So "ideological purity" has to win 100% of the elections to be useful?
Last night was a blow out- even in the Senate and the complaint is it wasn't enough because a few candidates ran amateurish campaigns.
We won elections, your way, in 2004 and exactly what did it get us?
No, I actually put ideological purity first. You only sacrifice it to the extend necessary to win elections. You run the most conservative candidate that CAN win in each race, each election cycle.
Example. Do you think we could win Nancy Pelosi's district with an outspoken social conservative? Certainly not. So for districts like that, we back candidates who maybe aren't very good social conservatives, but are excellent fiscal conservatives. Same thing should have played out in Delaware. We simply wasted an opportunity in that state. COD had no chance to win at all. Despite being a RINO, Castle would likely have won and voted with us at least some of the time. Now we have the bearded marxist who will vote with us none of the time.
No matter how right someone is on the issues, if they aren't good candidates or don't fit their district, it is pointless to nominate them.
Last night was not the end game, but a big step.
The lesson learned is that when you run a Senate candidate, it takes a little more “gravitas” than for House races, because the stakes are much higher (6 years vs 2), voters are more willing to give an unproven House candidate the benefit of the doubt, than a Senatorial candidate, that tends to be more the “Vote for the Devil You Know” (hence Reid’s victory).