04/28/2026
It’s now 7 days until Primary Election Day in Indiana.
Tuesday, May 5, 2026.
Yes, early voting has already been available for a couple of weeks.
But history shows what we all know is true: these final 7 days are when most voters finally start paying attention.
So now is the time to look past the glossy mailers, polished slogans, and “conservative Republican” labels — and look at the actual record.
Ron Alting.
Jim Buck.
Travis Holdman.
Liz Brown.
Rick Niemeyer.
Linda Rogers.
Dan Dernulc.
Spencer Deery.
Greg Goode.
Greg Walker.
These 10 Republican incumbents have an average age of roughly 66 and have served a combined 118+ years in the Indiana Senate.
The question is simple:
Are they actually representing grassroots Republican voters?
Or are they being protected by the same Senate establishment that wants to keep power exactly where it is?
Look at the pattern.
Ron Alting has served in the Indiana Senate for nearly three decades.
Greg Walker has served for nearly two decades.
Jim Buck and Travis Holdman have each served roughly 17–18 years in the Senate.
Liz Brown and Rick Niemeyer have each served for more than a decade.
Linda Rogers has been there for several years.
And even the newer incumbents — Dan Dernulc, Spencer Deery, and Greg Goode — are already being backed by major establishment and caucus support.
That is the real issue.
This is not just about age.
This is not just about years in office.
This is about power, protection, and whether the Republican grassroots still have a voice.
Eight of these ten Republican incumbents opposed the Trump-backed redistricting effort:
Dan Dernulc
Rick Niemeyer
Linda Rogers
Travis Holdman
Jim Buck
Spencer Deery
Greg Goode
Greg Walker
Then many of these same incumbents were protected by Senate caucus money, PAC money, insider money, and establishment support against conservative primary challengers.
That should tell voters something.
When grassroots Republicans wanted stronger action, too many of these incumbents sided with caution, insiders, or the political status quo.
When taxpayers wanted real relief, some of these incumbents supported or enabled tolling authority, tax credits, subsidies, grant programs, fee structures, or weak tax-relief plans.
When conservatives wanted smaller government, several supported policies that expanded public-health structures, created new state programs, grew bureaucracy, or picked winners and losers through special-interest tax incentives.
When voters wanted free-market leadership, too many records showed support for corporate welfare, film tax credits, data-center incentives, green-energy-style programs, carbon-sequestration schemes, and other government-managed economic favoritism.
When parents and social conservatives wanted strong leadership, there were failures or questionable votes on issues like girls’ sports, religious instruction, anti-DEI legislation, immigration enforcement, and pro-life policy.
When Second Amendment voters wanted constitutional carry moved forward, Liz Brown’s Judiciary Committee did not move the House-passed bill before the deadline.
When gun-rights voters looked at Greg Walker’s record, they saw a vote against permitless carry.
When election-integrity conservatives looked at Greg Walker’s record, they saw a vote against election-integrity legislation.
When pro-life voters looked at Ron Alting’s record, they saw a vote against Indiana’s major post-Dobbs abortion restriction.
When anti-DEI conservatives looked at Greg Goode’s record, they saw a vote against anti-DEI legislation.
When religious-liberty conservatives looked at Dan Dernulc’s record, they saw a vote against religious-instruction access.
And when Trump-aligned Republican voters looked at the 2025 redistricting fight, they saw eight of these ten incumbents stand against the effort.
Again, this is not about one vote.
It is about a pattern.
A pattern of long tenure.
A pattern of establishment protection.
A pattern of PAC funding.
A pattern of business, banking, real estate, housing, labor, utility, legal, and insider campaign support.
A pattern of Republican incumbents saying the right things at election time while too often voting with the system once they are safely back in office.
These final 7 days matter.
This is when voters start asking questions.
This is when records matter.
This is when grassroots conservatives need to look closely at who is funding these incumbents, who is protecting them, and whether their votes actually match their campaign promises.
Indiana conservatives should be asking:
Who fought for real property tax reform?
Who stood for parental rights?
Who defended girls’ sports?
Who protected religious liberty?
Who backed pro-life values?
Who defended the Second Amendment?
Who stood against DEI?
Who fought for election integrity?
Who opposed corporate welfare?
Who fought for limited government?
Who protected taxpayers?
Who stood with grassroots Republican voters when it actually mattered?
And who sided with the establishment?
The question every voter should ask before May 5 is simple:
After all these years in office, who are these incumbents really representing?
Are they representing you?
Or are they representing the Senate establishment, PAC donors, lobbyist-connected interests, banking interests, real estate interests, business groups, labor PACs, and political insiders who are funding and protecting them?
Indiana does not need more protected incumbents.
Indiana needs conservative fighters.
Seven days.
Pay attention.
Check the record.
Then vote like it matters.
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!! This should help get you started https://tinyurl.com/4ep7h5sc
