This is absurd!
According to Gallup, 28% of Democratic Clinton supporters say they would cross over and vote for McCain if Clinton doesn’t win the Democratic nomination.
Likewise, 19% of Obama supporters say they would cross over and vote for McCain if Obama doesn’t win the nomination.
As an Obama supporter, I can understand losing interest and enthusiasm for the general election if Clinton somehow ends up as the nominee, but there’s no way in hell casting a vote for McCain would make me feel any better!
More likely, I would skip the presidential vote, or cast a “protest vote” for a third party candidate (if there is one I can stand!) And I would focus my energy on down ticket races to try to build a progressive majority that could keep either president in check.
In all likelihood, however, I would eventually end up voting for Clinton, without donating or working to help her get elected, and then focus my energies elsewhere.
Voting for McCain would be a complete rejection of all moral principles. Period!
It would be the moral equivalent of watching a sporting event and openly rooting for the best player on the opposing team to die of a sudden heart attack! (Only in this case, sort of the opposite, from an electoral point of view.)
This leads to one of my biggest questions about Clinton and Obama, and the answer speaks volumes to me about their relative merits as a potential president:
If either of them are not the nominee, which of them would actively work to discourage the 28% or 19% respectively from following through with their heated emotional reaction by contributing their vote toward four more years of Republican policies, just for revenge?