Although I think a lot more thought has to be put into the hows and whys of Operation Hilarity, even perhaps the name, I do have to wonder about the squeamishness of some on this site to its enactment.
The best way to think about it is with a hypothetical. If you knew with perfect
certainty that if one Republican candidate was nominated, President Obama would
clearly be victorious and if another was nominated, the odds would be closer to
50-50, would you be willing to vote in open primary to guarantee an Obama victory? If you would be unwilling to vote in the primary because you found it morally objectionable, I find the position somewhat curious but can respect it.
But if you would be willing to cast a ballot under the circumstance that I outlined, then your position is not a matter of morals but a matter of tactics. Yet, we're very close to the situation I posed. Although there is legitimate debate about who is the strongest or weakest candidate, the goal of keeping whoever is running the best from getting 1,144 delegates is worth doing and worth spending money on. I am with Josh Marshall of TPM who recently said that, in the modern era, a party that is forced into a brokered convention is nearly doomed to defeat. (The Obama Super Pac seems to agree based on there Michigan spending. )
When it comes to the coming Michigan primary, a vote for Rick Santorum would seem to make sense, except in the 13th or 14th district. In those districts, Ron Paul might successfully steal a district from Mitt Romney with the proper effort.
As the calendar moves forward, there will be more opportunities to look at the polls and the rules and make strategic decisions to keep all Republicans, not just Mitt Romney, from 1144.