Replies

It’s a fool’s argument to insist that ABO means anything but “Romney.” Yes, “chances” may be a horse-racing term, but it still fits. I’ve no doubt Tom Hoefling and Virgil Goode are outstanding conservatives, but eventually reality has to rear its ugly head.

I don’t like Romney in the least and I loathe Obama, but between the two you have massive campaign machines backed by a billion-plus dollars (far more than that when you consider Obama’s using tax dollars for campaigning), strong press presences, and built-in national name recognition. Add to that that third parties are easily demonized as being the home of fruits and freaks by both liberals and conservatives (and ESPECIALLY so by Republicans and Democrats), it looks like people just spending energy on a cause that was lost before it began.

However, maybe I’m wrong—God knows I’d be delighted to be proved wrong in this, but I really don’t think so.

All I can say is “good luck” to the folks who want to take a stab at it.

Re: third-party: it looks like people just spending energy on a cause that was lost before it began.

Look...even the 50-50 crowd (those who presume 50% for either party) have eventualities where half of them supposedly (in your words) "spent energy on a cause that was lost..."

Half of those "50-50" "causes" campaign managers lose.

If you are a runner-up for the job you always wanted, does that somehow make you feel better?

Is a runner-up job candidate any better off than the 3rd place runner-up?

You see...You elect to look ONLY thru the filter of winning.

Once you commit to that filter, then...
...to be consistent...
...ANY -- and I mean ANY -- vote cast for a loser (even if they got more popular votes but lost electorally)...constitutes a "wasted vote" -- a vote that made no difference in the outcome as you wanted it...
...any $ or energy spent on that candidate was likewise "wasted"...

Also-rans don't count in a winner-takes-all situation.

So. Really. This all calls for patience for voters in swing states.

Because the polling data tends to be fairly accurate...and if it won't matter at that point -- whether you voted for a second-string "also ran" (like possibly Romney) vs. a third-string "also ran" (like third party)...then why vote for a pro-abort liberal socialist healthcare pioneer?

As for FREEPER voters in non-swing states, I say again: Why would vote for a pro-abort big govt socialist healthcare liberal? Already, we know RIGHT NOW that your vote for Romney won't make a difference in keeping Obama out of the White House.

Romney will lose -- or win -- that state minus your input into the ballot box.