As I've argued elsewhere, Christine O'Donnell's win in the Delaware Senate primary is an unequivocally good thing. The biggest flaw in the argument that we should wish for more moderate northern Republicans in Congress is that under current congressional norms they effectively aren't allowed to exist. The difference between O'Donnell and Mike Castle in terms of their votes wouldn't be all that large, anyway. Indeed, not only does having some Republicans who present a moderate face to the electorate and then vote like Tom Coburn on most issues that matter to the Republican leadership not do anything to stop the Helmsificiation of the Republican Party, it actually facilitates it.
With respect to Sarah Palin running for the 2012 presidential nomination, however, I agree with Jon Chait that the question is more complicated. There are two reasons for this. First, Chait is right that at the presidential level no candidate who can win a primary is truly "unelectable." Even a presidential candidate as uniquely bad as Palin can win under the right conditions. But the consequences of electing someone like Palin for a powerful executive office are very different than having her be elected to Congress. Since individual legislators can't do much to affect public policy without the collaboration of many other actors, the impact of any particular incompetent member can't be that great. A president, on the other hand, has to supervise many essential government functions and make potentially life-or-death foreign-policy decisions. Having an incompetent president has negative effects above and beyond the bad policies they favor.
Whether Democrats should be rooting for Palin will depend on who the other viable candidates are. But presidential races are one area in which it is worth hoping that the Republicans will select at least a minimally competent candidate.
-- Scott Lemieux
