You are defining the candidate as measured by some Ideal Candidate as opposed to choosing the candidate, regardless of party, which would best further the Conservative movement's cause. And that determination can only be made on a case-by-case basis.
If you don't vote you don't matter. After deciding to vote you must choose someone who is actually in the race (write-ins seldom matter.)
Putting some sort of vague, implied negative connotation on this real-life necessity is not useful. But the system is set up so that you can choose not to matter in any particular election or in every election if you want. That's up to you.
I'm not defining anything. I'm saying the candidate was already defined by the primary process (choosing the candidate, as you put it). So, would you support the liberal Republican monetarily?
If you don't vote you don't matter. After deciding to vote you must choose someone who is actually in the race (write-ins seldom matter.)
Quite often, you don't matter even when you vote. Such as a vote for the McCain ticket this past election. Or a vote for Republican candidate for Governor in Illinois these past few election cycles. Simply saying you must vote because otherwise you have no say doesn't always ring true anymore.
Putting some sort of vague, implied negative connotation on this real-life necessity is not useful.
There's nothing vague about my question. If, after the primary, there is a liberal Republican running against a Democrat, would you support that Republican candidacy monetarily? The question is simple enough.