So, which candidate was preferable or were both bad?
Riser is a rock-ribbed conservative with the record to prove it. McAllister is the “Tea Party” candidate solely because apparently some conservatives are convinced that some random guy off the street with no record one could look at to prove or disprove his conservative bona fides *must be* more conservative than an elected official, because, like, people in elective office cannot be true conservatives (but, wait, that “Tea Party” guy is now in elective office—he’s no good anymore!).
McAllister isn’t just squishy on Obamacare, he also came out in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens and for “reparations” for descendants of slaves. Yes, the “Tea Party” candidate ran to the left of Mary Landrieu. McAllister blatantly tried to attract black and liberal votes in the runoff (it was a general election, so Democrats could vote)—he even had ultraliberal black Democrat ex-Congressman Cleo Fields do robocalls for him!—betting that his liberal positions wouldn’t scare off mouthbreathers who will stop reading after they see that he calls himself “Tea Party” and that the other candidate is a state legislator. Well, it worked. I truly hope that McAllister was lying during the campaign just to win liberal votes, because otherwise he’s pretty much a Democrat in the House.
Voters have to freaking start reading and thinking before jumping on a candidate’s bandwagon. If you don’t know anything about Candidate A, and you know a lot about Candidate B and it’s 95% positive, why the heck would you support Candidate A just because he claims to be “Tea Party”?