I responded to your statement that you simply will not vote for Rudy. So as far as I can see, if he wins the nomination, that leaves only one other.
1. Large numbers of people from two significant GOP constituencies (social conservatives and libertarian conservatives) have told you pont-blank that they cannot vote for him in the general. However angry that may make you, and however much you may rail about it, it is a fact. It is a near-certainty that if Giuliani gets the nomination, a third party candidate will emerge and will siphon off GOP votes.
You also need to understand something. What you see here on FR does not represent either so called social conservatives nor Libertarians in general. Polls of both belie that statement. Most even from the RR said they could vote for any of the current top three. So in November, given what is at stake, almost all will be there to vote Republican. Talk is cheap!
2. The electorate is very closely divided, and has been for years. From where is Giuliani going to get the votes to make up for the significant numbers of GOP voters who can't support him, plus some more to put him over the top?
I would guess if Rudy is the nominee, not only will most of the GOP vote for him, since most are conservatives and understand the distinction between him and Hillary, but also from the conservative and moderate Democrats and the independents, all of whom believe that the security of our Nation is important and the left offers nothing.
Because this business I hear now about how YOU'RE bound and determined to nominate a candidate that I am convinced cannot win, and if MY prediction turns out to be correct somehow it's MY fault that YOU nominated him? It's empty, absurd and comes off as pretty cowardly, to boot.
I generally try and post in a respectful manner, but that last statement of yours reeked of absurdity. First, I have never stated any support for Rudy or any other candidate. I have said that there are currently three candidates in the race who can win against Hillary for the GOP, and they happen to be the top three currently. And second, I have said that if anyone refuses to support the Republican candidate no matter who he is, that person is no conservative, as conservatives by their very nature, understand the big picture. So keep you stupid and inane "coward" remarks to yourself or share them with your extremist friends, not me.
You take care.
Nope, there will undoubtedly be a third party candidate in the race that will allow me to register my opinion of the Giuliani and Clinton candidacies.
You also need to understand something. What you see here on FR does not represent either so called social conservatives nor Libertarians in general. Polls of both belie that statement. Most even from the RR said they could vote for any of the current top three. So in November, given what is at stake, almost all will be there to vote Republican. Talk is cheap!
If the beliefs here at FR don't have any relation to the opionions of the general electorate, then what's the problem? If you're correct, then Giuliani doesn't need our votes, and all this vitriol for those who oppose him is unnecessary. You may be right -- no one has a crystal ball. However, I have noticed that the major media has been holding its fire about some of Giuliani's stranger proposals -- it's interesting to me that we haven't seen headlines such as "Republican Frontrunner Supported DNA Collection from all Newborns," splashed from coast to coast, for example. I strongly believe that they're holding their fire, and will absolutely savage him post-nomination. At that point the polls will change, but it will be too late.
I would guess if Rudy is the nominee, not only will most of the GOP vote for him, since most are conservatives and understand the distinction between him and Hillary, but also from the conservative and moderate Democrats and the independents, all of whom believe that the security of our Nation is important and the left offers nothing.
Rudy's record on national security is a decidedly mixed bag.
I generally try and post in a respectful manner, but that last statement of yours reeked of absurdity. First, I have never stated any support for Rudy or any other candidate. I have said that there are currently three candidates in the race who can win against Hillary for the GOP, and they happen to be the top three currently. And second, I have said that if anyone refuses to support the Republican candidate no matter who he is, that person is no conservative, as conservatives by their very nature, understand the big picture. So keep you stupid and inane "coward" remarks to yourself or share them with your extremist friends, not me.
You telling me that I am a Hillary supporter was the opposite of respectful. I have worked hard not to indulge in flamewars over this issue, but that was insulting to the extreme. I have also avoided discussion of the "conservative" label, since there's no commonly accepted definition, and I'm not going to start with that now -- if you don't think I'm a conservative, that's up to you. Now you call me an extremist for not being able to vote for a candidate who actively opposes 9 of the 10 items in the Bill of Rights and isn't that hot on national security, either.
Sorry, but you're the one here who is name-calling, and I don't appreciate it. I have problems with Giuliani, but I have no problems with those who support him...unless they abdicate their responsibility for their choices by pre-emptively blaming me for their own choices and his eventual loss. Everyone's going to do what they believe is in the best interest of the party and country, even if we disagree what that is. You take care as well.