It is more complicated than that

Ann Coulter and some other conservatives say they would vote for Clinton over McCain. In response, Eric at Classical Values suggests that the reasoning must be:

The idea which drives the vote-for-the-enemy theory is that Americans must be made to "bottom out," and that when the voters have finally suffered enough under socialism, they will see the light, and elect a "real" conservative.

He cites Clayton Cramer who writes:

Do you want someone [who] is wrong half the time, or someone who is wrong all the time?

I say that that is only a part of the story. To implement his (her) wrong decisions, a president generally need congress's approval. It is easy to imagine 40 Republican senators uniting in strong opposition to liberal moves by President Hillary. By contrast, for a variety of practical reasons such as help with fundraising, it is rare for senators to filibuster their own president's bad ideas. Continuing with Mr. Cramer's hypothetical, it is easy to imagine Pres. Hillary being wrong 100% of the time but only getting a mere 10% of that passed by congress. By contrast, a Pres. McCain might be wrong ( liberal) only 50% of the time but he might get the majority of that passed by congress. If so, then following Mr. Cramer's hypothetical to its logical conclusion, the country would, in a conservative's view, be better off under a Democrat president than under a Pres. McCain.

In fairness to Ann Coulter, both Clayton and Eric misrepresent her argument. She doesn't advocate either a 100% wrong president or a "bottoming out." Her claim, for what its worth, is that, based on the record, Sen. McCain is actually more liberal than Sen. Clinton.