You don’t get it....
In states where the democrats/leftists outnumber the conservatives you are not going to win elections with Tea Party types. Wanna argue that? Try running liberals in deep Red states and see what happens.
In states where the democrats/leftists outnumber the conservatives you are not going to win elections with Tea Party types. Wanna argue that? Try running liberals in deep Red states and see what happens.
No, you don't get it. Where conservative principles are actually preached, they are embraced. It's the "middle of the road", "must be a moderate" types who hurt the conservative message. Hillary Clinton sounding like a watered-down Ronald Reagan isn't a standard-bearer for conservatism.
Your alternative shows how "deeply" you hold conservative beliefs. Preaching liberalism in a conservative state is like preaching Islam to a Christian... it's laughable on its face. Preaching Conservatism in a liberal state is like preaching Christianity in a Muslim State... they'll get mad and hot under the collar and make threats... because under the radar, you are converting them in droves.
Nothing makes a liberal madder than the truth... because that's the beginning of their undoing. Nothing makes conservatives weaker than watering down the truth... because the only result of compromising truth is agreeing to a lie.
Wrong. With 17% effective unemployment , counting those no longer on the rolls, that has now changed.People no longer want kids to run the store. They want jobs. The old model is gone, finito. KAPUT. You do not get it.
I would be happy to.
Paul LePage, Governor-Elect of Maine
Pat Toomey, U.S. Senator-Elect from Pennsyvania
Don Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island
All solid conservatives, backed by tea-party groups in the primary. Want some more examples?
>> Try running liberals in deep Red states and see what happens. <<
"Deep red state" means communist to me, but I assume you're using mainstream-media speak for a liberal running in heavily Republican state. The Democrats do that all the time, they don't shoot themselves in the foot like the GOP and run a bunch of DINOs who sound like Jesse Helms in those states. That's how they got a majority in 2006 and 2008, by electing commies in states like Indiana. Need some examples?
Kathleen Selibus, ultra-liberal Governor of Kansas
Kent Conrad, ultra-liberal U.S. Senator from North Dakota
Jay Rockefeller, ultra-liberal U.S. Senator from West Virgina
Have I made my point? There is ZERO evidence that RINOs are "more electable" in majority-RAT states. Those who agree with the RATs agenda will just vote for the real RAT, not the RAT-lite candidate. You can look at states like Illinois or California over the last 20 years and you'll notice the conservative nominees did as good, or more often, BETTER than the RINO candidates when they ran for the same office. Most voters don't even base their vote around where the candidates stand on the issues. They should, and I research my candidates and vote based on the issues, but many voters just choose whoever sounds the nicest on TV.
The usual spinmeisters are blaming Bill Brady's loss for Governor here in Illinois around the idea that he was "too conservative", instead of the fact there will thousands of illegally cast ballots for Pat Quinn in Crook County. Look at the numbers. The "scary conservative" Bill Brady got 1,702,000 votes for Governor. The nice tolerant moderate, Mark Kirk, who "appealed to suburban women" got 1,653,000 votes for the U.S. Senate. The scary conservative got about 200,000 MORE votes in Illinois than the RINO got. He would have won if it weren't for vote fraud.
Plenty of socialists have won in lopsided GOP states, plenty of conservatives have won in overwhemingly Dem states. Facts are facts.