And Rudy, McCain, etc. would still lose California, NY, Mass., PA, etc. Why don't you think about the fact you could leave a lot of disinterested conservatives at home when you are going to need EVERY vote then?? And you are going to need to keep the 'red' states! I don't honestly think you realize Osama Bin Laden could himself run for the Demonrats(as he would) in those states and still win over the GOP.
>>Why don't you think about the fact you could leave a lot of disinterested conservatives at home when you are going to need EVERY vote then??
Right now, the balance of power in a national election lies with the moderate independents. If the Republican nominee scares them off, it won't matter how many conservatives turn out. I don't like it but I think the last election proved (as the polls have been showing for a while), that the electorate seems to want an economic and WOT conservative but a social libertarian.
Regardless of the Democrat nominee, I would give Rudy a likely shot at taking NY, a good chance of taking NJ and Connecticut, and reasonable chances at California, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, all the while holding all the states that Dubya carried in 2004. Rudy would make the Democrats defend areas which they haven't had to actively defend in several elections.
If I could appoint the President, Duncan Hunter would get my call LONG before Rudy but I'm afraid my views (and yours) are not very representative of voting population.
Yah, you are very wrong.
A. Most wouldn't stay home. Only political junkies with an inflated sense of self-importance.
B. Even if you are right, McCain and Rudy would win the overwhleming number of independents, making it irrelevant anyway.
I'm not saying I want Rudy or McCain, right now, I'm leaning Romney, but arguing that they would be poor general election candidates is wishful thinking on your part and the part of every other freeper who argues it.