No, we don't.
But the "strong conservatives" are going to do whatever they are going to do, anyway.
What percentage of the electorate do you believe are "strong conservatives"?
An estimated 4 million strong conservatives REFUSED to vote for Moral Monster Mitt Romney (hereinafter M3R) for a wide variety of good and sufficient reasons. I was one of them. I would do it again. M3R was no better than Obozo on the issues that matter. If Scalia died on his watch, he would have appointed some quisling like David Souter who would have been no better than what Obozo would nominate. The difference is that the royalist slaves of Wall Street, of K Street and of the US Chambers of Corrupt Crony Commerce would not resist M3R's nomination but would quickly approve it and move back to selling out working people, fattening corporate bottom lines and ignoring issues that matter as usual.
As things stand, I shall vote for TRUMP!!! IF he manages to get the GOP nomination. That is subject to change because voting for him would be the most distasteful vote I will have cast since I voted for Moral Midget Gerald Ford (M2F). If TRUMP!!! seems dishonest on his alleged conversion to pro-life, he won't get my vote or that of many others. Third party alternatives exist and it is not morally permissible to vote for evil on such an issue.
TRUMP!!!'s campaign to date has been the very model of low rent campaigns. In my youth, I worked in railroad yards and in factories to finance my education. My co-workers tended to be gentlemen who would not lower themselves to engage in the foul language that is the most common feature of The Donald's campaign. That alone will not cost him my vote but it won't help him either. I had to raise three daughters during Slick Willy's presidency and had to answer too any questions about what that news meant about his misbehavior. That will suffice for one lifetime.
The Donald has been married three times. I will give him some slack because serial adultery is a lifestyle of the rich and famous. Not moral but it is all too often their lifestyle. When married to Ivana, he was apparently cheating with Marla. While "married" to Marla, he was cheating with Melania. Were those the only affairs or will we be treated to some abortionist coming forward during the campaign and after he is nominated to claim to have been on "retainer" to discreetly handle resulting "problems?" To those who would remind us that Ronaldus Maximus was divorced from Jane Wyman and later "married" Nancy Davis, the obvious reply is that he was not even acquainted with Davis when he was divorced by Jane Wyman several years earlier. Also Reagan did not initiate the divorce. Wyman fully endorsed him for POTUS in 1980 when questioned by scandal-mongering lame stream media.
The Donald claims to have become pro-life but STILL insists that the infernal Planned Parenthood crime cabal does good things for "women's health" that can be publicly funded but not their abortion operations. This is like saying that the Nazis did a terrific job building autobahns and public works and therefore deserved tax money.
Let's review the bidding as it stands now. First, I want a LOT more from a POTUS than THE WALL ALMIGHTY. While Obozo has retired the trophy for illegal immigration and his lawlessness requires a lengthy vacation from immigration generally, THE WALL is far from the only issue before us.
So long as the Roe vs. Wade holocaust continues, no GOP candidate who is not absolutely and credibly committed to making the SCOTUS appointments that will certainly overturn that infamous decision will be elected. There are and always will be enough strong conservatives to guarantee that.
Conservatives cannot become conscientious objectors to conscience itself. No one will continue the baby-killing in my name or by my vote, no matter what else the candidate claims to stand for. Baby-killers are not trustworthy. This is the third rail for "Republican" POTUS candidates who dare trifle with the base. This is especially true when they lie like M3R did and claim to be pro-life just to shush the base. This is the hill that conservatives will choose to die on.
Native American heroes, at the end of their lives, overtaken by illness, age and their accumulating disabilites from battle wounds, would "stake themselves out" on a battlefield, tying a leather thong to an ankle and to a spear driven into the ground, which meant that the warrior was committed on his honor not to separate himself from that restraint. He could fight his last fight within the radius of that tether. Enemy warriors understood that it was a high honor to kill the tethered warrior because it would be a tribute to his lifetime of bravery. The tethered warrior would say words to the effect: Today is a good day to die! He would fight until his inevitable death.
If the conservative movement to which I have devoted my long adult life is going to die because so many people are willing, indeed eager, to settle for THE WALL and the Pied Piper of Manhattan in lieu of every conservative principle that has motivated us to date, then it is time to stake ourselves out because today will be a good day to die!
Fortunately neither Bill Buckley nor Ronaldus Maximus nor John Ashbrook nor M. Stanton Evans nor Antonin Scalia nor William Rehnquist nor Bill Rusher nor James Burnham nor Frank Meyer nor most of the great early leaders of the conservative movement had to live to see this sorry election year and the current collapse of our movement.
“What percentage of the electorate do you believe are “strong conservatives”? “
Possibly enough to make Romney LOSE the General Election. Romney DID get the independent votes, but there’s a heck of a lot more of the strong conservative base that stayed home.
Next, Ted Cruz. Ted got enough strong conservatives to win the Iowa caucus, and come in second in New Hampshire. Furthermore, I believe even the Republicans, on the whole, are more “moderate” aka liberal in New Hampshire, but even in NH, Ted Cruz came in second. This shows Ted is attractive to moderates as well, imo.