Great response! You wrote: “If your vote for a 3rd party candidate would get Obama re-elected, would you make that vote? ... then why make it in 2010, when the “obama mandate” has a chance to get repudiated.”
I firmly believe that my vote is best cast for that candidate who most closely represents (or, at least appears to represent) my beliefs and principles. If that means I cast a vote for a candidate other than a ‘viable’ (ie, major party) candidate, then so be it.
If that same voting process is carried forward by enough people, then it’s likely to have some impact, yes. And, it’s clear that it may be sufficient to keep a lib in office. However, that only reveals that at least one of the two major parties champions a platform that cannot attract enough votes to win... Maybe they should start to rethink their platform? As long as people keep voting for the lesser of two evils, we will continue to be faced with evil in public office.
There is nothing to be gained by choosing between two tribes of cannibals...you are still going to be eaten.
And, that Pelosi comment is pretty weak. The only person who could beat Pelousy is Stalin, but he’s still dead. That whole district is a socialist enclave.
“If that same voting process is carried forward by enough people, then it’s likely to have some impact, yes.”
Yes, liberal Democrats have gotten elected because 3rd party Libertarians split off votes and allowed the democrats to win races with under 50% of the vote.
You are okay with that consequence?
“The only person who could beat Pelousy”
41 new Republicans in Congress can make pelosi irrelevent.