Or backing the candidate with the best chance of winning?
This is where the Republican Party gets messed up on.
Who is to say who has the "best chance of winning?" Is it determined by manipulative polling, where the candidate with the better name recognition tends to have the earlier advantage? Is it determined by being more "moderate" to attract the so-called independents?
If it's the latter, then we never should have nominated Reagan in 1980, and we should have won with McCain in 2008. Or when a moderate does win, where does that get the Republican Party (think Nixon/Ford/Bush1/Bush2). What did bodybulder/action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger do for the California Republican Party except to feed his own ego? Short-term gains (wins) can often lead to long-term disasters.
Now of course the art of elective politics is more complicated than whether we go with who fits where on the linear (and often misleading) political scale, who has the most executive experience, who can raise the most money, who has the best looks (yes, some people will vote on that basis), who has the best debating skills, who is the flavor of the week in polling, etc.
When it comes to trusting polling, often we'll get manipulated out of supporting the better candidate to represent us and upholding our Constitution rights and liberties, to supporting a less-than-ideal candidate, then gripe when we get what we vote for.
I'd therefore say, stay true to your convictions. If you have none, well, then I guess you're up for grabs. And that's the problem with politics.
