I didnt say I want Lisa to win. Im saying that, depending on the demographics of the race, you could be the second choice in the primary but be the best choice in the general. Look up game theory how it applies to elections.
For instance, lets say the following two pieces of information are true:
“a” is preferable to “b” is preferable to “c” is preferable to “a”
-and-
7 voters prefer a>b>c
6 voters prefer b>c>a
5 voters prefer c>a>b
This population would elect “a” with 7.
If “b” drops out, this would be the scenario:
7 voters prefer a>c
6 voters prefer c>a
5 voters prefer c>a
This population would elect “c” with 11.
The same population shifts its vote depending on the candidates available.
This is a conservative website, and we must stick to facts and logic and not get upset because we dont like the truth. It is possible to be better in the general than in the primary.
On the incumbent issue, Im right with you.
Raider Sam: “It is possible to be better in the general than in the primary.”
I don’t disagree, but since we’re conservatives, we should be about trying to get conservatives elected, not simply about winning elections. Granted, we need to win, too. But let’s be clear about what “winning” means to conservatives. Winning means reigning in government. If we win the election with candidates who oppose our goals, we lose either way. In that case, I think it’s better to take a chance on the long shot. O’Donnell is an excellent case in point. Despite what Rove said, her loss wasn’t 100% guaranteed. Stranger things have happened in politics. On the other hand, we can be 100% certain that Mike Castle was going to be Mike Castle. In other words, he was going to work at cross purposes to our #1 goal (reigning in government), just like he had time and time before.