And you didn’t answer the question, or address the words of President Reagan: if your choice is 0% or 75%, which do you choose?
I’m not saying only accept 75%; I’ve said this many times on this board that the time to get conservatives into position is the primary. You vote offensively in the primary, but in the general you vote for the candidate that will do the least amount of damage - you vote defensively.
Here in the State of Washington we have a “top two” election system, where the top two of the primary races advance to the general. Often we end up with no GOP or conservative, and write-ins are ignored. Meaning often your choice is a staunch marxist or a moderate liberal.
Sitting out often means the staunch marxist wins; I’ll take a moderate liberal over a staunch marxist. And I’d take McCain every time over Obama.
But back to the Reagan quote: why do you turn your back on a 75% win? What’s wrong with Reagan’s quote?
If you wish to promote socialist RINOs that’s your business, but you won’t be doing it on FR.
**if your choice is 0% or 75%, which do you choose?**
at the time McLAME was an 80%, and was UNACCEPTABLE TO ME.. If not for Sarah Palin... I would have gone FISHING.
Strawman there. Our choices haven’t been 0% or 75%. They’ve been 0% (donk) or 25% (GOP) conservative, and that’s being charitable.
But every time we try to push for even 50% conservative, we run into screams of “too conservative,” “not electable,” “gotta be more pragmatic,” blah blah blah. This despite the fact that the electorate is firmly center-right.
The irony is that when we run real conservatives or even somewhat conservatives, WE WIN (paraphrasing Rush). Heck, even in New Jersey! When we run the “pragmatic” choice ala McCain, we LOSE.
It’s really not that complex.