Provide evidence of this "base" that you keep touting. Is it the same "base" that voted for Perot in 92? Is it the same "base" that sat at home in 96?. Is it the same 2 million vote "base" that voted either 3rd party or sat at home in 2000? If that is the "base" then that "base" was written off 3 years ago. There is a new "base" in town and it ain't the ones you are talking about. A "base" whose only function is to lose elections is not a "base" it is a liability.
Provide evidence of this "base" that you keep touting. Is it the same "base" that voted for Perot in 92? Is it the same "base" that sat at home in 96?. Is it the same 2 million vote "base" that voted either 3rd party or sat at home in 2000? If that is the "base" then that "base" was written off 3 years ago. There is a new "base" in town and it ain't the ones you are talking about. A "base" whose only function is to lose elections is not a "base" it is a liability. Please, if you must flog that strawman, have the decency to do it in the privacy of your own home, OK?
I, like so many of the other posters you've been attacking, have been a "broken glass Republican" for decades. I pleaded with people not to waste a vote on Perot, who was far worse than a mere spoiler.
I resent your accusations, and I resent your attacks. Your little cabal likes to issue taunts about "purity tests" that the base -- in scare quotes, when you type it -- demand of their candidates.
Well, frankly, the only "purity tests" I see in these parts are from you and your small group of sycophants who will not tolerate the slightest bit of disagreement with your idea of the correct agenda.