Virgil Goode's candidacy may help Obama

(My original) OK, demonstrate for me that either of them can win in any state...

OK, only if you can demonstrate for me that Romney can win ANY of those 15 states I listed...

Absolute nonsense. Neither Goode nor Hoefling can win in ANY state, and everyone knows it.

(My original) Because if things take a turn for the worse in Oregon and many voters decide they want to change course, who do you think those voters will vote for? Goode? Hoefling?

You don't know Oregon very well, do you? It wouldn't be Romney...About 1 in 7 Oregon residents is either an atheist or agnostic. Most would vote the Green Party or Libertarian Party (Gary Johnson) before ever thinking of Romney, Goode or some conservative...

Based on the numbers you just gave, if all of those voters become disillusioned with Obama and vote third party, then Romney could win. He would still stand a better chance of winning than either Goode or Hoefling.

(My original) Romney has a chance of winning the election

Again, allow me to give you a primer: THERE IS NO POPULAR-VOTE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE...Instead, it's like 51 distinct mini-races...the 50 states (+ DC) Romney has a chance of winning 35 of those mini-races...HE HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING THE REST!

Everyone here including myself is aware of how the electoral vote works. Trying to evade the FACT that, barring something unforeseen, our next President will either be Romney or Obama by repeating that won't work.

My question to you: Were you a betting person -- and they told you: "I'll wager you $10,000 that Romney won't win EVEN ONE of those 15 states or D.C...All you have to do is have Romney win ONE of those states...and you win the bet." Would you do it? Would your "turn for the worse" grand illusion be enough to wager $10,000?

What a stupid question. I wouldn't have bet on McCain winning in 2008, but that doesn't mean I was going to just give up and vote for a third party candidate with no chance of winning, especially given what the only alternative was. And it doesn't mean we should give up on those states you listed, especially if things get so bad that they do become "too close to call" states.

Your response will probably be something to the effect that I'm being inconsistant because I just admitted that I voted for McCain even though I wasn't sure he could win. However, there's a big difference between voting for someone whom you're not sure will win, and one who has no chance of winning and who will take Conservative votes from the only candidate who has a chance to beat Obama.

BTW, I voted for Palin, not McCain.

Our next President in 2008 was going to be either Obama or McCain. Third party voters didn't prevent Obama in 2008, and you won't by voting third party in 2012. Out next President WILL be Romney or Obama. Make your choice.t mean I was going to just give up and vote for a third party candidate with no chance of winning, especially given what the only alternative was. And it doesn

By your own writing you recognize that both are “poison.”

You figured that out without hiring a detective agency, huh?;) Yes, I admit I have no joy in the fact that our alternative to Obama is Romney. Our side really wasted an opportunity this year. But barring something unforeseen, our next President is going to be either Romney or Obama, and that's the bottom line.

IF Romney gets elected his leftest tendencies WILL run rampant and the GOP members of congress WILL NOT stop him...because of “party loyalty.” Even the really conservative ones will be leaned on to back the fool.

I doubt that. Congress will have their voters to answer to, and the MSM will not cover for Romney-R as it did for Obama-D.

Better to have a “clear” enemy that WILL unite the conservative members of Congress against him.

Except that if we also fail to elect a Conservative Congress, he will be unstoppable. And if Obama wins, the chances are that will carry over into Congress since it's the Presidential race that draws the voters.

No...there is no lesser of two evils. You cannot fight evil (Obama) with evil (Romney). You just perpetuate evil by doing so.

OK, give me an alternative WHO CAN WIN. I'm STILL waiting for an answer to this.

“Yes, I admit I have no joy in the fact that our alternative to Obama is Romney. Our side really wasted an opportunity this year.”

Good for you...a correct response. Now keep writing JUST that and you will be doing good. The rest of what you wrote was a waste of your time to write, and my time to read.

