It would be helpful if you were able to adduce even a single example in which the RINO strategy of bending over for the Democrats in an attempt to gain the hearts and minds of the mythical "mushy middle" ever really worked.
In case you haven't noticed, Team Obama has been giving themselves public circle jerks over their micro-target-market "flash mob" messaging stole crucial numbers of nominally-pro-Romney-but-very-low-information-voters ("life of Julia" and Sandra Fluck and "binders of women" as well as radio ads broadcast in Dothan Alabama); so subtle that even the Rove SUPER_DUPER_PACTM didn't even have a *guess* as to what the Obama folks were doing; and the complete once-in-a-lifetime Mongolian Flustered Cluck that was Narwhal.
And yet you STILL maintain that following the GOP-e is the only way to avoid electoral disaster.
Troll.
It would be helpful if you were able to adduce even a single example in which the RINO strategy of bending over for the Democrats in an attempt to gain the hearts and minds of the mythical "mushy middle" ever really worked.What on earth are you on about? Why did you even inject your commentary into this thread? You've wasted all this time because you apparently couldn't figure out my point that 2010 was NOT a "throw all the bums out on both sides" election. It was a throw the Democrats out election. When people say "throw all the bums out on both sides", the mean ALL incumbents (in case you hadn't figured that out). Such populist efforts never, ever work. In general elections you vote for Democrats or Republicans. If we actually ran a "throw all the bums out on both sides" general election in 2014 it would result in a Democrat House - which would mean MORE leftism, not less.
This discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with primaries. Nothing. Nowhere was I discussing primary strategy. It's fine if you'd like to talk about that, but primary strategy was NOT what my original comments to the other poster were about.
Since it seems like you are really determined to talk primary strategy, mine is exactly what William F Buckley said: vote for the most conservative candidate that CAN win. The exceptions might be outstanding movement type candidates that might not be seasoned quite enough to win yet, but obviously have an bright future. Nominating terrible candidates like O'Donnell, Angle, McMahon is simply a waste of time. In bright red states you can take some chances, push the envelope on some really great conservatives that would have a tough time making it elsewhere. An example would be Mourdoch. Yes, he turned out to be a bad candidate, but I think it was worth the gamble. Obviously we can't gamble wrong too much, but I really did think Mourdoch would be better than he was. Palin had Missouri right in endorsing Steelman who would easily have won, but the socon's were determined to go with Akin and he imploded as expected. But yeah, generally speaking in primaries, vote for the most conservative candidate that CAN win. You can't leave a lot of seats on the table over and over again - and we've done that at the statewide Senate level 2 cycles in a row.