No, they don't. Given there is a 100% certainty that neither Goode or Hoefling will be the next president of the United States, then they cannot possibly qualify as ABO.
Under your definition, both you and I qualify as ABO. But what person who believed removing Obama is imperative to the survival of the country, would waste a vote on either of us? A lunatic, perhaps.
No, you seem to forget that the POTUS race is NOT a popular-vote contest.
Rather, it's 51 mini-races (50 states + D.C.)
If I was a betting person, let's say I wagered with you $1,000 that if Romney only won ONE of the following "mini-races" -- you would take the $1,000...
The Left Coast: Hawaii, CA, OR, WA
New England (not sure if I'd include NH yet): Maine, MA, Vermont, CT, RI
NY-NJ
DC area (not VA), but MD, DE & D.C.
Illinois
Those are 15 races there. You now have to be consistent with the above claim...Are you willing to say for those 15 races, "there is a 100% certainty that Romney won't win them; therefore, Romney cannot possibly qualify as 'ABO' in those 15 states"???
(Remember, the POTUS race has no "silver medals" for state-by-state races; 2nd place only counts in horseracing)
So if somebody offered you a wager...would you be willing to say Romney could win just one of those states?
Bottom-line: If 'can't win' automatically eliminates a given candidate as an "ABO" candidate, then while Romney = "ABO" in Virginia, he doesn't = "ABO" in Oregon.
Virgil Goode is on the ballot in Oregon. I say, his chances of taking Oregon are the same as Romney: NIL
Therefore to Oregon voters -- Virgil Goode indeed is an "ABO" candidate.