There is NO good choice - period. The only correct response is to pick a third party cadidate. It DOES NOT MATTER that the third party pick “cannot win.” Romney should NOT be the candidate. To vote for him, is to endorse the idiocy and oligarchy that gave him to us. He will not be much of an improvement over the Obamination of desolation, and in fact, could actually hurt our chances of getting a real conservative in the future.

Hey....IF you want to vote for Romney for ABO reasons...then do so. However, stop the pragmatic bull to justify voting for a phoney conservative. I’m not going to agree with you, and I’m certainly not going to join you.

I will look over the third party choices and vote for one of them. Right now, Goode looks like a “potential” choice. No matter how “vain” it may appear to you, I will vote for a third party as a message to my historical party the GOP.

BTW - I have voted for every GOP nominee for POTUS since the 1976 election - even when less than enthusiastic about the choice. This time, with Romney, I cannot do so. It is more “compromise” or “pragmatism” than I am willing to accept.

Now...it is time for me to stop posting on this thread. I am just repeating myself over and over again....just to different respondents.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
*********************************************
I’m with you but only in a modified sense.

I’m a firm believer that when one is in a perilous situation a person needs to take whatever step or steps is necessary to end the peril. If anyone thinks our country is not currently facing a situation where our country and Republic may be taken down a path from which our Republic and liberties may NEVER be restored they are not recognizing the realities of where we are. I DO RECOGNIZE THESE PERILS.

So I’m with you so long as your quote is (as I believe it is) a “boiled down” (for purposes of brevity) version of something such as:

1. If I’m facing multiple enemies and only one of those enemies is in a position of being on the verge of PERMANENTLY defeating me and proceeding to destroy my life and/or liberty FOREVER, I will consider that enemy to be my current PRIMARY enemy.

2. If I have a SECONDARY (and far less dangerous) enemy that is waging war on my PRIMARY enemy I will not take actions (against that SECONDARY enemy) that will allow my PRIMARY enemy to prevail and then be positioned to move on to MY destruction.

3. Once that PRIMARY and most dangerous enemy has been defeated (or been so weakened as to no longer pose a significant danger to me), then it will be time to deal with the lesser enemy(-ies).

So my family and I will be voting for Romney this year to add to his national vote total. We live in Maryland so we know these votes will not help Romney get any of Maryland’s electoral votes. We’ll also be voting Republican down ballot and may have some (very) limited success there. Where we really hope to have success in on three referenda (to “veto” the Maryland “gay marriage” law, the Maryland “Dream Act” and the crazy gerrymandering that the Democrats did this year in the state) that we worked hard to help get on this November’s ballot.

I’ll be voting by absentee ballot since I plan to be out of state (in Pennsylvania) supporting the effort to minimize Democrat Vote Fraud in that state. And until then I’ll continue doing everything I can to help true conservatives win places on the ballot. And you all know we’ve been having successes on that front.

Anyone on this forum has the right to focus their energy on prolonged jihad against the presumed Republican presidential nominee. But as for me, I’ll continue to try to do things that will have a positive outcome for true conservative objectives.

This isn’t for immediate action, but long-term we could help ourselves if we could somehow have the delegates to the 2016 Republican convention selected using a “majority or run-off” approach—similar to the Texas & North Carolina 2012 primaries. Now THAT would certainly be a very good thing for we believers in a Constitutional Republic. But I’m sure that many here may wish to instead form circular firing squads. I’ll not participate in such defeatist actions.

“This isn’t for immediate action, but long-term we could help ourselves if we could somehow have the delegates to the 2016 Republican convention selected using a “majority or run-off” approach—similar to the Texas & North Carolina 2012 primaries. Now THAT would certainly be a very good thing for we believers in a Constitutional Republic. But I’m sure that many here may wish to instead form circular firing squads. I’ll not participate in such defeatist actions.”

On that we are in 100% agreement. The primary system is broke. First of all, every primary in every state (if they want to count) should be conducted by “closed” primaries only (ONLY registered Republicans). Next they MUST be primaries and NOT caucauses that can be tampered with big time. A schedule must be established where there will only be three dates between late January until late March that a state must conduct its GOP primary on. Then in April or May, IF no candidate won enough delegates, then a run off primary will be held again in each state with only the top two (three?) delegate getting candidates appearing on the ballots. That way, a person whose candidate didn’t make the “cut” has the opportunity to get a second choice.

