between O’Donnell and Coons.
Under the plan being considered, Castle would announce his decision to run as a write-in candidate, and promise to caucus with Senate Republicans if elected. Senate Republicans, however, don't seem too keen
on Castle's plan:
"I'm against it," said John Cornyn (R-Texas) when asked if he would support Castle as a write-in. "We're supporting the nominee."
"Write-ins are long-shots," Cornyn told the Huffington Post at the Capitol Thursday, "As a chairman of a party committee it's our responsibility to support the nominee -- the choice of the primary voters -- and that's what we're going to do."
Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was not the only Republican leader to denounce the idea.
"Well the position of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee is that when voters of the state have nominated a Republican nominee that's the person we support," said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
Kyl and Cornyn are saying the right things, but their objections to the idea struck me as a little...tepid. Maybe they privately agree with some righties' analysis
that a Castle write-in effort might provide the only conceivable path to victory for Christine O'Donnell, who trails badly
in the current two-way race.
Is there such a thing as being against a Castle write-in bid on principle while favoring it in practice?