What exactly is the point of ‘winning’, if we elect Republicans in Name Only, who operate no differently than Democrats?
This isn't a black and white issue. Ideally you nominate that most conservative candidate who CAN win their district, state, etc.
There are awful lot of stubborn purists on our side who wouldn't have nominated a guy like Rudy Giuliani for mayor of NYC because he wasn't pure enough on the social issues. Now I wouldn't want Giuliani as a statewide candidate, and I definitely would not ever want him as our presidential candidate, but for mayor of NYC he was the best we are going to do. And as it turned out, he did one hell of a great job turning that city around.
EW Jackson never had the slightest chance of winning statewide in VA, so what was the point a pastor on the ticket that would only drag it down?
Nominate the most conservative candidates that CAN win. Reagan understoond that sometimes you gotta take less than 100% of what you want. If the Democrat supports 0% of my policies, an electable Republican supports 75%, and an unelectable Republican supports 100% - I'll take that electable Republican every time.