You obviously have a comprehension problem. My take is that, once we have done our best to try to get the most conservative candidates on the slate, and we are finally left with a choice between another Obama or even a Hillary, we need to consider whether we are willing to give up the toe to save the leg or are we going to insist that the leg be taken too because it's all or nothing? I say we minimize the damage and you say commit suicide.
BTW, you still haven't outlined any plan about how your "plan" (whatever it is because you speak in platitudes rather than specifics) will result in our gaining any ground over what I opine. I guess it's easier to sling mud and say "WRONG! WRONG!WRONG!, than it is to actually give a cogent reason why your are on the positive side. It's easy to find fault and cowardly to refuse to give what you really think will happen if your plan is employed vs. what I would do, and explain why.
"You're against conservatism, nyahh-nyahh..nyahh-nyah" is not a cogent, reality-based argument. How about telling me how allowing the really far, hard-core, Left to keep winning is a winning strategy.
Actually your “plan” never changes, we aren’t even in the primary yet and you continue with your never ending promotion of accepting liberal candidates.
That is your goal here, to oppose conservatism, settling isn’t a plea that you save for after the nomination.