The “less blood thirsty”?
In that circumstance I think it is better to not vote.
Those situations arise because the “pro-life” party feels they can get both pro-life votes (which they need to win) and “moderate” voters (ie, pro-choice) by nominating the “less blood thirsty” candidate. This is a forumla for pro-life issues to be taken for granted and minimized.
After a while of losing, the pro-life party will realize they can’t win by nomnating “less blood thristy” candidates and counting of pro-lifers to vote for the lesser of two evils, so they will start nominating actual pro-lifers.
I agree. I wasn't going to vote for President if a pro-abortion candidate were the Republican nominee.
After a while of losing, the pro-life party will realize they cant win by nomnating less blood thristy candidates and counting of pro-lifers to vote for the lesser of two evils, so they will start nominating actual pro-lifers.
Excellent point.