Despite being crazy Loon, Sharron Angle leads in Polls

[Crossroads Inc.]

LINK

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is targeting his Republican opponent Sharron Angle's more extreme positions in his latest campaign ad -- a theme that may be resonating with Nevada voters, but so far not enough to give Reid the lead in the race.

The Reid campaign this week unveiled a new ad focusing on Angle's interest in phasing out Social Security and Medicare. The ad features Edward Coyle of the Alliance for Retired Americans saying that Angle's likening of Social Security to welfare is "insulting" and says her interest in eliminating the entitlement programs is "crazy."

A NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll released this week shows that, at least on a national level, voters are uncomfortable with Angle's positions. Just 9 percent of voters say they would be enthusiastic about a candidate who advocated for privatizing Social Security, while an additional 15 percent said they were comfortable with the idea. As many as 48 percent said they were "very uncomfortable" with the idea, while another 18 percent said that position gave them "some reservations." Voters also said they uncomfortable with the idea of abolishing the Department of Education, another idea Angle supports.

Angle has been hounded by the opposition, as well as the media, about her more extreme views and her hesitancy to talk about them to the press.

Perhaps taking a cue from a fellow Tea Party favorite, Sarah Palin, Angle appears to be giving her side of the story via Facebook. She clarified her position on Social Security in a Facebook note yesterday, in which she uses a term made famous by Al Gore 10 years ago - "lockbox."

CBSNews.com Special Report: Campaign 2010
"My plan has always been to save Social Security for those who have paid in good faith into a lockbox that has an IOU in it," she wrote. "Going forward we need to consider Social Security and Medicare on a personalized basis and the reason that we are moving toward personalization is to keep the government from raiding our retirement, raiding our healthcare."

Today, Angle addresses another story that has hounded her in a Facebook note called "My Position on Scientology and Massages for Inmates."

She clarifies that while she did as a state legislator review a program aimed at cutting prison recidivism that involved massages and other detoxification methods developed by L. Ron Hubbard, it was not a Scientology trip, and the review did not lead to any legislation or changes in government programs. Reid highlighted Angle's interest in the program in an earlier ad.

But Angle still leads Reid in the latest poll. A Rasmussen poll released yesterday shows Angle leading Reid by 48 percent to 41 percent. Furthermore, a majority of Nevadans favor repealing health care reform, one of the most significant pieces of legislation Reid helped push through.

Yet while Reid is very unpopular in the state -- 49 percent give him an unfavorable rating -- nearly as many (47 percent) find Angle unfavorable.


Reid's unpopularity in the state could explain why his son, Rory Reid, isn't mentioning his last name in his own campaign for governor. Rory Reid launched his first advertisement this week that features small children and emphasizes his education platform. The ad instructs viewers to "download Rory's education plan" at the website Rory2010.com. Reid never says his last name in the ad.

Rory Reid's last name is also missing from the home page of his website, and the biography page.

"As Chairman of the Clark County Commission Rory has managed a budget bigger than the state's general fund for seven years, balanced it every year, and never raised taxes," the bio reads. "Rory, 47, grew up in Nevada attending public schools, as do his three great kids."

So while on a National level, America finds Angle a complete loon, on a local level Harry Reid is SO DESPISED That she is still polling favorably.... What a world we live in.

[Knife]

uhm, it is July. Only people who follow this stuff and probably participate in polls are the hard core political junkies and activists. I wouldn't put too much stock in these polls yet.

[Eframepilot]

Yeah. Angle herself was way behind Lowden until Lowden self-destructed with her chicken-based economy nonsense.

[Dominus Atheos]

So while on a National level, America finds Angle a complete loon, on a local level Harry Reid is SO DESPISED That she is still polling favorably.... What a world we live in.

What the hell is it with you? Why do you support Reid so strongly? Angle may be crazy but she's only one vote. Reid, however, is 59 votes. If you at all consider yourself a progressive you should be doing everything short of actively campaigning for Angle so we might have a chance at an overall more progressive democratic party.

But maybe you don't consider yourself a strong progressive, so let me put it another way. If you want Obama to be reelected in 2012, and don't want President Palin or President Romney, you should really hope Reid doesn't win reelection. He's a terrible majority leader regardless of the ideology he or his party follows, and his actions are really hurting the democratic party as a whole and Obama in particular. Enthusiasm among democrats is falling rapidly to the point where even if a majority of the nation believes in their ideals or their candidates, they may not be able to get enough people to bother to go the voting machines for them to win.

