The purpose of a primary is to nominate the Republican candidate who is most likely to WIN against the Dem nominee.
This is NOT a game, the fate of the US and our very lives are at stake, literally.
So, other candidates should just be excluded? Why even have a primary then?
This is NOT a game, the fate of the US and our very lives are at stake, literally.
No matter's who's President, the WOT will have to be addressed. Rudy will be just another Nixon, a big-government liberal who'll hold the line on foreign policy while doing virtually nothing about advancing conservatism.
That's is not what I was taught. We are supposed to vote for the people who most nearly reflect our values and principles. This "vote for the likely winner" is new to me. And, being conservative, I am suspicious of it.
Why do you believe Rudy Giuliani would be more likely to win than Mitt Romney? While I suspect Mitt's being a Mormon probably won't help him, I don't see that as being nearly as big a strike against him as Rudy's gun lawsuits or sactuary-city actions are against him.
Mitt has been preaching conservative positions and thus has some realistic likelihood of gaining support (time and money, not just votes) from the conservative base. Rudy seems to hold the conservative base in concept; even if conservatives vote for him, they won't provide the other support he's going to need.
"This is NOT a game, the fate of the US and our very lives are at stake, literally."
Exactly correct. Which is why it is imperative that we NOT EVEN THINK about McGiuliRomney (or any other RINO/CINO) sitting in the Oval Office. So now I guess you'll stop shilling for these losers?
Personally, I hold people like you responsible for the democrats gaining a majority in Congress. If all you can do is nominate RINOS/CINOs and insist that they are the only ones electable, why is it such a shock to you that people will vote for REAL democrats instead of Rats-lite?