Replies

I've never stayed home, and won't this year, but I will do exactly as you say. I live in California, so liberal that Feinstein seems conservative. In such states, my view is that we vote for the conservative in the primary, and if our choice in the general is a "moderate" republican or a democrat, I will vote for the moderate. In a state like ours, it is difficult to get a conservative elected statewide. House elections, that's different. I wouldn't mind a campaign to get rid of Issa, my congressman, but it hasn't materialized.

In conservative states, Republicans should elect senators that reflect their conservative values, not liberals like Graham, McConnell, Corker, Cochran and Cornyn. It's difficult to get rid of the incumbent in a primary. However, in a general, those people need the base to win. A lot of people, myself included, have come to the conclusion that with entrenched RINOs, it can sometimes be better to let them lose and be stuck with a Dem for 6 years, in order to gain the seat for a conservative in 6 years. It's a gamble, but if the RINO votes like a Dem on key issues, we don't lose much. We can't get rid of all the RINOs in one go-round and get a majority in the Senate, but if we get rid of McConnell, and make an example of one other, we still have a very good shot at a majority. I vote Graham for the "one other" because he is so slimy and clearly an enemy, but Cornyn is close. Cochran and Corker will hopefully be defeated in primaries.

Getting rid of McConnell carries the benefit of creating a leadership battle that the conservative faction can use to get someone better. They probably don't have the votes to get a conservative, but they might be able to get someone who is not an enemy. And a Senate led by McConnell would accomplish nothing, but it would give Democrats a turtle looking idiot to ridicule heading into 2016. So if the strategy leads to Dem control of the Senate for 2 more years, I will take that risk rather than suffer two years of McConnell frustration.