What do most people consider the cause of this to be? The antics of the Senate. Whether it's the horrible bullshit that the HCR bill had to go through in order for it to be passed nearly a year after Democrats and Obama had decided to make it a priority, or the bullshit the current Financial Reform bill has to go through to make sure President Scott Brown or President Lincoln doesn't use their apparent veto on it, or the way all it take is the threat of a filibuster to make Reid roll over so no republican has to ever actually talk while cameras are pointed at him, they all sap enthusiasm from the Democratic base and they all wouldn't happen if the Senate had a strong majority leader.

So with all that in mind do you still support Reid? Or do you think Sharron Angle might be a necessary sacrifice to make?

[Knife]

Yeah, the Democrats suck so bad we need them to lose so real ideologically pure Democrats can win next time and save us.

Worked so well for the GOPers last time around.

[Dominus Atheos]

Yeah, the Democrats suck so bad we need them to lose so real ideologically pure Democrats can win next time and save us.

Worked so well for the GOPers last time around.

Oh I'm sorry, was I talking about the entire Democratic Party? No? That's right, I was only talking about Harry fucking Reid, dumbass. And if you think I'm wrong, how about explaining what you think is wrong with my argument?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So while on a National level, America finds Angle a complete loon, on a local level Harry Reid is SO DESPISED That she is still polling favorably.... What a world we live in.

What the hell is it with you? Why do you support Reid so strongly? Angle may be crazy but she's only one vote. Reid, however, is 59 votes. If you at all consider yourself a progressive you should be doing everything short of actively campaigning for Angle so we might have a chance at an overall more progressive democratic party.

Gods, don't you ever get tired of beating the "root for the lunatics so that the plebes will vote for True Scotsmen Democrats next time" drum? Don't you ever get tired of repeatedly having that drum shoved up your ass?

From the top: You do realize that if Thinks-at-Right-Angles-to-Reality gets elected, she's going to have incumbent cred in six years? Furthermore, having her take Harry Reid's seat means that the Democrats will have one less vote in the Senate . . . in an election where the Democrats have a very real chance to lose control of the Senate, and have their grip on the House weakened. The GOP would love to have a conservative-dominated Senate. Since the Democratic spin-machine is so hilariously inept, the GOP will blame the next two years of inaction on Barry HUSSEIN NO-bama, and the right-wing echo chamber mainstream media will cheerfully help the voting public accept the GOP spin on events.

You can look forward to the usual tireless defenders of corporate knob-polishing around here screaming about how Obama is the most incompetent do-nothing President since, at least, Calvin Coolidge; if not Andrew Johnson. Then, in 2012, he'll be voted out of office and the lunatics will be in charge of the asylum once more.

[Knife]

Yeah, the Democrats suck so bad we need them to lose so real ideologically pure Democrats can win next time and save us.

Worked so well for the GOPers last time around.

Oh I'm sorry, was I talking about the entire Democratic Party? No? That's right, I was only talking about Harry fucking Reid, dumbass. And if you think I'm wrong, how about explaining what you think is wrong with my argument?

Lol, you douche, you went on mini tirades about the Presidency in 2012 and the whole Senate, not just Harry Reid. To boot, he's the fucking leader of the Senate, like him or not, if he goes down as you're obviously wanting, the current leadership and structure of the party along with the moral of Democrats will suffer. If it looks like he's going to lose big before the election, it'll hurt the other Dems nation wide, if he loses it'll seriously hurt Obama in 2012.

We need people who will compromise ( real negotiations not give a ways) not people who are ideologically pure or just out for themselves.

[StarshipTitanic]

Letting a teanut beat the Majority Leader is a bigger ideological victory for the teanuts, not progressives. It validates the Republican strategy of moving right and refusing to cooperate with Democrats because that's what they're running on this year. The Republicans will probably get Biden's old seat and possibly Obama's. Reid would give them a symbolic trifecta. The senate Class III is already going to become a stronghold of ultra-conservative Republicans and it will remain so until 2016, which is also the next open presidential election (I'm assuming Obama will win in 2012).

