[Hulka]

“Don’t worry about that at all.”

I don't. Never supported him, never will. But if FORCED to make a choice, which devil to choose is a difficult decision.

Does one vote for the “more” conservative/republican candidate, or does one “throw” their vote away on a very long shot candidate?

In the former case, voting for the lesser of two evils, you present the humanist/progressive/liberal abortion-is-a-sacrament crowd a challenge to over-come (your vote). If you choose the latter approach (voting for the long shot), you make it all that much easier for the humanist/progressive/liberal abortion-is-a-sacrament crowd to vote Satin himself into office.

[paulycy]

does one “throw” their vote away on a very long shot candidate?

You are never throwing an honest, principled vote away. Never.

[Graybeard58]

In the former case, voting for the lesser of two evils, you present the humanist/progressive/liberal abortion-is-a-sacrament crowd a challenge to over-come (your vote). If you choose the latter approach (voting for the long shot), you make it all that much easier for the humanist/progressive/liberal abortion-is-a-sacrament crowd to vote Satin himself into office.

You seem to be missing the main point of this thread, which is, liberals and their supporters aren't welcome on this forum. The "lesser of two evils" is still evil.

I voted for Mike Dabno here in the Illinois contest for U.S. Senate. Never heard of him? He got a little over 2% of the vote but was pro life and the most conservative person on the ballot.

Illinois got a new Senator (Mark Kirk) who calls himself "republican" but who, in fact is more liberal than most democrats. He has a 10 year record in the House that proves it.

I'll never vote for a liberal, I don't give a big rats ass what letter he has behind his name.