I've gotten a lot of emails in the past few days about the Mason-Dixon poll showing Sharon Angle ahead of Danny Tarkanian in Nevada. Everyone wants my thought on it. Well, since you asked.I like Sharon Angle. I like her a lot. We backed Sharon Angle in her congressional race. I did a podcast with her. She is one of us.But, I also think that Ms. Angle has a tendency when the spotlight is on her to not deploy, as Austin Powers might say, an inner monologue on what to say and not say as the heat is on. My great concern is that while she is a true winger who I would love to see in federal office, she would, during the general election campaign, say something more perplexing than Sue Lowden's bartergate comment, then dig in.See, I do not think a pile of cow pies can beat Harry Reid as some do. We're going to have to mount a very serious challenge to Reid in the general election. Between Tarkanian and Angle, I think Tarkanian will provide a more serious challenge.Likewise, Tarkanian polls better in the Clark County area, where Las Vegas is. The urban support is going to help him in the general election. Angle's support comes from more rural areas, which I think will translate well in a primary, but not as much in the general.All things being equal, I very much think Danny Tarkanian is more capable of getting to the November finish line without imploding. That said, I'd take either Sharon Angle or Danny Tarkanian over Sue Lowden. I think Lowden will be a terrible nominee and, worse, unwilling to put principle above party loyalty in the Senate, even when party loyalty deviates from conservatism.Let me add one more thing here: I think it is a ridiculous, crying shame that a bunch of conservative women and pro-life groups ran out fast to join the establishment in picking Sue Lowden, whose record on life is dubious, when Sharon Angle has an outstanding pro-life record without all the baggage of Lowden's nomination. That's a total fail on the pro-life women crowd's nomination record.