Replies

Anyone who claims to be a conservative and is NOT voting for Bush, is a hypocrite, the Dems' useful idiot, or a Democrat pretending to be a conservative. It's one of the three.

Your fondness for determinism has prematurely eliminated another possibility.

In states where Bush could be expected to do very well (>55% of the vote), voters wishing to put a shot across his bows could vote third-party with a clear conscience, a) to keep the state more competitive and b) to build third-party politics for the future. Those wanting to make it more competitive in this way would be voting strategically......something Karl Rove certainly couldn't complain about, as a strategist himself.

In states where Bush could be expected to do very well (>55% of the vote), voters wishing to put a shot across his bows could vote third-party with a clear conscience, a) to keep the state more competitive and b) to build third-party politics for the future. Those wanting to make it more competitive in this way would be voting strategically......something Karl Rove certainly couldn't complain about, as a strategist himself.

Well, the experience with Buchanan getting the Reform Party's nomination and funding and ballot access in 2000 weren't exactly encouraging. Sarcasm simply fails to describe it, virtually from beginning to end.

Ever seen how weird and scary the Libertarian Party conventions are on CSPAN? Yeow. And I'm not easily scared off by a little oddness but that's like the ward of a mental institution.

Well, that doesn't mean it will be forever a bad idea. But America historically tolerates only two parties. So one of the others has to die off first. I don't see we're at such a political juncture.

Naturally, as I've said on thousands of other occasions, your vote is your own. But in every election Rove and other strategists calculate a certain number of I'll-punish-'em voters and the return of chagrined ex-I'll-punish-'em voters and the possibility that within a particular state that a third party may, due to close competition between the Big Two, be decisive. Or that a state/local ballot issue might draw out voters that would skew historical results in that state.

Well, it's a numbers game. For every person who decides to punish Bush by voting third-party, some others will 'punish' him by voting Dim, others yet will 'punish' him by staying home.

The better question is: how many GOP voters will 'punish' their party in a given election as compared to the number of Dim voters who will punish their party in that election, as Green voters did in 2000 and as Deaniacs might in '04?

If the numbers of malcontents in both parties look essentially similar, they have simply marched into obscurity as far as the presidency is concerned. Their far greater impact will be not taking part in electing state/local candidates that they might agree with.

"In states where Bush could be expected to do very well (>55% of the vote), voters wishing to put a shot across his bows could vote third-party with a clear conscience"

==

Absolutely untrue!

First of all, you never know how well he will really do -- he was expected to take Florida with no problems in 2000 and we all know what happened. Second of all, the Dems are still harping on Gore having received the higher popular vote. Bush needs all the votes he can get to win and the have the authority to govern.

What I said earlier, IS the reality of the situation:

"Anyone who claims to be a conservative and is NOT voting for Bush, is a hypocrite, the Dems' useful idiot, or a Democrat pretending to be a conservative. It's one of the three."

In states where Bush could be expected to do very well (>55% of the vote), voters wishing to put a shot across his bows could vote third-party with a clear conscience

That margin isn't good enough to get me to consider switching. Too much can happen during an election and I will not ever risk my vote putting a Dem in the WH again.

Besides, I will be voting with a clear conscience...for Bush!