I cannot argue with any of the grounds for your argument, only the conclusion. I can't grasp the concept of someone being even marginally better than another candidate (and I think Giuliani is marginally better than Hillary), and not voting for him. For me the test is, given what is known, if forced to vote, for whom would I vote? If I thought it might teach the GOP a lesson to vote for Hillary, I would do it, rather than not vote.
I respect your thoughtfulness and your conclusion, however, even if disagree.
Regards.
Dear NCLaw441,
"I can't grasp the concept of someone being even marginally better than another candidate (and I think Giuliani is marginally better than Hillary), and not voting for him."
I understand, but try to look at this way.
Mrs. Clinton, as president, will cause X amount of harm to the United States. Perhaps Mr. Giuliani will only cause 99% of X amount of harm to the United States, or even just 95% or 90%.
But both will harm the United States. A lot.
So, I'm not going to vote for either. And neither will a lot of other folks who think generally along the same lines.
And next time, maybe the Republicans won't nominate someone like Mr. Giuliani. And then, perhaps, we'll elect someone to the presidency, like President Bush, who on balance, is actually modestly GOOD for the United States. Or, the Republicans might decline as a major party, and eventually be replaced by another party, as the Republicans replaced the Whigs. And after a period of disequlibrium in our politics, perhaps we might elect presidents from the new party that will actually benefit our country.
On the other hand, if we Republicans get out there and fight vociferously for Mr. Giuliani, and manage to elect him, then he may very well be re-elected. And other liberal "Republicans" will likely follow in his path, and the harm will go on and on.
sitetest