No it doesn't. I am as sure as one can be that Obama will take stands on just about every issue that are the polar opposite of mine. I suspect I'll agree with Romney about 50% of the time, and oppose him about 50% of the time. To the extent Romney turns out to be worse that that, I'm not worse off than I'd have been if Obama got elected. At the very least, Romney believes in capitalism. Obama doesn't.
People, PLEASE consider the ultimate good sense of voting for a plurality; Obama is held in such low regard now that there is virtually zero chance he could get anything but a plurality in the best of circumstances -- much of his support has evaporated over the past four years.
Plurality? I assume you mean in the popular vote, because the electoral college is going to have a majority for one or the other.
If every single Freeper voted 3rd party, that's what, 60,000 or so votes? Millions vote third party in every election, so the "statement" being made by an additional 60,000 votes is meaningless. Nobody will care.
In any case, Bubba was elected with a plurality, and it didn't seem to phase him. Bush actually lost the popular vote to Gore, and that didn't seem to phase him in terms of governing either. This dramatic gesture you envision would be completely inconsequential, because nobody is going to care about the popular vote anyway. And certainly not the 60,000 votes of Freepers that aren't relevant to who wins in the electoral college.
In THAT case, please inform the MittBots who are blasting those of us who are sticking by our principles and refusing to be bullied into voting for Romney, that they can now SHUT UP because "we aren't relevant".
Can you point to items in his record to support that? Because all the looking I've done at his record, I can't find even 10% of what I've agreed with. As for believing in capitalism, his RomneyCare directly contradicts that assumption. His statement once that we can be environmentally "responsible" (i.e., enact onerous regulation to "protect the environment" on energy and food production and consumption) without negative affect on free markets, is another thing that proves the lie that Romney "believes in capitalism." What the guy (he is not a man in my estimation) says and what he does are different from each other.
Plurality? I assume you mean in the popular vote, because the electoral college is going to have a majority for one or the other.
Yep. I mean the popular vote.
If every single Freeper voted 3rd party, that's what, 60,000 or so votes? Millions vote third party in every election, so the "statement" being made by an additional 60,000 votes is meaningless. Nobody will care.
Really? Gosh, thank you so much for telling me something I'd never have figured out on my own. *rolls eyes* Hello, BCC, the ripples from a drop in the water at FR extend beyond its membership and even beyond its readership. All of us who are posting ideas, opinions, thought-out strategies, are planting seeds that have the potential of taking root far outside FR. And also, many of us repeat the things we say here in other venues, such as message boards, comments sections, and letters to the editor.
In any case, Bubba was elected with a plurality, and it didn't seem to phase him.
So you think that Clinton, who won on a 43% plurality, where fully 57% of the popular vote was against him, wasn't made vulnerable by that? You think the Republican Revolution would have happened if he'd won on a majority or if HW had been re-elected?
And consider that Clinton was relatively popular and he was new to Americans -- he was a blank slate. Obama's support is failing, people know how who and what he is, and he is becoming more and more despised (just read comments on MSM sources where a pro Obama story appears, and just listen to your Democrat friends and acquaintances when they talk politics). We are at an unusual time in history where Obama is held in such low regard by so many of his former supporters, that there is virtually zero risk that a third party vote instead of for the GOP would result in a majority victory for Obama. This is a God-given opportunity, a rare convergence to conservatives' advantage.
Bruce, NO GUTS, NO GLORY.
If one in three voters, regardless of who they voted for last time, are so disgusted with this Obama vs Obamalite charade that they vote third party -- and of all years in history, this is ONE YEAR where that could actually happen -- then the guy who wins, guaranteed to be a liberal statist government authoritarian, will be on defensive because in the popular vote, nearly two in three voted against him.
You are too timid to take that risk, and instead vote for the assured, certain liberalization of the Republican party. See, there is no risk in voting for Romney to win; it is certain that liberalism would increase and grow stronger in both parties.
On the other hand, while there's a risk that Obama just might be the all powerful Oz everyone thinks he is, odds are that he actually IS a scarecrow and that in an environment where a) two in three voted against him, a humiliating and embarassing referendum, and b) Congress is stronger than ever in terms of conservative opposition not only because more were elected to it in 2012, but moderate Republicans realized that they had better turn right or face the same fate and rejection as Romney -- that in such an environment, conservatives could dominate Obama.
EITHER WAY, a third-party vote completely abandons any say in whether Obama or Romney wins; that is the real gamble in making it, because it forfeits any voice whatsover in the outcome of that contest. A third party vote leaves it entirely up to God and those willing to sanction either Obama or Romney. The pay-off, however, is that a third party vote counts toward weakening the victory of whichever big-government anti-conservative wins, and conservatives will need all the help they can get in that department.