2012 is a better year for tactical voting because the Democrats can actually make even trades and maybe even make gains despite a lack of anti-Bush sentiment like in 2006. Lose Ben Nelson and gain a Scott Brown replacement. Snowe might not win her primary because the Teabaggers infested the Maine GOP so that's a possible open seat. Lieberman is gone. Ensign is gone.

[Coyote]

That's the problem with American politics; every time someone loses an election, they try to do better next time by moving more to the Right. The Democrats in little tip-toe steps, the Republicans in huge strides and leaps. But the general trend is, inexorably, to the right.

[StarshipTitanic]

That's the problem with American politics; every time someone loses an election, they try to do better next time by moving more to the Right. The Democrats in little tip-toe steps, the Republicans in huge strides and leaps. But the general trend is, inexorably, to the right.

I'd wait for the results of this year's election before making generalizations like this. Reid only has a chance because Angle is too right-wing. Crist broke with his party because a right-winger would heavily defeat him in the GOP primary and is now leading the polls as an independent (aka will caucus with the Democrats) in Florida.

Snowe, Collins and especially Brown will have trouble justifying to the New England electorate why they remain in their party.

[Crossroads Inc.]

That's the problem with American politics; every time someone loses an election, they try to do better next time by moving more to the Right. The Democrats in little tip-toe steps, the Republicans in huge strides and leaps. But the general trend is, inexorably, to the right.

That reminds me of a Quote my Father often tells me.

"When Republicans and Conservatives loose election, they always assume it was because they weren't conservative enough.
When Democrats and Liberals loose elections, they always assume it was because... They weren't conservative enough."

Which as far as I am concerned sums up much of the politics in America for the past decade.

As far the comments by Dominus Atheos, I will simply add that, IMHO, the point he seems ot be missing is that many indeed DO hate people like Reid. Yes we WOULD like to see him out of office, but not at the expense of a democratic seat in the senate, and majority leader to boot. The time to change candidates is in the primaries.

The Teaparty has picked up on this quite well, ousting more moderate Republicans for more conservative ones. If Progressives wish to make changes they need to do similar. Ousting Conservative Democrats for progressives n the primaries Reid, however much I think he is a pansy, got the Democratic nominee, which means I will begrudgingly support him to ensure a Republican does NOT get the seat.

The man is a spineless hack, but hes a vote in our favor. The next time his seat comes up, I hope the party does everything it can to kick him out and get in a better candidate.

[Alphawolf55]

In to response to comments on New England politics.

Why because they are too right or too left?

[StarshipTitanic]

In to response to comments on New England politics.

Why because they are too right or too left?

I'm not sure who "they" are but I meant that New England is generally more liberal than the national average. The GOP candidate for Lt. Governor of Massachusetts is openly gay, for example. The entire region is represented by Democrats in Congress and all state legislatures have Democratic majorities (and in three the Dems have super-majorities, including Massachusetts).

[Dominus Atheos]

Yeah, the Democrats suck so bad we need them to lose so real ideologically pure Democrats can win next time and save us.

Worked so well for the GOPers last time around.

Oh I'm sorry, was I talking about the entire Democratic Party? No? That's right, I was only talking about Harry fucking Reid, dumbass. And if you think I'm wrong, how about explaining what you think is wrong with my argument?

Lol, you douche, you went on mini tirades about the Presidency in 2012 and the whole Senate, not just Harry Reid. To boot, he's the fucking leader of the Senate, like him or not, if he goes down as you're obviously wanting, the current leadership and structure of the party along with the moral of Democrats will suffer. If it looks like he's going to lose big before the election, it'll hurt the other Dems nation wide, if he loses it'll seriously hurt Obama in 2012.

Gods, don't you ever get tired of beating the "root for the lunatics so that the plebes will vote for True Scotsmen Democrats next time" drum? Don't you ever get tired of repeatedly having that drum shoved up your ass?

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IDEOLOGICAL PURITY YOU LYING RETARDS! I SPECIFICALLY SAID IF YOU WANT OBAMA REELECTED IN 2012 YOU SHOULD HOPE FOR REID'S FAILURE. HARRY REID COULD BE THE MOST LEFT-WING MEMBER OF THE SENATE AND I WOULD STILL WANT HIM GONE. I'D RATHER HAVE 58 VOTES WIELDED COMPETENTLY FOR MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATIC PRIORITIES THEN 59 VOTES WIELDED BY SUCH A SPINELESS LITTLE BITCH FOR LEFT-WING POLICIES.

