For those who remain to work the campaigns, the satisfaction of having more influence as the party shrinks, is minimized, as they may or may not realize the need for help.  A win with an incumbent, or presumed 'electable' candidate might happen, but the cost in support is likely greater than admitted.

What happens when candidate "A" crosses the ideological line expressed by his party? When principals are set aside for compromise or for quid pro quo deals?

For Republicans, it often means a shift to the left for those who value the party strength over principles. As it MUST, or they would fall away.  Those who place value on conservative Republican principles have already suspended their support.  The lesser of evils argument, along along with the as commonly mentioned here 'clothespin' for the nose might still get the votes of disgusted traditionalists.  For some, another day with a strong party is enough to pull the lever.  They will see another tomorrow where conservatism might have another chance.  Strength, and a goal of conservatism. Yet in the end, neither goal is truly met.

And it causes the weakness we see in the candidates turned elected official, when they capitulate to political correctness, or presumed popular opinion as presented by a biased media. Their support base isn't willing to show the hard love needed to counter the bad influences that are so pervasive in office.

And remember, the Republican party has had its ebbs and tides over the years.

WHY would there be significant changes in the political make up of the country? What is is that drives folks to be so radically different cycle to cycle when selecting their representatives? Constituent principles are hardly different enough to provide a reason to jump parties. Current events don't change the type of person a voter wants so drastically, so there is essentially only one explanation left.

The Republican elected representative did not stay the same as the Conservative Republican candidate.

Not the same. Either did not keep promises, lied, changed course, had implied conservative, yet went left. Many representatives might argue that circumstance put them in such difficult positions, placed them at odds with their declared meme prior to elected office, but for the good of the nation, country, or local interest "did what was needed." They violated natural expectations, lost moral authority, gave up the message of conservatism for expediency and perceived easy answers.

But as we have seen with our own Michigan races, the thought of challenging those who deviate from the party platform is met with scorn, disbelief, and disgust. Not only challenging our party incumbents, but attempts to face off for new gains, the newcomers and their supporters are often chided for having the nerve to play the game against experienced politicos who have paid their dues. Losing those precious seats, that power, the strength of a Republican majority, bristles the hair of party stalwarts, and elites.

And by golly there are people who wonder why few trust the MI GOP or the national Republican 'establishment.'

We need to change the mindset permanently. For the good of our challenging conservatives, the party, the nation, and yes, even those who the party already favors as elite.

As for Justin and friends, come back for part II tomorrow or Wednesday and we'll follow up on the fear of change, and underlying problems in the way we select our flag bearers today.