This is actually quite an unsophisticated "reading" of a POTUS election.
Virgil Goode is on the Oregon ballot. In Oregon over 1 in 7 citizens are either an atheist or agnostic...and is one of the top two states % wise in non-church attendance.
A vote for Goode (instead of Romney) in Oregon won't matter.
Obama will take Oregon no matter WHO is voted for beyond that.
So it's the unsophisticates who fail to properly discern 'tween the blue states, the red states and the purple states.
There are about 14-15 obvious blue states (+D.C.); There's about 9-12 swing states -- depending upon who you're listening to...and the rest are red.
If 100% of FREEPERs voted for Goode or Tom Hoefling in the red states...guess what? Obama would STILL lose all those red states.
So, no, a vote for Goode is NOT a "vote for Obama."
The best case these unsophisticates can "hope" for re: this claim ... and one that would better result in a true interesting back & forth "dialogue" on this subject... would focus ONLY upon the "purple states"... and even there I've seen several good FREEPER comments on why a vote for third party cannot = a vote for Obama...in ANY state.
For example, ANY swing state Romney would win anyway...CANNOT mean that any "third party" votes accrued to Obama's benefit. (More unsophisticated poor vision)
Secondly, even if some third-party votes helped Obama take a given swing state, if Romney won more needed electoral votes in swing states than Obama -- enough to win the presidency -- then "No" -- even from that pragmatic utilitarian political relativist posture (a sick ethical position, I might add, for any long-term political health to a country)...those were NOT "votes for Obama."
Thirdly, note how these pragmatists don't reverse the pragmatic situation when it's obvious.
Both Romney & Obama are liberal; both are socialist healthcare pioneers; both are big govt statists; both embrace global warming nonsense; both have track records of seeking or actually placing liberal judges; both are pro-aborts.
Therefore, it's quite obvious: A vote for Romney in a blue state that Romney can't possibly win = a vote for a liberal, socialist healthcare pioneer, big govt statist, global warming, liberal judge appointing pro-abort...with no "anti-Obama" benefit to acrue -- and winds up opposing the conservative positions -- no matter how the relativists twist it...Yet you don't see these "third party votes = a vote for Obama" posters acknowledging this...why not?
Fourthly, even from a sheer "statistical" standpoint, if Obama doesn't get a vote, that's one less vote for him. It's statistical "madness" to claim that a "missing vote" for Obama somehow = a "vote for Obama."
Yes, it's true that if Romney loses "just enough" votes for Obama to win several states -- that gives Obama the overall victory -- that third-party candidates may have diverted votes.
But, hey...who gave us the liberal; socialist healthcare pioneer; big govt statist; global warming-embracer; liberal judge-appointer; pro-abort to begin with?
(The GoP-establishment) Just like they gave us Bob Dole. The GoP-E's "vote" for Bob Dole was a "vote" for Clinton...Just like the GoP-E's vote for Romney could wind up = ing a "vote" for Obama.
So it's the unsophisticates who fail to properly discern 'tween the blue states, the red states and the purple states.
I've jackhammered precisely that same point home to this site's (fortunately) few true ineducables no fewer than [::goes back and does a quick recount::] ELEVEN TIMES -- right here, on this very thread.
Nothing. Tabula rasa. Wind from the Void. It just rattles around in the vast, yawning caverns of their skulls, like a pair of ball bearings... and then plops right back out again.
Next time, I swear: I'm using finger puppets. ;)