Look, all the polling indicates that although the electoral vote count is up in the air (swing states), at this pt it looks strong that Romney will win the popular vote...
With this appearance of already winning the popular vote, a few more thousand votes isn't going to create a "greater mandate" for policy change than that!
That's like saying, "Well, we've already cooked this meat @ the # of degrees needed to cook it for the right amount of time, but we better burn it just to make sure."
You're undergirding a myth nobody buys that a few thou more votes than otherwise somehow makes some national impact upon a "mandate" -- as if only those few thousand voters control a nation-wide perception on what's a "mandate" and what isn't...
Ridiculous...
PLEASE,no one waste a vote on any third party candidate.
If EVERY vote for a third-party candidate constitutes a "wasted vote," then every vote for Romney in 10 blue states where Obama got 60% or more of the 2008 vote is likewise a "wasted vote"...In both cases, you're voting for a losing cause in that particular state...And we know there are 10 extremely solid blue states ... + D.C.
You have no consistency in your claims
You must be lost.
J/k - but srsly!
Oh,BS.
You seem to be saying Republicans should not bother to vote in the 10 “blue” states because the Dhim have a majority.So instead of a possible 60/40 split you would have it 99/1 ? The Dhims could then claim a solid mandate for all kinds of crap ,plus you would lower the popular vote count so that did Romney win the electoral vote ,he might be behind millions of votes in the popular count,thus giving ammunition to those who would cry “Republicans are stealing the election against the will of the people”.
Besides it ain’t over ‘til the real votes are counted.Polls aren’t elections.