I can understand that. Assuming Rudy G. gets the nomination, I'm still inclined to get him in for four years for the SCOTUS nominations, then using 2012 to hand it over to the Dems. At that time, we might have someone less objectionable than Hillary. Also, Republicans may be in a better position in Congress by then. Hopefully, someone else will be nominated avoiding the issue altogether.
Suppose you're the Grand High Pooh-Bah of the GOP, and suppose further that your objective is to maximize your political power; conservatism is relevant to the extent, and only the extent, that preaching it will encourage certain people to give you power.
If conservative voters would give you just as much support for running a leftist as for running a conservative, what reason would you possibly have for running a conservative? Why not run a hard leftist, so that you could receive broad political support from both sides of the aisle?
Now imagine that you're the Democrat Grand Pooh-Bah; your interests are a little different. Your goal is to have leftist programs get implemented. Ideally you'd have your guys in charge, but you have enough hooks at all levels of government that things will work well for you if a liberal gets elected, whether or not your guys are officially in power.
If you know that the Republican leadership and voters are as I described above, is there any reason why your optimal strategy wouldn't be to run a hard leftist? If you run a moderate, your guy, a moderate, would win, but if you run a hard leftist, the Republicans will run a leftist and so the winning candidate, even though he's a Republican, would be to the left of anyone you could have won with yourself.
I assert that controlling aspects of the parties' leadership are essentially as I described. I further assert that if Republican voters will favor their guy no matter what, provided the alternative is sufficiently hideous, that the optimal strategies for both parties are as I described.
Do you disagree with either assertion?
I would further assert that if voter behavior favors that strategy by the two parties, the leftward slide of this country will accelerate exponentially, and that the country would be doomed with such sufficient certainty that no other strategy could be meaningfully worse (if your Chess opponent has you in a 'mate in three', you're no more lost if you offer the opponent an immediate mate than if you extend the game two more turns).
Given those axioms, I conclude that either (1) the optimal strategy for Republican voters must be something other than blind support of the Republican candidate, no matter what the alternative, or (2) if there is no better strategy than blind support of the Republican, this country is sufficiently thoroughly doomed that no strategy is meaningfully worse.
What is the flaw in my logic?