The conservative doesn’t have to win.
It’s called “strategy”, and until we use it we’ll never change the Party.
One of three things will happen when a conservative runs against a RINO in the general election:
A. The RINO sees his problem, mends his ways and gets re-elected. This is the most likely.
B, The RINO doesn’t and loses. Putting a Dem who acts the same as the RINO in. Second most likely.
C, (Very much the least likely) The conservative wins.
The Dem winning DOESN’T MATTER IF WE STILL HAVE THE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE! It gives us a stronger conservative majority in the House.
The strategy doesn’t work in Senate or presidential elections, the dynamics are not the same.
A RINO can’t be beat in a primary because he’s usually from a “purple” district. Cantor was from a strongly conservative district.
The only strategy of running against a RINO in the general is losing both the RINO and The Commie Democrat.
Most districts already have a third party candidate. Often a Libertarian, Constitution or Green Party candidate. Sometimes two or even all three. The addition of another Conservative Party in the election would only further add to the futility.
BTW: What third party have you started? Where can I get a copy of their platform? Where is their National Convention for this election cycle being held? What are their biggest PAC’s?
Get the point?!
Exactly the point I tried to make about the Mississippis (Cochran) and Kentucky (McConnell) races. If the Tea Party folk had voted for the Democrat, those race baiting tactics they used in Mississippi (Which McConnell helped pay for) would have been seen to have backfired.
The Democrat Senators thus created would not be able to hold their seats in the next election, but the message to the establishment would have been sent and hear, loud and clear.
Don't F*** with us or we will end you. Now they sit there emboldened, and convinced they can get away with anything.
Yes, we should have used some strategy.