At what point...

[Kirobaito]

... does the GOP, both the leaders and the voters, begin thinking differently about their association with the Tea Party?

This is a question I have for the folks here who are reliably Republican. Take today's primary in Delaware for example - Christine O'Donnell beat Mike Castle in the primary. Mike Castle was a likable and electable Republican in a blue state who was going to wipe the floor in November, picking up a seat for the GOP. Instead, they elected one of the fringiest folks imaginable, and Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee, will win in a walk. This is an example of the Tea Party costing the GOP a win, based on the fact that their ideas aren't nearly as popular among the general populace as they are among the hardcore Republicans that vote in the primary.

We see it in other places. In Nevada, Danny Tarkanian or even chickens-for-care Sue Lowden would be annihilating Harry Reid, but because they elected a rank-and-file Tea Party supporter in Sharon Angle, that race has become a toss-up. In Kentucky, Trey Grayson would be destroying Jack Conway, but instead they nominated that despicable piece of trash Rand Paul, and that race is significantly more competitive than it ever should have been in a state as red as Kentucky. Also today in the New Hampshire primary (for retiring (R) Judd Gregg's seat), Kelly Ayotte would have likely beaten Paul Hodes (though polling on that race was not very prevalent). The votes so far have Tea Partier Ovide LaMontagne winning, though there's awhile to go, and the chances of keeping that seat are far less with LaMontagne than with Ayotte. It's a similar situation in Colorado, where Ken Buck beat Jane Norton in the primary there.

There's a lot more room to mess with in the House, where the Tea Party's effect can be felt much more - you don't have to actually win statewide to get a Congressional seat.

The leaders have already questioned this - they're not funding O'Donnell at all, apparently. But the question I have for you, conservative Republicans of Dallas-Mavs.com, which is more important? Nominating Tea Party folks who potentially cost you seats because, well, they're fringe, or actually nominating still-dependable conservatives like Mike Castle who will win?

I'm not looking for an argument. Just thoughts on what good the Tea Party will actually do for remaking the GOP.

As for me, I'm perfectly happy seeing these Tea Party folks win in their primaries, because I don't think the majority of them will win in the fall. I think once we get closer to the election and the voters really get an idea of how (IMO) crazy these people are, they won't want them.