comment: >
  
  If he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.
context: Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. 
  Honestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.
  2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan. >
  
  I think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum. >
  
  It's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. 
  Of course, even "consensus Republican" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train. >
  
  A majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic. >
  
  
  They're just one flavor of lunatic.
  
  The honest ones who say what they mean.  All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis.  These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand.  Even if that plan is patently evil. >
  
  Going on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh. >
  
  Very interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma] >
  
  Good God, you just rattled off the who is who of "True Conservative" grifters >
  
  If you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me. >
  
  OP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV. >
  
  OP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. 
  If the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the "Trumpier" candidate, or the more "conservative" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. 
  I'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument. >
  
  Funny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question.  Why?  Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered.   Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.
  Both partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization. >
  
  Palin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice. >
  
  I don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like "Approval Voting".
  The problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say "that's too complicated".
  When I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.
  I actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.
  It would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.
  All candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.
  Then the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.
  You can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.
  TL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials. >
  
  Couldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent?  The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election. >
  
  Voting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.
  A single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.
  In California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.
  In an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.
  The perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak. >
  
  I take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or "consensus" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. 
  Whether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. 
  I'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition. >
  
  He came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp. >
  
  Given that the default Republican position is "incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. 
  I'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.