Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Colofornian; Colonel_Flagg

How much are you willing to wager on either Goode or Hoefling? I say, neither one wins the presidency in November. Want to take me on? If either Goode or Hoefling wins (see, you even get TWO chances!), then you win the bet. So, how much are you willing to wager? I’m sure we can find some mutually accepted third party to hold our bets until the election returns are in.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of ABO. Implicit in ABO is that Obama *must* be defeated. Goode, Hoefling or Mickey Mouse write-ins don’t fit that bill. And sorry, Colonel Flagg, your protestations to the contrary, that simple observation does not rob Goode or Hoefling of their personhood a la the Dredd Scott case (LMFAO!). Although Mickey Mouse, on the other hand....

ABO should really be ABOWCW (Anybody But Obama Who Can Win).


1,877 posted on 08/12/2012 3:18:55 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1798 | View Replies ]


To: kevao
ABO should really be ABOWCW (Anybody But Obama Who Can Win).

Correct. So you've got work to do with your side. As for me, you can just call yourselves NBR. Makes no difference to me what you do.

1,919 posted on 08/12/2012 3:57:30 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Conservatism is not a matter of convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1877 | View Replies ]

To: kevao
How much are you willing to wager on either Goode or Hoefling?

If I was a betting person (I'm not), I'd be willing to wager that Goode, Hoefling, and Romney will all lose the 15 races I highlighted. Is that something you would bet against?

Remember, "ABO" stems from a purely pragmatic utilitarian political relativist posture. From that same angle, then voting for Goode in Oregon is a better idea than voting for Romney in Oregon because conservatist principles are thereby elevated -- vs. RINOism.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of ABO. Implicit in ABO is that Obama *must* be defeated.

And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral politics -- at least when it comes to applying the "ABO" tactic.

You see if you attach that caveat ("Obama *must* be defeated")...Romney doesn't have to win all 51 "mini races" to defeat Obama.

In fact, we know he won't.

Frankly, an "ABO" strategy -- as you define it -- in those 14 states + D.C. is worthless for getting Obama to lose in those states.

And, frankly, an "ABO" tactic just among FREEPERs doesn't defeat Obama any more in red states than he will/would already be defeated. Obama will lose the red states even if 100% of FREEPERs voted for Goode/Hoefling in those states.

So...realistically, an "ABO" tactic -- as YOU define it (Romney only) -- if applied to the swing states...would result in an Obama loss.

So...the "ABO" strategy (as you define it) really doesn't work for about 40 states. (The results will be the same for those states -- with or without it)

2,095 posted on 08/12/2012 6:03:31 PM PDT by Colofornian (Why don't you 'birthers' ask Mitt about his 'spirit-birth' on planet near Kolob? Hypocrisy @ work?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1877 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson