OK...you did -- with this post -- introduce an option I have been advocating: Don't take the GoP pick out on other Republican races -- at least in 2012. Don't stay home. Vote Third party.
Now you added, "who has no prayer of winning."
I don't object to that assessment; what I object to is the assumption that this same assessment wouldn't apply to Mitt Romney.
So allow me to give you an initial "short" consideration as to why this is so...[I'll add other details if you want to keep reading below the asterisk line]:
The fact is...IF Romney is nominated...that means we'll have TWO liberal candidates running for POTUS.
Sorry...but we DON'T have enough LIBERAL voters in this country to support TWO liberal candidates!!!! Comprende????
If FREEPERs think this is going to be one of those 40-something-% to 40-something-% races...think again!!! Because, in order for that to happen, it would mean that we would need about 85-90+% of all voters to vote liberal & vote socialist in this election!!!!!!
Romney = healthcare socialism [that's a track-record FACT]; Romney = appointment of liberal judges [that's a track-record FACT]; Romney = pro-abortion actions & statements...statements even as recent as Dec of '07 [that's a track-record FACT].
What? Do people really think that they can get over 85% of the country to vote socialistic & liberalistic??? If you think that's going to happen, then that would be as poor of an ASSUMPTION as someone who would think a third-party candidate would win!!!
*********************
(Keep readin' if you're interested in the 'details'):
If I was a forecaster -- and if I told you now that...
...one candidate would get 46% of the vote;
...another candidate would get 32%-33% of the vote;
...a protest candidate of some sort would get 13% of the vote;
...and the minority party candidates (green party, etc.) would get 8-9% of the vote...
...does that sound like a two-person race to you?
Sports Analogies to explain this:
Some sports fans who didn't have a dog in the hunt were pullin' for both Louisville & then Kansas to upset Kentucky in the NCAA basketball tourney...But neither of those teams had the offense to pull past Kentucky. Still, those fans wanted to "root" for the underdog. Their rooting didn't change a thing. It didn't make the games any closer. The underdogs still lost by significant margins.
Even those who weren't "botfans" of either Louisville or Kansas could have urged as many people as possible to "root on" these underdogs...No matter...
The analogy is simple: If Romney + a "protest" candidate still get less than Obama, it really won't matter who you voted for [romney or the protest candidate]. Why? Because they are BOTH statistical losers!!!
Not only is romney an atrocious candidate, but his racist background with the Mormon church is THE worst choice to match up vs. Obama...and don't assume that by the time the MSM & Obama dems get done with Romney expose' after expose' that Romney will be a viable candidate by the end of October.
(I firmly believe the polls then will bear that out)
It's really not that Obama is like some unbeatable Olympic competitor...I don't think he can capture more than 46% of the vote...But if you reviewed a lot of Olympic events...say speed skating...or some track events...there's times when the coaches put a competitor in there that's really not so competitive vs. the front-runner.
That's what we have in a non-viable candidate like Romney.
You -- or a few other FREEPERs who might be "rooting" for Romney with your singular votes won't get Romney into even capturing 1/3rd of the popular vote. If I had to guess right now...
...Romney would get 'round 32%...perhaps some tenths over that...
...a third-party "protest" candidate (not sure who) may draw 13%...[Let's face it, do you REALLY expect 90%+ of the country would vote for A liberal???]
...Obama -- 46%
...Minority-party candidates (green party, etc.) would split the other 8-9%
If Romney won't even be able to capture 1/3rd of the nation's vote, how can any FReepers -- like Blood of Tyrants (post #3) -- blame some conservatives who won't vote for him???
What do I base some of these figures on?
(a) Ya gotta understand that RIGHT NOW, the GoP ONLY has 29% of all registered voters...
...& almost half of them are NOT Romney supporters...
...another probable 25-30% of them won't vote for Romney no matter what...[And most of these won't vote for Obama, either]
That means that only about 1 in 5 registered voters will vote for Romney -- as Republicans.
(b) Most Dems aren't going to vote for Romney...
(c) Six to Nine % of all registered voters (who aren't Republicans) would rather support a green party or constitutional party candidate or some small party...
(d) What segment of the registered-voter pie does that leave? Independents, who are about 1/3rd of all registered voters...All Obama would need to do is to capture about 42% of Independent voters, and he has that 46% of the vote I mentioned above.
So you think that Romney -- after the MSM & Dems get done with him -- will be able to grab more than a quarter of registered Independents? (I don't think so)
And even if he could, getting 1/3rd of the Independents would probably only give him 35-36% of the overall vote; getting 1/2 of the Independents would probably only give him 41-42% of the vote...
He won't win.
So why waste your vote
and your reputation
and your FREEPER credibility
being (or becoming) his personal apologist????
I am not voting Romney, I am voting for a strategy.
My speculation is that if Romney were to be elected and Obamanoid communists who would like to root out all illumitatis, Jews, mormons etc... not under their direct control savages them, then it is more points for conservatives and the realization that Christians are right along in being with the story of the true Jesus Who was persecuted.
I don’t know. I guess BushII was content with being persecuted by liberals, but that was him. They of course all suffer from a Stokholm syndrome and will invariably blame Christians and conservatives for the liberals raping them.