A generation ago both parties had liberal members and conservative members. The democrats had many conservatives from the south. And the Republicans hand many liberal members from New England.
Neither party could trash either liberals aor conservatives because both parties contained some of both.
But starting with the Nixon election of 1968 a realignment of both parties started. All of the southern conservatives became Republicans over a nearly 30 year period. But even today there are a few remainging Liberal Republicans.
The name of the game is getting as many more seats in the Senate than 51 as a party can. The problem for Republicans is many of the seats in the mid west that should be republican are still held by liberal democrats.
And in this last election the media is saying that Democrats sought out over 20 some conservative candidates to win normally conservative seats. Webb in VA comes to mind.
Of course until the Republicans find a way to win those seats held by Democrats in Repubican states back they will not be in control of either the house or the senate. They can not protect a Republican president from a constant parade of Democrat lead investigations of his administration. There will be an unending line of Iran contra type investigations.
The Republicans needed to win at least some of the Rino elections or more of the seats held by democrats in Republican states. They did neither. They did manage to replace some RINOs with liberals.. like Dewine in Ohio for far left Sherrod Brown.
The Repubicans and moderates managed to defeat the Rinos and put Dinos in their place and in a few others put conservative Democrats in their place.
Only a very foolish person would prefer a senate and house controlled by liberals to a senate and house controlled by conservatives. It is always the same the party with the most 'INOs has control of the house and senate.
It may be a long time before conservatives get to do more in the Senate than ask... "Please Mr. Liberal.. may I go to the bathroom?"
There are some 17 battlegroud states. They have as many democrats as Republicans and the result of elections nearly always depend on how the 30 percent in the center vote. That 30 percent will nearly always elect either a Rino or DINO.
Why there are 2 democratic senators in ND is beyond me.
Why there are 2 democratic senators in MT is beyond me.
Those should be 4 solid Republican seats, no RINOS necessary.
"But starting with the Nixon election of 1968 a realignment of both parties started."
You raise and interesting point, but I disagree with your interpretation. The party realignment was started by the DemocRats after the 1968 election, and resulted in the far left taking over the 'Rat nominiation process. This resulted in McGovern's nomination, but it also resulted in conservative DemocRats feeling they had a home no longer and moving to the Republican Party.
Now we are to the point where the DemocRats purely represent the party of treason, and the only "moderates" that will vote for them are brain dead victims of the culture war. Real conservatives, who demonstrate loyalty and enthusiasm for conservative principles, will attract more moderates than than RINO-like vacillators with their fingers in the wind. Or elsewhere.
We need real conservatives.