So we must "understand" when the Republican leadership passes up a good conservative candidate because he's not liberal enough to win a "liberal" State.
Did you notice that in some of those liberal States, the voters put in a guy who's more conservative than the Democratic candidate? The guy we call a "Rino?"
Maybe if the voters had a choice between the liberal Democrat and someone who wasn't a third party man, like, maybe, a conservative Republican, the State wouldn't be "known" as liberal any more.
To: exodus
That is what primaries are for right?
# 179 by Texasforever
Yes, that's exactly what the primaries are for.
However, when the Republican leadership promotes the candidacy of a liberal because that liberal just happens to call himself a Republican, they betray the principles Republicans claim to represent.
Baloney it is the job of the Republican leadership to get Republicans elected. It is the voter’s job to elect them. It does no good for the leadership to promote a conservative fire-breather if they know from history that person cannot be elected in the district in question. If the primary voters wish, they can vote in the fire-breather and hope for the best. History shows that there is very little chance of that. You keep brining up the 1994 elections. Do you think that every republican in that class was a conservative? Heck no.