Let me repeat that one more time since I know you two chucklefucks still won't get it:

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IDEOLOGY RIGHT NOW!!!!

[D.Turtle]

Just compare what Pelosi has achieved in the House and what Reid has achieved in the Senate. IIRC, a couple of months ago they added up all bills stalled in the Senate and it was somewhere in the region of 800.

Now, not all of that is Reid's fault, but he has not done much (if anything) to alleviate it either. Just compare what Reid has achieved with 59-60 Democratic votes and what the Republicans achieved when they had a small majority (51-49) in 2003-2005 and a slightly bigger majority (55-45) from 2005-2007.

[eion]

I'D RATHER HAVE 58 VOTES WIELDED COMPETENTLY FOR MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATIC PRIORITIES THEN 59 VOTES WIELDED BY SUCH A SPINELESS LITTLE BITCH FOR LEFT-WING POLICIES.

As would I were the Senate a logical body that carried out its business through majority rules, but it doesn't. Every number you get further away from 60 makes things just a bit harder. Not that much is getting done now, but with 58 (Or 56 if we assume Lieberman and Nelson follow what seems to be their natural instincts more often and side with the Republicans) even less will get done. And as for Reid being a left-wing crony, he's only got a 29% rating from NARAL and 57% from Planned Parenthood and voted for DOMA; he doesn't exactly seem like a crazy pinko hippy, but maybe I'm misinterpreting your remarks.

I'd even be alright with Reid losing if the Republicans were interested in compromise, but they aren't. If the Republicans gain control of the Senate NOTHING will get done between now and 2012 and as has been said they will blame Obama for the lack of progress. But more than that, their efforts will probably plunge us into a second depression, consign millions of Americans to the poor-house, and stop any efforts to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq and repeal DADT.

But July is too early to be trusting polls; incumbents are almost always down early.

[D.Turtle]

Republicans didn't need 60 votes for everything.

Its only after the Democrats got the majority that 60 votes were required for almost everything.

To a certain extent this has been because Republicans are willing to abuse the rules to do that, but it is also because it hasn't cost them much - if anything - to do so. Instead it has actually helped them, because the Democrats (lead by Reid) have been willing to go along with it.

If the Republicans gain control of the Senate (which is unlikely), just watch a lot of Democrats folding and many, many acts passing with 51 votes (as they don't have the VP on their side like they did when they where 50-50 in the Senate when they passed the so-called Bush tax cuts).

[StarshipTitanic]

Republicans didn't need 60 votes for everything.

Its only after the Democrats got the majority that 60 votes were required for almost everything.

To a certain extent this has been because Republicans are willing to abuse the rules to do that, but it is also because it hasn't cost them much - if anything - to do so. Instead it has actually helped them, because the Democrats (lead by Reid) have been willing to go along with it.

If the Republicans gain control of the Senate (which is unlikely), just watch a lot of Democrats folding and many, many acts passing with 51 votes (as they don't have the VP on their side like they did when they where 50-50 in the Senate when they passed the so-called Bush tax cuts).

It will be interesting to see how the Democrats react once they are no longer a vote or two from cloture. The Democrats might force the GOP to filibuster awkward issues like extending unemployment benefits or penalties for BP rather than tailor bills that appeal to more people than Scott Brown.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Republicans didn't need 60 votes for everything.

Its only after the Democrats got the majority that 60 votes were required for almost everything.

To a certain extent this has been because Republicans are willing to abuse the rules to do that, but it is also because it hasn't cost them much - if anything - to do so. Instead it has actually helped them, because the Democrats (lead by Reid) have been willing to go along with it.

If the Republicans gain control of the Senate (which is unlikely), just watch a lot of Democrats folding and many, many acts passing with 51 votes (as they don't have the VP on their side like they did when they where 50-50 in the Senate when they passed the so-called Bush tax cuts).

It will be interesting to see how the Democrats react once they are no longer a vote or two from cloture. The Democrats might force the GOP to filibuster awkward issues like extending unemployment benefits or penalties for BP rather than tailor bills that appeal to more people than Scott Brown.

