We have heard, and seen this dreck of "electability" and how we should support so-and-so because even if they are practically Democrat Liberals, they are "more electable" than a candidate with better positions on the issues--for years.
No one wants to be on the underdog team, everyone wants to be a "winner", and as a result, people who profess "Conservatism" bail for the GOPe candidate ("the lesser evil") and the chips fall where they may.
Once again, Conservatives get screwed and the ship of state takes another tack to port.
Then, if the GOPe candidate loses we are told it is the fault of the people who would stand on principle for not getting behind the cryptoliberal and supporting them wholeheartedly, even to the point of hearing the spew that a vote for so-and-so (losing conservative third party candidate) is a vote for the uberliberal.
What if, despite Party backing, the TEA party backed candidate succeeds in winning the primary?
They get only enough support from the GOP to let the GOP make claims of support, not the critical funding they need to combat the far better funded Democrat candidates, because the Democrats will dump money into races, even in places like North Dakota. (I received on average a slick Heitkamp ad in the mail daily in the runup to the general). Berg was left hanging by the GOP--another reason the RNC can KMA.