47% in a Primary is different than 47% in a General Election

There has been discussion from some claiming I shouldn't be happy with the 47% of the vote garnered by Scott Sayre in the Republican Primary on June 12.

I beg to differ.

The latest post about this has a comment from Charles at Two Conservatives that says it well.

Charles said:

Winning 47% in a primary against an incumbent is a different thing than losing closely in a general election.

When an incumbent barely gets 50% of his own party to support him in a primary, I hope they get the message that their party is upset with them, and they will re-think their positions.

Because they should realise that a probably 30% were going to vote for them just because they are the known entity, without regard for their positions — which could well mean that most of the party isn’t happy with their votes.

That sums it up and says it far better than I. Thanks, Charles.

Because the truth of it is we should never have been anywhere near 47% in that race. The incumbent usually walks away with it ... and besides, as I stated before, they slung some pretty heavy ammunition at us including the endorsement of just about every elected official they could get their hands on. I think 47% was a really good showing under those circumstances.