The GOP had no problem whatsoever playing their usual game of drop-the-soap regarding unemployment benefits. The Democrats, being the Big Tent types they are, would react to having their majority shaved further by falling over themselves even faster to compromise away anything of merit to the Lock-step Voting Robots Republicans. Especially since the Democrats never, ever seem to be able to remember that they're not dealing with people, but with politician-shaped robots.

And, besides, to the hardcore right . . . it's only natural and right to screw over those shiftless, lazy bums who are obviously living it up on the government's dime instead of manning-up and working their way back up from nothing like honest, hard-working debt-slaves Americans should; and ensure that Big Oil is treated with kid-gloves so they'll give us energy independence over the EVUL A-RABS. So . . . I doubt they'd consider being forced to filibuster over such issues to be awkward. Especially when any GOP threat to do is greeted with the typical Democratic reaction.

[StarshipTitanic]

The GOP had no problem whatsoever playing their usual game of drop-the-soap regarding unemployment benefits. The Democrats, being the Big Tent types they are, would react to having their majority shaved further by falling over themselves even faster to compromise away anything of merit to the Lock-step Voting Robots Republicans. Especially since the Democrats never, ever seem to be able to remember that they're not dealing with people, but with politician-shaped robots.

And, besides, to the hardcore right . . . it's only natural and right to screw over those shiftless, lazy bums who are obviously living it up on the government's dime instead of manning-up and working their way back up from nothing like honest, hard-working debt-slaves Americans should; and ensure that Big Oil is treated with kid-gloves so they'll give us energy independence over the EVUL A-RABS. So . . . I doubt they'd consider being forced to filibuster over such issues to be awkward. Especially when any GOP threat to do is greeted with the typical Democratic reaction.

The awkwardness I mentioned would stem from public reaction. It breaks moderates away from the party whip and senators like Snowe and Brown are up for election in 2012.

[StarshipTitanic]

Stock: What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

Angle: I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.

Source

Don't many or most conservative bans on abortion make exceptions for rape or incest? Leaving aside the hypocrisy of that position, I remain skeptical that Angle can defeat Reid if she keeps making ultra-right wing, callous comments like that. But I don't live in Nevada. Does anyone here have a local perspective?

[General Zod]

Angle just keeps making things hilarious. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... driven-out

Domenico Montanaro writes: It's been said repeatedly that Harry Reid is one of the most vulnerable incumbents this cycle. But Democrats believe the Senate majority leader's chances have improved because of his opponent's controversial views.

Sharron Angle's views were on display again, when in a radio interview -- sent around by Democrats and written about on left-leaning writer Greg Sargent's blog -- Angle called the $20 billion BP escrow a "slush fund" -- despite BP agreeing to set up the fund. Angle joins a chorus of right-wing candidates, elected members like Joe Barton, and talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who have also referred to account that way. Money from the fund, which is being independently administered, is to be distributed to those affected by the Gulf oil spill.

She said the government is "overreacting," the Environmental Protection Agency is "all about money," and that "the petroleum industry shouldn't be penalized for one bad person's actions. It would be like throwing us all in prison because one person committed murder," she said. She added that the government should avoid "overregulating" oil companies, because they risk having them leave the country. And that the government should instead make sure that oil companies are adhering to a "checklist." (Though it was unclear how it would enforce that without fines and penalties, or what incentive oil companies would have to adherence without them.)

President Obama helps raise money for Reid tonight in Las Vegas. Expect to hear him speak to these comments.

*** UPDATE *** In a statement on her website, Angle said that her use of the phrase "slush fund" was "incorrect" and that she should not have used it. Here's the full statement.

"There's been some confusion this morning regarding my position on BP and the oil spill.

Having had some time to think about it, the caller and I shouldn't have used the term "slush fund"; that was incorrect.

My position is that the creation of this fund to compensate victims was an important first step-- BP caused this disaster and they should pay for it. But there are multiple parties at fault here and there should be a thorough investigation. We need to look into the actions, (or inactions) of the Administration and why the regulatory agency in charge of oversight was asleep at the wheel while BP was cutting corners. Every party involved should be held fully accountable.

They risk oil companies leaving the country if they over-regulate them? LOL. Where the fuck are they going to go? If they leave the country they lose one of their biggest sources of income.

