Tell me, why is it that RINOS are always being said to have a better chance of winning?
Tell me, why is it that RINOS are always being said to have a better chance of winning?
When I see someone like this candidate being endorsed and see the following ...
Jan Evans: Carly Fiorina has been endorsed by the National Right to Life, the California Pro-Life Council, and the Susan B. Anthony List. She is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-military, and pro-strict border security and against amnesty. She is against Obamacare and will vote to repeal it and prevent the government takeover of private companies and industries.
Then I want to see that candidate get the most votes possible, and beat the opposition. And if that means that you call this kind of candidate a RINO, then perhaps you're looking for the candidate with the least possibility of winning, as your main criteria ... LOL ...
“Tell me, why is it that RINOS are always being said to have a better chance of winning?”
Not always, but in lib states, hard core conservatives can’t win statewide office. And Rinos are more palatable to the general population. It seems relatively straight forward.
I don’t understand it either, strong conservatives have dominated California politics for decades. NOT
With over 65% of the voters in California identifying themselves as either liberal or middle of the road (of course they are nutjobs). I am not sure a strong conservative could muster much more than 35% of the vote. Rational thought suggests there are places in the country that do not have a conservative slant.
And yes we have to settle for less by running the best opponent even if it means incremental improvement; that’s just a fact of life. I hate it and I am sure a lot of others do too. But life and politics are never fair.