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.
I can't answer your hypothetical because I don't have enough facts about the election itself, who is running, is it local, state, federal, etc. etc. This is why most thinking people won't answer hypotheticals and I cannot in this case.
However, I can give you a case in which I would vote for the extremely liberal democrat instead of the "moderate" RINO. It happened in the last presidential election cycle.
Rush Limbaugh figured out that voting for Hillary Clinton in states where votes for John McCain didn't matter to the outcome of the race (like in my state of Virginia IIRC) could put the democratic race into "chaos." In fact, Rush called it "Project Chaos."
Had Sarah Palin not joined the race I was seriously considering doing just as Rush suggested in large part because I had independently come to the same conclusion myself. But I voted for Sarah.
So, my answer in general is that I will choose the best tactics for the battle at hand and not even try to shoehorn myself into a useless, hypothetical ideological straight jacket.