[Samuel]

I think the better counter is that extraction industries can't leave . They have to go where the oil is.

[FSTargetDrone]

And yet:

Tea Party Darling Sharron Angle Struggles To Persuade Some Nevada Republicans

First Posted: 07- 9-10 06:42 PM | Updated: 07-10-10 12:28 AM

Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle may be the darling of the Tea Party movement, but within the Nevada GOP community, the conservative hopeful has been criticized as "a very difficult person," "an ultra-right winger" and someone the state "can't rely on" to be their representative in Washington.

A growing number of Nevada Republicans are expressing skepticism over Angle's Senate candidacy. Some are even signaling they may not vote for the GOP contender over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November.

Mayor Geno Martini, the Republican mayor of Sparks, Nev., bucked his own party this week when he endorsed Reid over Angle.

"Harry Reid's been very good for us for many, many years," Martini said of his decision to support the majority leader. "We can't rely on a new person, especially Sharron Angle, to do anything for us here in Sparks."

After first withholding her support, former Nevada Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich, a well-respected figure in the party, announced this week that she would back Angle. But Vucanovich's endorsement ended up sounding more like a scolding.

"I said, 'Sharron, you're scaring the bejesus out of everybody,'" Vucanovich told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, describing "a long, candid conversation" with Angle. "I told her you better make damn sure people really understand what you're trying to do."

As recently as last month Vucanovich was expressing serious reservations about Angle's electability.

"She's very rigid and I have a little bit of trouble understanding her positions," the former lawmaker said in an interview with the Review-Journal. "She's a very difficult person."

Vucanovich explained that her concerns don't just stem from Angle's conservative views, but rather from her uncompromising style of legislating. The characterization appears to grow out of a reputation Angle developed among her colleagues during the years she served in the Nevada state legislature from 1999 to 2005.

"In the building we used to have a joke called 41 to Angle," Democratic assemblywoman Sheila Leslie recently told the New York Times. "She took great pride in voting 'no' for everything. We have some very conservative people in the assembly, but she was the only one voting 'no' on a technical cleanup bill. The lobbyists didn't talk to her, the legislators wouldn't talk to her, because when you vote no on everything no one wants to deal with you."

Polling data from the state's GOP primary held in early June revealed Angle backers to be an extremely loyal bunch. But it seems the rigid ideology that won the Senate hopeful that support may also have thwarted her ability to sell her candidacy to a wider swath of voters.

Angle's style has earned her a fair number of Republican detractors over the years and as the Reno Gazette Journal notes, the chilly relationship that developed between Angle and her party may prove problematic in November.

State Sen. William Raggio, who Angle tried but failed to unseat in 2008, recently said he will "find it very difficult to support" the Senate candidate and also wagered he's hardly the only member of the Nevada GOP who has concerns.

"I would say there are a lot of Republicans who will find it difficult to support Sharron Angle," Raggio said shortly after the Nevada primary. "Abolishing the Department of Education, phasing out Social Security, those are pretty extreme positions. I think any incumbent is vulnerable, but you have to have somebody that is also acceptable if you're going to win."

Republican Reno Mayor Bob Cashell, who backed Angle's GOP primary opponent, Sue Lowden, recently criticized Angle by calling her an "ultra right-winger." Cashell does not mince words when it comes to Angle: "Our state [would] suffer and we would never get anything done." The Reno mayor intends to hit the campaign trail for Reid.

For her part, Angle doesn't appear too concerned about how her extreme views are playing with voters. The Republican contender has repeatedly insisted that her positions fit within the "mainstream." (The latest poll numbers still show Angle slightly ahead of Reid.)

But Angle's hard-line approach has even drawn criticism from some members of her Tea Party base. Activist Debbie Landis -- whose group Action is Brewing endorsed now-defeated candidate John Chachas in the state's GOP primary -- suggested last month that Angle isn't "solution-oriented" and said the Senate contender's relationship with Nevada-based Tea Party groups has become fragile.

And even conservative radio host Bill Manders, who has endorsed Angle's candidacy, recently stressed the need for the Tea Party-backed candidate "to slide to the left a little bit" if she expects to have any chance at defeating Reid.

"This hardcore right thing is going to kill her," he predicted just one day after Angle secured the GOP Senate nomination. "It may cost her an election if she doesn't understand that."

Quite amusing.