Your point is perceptive, and that may play a role with some folks, but I think it's mostly a personality thing. I think the main thing is that some people see the voting franchise as an embodiement of all they believe (and an endorsement of all the things the person you're voting for believes), and others like myself see the franchise as a tool. For the former, the best option is to endorse the guy who believes the right things because they're putting their stamp on him. I would believe that is exactly what you do
unless he can't win in whichj case you are failing to help the next best guy and hurt the bad guy. For some reason, there are people who would really expect that because I voted for Dubya instead of Buchanan and supported Arnold over McClintock, I will be spending my time praising "compassionate conservatism," getting along with Ted Kennedy and singing "Kum-Bai-Yah" with the pro-aborts. Wrong answer. Also, they tend to see "I support Arnold" and such as "I support the GOP candidate even if he's a RINO" or even "I support RINO's" rather than "I want the RATS to lose."
Politics really is war by other means and your vote is your weapon. If you're firing off your weapon in a way that helps the enemy, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are.
Politics really is war by other means and your vote is your weapon. If you're firing off your weapon in a way that helps the enemy, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are. I couldn't agree with you more.
If good intentions from pro-lifers result in the continued or increased deaths of the unborn, they are futile.