How is that ANY different than what we just did in Nevada and Delaware. We’ve assured the Democrats are going to win those states. So what’s the difference?
Don’t get me wrong, Lisa is terrible and I’m glad she lost. But we could have put anyone in the GOP slot in Alaska and won.
In Nevada and Delaware we couldn’t, so instead of taking sure fire wins there with less than conservative candidates in the general, we assured ourselves of a loss by electing two nutjobs way way way too conservative for those states....thus, INSURING the Democrats (liberal ones at that) win those two states.
We’ve done the exact same thing you just blamed Lisa for doing.
Last I saw Angle was dead even (and barely ahead) of Reid in Nevada.
After he spent so much money, it's not looking good for him as she begins to fire back with the money she's raised. I wouldn't bet against her at this point; who knows how the O'Donnel thing is going to play out, certainly not you.
“How is that ANY different than what we just did in Nevada and Delaware. We’ve assured the Democrats are going to win those states.”
In the case of Delaware, if the liberal Republican had won, we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between him and the Democrat anyway.
I don’t buy your premise that by electing a conservative in the primary, we have somehow assured that the Democrats win in NV and DE.
This is the perpetual argument of the GOP establishment. If conservatives will just sit back and allow liberal Republicans to win primaries, those same liberal Republicans will change their ideological stripes and vote conservatively when it really matters. After all, we can’t give up THAT seat.
The problem is we have decades of experience to show that it doesn’t work out. A liberal is a liberal regardless of their party label.
As conservatives, we do far better to lose straight up than to endure a loss of a thousand cuts when we work to elect liberals who mouth the conservative mantra, if they mouth it at all, just long enough to retain power.