Funny thing is that this is actually a reasonable argument to make in the general election; in a primary, though, it's absurdly misleading.
This “to heck with ideological purity” argument is just as easily applied to voting for Rubio. Hey, if this argument helps people to sleep at night when then realize they had a constitutional conservative ready to be elected and they went with the squishy moderate, more power to them.
As for me and my house, we will vote our conscience.
The general election will be a disaster if we pick the wrong man in the primaries ... and BTW, I am not a “moderate” by any stretch ...
I know a bare-knuckle fighter when I see one. Donald Trump does not take crap from anybody - and that is why he has my support.
We need a ball busting SOB this go around; and, while I do appreciate Senator Cruz, he’s just not the man for the Big Chair.
Thank you.
I have never met a purist nor seen a purist on FR, though a (very) few who are close. I have seen others accuse lots of people of being purists. I've been tempted to accuse a few myself. But as for actual purists, they are as elusive as unicorns.
So when an entire piece ("Purists want nothing less than ...") is based on an imaginary entity ... well ...
It appears that for many, it has less to do with ideology and more to do with people's perceptions of who can "win." The "win" takes precedence over the actual political philosophy of said winner -- winning takes precedence over what is won. And that's a bad approach that "wins" you garbage.
My tagline is a truth lived and learned.