The purity game only makes sense if, in 2024, a conservative Republican has a chance of winning the governorship. And if Bill Simon & Co. really think that, they've been smoking medical marijuana for non-medicinal purposes.

"The bottom line is that I simply do not subscribe to the line that it is better to be "pure" in loss, rather than to compromise in victory (at least when it comes to electoral politics)."

I take these things on a case by case basis rather than making blanket statements. What your comment ignores is that electing a conservative Democrat isn't going feel like much more of a "victory" than electing a conservative Republican.

At some point, you have to take risks to advance your agenda. It won't always be a successful gamble or the success might not be immediately evident. Barry Goldwater did more for the conservative agenda despite losing in '64 than any other candidate in history (without him, there's no Reagan in '80).

Ross Perot's candidacy almost single-handedly put the huge deficit (ostensabily a conservative concert) on the agenda and that's something that could not be ignored even by the Democrat Bill Clinton. Perot's agenda was advanced even though the Republican (whose election he "cost") lost.

Furthermore, you ignore that politics are unpredictable. I remember the 1990 NY governor's race. Republicans lambasted conservative candidate Herb London for running, saying he'd throw the election to Mario Cuomo and that everyone should support the GOP lightweight Pierre Rinfret. As it turned out, London nearly outpolled Rinfret (something like 23% vs 24%) and I think Cuomo got around both of them combined. So who cost whom what? London paved the way for the conservative insurgency in '94 that elected George Pataki (who, ironically, is now considered a moderate).

At some point you, even as a voter, have to believe in something. At some point, you have to draw the line. When and where is not always evident.

The above poster is right. How can we voters criticize politicians for not believing in anything if we ourselves don't believe in anything? We voters need to practice what we demand.

Ooooh a reply already. Obviously I agree with Chris. :-)

"What your comment ignores is that electing a conservative Democrat isn't going feel like much more of a "victory" than electing a conservative Republican."

Sorry. What I meant here is "...electing a conservative Democrat isn't going to feel like more of a victory TO A PROGRESSIVE than electing..."

That omission sort of matters.

I maintain my position--the likelihood of a loss helping a political party more than a win is rather small, if not non-existent. Understand: you are talking from the point of view of ideology, not party. Parties are rarey pure in the first place. Indeed, those which win in a system like the one we have in the US are never ideologically pure.

And while I understand Goldwater's place in the emergence of modern conservatism, I don't accept your premise. The loss in 1964 did not directly lead, in any way, to the 1980 victory of Reagan. Reagan's political career likely would have emerged as it did, Goldwater loss or not. Even if you want to play the "What If?" game you can argue that you wouldn't have had Reagan without the fall of Shah in Iran, either, since without that, Carter likely would've been re-elected. Or, you wouldn't have had Reagan if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, since Ford would probably have won in 1976, and therefoe been running for re-election in 1980, etc.

Understand, too, that this issue of purity, winning anf losing is accented heavily by the context of these rules.

"Understand: you are talking from the point of view of ideology, not party"

I absolutely concur. Party is utterly irrelevant to me outside the context of ideology. If a party believes in nothing, it's of no use to me.

While on the one hand I agree, the point is that neither the Reps nor the Dems are ideological parties. They represent vague ideological areas, rather than crisp philosophies. In a system such as our one has to promote that general perspective rather than a clean, clear ideology.