You know, Kevaod, I think on this subject the way you frame things are reasonable...and you've done more than most posters to delineate qualifiers and caveats.
So I understand your point that you think it might be a bit "ticky-tack" to provide a "color" qualifier "each time we say anything."
That indeed would be a valid point -- IF we had posters beside yourself that EVER bothered to to even mention that indeed these qualifiers that you and I have discussed actually exist!
I would imagine that if you swept thru the THOUSANDS of "ABO" references on FR over the past four months, that the overwhelming "sweep" of comments either assume or imply that "ABO" = ALL voters in ALL states MUST vote Romney. In fact, it's oft' been communicated that no exceptions are to be tolerated for that mindset.
And the other comments that accompany these thoughts -- when challenged -- back this up. We consistently see from posters the notion that Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling "can't win"...yet that same acknowledgement is almost NEVER offered to Romney's chances in blue states. That gets routinely ignored.
The bottom line here is that people want to be pragmatists. Utilitarians. Political relativists. That's where their anti-Obamaism has led to their desperation.
Well, if they are going to don that political philosophy, then they can't get riled up when that same political philosophy is used to tell conservatives that they SHOULD vote ABOAR in the blue states...ABOAR = Anybody But Obama and Romney. (And that, more quietly, ABOAR also applies to red states).
The very fact that there is a LACK of an ABOAR movement on FR displays that people are more pro-Romney than they are anti-RINO. And that will be the eventual death knell of the GoP, because there will no longer be a "home" for conservatives.
If I wanted to constantly choose 'tween liberal POTUSes, why would I EVER give a dime to the GoP?
If the RINOs give us somebody to the left of LBJ, why would be want to stay Republicans?
Kevao (sorry for the typo of your name in last post)
Sorry, Colofornian. I cannot agree with this, because it simply has not been my experience these past few months. I can't think of a single ABOer who has ever freaked out about losing the deep blue state of California, for example, because all the ABRers were throwing their votes away on some third party candidate. I don't want to offend you, but I suggest it is possible that you are presuming that all these ABOers are morons, who think Romney would actually have a real chance in CA if not for you silly ABRers throwing away your votes. It just might be that when these people talk about wasting a vote, they might be referring to, as I am always referring to, only the toss-up states where it really matters. I throw that out there for your consideration.
We consistently see from posters the notion that Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling "can't win"...yet that same acknowledgement is almost NEVER offered to Romney's chances in blue states.
I think I can help with this one. I have said many times that neither Goode nor Hoefling can win, meaning that when the electoral votes are all tallied, it is a 100% certainty that neither will be the next POTUS. And for some reason, that fairly simple and obvious observation has been (mis-)construed in the strangest of ways. Yesterday, someone even equated my statement to the Dredd Scott case. No, I am not making that up. Really.
But when I, and all the other ABOers I know of, point out that neither Goode nor Hoefling will possibly be the next POTUS, that is not to say that we believe Romney is competitive in every single state in the Union. Because we don't. So while I understand you are frustrated, I don't really understand why my observation about Goode's or Hoefling's prospects is the cause of your frustration.