Then you're intentionally avoiding the actual question, as written; and, therefore, wasting both your own time and mine.
1992 and 2000 proved that.
Horse crap. You steadfastly refuse to even attempt "proving" anything, by maniacally twisting yourself into so many rhetorical pretzels in desperate (and obvious) attempt to avoid providing the actual, elementary school math in support of your repeated (and unsupported) assertion, as per the posit provided.
Peddle it to someone who's interested in buying.
Your questions are meaningless because they avoid the real issue: How does voting for an obscure third party candidate defeat Obama?
Thankfully the numbers in question are so low as to be ineffective in disrupting Obama’s defeat, but it’s fascinating to see the anger and discomfort anyway.
Don’t believe me? Let’s play the “front door” game: go out your front door and ask the first ten (or 100 or 1000) people you see the following questions:
1) Do you know who Mitt Romney is?
2) Do you know who Barack Obama is?
3) Do you know who Virgil Goode is?
4) Do you know who Tom Hoefling is?
Stack the results of 1) and 2) against 3) and 4). It’s not about purity of policy at this point. It’s about name recognition. The political/current events junkies aren’t enough to sway anything at this point. It’s about the masses, their knowledge of the names, and their general attitude towards that individual.