Sure, when the GOP nominee is a Conservative, it would be bad to vote 3rd party.
If the GOP Establishment didn’t learn its lesson, and put a RINO up there, and most seem to think Kirk is a RINO, then it might be valid to send a message.
Kirk was the “electable” one. If he’s not elected, and the tea party conservatives are, what argument do the liberal Republicans have?
I’ve heard NO MORE RINOS before somewhere.
So let me understand this. If the GOP candidate that wins the primary is a conservative, then you think you should vote for said nominee in the general election. If the GOP candidate that wins the primary is a moderate/RINO (someone who is not pure enough), then you think you should send a message to the establishment (and apparently a majority of Republican primary voters) and vote 3rd party?
Isn't this exactly what so many here are wailing about in Delaware? That moderate Republicans who's candidate Mike Castle lost the primary aren't sufficiently backing Christine O'Donnell? How are conservatives in Illinois doing EXACTLY the same thing as some "moderates" in Delaware any better - or smarter?
Voting 3rd party is mostly always stupid. We are a two party system whether you like it or not. You vote for a 3rd party and you are virtually always effectively throwing your vote in the trash and helping the leftist get elected. You can actually thank Perot's third party run for Bill Clinton. I have to think a lot of Perot voters regret that idiotic vote.
You want to get anything done politically, you have to compromise. Conservatives and the grass roots have gotten out there this year and helped nominate a lot of more conservative GOP candidates, but they are as obligated to vote for whoever the GOP nominee is as "moderates" and RINO's are.