I choose to not vote for the far greater threat to democratic (little D) process (fairly provably so), and choose not to vote for a candidate with whom I disagree on many policy issues.

It isnt that I didnt see the supposed analogy.

I appreciate someone who steadfastly fights for the Constitution -- both Lincoln and Adams did so. Adams pretty much put his life on the line for the grand experiment.

I think it somewhat odious to compare those who steadfastly stand for the Constitution and its processes with one who simply takes a giant smelly **** (figuratively) on that document and on those principles -- especially that itsy bitsy one related to 'elected to office' in contrast to that individual's somewhat apparent active effort to 'short circuit the process to be selected to the office'. There is a giant difference in the goals of those who seek to be 'elected' to office --- as opposed to those whom try and go the 'selected to office' route, imo.

If all you wish to make analogies to is steadfastness to a goal, that steadfastness is most prevalent in that individual's efforts to achieve that office, through election or selection. In that instance, perhaps John Gotti, or Putin might be more apt analogies. They both exhibit a steadfastness to a goal coupled with the 'selected to office' trait that I denote above. That, to me, seems to besharp distinctive trait to the steadfastness in pursuit of the goals embodied in the Constitution that your proffered examples are, and should be, lauded for.