Delaware Senate Race: A Kamikaze Republican and the Tea Party - ABC News
Here the National Party is pushing someone merely to fill a seat, to meet a quota. They are missing the reason for the Tea Party, the reason for the outrage in America, and if they don't get it soon, will end up losing a lot of voters disgusted with them.
Here is a guy who stands against much of what the Conservative Base is for. He's pro-abortion, pro-gun control and works with Dems a lot. Great, let him run as a ****ing democrat. The GOP is going to have to change, or it we'll see a fleeing of the base. Where? As most of you know I'm NOT a 3rd party guy, but between Boehners dumb ass comment about "I'd work with Dem's for a Compromise".
This the issue we have with having a two-party system that is bound to come about by a voting system in which the candidate who has a plurality of votes (the most votes) but not a majority (50%+1 of the votes) wins the office.
This is called Duverger's Law, and can be read about here:
Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Such a system naturally tends to form a
broad based two-party system in which both parties have a general platform but politicians of those parties aren't required to conform to that party's doctrine.
On one hand it means we have politicians who stray from the platform of the national party convention. On the other hand, it means our politicians are allowed to "think outside the box" with regards to issues and crises.
Because we have a broad-based two-party system, the party national conventions tend to allow the state Democratic Parties and the state Republican Parties a lot of autonomy in how they operate. For example, state Democratic Parties in the South tend to be just as socially conservative as most Republicans in the South, while state Republican Parties in the Northeast tend to be just as socially liberal as most Democrats in the Northeast.
This allows state parties to operate how they need to in order to represent their constituents. After all, if conservative voters in the Northeast and liberal voters in the Northeast both tend to agree on abortion issues and gun issues, why should a candidate in the Northeast run against those issues just to conform to national party doctrine?
Likewise, if liberal voters in the South and conservative voters in the South both tend to agree on opposing gay marriage and both tend to agree on allowing prayer in public schools, why should a candidate in the South run against those issues just to conform to national party doctrine?
Remember, Congress wasn't designed by the Founding Fathers to represent the needs of voters on a national level. Rather, the House of Representatives was designed to represent voters in districts within a state and the Senate was designed to represent voters of a whole state. Since this is for a Senate seat, if a majority of a state generally agree on abortion issues and gun control issues, I see nothing wrong with a Republican candidate for the Senate running against a Democratic candidate for the Senate on economic and fiscal issues instead.