The really sad part is, there is a substantial percentage of RINOs that would gladly accept a 'Beast presidency if it meant breaking the stranglehold the social conservatives have over the party and its nomination.
All they have to do is nominate someone who holds the Republican coalition together (coughFRedcoughThompsoncough), and the GOP is a winner against a candidate that 47% of the country will not vote for under any circumstances. Yet, they are completely hellbent on splitting the party in two, then blaming socons - when they knew what would happen all along.
What say you, shrinkermd? Let's say by some miracle, Duncan Hunter gets the GOP nomination and faces the 'Beast in the general - who do you vote for?
If you say the Beast or third party, you have proven my point.
If you say Hunter, then why not work for the most electable conservative in the primary instead of trying to stuff a party-wrecking RINO liberal down our throats?
I'll second that question, and add this:
The Rudy boosters can talk all they want about single issue this and single issue that, but it's not about a single issue, it's about several issues that Giuliani is not just on the wrong side of, but ardently so. The guy is only a conse3rvative by the measure of NYC politics, and in case you haven't noticed, very little of this country is NYC...and Hillary's at least as popular in NYC as she is.
Rudy will not hold currently-red battleground states. He will not take blue states away from Hillary. To believe he will is a fantasy that depends on believing that "single-issue" libs will vote GOP, or believing that Hillary will be tanked solely by her negatives, which means we don't need Rudy to be the nominee to get it done.
You have asked a hypothetical that will not happen. Duncan Hunter is so far down in the polls it would require divine intervention for him to prevail in any primary state.