Today I posed a simple question to two family members: If you were the deciding vote between Moore and Jones, for whom would you vote? (Write-ins and no-votes not allowed.) One reluctantly voted for Moore based on policy (but said would not come within a hundred miles of a voting booth in reality), the other refused to vote at all because the choice is so repugnant (discussion is still on-going, but I am trying to figure out if he would vote for Jones given his extreme moral opposition to Moore).
IMO, a no-vote means you view both candidates equally. Otherwise, by definition a no-vote is a vote for the individual you would not like to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong with voting your conscience. But if you view one candidate morally inferior to the other, and the morally superior candidate is not of your political party, suck it up and vote against your party.
I look at the situation thru the lens of game theory. The Progressive Left utterly eschews morality, as evidenced by Harvey Weinstein visiting the Obama White House thirteen times, and I am not willing to give up a critical vote in the fight to dismantle the odious legacy of the Obama/Clinton “we go high when they go low” “basket of deplorables” crowd.
A vote for Doug Jones unnecessarily creates an unfair playing field, since, per game theory, your opponent is incentivized to cheat. And unlike in sports where you are not forced to cheat if your opponent is taking steroids – you can simply quit – as voting age citizens we are forced to take a position in policy construction, since it affects our everyday lives regardless of our participation (yes, in the extreme you could move to another country).
So yes, as I said yesterday, I would emphatically support the disgusting, inhumane pig that is Roy Moore in order to maintain a loaded anti-Progressive Left policy gun.