“Put Hillary Clinton against any Republican and you will see Republicans vote like you have never seen before, the alternative is too grave.”
Only if the Republican isn’t actually a liberal Democrat.
If it’s two liberal Democrats running on the two major party tickets, I’m going third party.
I don’t want Rudy to be our nominee, but calling him a liberal Democrat is silly.
He’s not even as liberal as our most current liberal republican. His ratings show that he’s a moderate republican, not something we like around here, but not a liberal democrat.
There is one thing I fear more than a “Rudy/Clinton” election, and that is a Clinton presidency. Oh, there’s one OTHER thing I fear: A “Rudy/Clinton” election where the conservatives all stay home but Rudy wins anyway.
Then you have a Rudy in the white house, bitter at how the conservative abandoned him, AND empowered by the knowledge that he doesn’t need to do ANYTHING conservative because we stayed home and he won.
Plus, because we were all demoralized and stayed home, a dozen good conservatives down-ticket lost close races, giving Rudy a much more moderate/liberal congress to work with.
Of course, that’s why I’m fighting against Rudy. I could even argue that a popular conservative candidate, even one that would LOSE the presidency, would be preferable to a Rudy that wins, if that conservative energized the base. The base would turn out in droves, and we’d win back house seats and elect conservatives.
But once the primary is done, if Rudy is our candidate, ACTIVISTS need to focus on energizing the conservative base even though we’d have a crappy presidential candidate, in order to support down-ticket conservatives. We won’t do that if all the conservatives are staying home.