Of course, this is a very “rough” idea that would need to be thought out more. However, what is needed, like “House Atreides” suggests, is some form of run-off so that folks have a chance to vote for a 2nd choice. It has to be national though. Also, we MUST force states - that want to have delegates at the Convention - to conduct real primaries and closed ones. Open primaries and caucauses are a curse on our primary system for the GOP.

However, stop the pragmatic bull to justify voting for a phoney conservative. I’m not going to agree with you, and I’m certainly not going to join you.

I never called on you to join me. I have called on you to give me a Conservative alternative that can win.

I have also called on you to choose your poison, and you have. Unless some unforeseen miracle happens, I've chosen mine.

Good. I hope you find one. Here, check out America's Party who is fielding Tom Hoefling for President. Pointing you to the "Republican Watch" page was deliberate, BTW. I don't know much about him or them, but you want alternatives, so I'll submit this for your perusal.

As for me, I'm hoping Romney will choose a Conservative running mate so we can salvage something out of this mess. Even if he goes with a RINO, we still have to keep the House and win the Senate to keep whoever wins in check.

Now...it is time for me to stop posting on this thread. I am just repeating myself over and over again....just to different respondents.

You can stop telling me you're not voting for Romney, because I get it. I'll say it again, find a Conservative who can win, and I'm in. You have three months, so get to it.

“As for me, I’m hoping Romney will choose a Conservative running mate so we can salvage something out of this mess. Even if he goes with a RINO, we still have to keep the House and win the Senate to keep whoever wins in check.”

“I’ll say it again, find a Conservative who can win, and I’m in. You have three months, so get to it.”

Unfortunately, too many (even the conservative ones) Republicans will back Romney even if he swings left....I think they call it “party loyalty.” Once in office, they tend to bow down to the establishment in some form or other. Only a “supermajority” of conservatives would have the courage to oppose a liberal Romney (that cannot happen until 2014 and won’t with Romney as POTUS because traditionally a POTUS’ party loses seats in the first election as their election). However, a simple majority of conservatives in both House and Senate would readily put Obama in check (we are going to get this now in 2012 with more in 2014 if the Obamination stays in office). IF he should continue to urinate on the Constitution...they WILL impeach and convict him - we could see real history made. That is why, in my opinion, it is better to concentrate on the House and Senate races than even think about this election (which is already a loss because Romney stole the election). I am fortunate as a resident of Missouri because I’m going to be part of the drive to remove democrat Senator McCaskil and replace her with a Sarah Palin endorsed candidate.

With true respect towards you in writing this and zero intent to be rude or insulting. I’m pretty sure that having a “conservative” running mate will in no way “salvage” the disaster that a Romney presidency would be. I actually dread him being in office. I am working to make sure Obama doesn’t get a majority by going third party and that Romney cannot win. In my opinion, the conservative majorities we will elect this fall for both bodies of congress (plus the additions in 2014) will be able to keep the Obamination of Desolation in check (hopefully remove him from office by impeachment and conviction). Whatever, I’m wanting to punt until the 2016 election when we can once again work to get a real conservative nominated...possibly Sarah Palin. Electing Romney in 2012 will bring some “temporary” relief, but in the long term it will cause more damage.

You keep asking me to give you a viable choice other than Romney in 2012. Well, it is to wait until 2016, then we can get a Palin elected. Congress will be fully conservative GOP after November and the numbers will grow in 2014....but this will not happen if will screw up and let Romney be elected. So, with real respect for your person, that is the best I can provide you. I am telling you that patience is called for, not settling for a flawed candidate (Romney) that WILL be a flawed POTUS, to simply eliminate another horribly POTUS - Obama. Let us put him in check, and wait for the correct/acceptable person to replace him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.