ya establishment candidates like Romney, McCane, Dole.... there is a winning record for you. They dont care about winning the just want to enjoy control over the corruption...
A Conservative candidate who cannot win is worse than useless. Such a candidate will enable the election of a RINO at the primary level, or an even worse outcome, a liberal Democrat in a general election.
Conservatism advances only when Conservatives win elections. The dilemma that presents when the Conservative candidate that you prefer cannot win must be resolved in favor of the lesser choice who can prevail against the left. Remember, only about 30% of voters are solid Conservatives. Elections are won by persuading 21% of the rest to vote your way.
While the Akins, Mourdocks, O’Donnells and Angles of the world satisfy the anti-GOPe itch at nomination time, unfortunately they don’t hand the political acumen to run a winning campaign. Harry Reid should’ve been long relegated to backbench hell by know, but got a major reprieve when Sharron Angle won the primary in 2010.
While I strongly support the TEA Party’s philosophies, their choices for Senate seats are often lacking.
GOP spends more money defeating conservatives than Democrips. Remember that.
It is hard to change stupidity.
The tea party has won the real war. We have candidates voting against measures that they worked on in an effort to be conservative enough for the voters.
Remember Reagan’s words about how much you can accomplish if you don’t take credit for it. By remaining a liquid movement and not an established party, the tea party has allowed its values and principles to succeed.
There are two parts of winning a campaign: your beliefs/principles/issues, and your viability/organization/campaign.
Too many conservative candidates think they can simply whip out a flag and Constitution and wave it around, and everyone will vote for them. But unless you have a completely worthless opponent, you also need to have an organized campaign and the money to fund it in such a way as to get out and win votes for you.
That fact applies as much to the Dems as it does the GOP. Even if, like the Dems often do, you have a third party propping up the campaign, SOMEONE has to do the heavy lifting. Shoot-from-the-hip, wing and a prayer, shoestring candidacies almost never win general elections.
Tea Party candidates take note.
In Michael Barone's thinking, are "candidates who can win" a euphemism for RINOs?
BTW, not all Republican primary voters are registered Republicans. Some states have no formal voter registration by party and others have "open" primaries.
if Tillis is such a bad outcome, then Huckabee gets the credit. Master of the fracture ...
This would not be the case if all of our candidates were like Cruz, Lee and Paul. But, we always end up with a dumb-a** who has the IQ of a can of Spam like Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock. Or some Chiropractor in Kansas who puts X-ray pics and zaney remarks about them online. Or a candidate who is embroiled in a law suit. Or a candidate who attends a rally hosted by supporters of Cock-fighting in KY and who says that illegal Mexicans are harder workers than Americans. It’s not the Tea Party; it’s these idiots we get behind before we adequately vet them and find out that they are freakin’ idiots
... albeit often with a lot of phony votes. Does anyone really believe that people on-the-ground didn't reject Harry Reid, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, only to have those leftists' rule imposed via the slim margin needed for victory ginned as needed? Government is solely a force, nothing more and nothing less, and a minority has seized control of that force.
The stupid "who can win" qualifier means the candidate who pleases the imaginary "America" conjured up by the MSM. Real Americans would prefer to vote for LESS government by a majority. The problem is that neither major party gives them that option.
Like Dole, McCain and Romney?