[jyo19]

I honestly don’t care what she was. ESPY will be another black human shield for the democrats to trot out at every confirmation and will start acting like he, personally, was Emmet Till’s dad whenever there is a judicial confirmation or anything else our side needs. HE would be another Fartacus or Ugandan Giant just out there playing the race card left and right for the dems whereas Hyde-Smith would at least vote for our judicial nominees. I can’t let “purity” make me a part of putting ESPY in office just like being for “winnable” helped Arizonans put Kyrsten Enema in office.

[jyo19]

In other words, I would have been for McDaniel against Espy, too, but he couldn’t win his primary. Sorry, buddy, you had your shot.

[Yosemitest]

"Hyde-Smith would at least vote for our judicial nominees."

There's nothing "sure " about the DemocRAT Cindy Hyde-Smith PRETENDING to be a R.I.N.O., except the fact that she'll be another backstabber, just like Thad Cochran was.

Anyone who does NOT want to debate in public and have the media there, is NOT TRUSTWORTHY !

It'll be better for her to lose, and then replace the winner with a REAL Republican, REAL Conservative, and a REAL Trump Supporter in 2020 .
If this is the best Trump can do by supporting this TURKEY, then we're in REAL TROUBLE.
Cindy Hyde-Smith VOTES MORE WITH CHUCK SCHUMER than she votes with Trump.


Do NOT forget :

"... In 2008 when Hillary ran for President against Barack Obama, in a barnburner of a campaign that went down to the wire, Cindy Hyde-Smith, the “lifelong conservative,” supported Hillary.
That’s because she was a Democrat, only switching parties in 2010 to run for statewide office.
She has also been dishonest about it during the campaign. ...

... Lifelong conservatives don’t support Hillary Clinton. Period.

Of course, we do know where Cindy Hyde-Smith is very much like Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Her PAC was handed $250,000 by one of Hillary’s top fundraisers
and she has supported gun control efforts in the past,
which is a signature issue for the Clintons.

... there are major issues she left out, probably on purpose.
There is no mention of illegal aliens, amnesty, ICE, or the border wall.
Immigration is the single biggest issue of our time.
Fail to reform it and it’s all over.
Furthermore, there was no mention of Trump’s trade policy, entitlement reform, or structural reform within the federal government, like scaling back the out-of-control judiciary, abolishing the Department of Education, or instituting term limits for Congress.

Did she not want to anger the US Chamber ?
Is that why these issues were left off the table ?
With millions of dollars in ads coming from the Chamber for her campaign, you bet she doesn’t want to anger them.
She’s their girl.

... She has no plan to balance the budget, reduce regulations, or grow the economy, issues you will find in Chris McDaniel’s “Contract with Mississippi.”
He boldly signed onto Rand Paul’s “penny plan” and spelled out his ideas on other major issues facing Mississippi and the nation.
McDaniel doesn’t care if the Chamber hates him.
He’s for the people of Mississippi.

But not Cindy Hyde-Smith.
She not only voted against the “penny plan” to balance the budget,
she ridiculed it, siding with the Establishment in denouncing it as a political stunt and sideshow.
This is the same silly rhetoric we heard from Thad Cochran.
If Cindy Hyde-Smith can’t agree to cut one percent from the federal budget every year until it is balanced,
then she is not serious about balancing the budget.

Say what you will, but the facts are beyond dispute.
Chris McDaniel was the only true conservative in the special election for US Senate
and the only one willing to stand up for real solutions to real problems.
He’s for Mississippi,
not the Chamber of Commerce. ..."

If Cindy Hyde-Smith loses, it'll be because of HER ACTIONS, and nothing more !

Don't blame me for EXPOSING Cindy Hyde-Smith's ACTIONS.

Me ... I'm NOT VOTING for that piece of deception.
To HELL WITH HER !

[qaz123]

That right there should be in a campaign ad.

You either give Schumer one more vote in the Senate and against anything you hope the President can accomplish ... or ...

You give the President one more vote to pass his agenda. Or at least, get his judicial nominations through.

Seems like a pretty easy decision, even if she’s a bit of a trainwreck.