@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:If I were a betting man, I would bet that 95% of everyone on here will vote for the candidate of the party they are affiliated with regardless of who is running. That's why I happily stood up for those who complained to BPB about his stance of not voting for Obama. The talk seemed to be that he should vote for him simply because he was the democrat nominee. Well, sorry, I don't think that way.
It didn't seem like that to me. It seemed the argument was mostly that Hillary's platform and Obama's platform were similar enough to support the other one if he/she happened the one to be nominated.
In fact, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction to what you're making it out to be. It wasn't like people argued that, hey, it doesn't matter whether Kucinich or Obama gets the nomination - it's a Democrat, so vote for him already. Not at all. It was rather the opposite: people pointing out the similarities in the respective platforms rather than arguing that platforms don't matter. And, unless you have a very specific reason not to vote for a candidate, it would actually make sense to support the other candidate.
Along the same lines, I could see why somebody could make a reasonable argument why he would support either McCain or Romney, but not Tancredo.
Doesn't necessarily have to do with blind partisanship and merely voting by party affiliation.