Delaware: It's Not Just for Tax-Free Shopping Anymore

What the heck is going on in Delaware?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091407063.html?hpid=topnews

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/the-morning-after-whose-party-is-it/

Last night, unknown perennial candidate Christine O'Donnell defeated Representative Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. This is notable because O'Donnell was under attack from Castle and the Delaware Republican Party, and because Castle served two terms as the state's governor and multiple terms in the House of Representatives. But what do last night's results from Delaware mean?

If you read the articles closely, you should be able to pick up on two themes articulated by the media about what the election means. First, the media is arguing that the election indicates strength of the Tea Party movement, signaling that conservative activists in Delaware (and nationally) preferred O'Donnell over the more moderate Castle. Rep. Castle was one of the more moderate Republicans in the House, which makes sense, given that John McCain only received 37% of the vote in Delaware in 2008. This argument basically states that the election was about ideology, that Castle was far too moderate for voters and Tea Party activists who were a considerable portion of the Delaware Republican primary electorate. If the election was about ideology, and O'Donnell defeated Castle, what can we say about the candidates' relationships to the Median Voter in the Delaware Republican primary? The articles also hint that O'Donnell's victory means that the election is likely to lean toward the Democratic candidate - what does this imply for the candidates' relationships to the Median Voter of Delaware's general election voters?

Second, the articles also discuss an "anti-establishment" and "anti-Washington" element to the election results. This should not be confused with an interpretation of the election based on ideology. Instead, this interpretation argues that poor government performance - on issues like the economy, the War in Afghanistan, the Gulf oil spill, etc. - is causing voters to reject Washington incumbents.

These arguments are different - one is arguing that the election was about ideology, and the other arguing that the election is about poor government performance. Which do you think best describes the relationship between the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and current defeats of Republican incumbents in primaries?

UPDATE:

The consequences of this primary for the general election campaign are clear, according to a new poll by Public Policy Polling:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/coons-up-big.html