[Sabertooth]

4,000,000 no-show conservatives relative to 1996--newsflash kids, BOB DOLE got more conservative votes than Bush ever did--translates to about a 4% shift in the popular vote, and about 9-10% of the total conservative vote.

So, 4 million would be 10% of 40 million, right?

If 90% of the 40 million conservatives voted for Bush, that's about 36 million votes, by my math. Agreed?

Also, do you really hold that a "wise GOP strategist would simply discount (a non-base) vote at the outset, because (it is) unreliable?"

[Poohbah]

Also, do you really hold that a "wise GOP strategist would simply discount (a non-base) vote at the outset, because (it is) unreliable?"

A wise campaign manager would treat any such votes that his candidate did manage to get as a bonus, and not plan on winning an election with them.

Here's the issue: those "RINOs" you complain about actually vote, and do so on a consistent basis.

Conservatives are accurately seen as being less likely to vote, or to vote Republican, than "RINOs."

Satisfying the last 10% of the self-proclaimed base would probably cost at least 10% of the popular vote--in other words, the GOP candidate would lose roughly 2.5 votes for each vote gained.

You want to get your way more often? Generate votes, and do so reliably. Get the GOP candidate to owe you favors. You want to occasionally throw an election to a radical leftist Democrat? Keep doing as you've been doing. But don't expect the GOP to continuously prostrate themselves before you and beg the favor of your vote. They will find other people to vote for them.

As I've pointed out, I'm not in the business of building coalitions of the unwilling. Having been slow-rolled and back-stabbed by the self-proclaimed "true conservatives" one time too many, I refuse to trust anyone who regards loyalty to others as optional.

And yes, Saber, I am talking about you in the above paragraph.