On the contrary, they would have a tougher time battling Romney, especially if he wins in a landslide. That is why I will be voting for a plurality split in the popular vote at the top of the ticket; I'll be voting third party, and a whole lot of disillusioned Democrats will probably be doing the same if they vote at all this time (judging by reader comments at MSM sites when pro-Obama stories show up, and judging by the conversations I hear from Democrat friends).
Romney would make conservatives a neutered minority because he'd unite with moderate Republicans and Democrats to push his agenda, and if he wins with a landslide, he and the GOP-e and progressives on both sides of the aisle would certainly act upon it as a "powerful mandate for Romney's progressive style of governing!" -- and the numbers would back them up.
I'm voting for a plurality to deny a mandate to either winner, knowing that Obama has only a fraction of the support he had four years ago. Voting third party to deny the winner a mandate is a good risk in 2012 because the risk of Obama getting even 50% is practically nil, due to his loss of support, and because the risk of Romney steamrolling conservatives if he gets a landslide is virtually certain.
Tea partiers in Congress would have a MUCH harder time opposing Romney than they would opposing and DOMINATING a defensive, weakened, vulnerable Obama elected on a thin plurality.
Romney would make conservatives a neutered minority because he'd unite with moderate Republicans and Democrats to push his agenda, and if he wins with a landslide, he and the GOP-e and progressives on both sides of the aisle would certainly act upon it as a "powerful mandate for Romney's progressive style of governing!" -- and the numbers would back them up.
I'm voting for a plurality to deny a mandate to either winner, knowing that Obama has only a fraction of the support he had four years ago. Voting third party to deny the winner a mandate is a good risk in 2012 because the risk of Obama getting even 50% is practically nil, due to his loss of support, and because the risk of Romney steamrolling conservatives if he gets a landslide is virtually certain.
Tea partiers in Congress would have a MUCH harder time opposing Romney than they would opposing and DOMINATING a defensive, weakened, vulnerable Obama elected on a thin plurality.
ok, I see some of your points...but what makes you think that
1 - the moderate/RINO repubs wouldn't work with Obozo, and
2 -- What does Obama have to worry about in a second term? Weak? Vulnerable?
To what?
give Obama a second term and he can pull the plug on the life support that our republic is limping along on...doing far more damage in his second term...damage that would be irreparable.
regards